User talk:Nikevich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Nikevich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! .

I know you're not exactly new, but welcome back. A brief search led to [1], there are apparently existing categories for WWII weapons and naval gunnery, so you're off to the races. The voluntary sharing of expertise and related data, or even just pop culture trivia, is the miracle of wikipedia, and one of the reasons I have stayed. It is nice for me, as a recent changes patroller, to see someone making positive contributions and marvelling at the work that is done here. It is always good to have another person helping to pull the wagon. So again, welcome back. Best, Kaisershatner 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

additions to harddisk article[edit]

the additional material is interesting, but really needs citations from reliable sources. Anastrophe (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

additions to IBM Selectric article[edit]

Thank you! btw, What "Selectric" was it with proportional spacing? Are you thinking of the Selectric Composers? afaik no non-Composer, non-Electronic Typewriter model ever had proportional spacing. Jeh (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for the kind words! I assume that you must mean non-Composer, non-Electronic Selectric, because IBM made an electric typewriter with prop. spacing (three-wheel rotary escapement) (Model A?) probably shortly after WW II, perhaps. I owned one, with a carbon ribbon. It had a gear-driven power roll, and the motor speed was controlled by an adjustable governor. The motor shaft was parallel to the side of the machine. It was the basis of the Flexowriter design, with a ribbon/type basket cover shape also used by the Flexowriters.

My recollection of a prop.-spacing Selectric is from a magazine description, conceivably Design News. It could have been the Composer. If you are well-informed about Selectric history, please feel free to edit. I probably shouldn't have included that, because on further thought, my recollection isn't that trustworthy.

Btw, I have a jammed Selectric that was going to be trashed. Mechanism is not rusty (last time I looked!). Have been planning to dismantle it, because I'd love to see the mechanism, but I might never get to actually do that. If you know of someone who could use it for parts (or restore it), give me a holler! I'm nbodley@speakeasy.net, and live in eastern Mass. My best to you! Nikevich (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Differential (mechanical device)[edit]

I answered your discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Differential_(mechanical_device) Can you get that picture of the computing differential? -- Another Stickler (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I still hope to provide a picture; sorry to take so long! An occasional reminder wouldn't hurt. Regards,Nikevich (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cathode ray tube and oscilloscope[edit]

That huge addition to Cathode ray tube would be better placed if it were merged carefully with Oscilloscope, especially if you can dig up some references for all that material. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Thank you for a helpful suggestion; I tend to get carried away, drifting off topic. Perhaps unfortunately, all of that was lost, perhaps because somebody considered it inap.ropriate (much of it was) and deleted it. Otoh, I might have confused the Wikipedia server, although that's a bit hard to believe. At least, I keep in mind that phrase "mercilessly edited! :) Nevertheless, I continued to reorganize and add to the CRT article, which I hope is decent; I'm out of energy, having been at it for too long. Thanks! Nikevich (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No text is ever (usually) lost on Wikipedia and I parked a big block of additions on the talk page for the CRT article. Perhaps you can look at the oscilloscope article and add the appropriate, non-redundant, parts there.
You need to put in some references!
And again, oscilloscope-specific details belong in the oscilliscope article, not in the CRT article which must be more general in its descriptions. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

I've noticed that you add the ~~~~ to your edit summaries, as if signing them. This really isn't necessary, since your name and time of revision show up in the history. Also, the four tildes aren't converted to a signature when they show up in an edit summary. Just FYI. Hellbus (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I had been wondering about that. Omitting surely requires a bit less effort. Thank you, indeed!Nikevich (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nikevich. You have new messages at Talk:Alaska class cruiser.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk page edits[edit]

Hi Nikevich, just to let you know that most people on Wikipedia consider this to be bad practice. We usually leave other editors posts exactly as they have written them, even when there are glaring errors. This is so the talk pages remain an accurate record of the discussion as it took place. The only common exceptions are vandalism or when an edit has made a mess of the page formatting. SpinningSpark 16:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh; feeling somewhat ashamed, which seems appropriate. I should have known, and appreciate your telling me. I probably can't revert some changes I made a few minutes ago (although no meanings were changed), but will try. Thank you. Nikevich (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Further thought, about something I had in mind, but didn't say: Although Wikipedia has its famous warning about "ruthless editing", on a Talk page, that doesn't apply (should that be made clear, perchance?). I think you were being extraordinarily diplomatic, and what I have been doing, now and then, is quite bad manners. It's a different matter on article pages, though.

(I just reviewed [Talk Page Guidelines], and they give a lot more detail.)

Regards, Nikevich (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I was about to post this, and noticed this: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.". Should Talk pages (also) include that text? I have some doubts about its appropriateness. I've really forgotten, but it's possible that I (mis) used that as justification. Nevertheless, I'll do my best to follow the guidelines. Regards,Nikevich (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message at the help desk. Software often traps its users by such misleading messages, and too few people realize that it doesn't have to be that way. When one gets trapped, the noblest reaction is to think of how to save others from the same mishap, and bring it to the attention of those who can change the situation. — Sebastian 16:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page as of 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC). If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

Proposed changes on the heat sink article[edit]

Dear Nikevich,

If you have the time, could you look at and comment on my proposed changes to the heat sink article.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtc5341 (talkcontribs) 10:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Chocolate[edit]

I reverted your this edit on Chocolate as it appears to have been made by mistake: large sections were blanked and the inter-wiki links were removed. Regards --nsaum75¡שיחת! 07:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Whippletree[edit]

Hi. Interesting material. I noticed that you said you didn't know how to add the ref. All you do is place the cursor immediately after the material to be reffed (outside any punctuation), and click the button above the edit box marked "<ref></ref>". This will insert <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref>. If a ref is to be repeated there's a way of doing that without inserting it again and again. More at WP:INCITE (and subsequent sections). It's also possible to do Harvard referencing, but most articles have the simple system above. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Unit Record[edit]

Saw your comment. Thinking I was an expert on the subject, realized that I didn't know, like you, the derivation of name. Have added a footnote to that article, what I was able to find. Below is a copy. Thanks for the prompt, 69.106.237.145 (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In the late 1800s, early 1900s unit record was a reference to the recording of all information about a transaction or object on one document. At that time the library index card was pointed out as an early example of a unit record. Even unit record desks were manufactured, a desk that included what later, for punched cards, would be called a tub file. This quote We had records of every car and locomotive on the railroad on a key-punched card or other unit record, either generated in the Car Accountant's Office or through other means, from Report of the Railway Accounting Officers. 77. Association of American Railroads: Accounting Division. 1888. p. 107. shows that in 1888 1) users were applying the term unit record to punched cards and 2) the term's use was more general than just punched cards.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Electric motor, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Plungercylinder.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Plungercylinder.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked into this[edit]

It was a while back that, as I recall, I cleaned up that image, but apparently failed to append information about its copyright. Using Google to see what it could find regarding the image file name, I discovered: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plungercylinder.jpg> So, it was from Wikipedia. Just now, I don't have much energy, and decided to let the matter lie, but did want to note what happened. Regards, Nikevich (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)