User talk:Three-quarter-ten

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




¾-10
Speech balloon.svg
Crystal Clear action editpaste.png
Crystal Clear action playlist.png
Sandbox.png

Contents

New article Review on 3D printer Extruder[edit]

Hi 3/4-10, I am working on an article, "3D printer Extruder" located in my sandbox [1]. It would be really helpful if you could spare some time to review it and follow up with suggestion. Thank you. Priybrat (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Roller hearth kiln[edit]

Hi - following your message I have left a reply at [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Types of lathes[edit]

Well, if I knew how to use Wikkipedia I would conribute more. I don't mind helping out on engineering as I have a lifetime of work in machineshops of evry kind and worldwide.Ieuan Sant 22:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieuan Sant (talkcontribs)

Surface feet per minute merge[edit]

3/4-10, can you please start a discussion for the merge? Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind—see Talk:Speeds and feeds#Merge proposal rescinded. An interesting line of thought but not worth pursuing! — ¾-10 23:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
OK...thanks for the note! Wizard191 (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

... for your continuing interest in Ralph Flanders and James Hartness, 3/4-10!
Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What a couple of cool guys. If I had been born in another era, I would have liked to have known them. — ¾-10 22:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Flanders was my paternal grandfather. His wife was remarkable, too! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 16:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Taper spindle nose with threaded retention.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Taper spindle nose with threaded retention.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — ¾-10 02:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fix Harvard references in Fay automatic lathe[edit]

I added two new references in Fay automatic lathe, using the model that you have employed. I can get them to link from the text to References, but not from the References to the Bibliography. You seem to be good at that—I'm a bit rusty. Perhaps you could help. I'll bring them across to Ralph Flanders, once they are working properly. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Got them working—just a paste-o type error. Thanks again for starting the article, by the way! — ¾-10 20:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I see that I had first and last name switched—makes it kind of hard to reference properly! You're welcome on the article. Thanks for the repair! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 23:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Network[edit]

Hi, I have just reverted your additions to the Network dab page. The idea of dab pages is that they should be a simple list with the absolute minimum of information necessary for the reader to find the article being sought, see MOS:DAB. They should not have a lede as such, and in particular, the only hyperlinks should be to articles with the title network. The etymology of the word and its meanings more properly belongs on Wiktionary, for which there is already a link on the page. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh, OK. For now. But just so you know, function is currently being sacrificed to form, because the rules devised so far are logically inadequate. See User:Three-quarter-ten/Ponderings#A_differentiation_should_be_made_between_.22mere.22_disambig_pages_and_.22superset_unification.22_pages. — ¾-10 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Possibly, but you can't unilaterally overturn the consensus. Open a debate somewhere first, like the Village pump. SpinningSpark 21:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You're right, of course, about the correct way to effect change on the topic. I lack motivation to pursue it right now, but I'll probably do so someday. I have a feeling that out of sheer institutional inertia, people will resist the change (which is probably why I lack motivation to pursue it). — ¾-10 21:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Unibit[edit]

See Drill_bit#Step_drill_bits for an answer to your question. For even more info see the ref that's attached to both sections. For a summary it comes down to: the unibit is designed for universal applications, while a step drill is custom made for a specific application. HTH! Wizard191 (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Helps perfectly. Thanks! — ¾-10 21:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Anchor[edit]

Hi, I am just trying to figure this template out. I see you used it here. Is that so you can redirect to the page at that spot rather than the top or a section heading? If it's complicated don't worry about explaining, I probably wont even use it just curiosity. I didn't catch it right from the template docs. ~ R.T.G 18:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, you've got it right! The general case is that, in HTML, you can link to a page, and you can also link to an anchor within that page (as long as said anchor exists). The HTML syntax is <a href="URL#Target_name">Anchor text</a>. The specific case here is MediaWiki, which automatically provides an anchor for section headings, but for a long time didn't give users a way to create any other kind of anchor within a page's content. Eventually the templates Anchor and Visible anchor were developed to fill in that gap. They're incredibly useful, because sometimes you could really use to link to one particular sentence or paragraph that's buried within a larger section, and you don't want to waste your reader's time with a link only to the top of the section. In other words, having the ability to create anchors at will increases the targeting precision of linking, which sometimes has real value. Cheers, — ¾-10 18:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar and kind words on your user page! I thought it was a good idea, but its definitely turned out better than expected. To bad I don't have as much time to waste enjoy on Wikipedia as I used to. I see lots of things I would love to improve, but the real life things, like the wife, baby and moving, keep getting in the way. Luckily this thing doesn't have a due date! Wizard191 (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice to find some things in life that don't. Later! — ¾-10 03:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Screw machine[edit]

Hi, now that Screw machine is a disambig, please don't forget the WP:FIXDABLINKS policy and help with the cleanup! Thanks, --JaGatalk 14:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting topic (one that I did actually consider) ... the thing is that some of the links will refer to any kind of screw machine, so they should actually remain about as ambiguous as they are. An analogy would be if I had just split an article called "vehicle" into "car" and "truck"—quite a few of the links to "vehicle" should remain as pointing to the entire superset. But you're right that I should check out "what links here" and see which ones I can narrow or not. Thanks, — ¾-10 21:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Pharmacy Automation[edit]

Hello, thank you for your work in making the article stronger. The original posting was very much company product based. I got involved with it as I was a mobile Technical "trouble shooter" for the Kirby brothers in 1980. My knowledge this side of the "Pond" allowed more in-depth historical content, and I encouraged John Kirby to release more information.Francis E Williams (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite welcome. I think it's an interesting topic whose history we're lucky to know. I agree that the article started as looking only at Kirby Lester and only at tablet counting, but it can now naturally grow to cover the whole industry (other companies and other tasks). I must admit that I am no expert in pharmacy or its automation, but as an educated layperson I do find this topic interesting, along with the automation of other fields as well. Best regards, — ¾-10 19:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I have removed bias from the article by adding country of origin in development chronology, and have removed any company names (other than model references in the text). This will (hopefully) ensure the article will survive. I have linked it to all related articles,Pharmacy now contains a "main article" tag to it.Francis E Williams (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice work. In my own opinion, it would be OK to mention company names once or twice for the sake of relevant (i.e., notable) history (another example would be mentioning Bayer in the article on aspirin, or Brown & Sharpe in the article on milling machines). However, I think you were wise to be minimalist about mentioning the names, because you're quite right that some Wikipedians have a very low threshold between historical interest and advertising. Especially for companies that are today still in the business being discussed. So I like your balance point. — ¾-10 02:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, I would like to see recogniction given to these pioneering comapanies also. I have retained the inventor, but not the founding company names for the very reasons that you have outlined above. Regards,Francis E Williams (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your expertise is needed[edit]

I know you know a lot about lathes, so maybe you can help me clear this up (I'm working through "vague" tags on metalworking articles right now): "When clear facing work that must be supported on both ends but cannot be accommodated with a steady rest, a half dead center, also known as a notch center, can be used.". The sentence structure is poor, so I'm not sure if the item being described is a "steady rest", which is also known as a "half dead center" and "notch center", or if a "half dead center" is a type of steady rest. I can't find anything on a google book search for "half dead center" or "notch center", however I did find this for a steady rest: [3]. Any help is appreciated. Wizard191 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wizard. I actually know the answer to this question, which pleases me. It's pretty simple to visualize once you know the answer, but putting it into words is kind of hard. Basically, facing, as you probably already know, is feeding the tool bit radially along the rotating workpiece in order to cut a smooth surface on the "circle" part at either end of the cylinder. A problem arises when you are facing a piece that is held on centers, which is that the center itself gets in the way of feeding the tool bit all the way to the center of the circle. There are various workarounds to circumvent this problem. (1) Pull some fancy manual dexterity where you back the tailstock center partially out of the workpiece long enough to reach into the hole with the facing tool bit. (2) Use a half dead center (aka "half center" aka "half-center"), which is a regular center with half of its tip ground away to leave room for the tool bit to reach into the hole. (Half centers can also help with lubrication, which is important because the rotating workpiece is sliding against the stationary center [the "stationary" aspect being why it's called "dead"; the tip of a "live" center rotates along with the workpiece on a roller element bearing.]) (3) Forgo the tailstock center entirely (at least when it comes time to face off, if not before that), and either rely on the headstock end holding the workpiece "good enough" to do the final facing near the tail hole (which works if the headstock end is held in a chuck, but not if it's riding a center of its own), or (in the latter case especially) support the tail end with a steady rest (aka "center rest" as the limeys call it, which is confusing because it sounds a lot like "center" as in "center"). Under these circumstances, people rig up setups where the workpiece is kept from falling off the headstock center by lashing the dog to its drive plate with a leather strap. ANYWAYS, this would all make sense with pictures or YouTube video, but hard to make clear in writing. HTH. — ¾-10 04:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have encountered these sorts of problems myself on my own lathes. May I offer a possible solution for a descrition of the process.
"When clear facing work that must be supported on both ends but cannot be accommodated with a steady rest, a half dead center, also known as a notch center, can be used."
This could be replaced with this.
"When clear facing a long length of material it must be supported at both ends. This can be achieved by the use of a travelling or fixed steady. If a steady is not available, the work may be supported by a dead (stationary) half centre. A half centre has a flat surface across half of its diameter at the pointed end. Lubrication must be appied at this point and a reduction in tail stock pressure is advised." Francis E Williams (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, so really the sentence is trying to describe two different things. Francis, if you don't mind I'm going to copy your recommendation in, because that's a big improvement. I'm also going to see if I can get a pic of a half center, now that I know what it trying to be described here. I think I've seen one in our model shop before. Wizard191 (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, it looks like you took care of it for me. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fellows Gear Shaper Co. picture listed for speedy deletion[edit]

Hi, 3/4-10. I've received notice that File:FellowsGearShaperPlant-New.jpg has been tagged for speedy deletion for lack of adequate justification on its importance to the article. Perhaps you could help weigh in on whether that is appropriate at File talk:FellowsGearShaperPlant-New.jpg. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 00:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I weighed in there on behalf of reason. It should be kept. — ¾-10 02:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, 3/4-10! The zeal for deletion did seem a bit hasty to me. User:HopsonRoad 14:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm in Australia, about to board a vessel with poor internet connection. I was wondering whether the issue has been resolved on this one. If so, could you contact User:PhilKnight and have him remove the image from the "endangered species" list? If not, could you enlist the input of a few others at File talk:FellowsGearShaperPlant-New.jpg to provide more than two sources of judgment on keeping the image? I very much appreciate your help! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion has fizzled out in favor of "keep". I've posted a comment at the XFD discussion asking someone to tell me how to close the XFD action as "kept". Thanks. — ¾-10 19:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
We lost. For the record I think this image's presence on Wikipedia was hurting no one and its absence detracts from the article a bit, so the net result is that deletion = dumb. But it's about like a federal circuit court case—unless you devote resources to challenging the very constitutionality of the law before the supreme court, it's the end of the story. Sigh. — ¾-10 01:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, 3/4-10, I'll try to obtain an image with license from the Springfield, Vermont Historical society, now that I'm back from points south and west. Cheers,User:HopsonRoad 03:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking of driving down to photograph the building, myself. However, my local paper just reported that portions are being demolished to redevelop the facility! The plan would leave the riverside facade intact, however. User:HopsonRoad 02:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds great. Whether you manage to snap pics before the redevelopment, after it, or both, a photo would always be most welcome, in my view. One great thing about taking your own photos—it feels great slapping a copyleft license on an image you created! It always feels satisfying to me in some way. Like philanthropy in a tiny little way. Call it microphilanthropy, perhaps? Anyway, happy holidays! — ¾-10 03:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You probably know the answer to this[edit]

Hello again...you can probably answer my question at Talk:Ironworker_(brand)#I_don.27t_think_there_was_a_brand_called_.22ironworker.22 quickly for me. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Three-quarter-ten. You have new messages at File talk:FellowsGearShaperPlant-New.jpg.
Message added 19:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Pharmacy automation - the Video. A brilliant find !, it provides movement and moments of fascination for any reader.Francis E Williams (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Three-quarter-ten. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

from User:HopsonRoad 18:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Automation[edit]

It looks like you've taken this article even further afield into esoteric economic theory, mostly without any sources. I think you need to turn your essay paragraphs into sourced facts if you want them to stay. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Churchill[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your help with the article. It seems to have gone from AfD to DYK in a matter of days but I'm still learning a lot about how to actually use WP and inevitably I am making mistakes with formatting citations etc and appreciate people who keep an eye on me! I do look through the changes and am learning from seeing what you and others do to whatever it is I've mangled this time.

As far as slavishness vs. complaisance goes, well, the problem with both is that they're sort of highfalutin' words that probably will go over the top of the heads of a fair few people. OTOH, there is so much inavoidable jargon in the thing anyway, both financial and engineering, that perhaps I should suggest a new WP rule: we have AGF but perhaps need AGB - assume good brain. I'm happy with the change, though. There are a few other people who are looking in on the thing and doubtless consensus will out.

Thanks again and do keep correcting me. Sitush (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed—you've hit upon the core right there. We want to assume good brain (AGB), yet the nature of the world keeps intervening stubbornly. The great challenge is bringing the layperson along without oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy or gross omission. Thank God for the existence of hyperlinking in that regard. My own opinion is that the jargon and register of specialties should not be eliminated from Wikipedia articles (the costs are not worth the benefits), but rather the articles should provide drill-down-ability via links for those readers (and there will inevitably be plenty) who need more explanation of any given thing. I've been rediscovering the joys of links to Wiktionary entries, as an addition to the main course of linking to other Wikipedia articles. Sometimes all they need is a one-line paraphrase of what a word means; then they're back to the main topic at hand. Anyway, I am waxing digressive as is my wont. Awesome work on Churchill. I'm sure you'll see me around, gnoming it up and occasionally getting overcaffeinated before settling back down and eating my vegetables. Cheers, — ¾-10 17:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

New tractor pictures[edit]

I came here because of your many contributions to the tractor article. I am not sure but...I hope you are the right person or know the right person to make use of and correctly categorize the many pictures of Hart-Parr tractors and information plaques I just uploaded to Commons. My contributions page is at THIS PAGE which lists all my new uploads. I am new at Wikipedia and very new at pictures as I just received a good digital camera from my daughter for Christmas. She lives in Charles City where what I think is a fantastic tractor museum (check the Floyd County, Iowa category for a picture) and I intend to go back and take more and better pictures this summer. Besides the Hart-Parr (and there is many more of them besides the ones I took pictures of) there is also Oliver and White tractors I think. If someone has a request let me know. Now for my mistakes, unfortunately I was so new with the camera - my very first pictures - I did not have the "shake stabilizer" feature enabled. Also when I uploaded I used the Tractor category as it popped up as a choice, after uploading all the pictures I went to that category and it said to use Tractors :( and then I seen many different categories so that is why I am here asking for someone with more expertise to place them all in the proper category. I did put them all in the Hart-Parr category at least. I have your page on my watch-list for the duration of this conversation so just respond here. Respond on my talk page for any picture requests.
--RifeIdeas Talk 20:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi—Sounds good. I have noticed on Commons how sometimes there are similar categories that inadvertently fork each other (that is, overlap in their areas of application). Perfect example would be the one you mentioned (tractor and tractors). This is understandable given the DIY nature of WP and Commons, but it does cause frustration too, as you mentioned. I think the thing that makes sense is to make the categories like trees, where, for example, a Hart-Paar tractor goes in category "Hart-Paar", which then is made a subcat of cat:tractor, which then means that the cat:tractor tag does not have to go on each photo (because each photo automatically belongs to cat:tractor by way of subcat:Hart-Parr—i.e., branch of tree). This is typical of WP and Commons cats. I'm glad you're taking the photos, for the following reason. We won't be able to put them all in the one WP article "tractor", but we will end up putting many of them in the various individual articles, such as Oliver, Farmall, John Deere, Allis Chalmers, Rumely, threshing machine, stationary engine, traction engine, etc. In my opinion it is great to get all the media we can get at Commons. Regards, — ¾-10 00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nominal[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Nominal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Combination of lexicography and OR - see its talk page

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jerzyt 07:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Nominality has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Combination of lexicography and OR - see its talk page

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jerzyt 08:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm more OK with this inevitable change than I thought I would be. No attempt from me to stand in the way, and certainly no hard feelings or poor regard to you yourself, at all. Here's my take, in a nutshell. This type of change is de-improving our Wikimedia projects, but it is "OK" in the sense that it's the law of the land. (To use a Godwin's-law-level hyperbolic example, for lack of any better, smaller example coming to mind, it's like the fugitive slave laws: Whether the cops were "wrong" to enforce them is a philosophical question that's best avoided in favor of the more important question that would supersede that whole quandary, which is whether the law is a good idea to begin with. The changes made to "nominal" are entirely in line with consensus—with the consensus being conventional, inside-the-box, dead-tree-era pedagogy. So it's "OK" although not "good". A reader who lacks the information that my version of "nominal" was providing can still obtain all that same information by clicking through to Wiktionary; it's just that we're now serving them with an inferior level of pedagogy—the standard old pedagogy of dead-tree dictionaries and encyclopedias. The kind that, yes, did indeed contain the water [knowledge], but that many people never successfully drank from. What my version was tending toward was something closer to an expert system, where novice people ask basic questions and the system spoon-feeds them the knowledge—even the pieces that they weren't clueful enough to know to ask about. Spoon-feeding is one of the kinds of pedagogy that many humans actually need, regardless of the pedagogical state of the art of the pre-Internet era, which tried to deny or ignore that. Things like Qwiki may eventually lead the way on this (if they can be executed effectively, which will be challenging). Wikipedia and Wiktionary might get dragged into the 21st century in follow-up, once users all agree that the new way is better. But that's all years down the road, and speculative. Anyway, I'm out of time to finish my thoughts here, so I'll just say "no argument", and I truly have no hard feelings against the cops—only against the laws they're enforcing. Best regards, — ¾-10 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

New Version or Alternate Version of the table: "List of G-codes commonly found on Fanuc and similarly designed controls".[edit]

It's been several months since I looked into the G-code article. What I see is a dramatic improvement over the past, esp. the use of the two references from Industrial Press. Having said that, I'd like to now add in some more information to the table called "List of G-codes commonly found on Fanuc and similarly designed controls".

What I have now is VERY MUCH A WORK IN PROGRESS. Please feel free to look at it at this location: [/User:LP-mn/Sandbox#List_of_G-codes_commonly_found_on_Fanuc_and_similarly_designed_controls]. Note that as of this writing, I have NOT yet decided as to if what I'm composing will replace the existing table, or be an entirely different/alternate page that is referred to at the top of that section.

But, that is NOT the reason I'm writing this to you right now...
I'd like to know how the G-Code article's use of the references happened.
I'm trying to track down the html-like code that was first used to add in the two Ind. Press sources, and I can't find it in the "source" code (so to speak).

Below are some examples of what I found; for simplicity's sake I've replaces the '=', '{', '}', '<' and '>' with just the '-" character. Here are those examples of what I mean:
--References--
--Reflist--

--Bibliography--

  • --MachinerysHandbook25e--
  • --Smid2008--

I also found this code:
---Letter addresses---

Some letter addresses are used only in milling or only in turning; most are used in both. Bold below are the letters seen most frequently throughout a program.

Sources: Smid-ref name="Smid2008"- --Harvnb|Smid|2008--.-/ref-; Green et al.-ref name="Greenetal1996"- --Harvnb|Green|1996|pp=1162–1226--. -/ref-

What I did NOT find is where and how the text was produced in the Bibliography, such as:

  1. Green, Robert E. et al. (eds) (1996), Machinery's Handbook (25 ed.), New York, NY, USA: Industrial Press, ISBN 978-0-8311-2575-2, http://www.worldcat.org/title/machinerys-handbook/oclc/473691581 .
  2. Smid, Peter (2008), CNC Programming Handbook (3 ed.), New York, NY, USA: Industrial Press, LCCN 2007-045901, ISBN 9780831133474.

Can you give me a "Heads Up" on the technique used to do the references?
LP-mn (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Here it is after midnight (in my time zone), and instead of going straight to bed I find myself surfing WP a bit. I know just what you're asking about. I'll come back tomorrow and give an explanation. Glad you like the article development. Later, — ¾-10 05:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

[zzzzz]

  • OK—I've had my beauty sleep (didn't work—still ugly) and plenty of coffee. No pie this morning, but that's OK—more later. Now to the question. Basically what you're seeing is various little tools that "do the magic for you, so you don't have to do it." Here's what I mean:
    • As you may have already deduced before I said this, the <ref></ref> tags are a little tool such that whatever is enclosed between them will automatically be moved down into the ref list upon display (that is, under the heading "References"). Bonus points: It will not show up unless you put a tag to tell it to happen. That can be either <references/> or {{Reflist}}. Both do the same thing as far as we care here today.
    • (By the way, the equal signs are how you tell it the heading level. For example, one equal sign [pair] = heading level 1; two equal sign [pair] = heading level 2; and so on. There is a technicality in Wikipedia where technically the article title is the first level, so effectively the 2 equal signs [pair] is the highest heading level that you will use. Thus ==References== is the references heading.)
    • Each <ref> element can be given a unique name. This is how the computer knows that that same ref is being cited in various spots (thus producing the clickable "a b c d" before the displayed ref). The way you give a name to a ref is this: <ref name="whatever">. (Bonus points: It is recommendable to make ref names fairly short and with only basic characters in it (A-Z, a-z, 0-9, -, _). Kind of like filenames and URLs—might get away with other characters and long length, but best not to try, generally, if you don't need to.)
    • Wikipedia offers things called "templates" that are also little tools to help do magic in the background. Their names have "Template:" prefixed to them. For example, Template:Harvnb is a handy tool for adding value to references. (You don't need it—<ref> tags alone would do—but it adds value, as described below.) To call a template, you enclose its name (minus the prefix) in double curly braces—for example, {{Harvnb}}. After the name you can enter parameters, separated by pipe characters (|). For example, {{Harvnb|Green|1996}} tells the computer to call the Harvnb template and use "Green 1996" as the parameters. Harvnb causes the ref citation clicking action to jump the reader down to the ref list, and from there, they can click the author-date info (e.g., "Green 1996"), and it will jump them down to the bibliography entry (which tells the full info of the book).
    • Next topic: You can type the full info of a book simply as plain text. For example: "Doe, John C. ''The Trouble with Firecrackers''. New York, NY, USA: Explosions Press, 2011." It's perfectly "good enough", and there are countless instances of it across Wikipedia (WP). But it's nice to do a little more if you can, for reasons of machine readability, which can yield semantic power and separation of presentation and content. Don't bother reading all those links right now; it's enough just to have been exposed to them briefly for now. The point here is that instead of the "Doe, John ..." typed above, it's even better to enter the info using the {{Citation}} template, with each field of the bibliographic record entered as its own parameter. Thus you'd have this: {{Citation |last=Doe |first=John C. |year=2011 |title=The Trouble with Firecrackers |publisher=Explosions Press |location=New York, NY, USA |url=http://www.WhateverFakeURL.org/ |isbn=978-0-000-00000-0 |postscript=.}}
    • I think the last trick we still need to explore is where the heck the full bibliographic info is coming from in this article (that is, all the little field values to populate each bibliographic record—title, year, publisher, ISBN, etc). As you pointed out, it's nowhere to be found within this article; so where's it coming from? The answer is that the reference itself—the full bibliographic record for one unique book—has also been turned into a template. For example, Template:MachinerysHandbook25e. Now why would you do that? Seems unnecessary—and yes, it is not needed in order to have good old regular refs and bibliographic list entries. But it adds value, because transcluding that book as a uniquely named object lets the machine recognize it as one and the same object being called from various articles. Check out User:Three-quarter-ten/Citation analysis and click on the "What links there?" links. You see everywhere that book is cited. Also, if you need to polish and improve the bibliographic data entry, you can do it in one place and have it automatically, instantly appear in updated form in all the articles that cite it. For example, let's say that Template:Hounshell1984 was missing an ISBN number. You could add it in that one place, and it will propagate automatically to every article that cites that book.
    • OK, guess that's enough. Hope this helps! You'll be decently fluent in no time with the syntax magic of Wikipedia. Just be creative, and when you see something cool (as a reader), click "edit" or "view source" and check out the syntax that they used to make it happen, so you can do it too (as a writer). Just from the explanation above, you now know enough about the basics (e.g., ==Heading==, <tag></tag>, {{template call}}, {{template call|parameter1|parameter2}}) that you'll often be able to figure out what they did and how they cobbled it together.
    • Now go forth and build a vast Wikipedian knowledgebase of manufacturing info! (Maybe also eventually build a robot army to help out.) Cheers, — ¾-10 15:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
"Cheers,"!!! I'll bet you're a "Limey"! hehehe now it's time for ME to go to bed. later.. p.s.: I could not make my above text [moved down] stand out as a separate section and/or boldface. Look for the text buried between "next topic" and "Now go forth".
LP-mn (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

[Moved down]

    • Yup. Most of the above I already knew. I forgot about the nowiki tag, so that example of yours was appreciated. I also have not quite mastered the "a b c d" part, but perhaps that is because it needs to be converted into a citation as you demonstrate below...LP-mn (talk)
      • Oh yeah—regarding "a b c d", you don't need to have {{Citation}} or {{Harvnb}}, but there is one more concept needed to make it work—this may possibly be what you were lacking (not sure). You only put the full reference once; after that you just put the <ref name=""/> part with a closing slash inside the tag. Here is an example:
        • Blah blah blah.<ref name="whatever">Smith, page 30.</ref>
        • Blah blah blah.<ref name="whatever"/>
        • Blah blah blah.<ref name="whatever"/>
        • Blah blah blah.<ref name="whatever"/>
          • Just to highlight the syntax there, notice the red changes:
        • Blah blah blah.<ref name="whatever">Smith, page 30.</ref>
        • Blah blah blah.<ref name="whatever"/>
        • Blah blah blah.<ref name="whatever"/>
        • Blah blah blah.<ref name="whatever"/>
      • The following is helpful as a way to make it stick as far as exactly where all the brackets and slashes go: the general syntax of HTML and XML is <tag>plaintext</tag>—where that whole string is called an "element". The tags form a container for the plaintext to go inside of. But it is also possible to have a so-called "empty element"—one that's "all tag and no plaintext". The general syntax for an empty element is <tag/>—this explains the slash locations in empty elements like <references/>, <br/>, <hr/>, and <ref name="whatever"/>. There is a difference between HTML4 and XHTML where both <br> and <br/> will work. That's because the people who wrote the standards were trying to be strictly logical about differing perspectives on the deep philosophy of what an empty element really is and whether they should really exist. But that's too deep to worry about. (I can dig up a link if you care to read about it—but don't blame you if not.) Enough to know that <br> and <br/> are synonyms for all practical purposes. — ¾-10 23:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-code editors and E-mail[edit]

3/4-10: I have previously used an HTML editor, for a web site. In fact, I still have a several-versions out of date copy of DreamWeaver around here somewhere. What I have not ever heard of is, for lack of a better phrase, a Wiki-code editor. If you check the link (up-list) to my "Sandbox", you'll see a table I'm revising. Having a better editor than the on-line one I'm typing into now would be of great help, especially with a larger elaborate table like the one I'm working on.

Has anyone written such program(s), and where would I go to see a comparison of them?

Next topic, I've also seen "uplist" from my entries on your user-talk page, a reference to sending E-mail. Is there such a provision in Wikipedia? If yes, I've forgotten all about it. Where do I get more info?

later, LP-mn (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding tables, good point. The default wikicode editor of Wikipedia is better than it used to be (better tool buttons available), but you're right that it's still annoying to edit tables in wikicode. I don't have a good conventional answer (for example, a certain program to recommend), but I have a workaround that I can suggest. It is not especially user-friendly though. It's still "persnickety" to do—but it's better because of search-and-replace ability. Here it is: Paste your table (from, say, a browser window, Excel sheet, Word table, etc) into Word as plaintext, then use Word's find-and-replace dialog (ctrl-h) to make substitutions wholesale. For example, replace each tab character with space-pipe-pipe-space; replace each paragraph mark with paragraph mark-pipe-hyphen-paragraph mark-pipe-space; and so on. It will be annoying as shit the first few times you do it, but it slowly burns into your brain with more practice. I should add the caveat, though, that there are probably other Wikipedians who know a way better method involving a snazzy third-party app that does it all automatically. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that's the case. For example, I just googled "wikitext editor" and found this blog post, which clearly shows that such things exist and can be had; but I am not enough of a system-admin/programmer/network-admin-type person to use the one mentioned there. I hardly even edit my default Wikipedia .js or .css skin (which one can do via My preferences > Appearance). Something new to learn sometime ... Regarding e-mail: Yes, Wikipedia offers this option. What you do is go to My preferences > User profile, and under the "E-mail options" heading, you have the choice to enter an e-mail address or leave it blank. If you enter one, then when someone visits your user page, there will exist a link in the lefthand navigation pane saying "E-mail this user". If you leave that field blank, that link will not exist. I used to have a link for e-mailing me, but I took it down because I am plumb out of time in my schedule for any metapedian interaction except the relatively basic amount that I do via article talk pages. Of course, a non-Wikipedian would view my participation there as large, but within the context of active Wikipedians, my participation in such things is actually very limited compared to many others—no mailing lists, no "e-mail this user", almost never any AfX debates, etc. I did e-mail a fellow Wikipedian one time, to discuss and view together some refs that are still under copyright, thus no good way to view the full ref on a WP talk page. But my concern with private e-mail is that either I'll get an asshole trolling me, or I simply won't have time to do justice to the questions and discussions. As you've probably noticed about me, I like to answer a question very fully. I don't enjoy cutting corners, yet without doing so, one's time for interacting is so limited. And in one's hobby, one must stick primarily to the parts one enjoys. There's plenty of time to "eat your vegetables" at the workplace. (Plenty unless one is unemployed, but then one has jumped from the frying pan into the fire, and the "benefit of free time" in that case is one you'd gladly give up.) Anyhow, that's the long story ... see you around the manufacturing articles! Regards, — ¾-10 02:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Look at my sandbox, and you'll see that I'm taking some basic baby steps towards re doing the table. I was hoping for something other than MS Word or OpenOffice's Writer, but perhaps that's the way I'll end up going. Have you seen it by and by? Do you have any comments as to if the new table should replace or supplement the existing one? (i.e.: If supplement, this means it'll be on its own separate page.)
LP-mn (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you're on your way. In general I would say "replace", as long as the final version is easily comprehensible. I envision having a separate column for the bullet character (•). I suspect that someone will eventually whine that it's impossible to document all the various implementations of G-code here at Wikipedia, and try to say that that's a problem. Of course it's true that we can't list them all, but it's not the point—the point is that Fanuc groups A, B, and C, and other brands that shared substantial overlap of codes, are the "main dialects". It would be like saying that we can't have an article on Brazilian Portuguese because we don't have details of certain local coastal dialectal variations. It would be missing the point of having an article about the standard language. Anyhow, looks good—see you around... — ¾-10 22:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree regarding the bullet character. The source material has a small triangle in the upper left corner of the box for each G-code, meaning it can be across all three columns of a given row. Making a new column will just create even more of a mess. My use of a bullet instead of the triangle was just an interim step that may end up being permanent if I can't implement the original scheme.
_ARE_ you the person who did the major revision since I last saw the table? I need to correspond with that person, as presumable he/she has the relevant source material.
LP-mn (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yup. See my replies bundled below. — ¾-10 15:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ready for 1st revisions to table...[edit]

3/4:
Check my "Sandbox", for the table we discussed earlier. I did it your way, via a text editor. It's now ready to be revised for truth/accuracy. Are you the person who introduced the new info from Industrial Press? I'm thinking of the columns with the Mill and Turning data, along with other tidbits. If yes, you are the person who added that info, then I would welcome your actual revisions and/or suggested revisions to the table. (Actually, I'd welcome critiques regardless of a yes or no answer.)
later,
LP-mn (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Yup, I'm the one who augmented the tables citing Smid 2008 and Machinery's Handbook 25e. I haven't had the privilege of working with Haas machines yet, so I won't be able to fill in the "H" column. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them match Fanuc, but then again I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. Regarding the bullets and whether to normalize (de-concatenate) them out into columns, on closer inspection you're probably right—I was thinking that each row would have either yes-bullet or no-bullet—in which case normalization would be good—but it may be that each of the A/H/B/C columns of a certain row could have independent bullet yes/no, so concatenating the bullets is sensible for ease of human readability. (For machine purposes, the more normalized columns, the merrier, and damn the torpedoes, but it gets ungainly for humans after a half dozen columns.) Regarding not-yet-filled table cells, one problem we face on Wikipedia is this: What should happen is that we build the table with blank cells where info is still needed (as you marked with underscores), and then future visitors to the page fill in the gaps as they're able and willing. But what sometimes actually does happen is that some extreme-immediatist dull-wit comes along and tries to delete the whole table because it's incomplete. Their reasoning is that Wikipedia is not trying to be anything other than an immediate replacement of a conventional dead-tree encyclopedia, and therefore it's a better-quality reference work if such unfilled info containers are deleted. I think that's extremely myopic, personally, and out of touch with the future of human(/human-machine) epistemology, in which it will be widely understood without having to be explained that every reference work at any given moment is simply "as much as we have so far" but has clear vision of what's obviously still to come. That's how good database design and software design is done (i.e., extensibility), and it's obviously superior to anyone who's thinking clearly, IMO. But I'm just a structuristic incrementalist like that. Guess they would complain that I would value deletion and limitation if I would just think clearly. Anyway, back to G-code. The table is looking good. — ¾-10 15:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The info for Haas is available on-line, I'll post it either in my sandbox or here later. I intent to add it in myself, but perhaps you'd like to see the source material. As for the GE-Fanuc manual, I'd be happy to E-mail you images of the relevant pages from the manual (only 3 to 6 images, depending on if you include Doosan as well). I own a copy of the Machinery's Handbook that I think is the one immediately PRIOR to the one you used. i.e.: It does _NOT_ include any CNC information. As a result, I'm relying upon someone like you to verify that information. Can you tell me more about the 2nd Industrial Press book, the one whose primary topic is CNC itself? I also do not have that one. Am still editing the table as I write this, but activity will have to stop/curtail soon, as daughter's dance practice is soon. later
LP-mn (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
If you do any CNC for work or hobby, or you're considering doing that, then I definitely recommend as "worth the cost" the Smid book. Details are at Template:Smid2008. If you click the ISBN, it will take you through to places you can get the book from (whether buy or borrow—libraries, bookstores, Amazon, etc). The book is very well-written in my opinion. By which I mean, it has typos, but none of them interfere with meaning in any way, and the book's structure and content are excellent. Smid has other books, such as a book on Fanuc Macro parametric programming, but I haven't read them yet. So many things to learn, so little time to devote. No doubt a familiar theme to all. Later, — ¾-10 16:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I just verified, _24th_ _IS_ the edition I have of Machinery's. I take it that you have the 25th.
Does the 25th edition have CNC info like I assumed?
If yes, then I intend to put my version up for sale at work and buy a used copy of 25th, 26th or most preferably the 27th. (It's unlikely that I can find the 28th, as that's the current version; I doubt I can find it used.)
LP-mn (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yup. It has a section called "Numerical control" (pp. 1162-1226). And then a few pages on CAD/CAM. I'm pretty sure it was not the first edition to have an NC section, though. But regardless, click through to Template:MachinerysHandbook25e and then through the ISBN for buying options. I agree with you about 28e—I want it bad, but I can't justify the expense right now. Sigh—delayed gratification, who needs it. — ¾-10 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, now we REALLY are about to leave the house for Dance practice. My copy is at work, but I can say with almost 100% certainty that there is NO CNC/NC section to the 24th edition. So, my earlier comment about desired versions stands. Chat later...

LP-mn (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've accidentally been saving my intermediate sandbox edits to the actual G-code page. I _THINK_ that I have successfully replaced the current version with how you left it on Feb. 21st-ish. I have just a few more edits (G73 to G75?) before I go through it one more time with the Haas _MILL_ data. Any comments of yours, or revisions would be appreciated. later.
LP-mn (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Honing steel terminology[edit]

Hi 3/4, can you please review my addition to honing steel, here? I know that terminology is a strong suit of yours and I don't know if I best explained myself, so I figured you could probably help me out here. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Wizard. I think it looks good as far as I can tell. I know that there are edged weapon enthusiasts out there who know a lot more about knife sharpening and honing than I do, and I can't speak from their level of expertise, but I believe that the edit you made is a desirable one. I don't doubt that some non-experts use the terms in imprecise, overlapping usage, which is not ideal from a technical perspective. So it's worth explaining how the terms are used in the article. With the distinction between sharpening and honing being a matter of degree, it's no doubt challenging to get non-experts to realize that they should differentiate them. But as anyone who has used both a bench grinder and a honing stone will appreciate, sometimes a quantitative difference counts as qualitative when it's big enough (e.g., several orders of magnitude)! — ¾-10 01:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. I wasn't necessarily looking for an informed response, with respect to honing steels, but rather to the comprehensibility of the language, so your answer was very useful. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Norris facts[edit]

Hi - you'd need sources linking Norris to tall tales for your edit, see WP:NOR. As I say in my edit summary, it would be great in an essay or article in a journal, but our policies say sources must discuss the subject, in this case Norris. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh. OK. I think it'd be better kept, but that's fine. — ¾-10 21:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Auxiliary Verb[edit]

[Discussion moved to Talk:Auxiliary verb so that other editors and users may discover it there—gives a head-up for future development of the article.]

Thanks for the kind words man. Your actions were totally understandable and with all the total crap that people put into the linguistics articles I'm glad we have someone out there checking things.Drew.ward (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OR and Diesel engine[edit]

Can you keep an eye on Diesel engine as Krontach seems to be keen on pushing his original research? --Biker Biker (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Will certainly keep an eye on it—unfortunately I may not know enough to second-guess his content; as I skimmed it in my watchlist, it seemed legit as far as I was able to tell, and I figured he was good-faith. He struck me as an engineer, someone who knows more about the engineering and regulation details than I do. But if I see anything that seems pushy, I'll speak up. I saw an edit about VW diesels being underrated by the US EPA (as a stealth protectionist measure of a sort, I take it), and I must admit my first reaction was to think "well I wouldn't be too surprised"—the kind of stuff an agency might do when they have plausible deniability (or they *think* it's plausible, what with a lot of variables and fine print to muddy the water). But I didn't pay close attention to how much he gives refs or not—will try to be objective and pay good attention. Regards, — ¾-10 04:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft[edit]

Thanks for signing up for this project. It is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Baldwin Information[edit]

Just wanted to say I liked the excerpt you provided from Sloan's memoir about GM's production. I thought the myth that the War Production Board's decision had driven Baldwin out of business was limited to former Baldwin workers but it seems to be widespread, probably because it's a good story. I added most of the information that cites the Brown book and the Marx article (you also fixed many of those citations). --Juliensorelnyc (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad you liked that addition. Thanks for building so much content in that article, and giving the inline ref citations. Always great to see industrial history coverage on WP. Regarding Sloan, it's certainly fun to be reading a memoir like his and come across independent discussion of a concept that you've heard/read elsewhere. In this case casting reasonable doubt on the cosmic significance of that choice made by the War Production Board. Strangely enough I swear there are things about past eras that are captured in such books, where if you read them one after another and pay attention to the details, you even pick up on stuff that people may never have put together before, or at least not many people. One such eye opener for me was realizing the extent to which U.S. corporations and wealthy individuals (often execs in those corporations) had a surprisingly extensive neocolonial grip on Cuba during the 1900-1959 period. It's no wonder these American men of power hated the Cuban revolution so much. The famous reason is because they were just generally anticommunist in principle, and trying to contain Soviet empire expansion, especially so close to the U.S. mainland. But it's pretty clear to me, reading between the lines, that another important-though-hardly-talked-about reason is that they were screaming in private, "Hey, that was *my* wealth that that bastard Fidel confiscated!! Now it's personal!!!" Anyhow, that's way off-topic, but it's interesting as an example regarding coming across the same topic in disparate sources. — ¾-10 21:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive technology[edit]

Thanks for your recent contributions to Disruptive technology. --Kvng (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad you liked them. Oddly, at the moment I happen to be reading two particular books simultaneously, Christensen 1997 and Simmons 1988, which is just an unlikely random coincidence, and yet the social networks of the authors are amazingly interconnected, like "more than they ought to be by random chance". I guess it's not as remarkable/odd as it seems, though, since this general realm of subject matter for reading (business, technology, innovation, and the hard work of making the latter pay via the former) pretty much puts a selection bias on the frame of reference. Anyhow, regards. — ¾-10 22:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Like[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Like has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Swarm X 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney[edit]

Hi, I've noticed you've added some new content to Pratt & Whitney during my semi-retirement. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Pratt & Whitney/Archives/2011#New additions, and would appreciate your input. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Answered there at Talk:Pratt & Whitney/Archives/2011#New additions. Thanks! — ¾-10 16:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR comin' close[edit]

Please keep an eye on the number of your reversions at Mitsubishi A6M Zero. You may be blocked for edit warring. Just a friendly note! Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you're right. I'm working on addressing the concern you mentioned at talk. Thanks. — ¾-10 18:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

RAS syndrome[edit]

Your help would be appreciated with the lead section of RAS syndrome. User:Arno Matthias has made some additions, but he and I quibble over the precise wording. In particular, as I noted at his talk page, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Micrometer[edit]

Hi, You have been adding interesting and useful information to the article micrometer which for reason I dont remember landed in my watchlist. However in the two large batches I checked, [4] and [5] youi added no references. I am sure you are aware of wikipedia policies about citing your sources. Thank you. Locador (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Patent[edit]

I wasn't sure if you still wanted to work on the patent article, but here is a link to a good reference that supports some of the points you were making. Edmund W. Kitch, “The Nature and Function of the Patent System”, Journal of Law and Economics Vol. 20, No. 2 (Oct., 1977), pp. 265-290--Nowa (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks—Not sure if I'll get time to work on it, but many thanks for the ref in case I do. Regards, — ¾-10 17:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Henry Ford[edit]

Hi. For what it's worth, my minor edit on 5 October was exactly as described, i.e. I corrected the URL only and made no other edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Ford&diff=prev&oldid=454121298 Vacarme (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, Vacarme. I checked to see why I made this mistake and found that it was most likely scrolling while hovering over pop-ups and working quickly. Somehow the pop-up for the next edit after yours ended up attributed to you in my mind. I just want to assure you that this is a rare event; I am usually just the opposite—putting too much time and effort into it rather than not enough. Thanks for setting the record straight in this case. Regards, — ¾-10 23:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Like[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Like has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Party article[edit]

I recall we once had a discussion as to "left and right labels" in relation to the Nazi Party. A discussion, as to same, as flared up on the Talk page of the article. I thought you may want to comment, since you expressed interest in the subject in the past. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As you know this discussion has continued in recent times. I wanted say, that was a nice addition to the lede to "put the left-right argument to bed". Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Slide rest[edit]

Roe (1916) tells about the slide rest being illustrated in one of the French encyclopedias, which Roe shows, decades before Maudslay. What I haven't been able to determine is how different David Wilkinson's lathe is from Maudslay's. Roe stated that he had never seen Wilkinson's so he couldn't adequately describe it. Maudslay's ability to do hand work was apparently exceptional and he probably produced a very accurate lead screw. Roe describes him using a knife to do this, probably for inscribing. Lead screws were commonly square cut, I assume because that was easier to finish with a file.Phmoreno (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have any finished, polished, inline-cited-referenced content developed yet, but yeah, the facts that you're mentioning are what will need to be covered when any such content is developed. Moore 1970 (Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy) apparently tells of one of the medieval lathes, this one from 1483, that uses a slide rest. I say "apparently" because I haven't yet laid eyes on Moore 1970 myself. But I saw it cited on this point somewhere in one of the Wikipedia articles I was visiting recently. Anyhow, apparently what happened is that Nasmyth wrote something in the mid-1800s that caused some readers to believe that Maudslay was the first human being ever to think up the idea of a slide rest, or to use one to guide a lathe toolpost. It was never true, and Nasmyth was never trying to say that it was true; it was a misinterpretation by [some] readers, who then parroted it widely, like a whisper down the alley, till a lot of people were repeating it as a "fact". Such is the storyline that I remember becoming acquainted with. As for leadscrews, all of the ideas are ancient—it was just a matter of putting them into practice, which required a certain amount of technology, which didn't see any sparks or kindling until the 1400s-1600s, and didn't light a fire until circa 1800.
Regarding choice of thread forms for leadscrews. You're right that square threads were often the form of choice, since at least the 1700s (although plenty of people have made V-thread leadscrews over the centuries, too, even up to today). The Acme thread had not been developed yet; the earliest written evidence of it that Google Books turns up, as of this writing, is circa 1895. [Digression: I had one Wikipedian telling me that that doesn't mean anything because the information is probably "out there", written in a book or journal from the 1800s, telling exactly where the Acme thread form came from and exactly when, but we just can't find it yet. I get his point—literature searches can miss things (especially amateur ones), and yes, that's always true—but his assessment of the likelihood in this case is mistaken; he's putting too much faith in several ideas, including (1) the extent to which industrial technology was always recorded in published writing as soon as it occurred (this is actually not correct at all—certainly not published writing and often not even in writing at all—a lot of it was propagated through memes outside of the written word); (2) the extent to which there are old books and journals out there—specifically, the subset that are in English, German, or Romance languages, 19th century, of scientific/technical/engineering content—that Google Books and Google Scholar haven't scanned and OCRd yet—such extent is not as large as he would like to think, it seems to me. Sure it was, 10 years ago—but that's history now.] Regarding your suggestion that a square thread is easier (or less annoying, one might say) to file, yeah, I agree with that.
Regarding the dearth of extant information on David Wilkinson's lathes of circa 1790s, I have the same problem that Roe had, and that you have—there are apparently no writings or drawings or photos available to go look at. Which isn't at all surprising to me, because, as said, the idea that industrial development prior to about the 1960s was usually documented as it was happening is at least 70% wishful thinking. And even when it (documentation) did happen (and does happen today), it was (is) more likely to be gray than published; and I can vouch for the fact that if an engineer at a certain corporation wrote some stuff in a lab notebook in 1932, or 1972, you are lucky today if that notebook even exists anymore, and if so, if it isn't deep in a storage box somewhere where no one knows about it. A great example is the Middletown milling machine of circa 1818. Where did our information about it come from? Answer: Roe was lucky enough to talk to some dude who talked to some dude named Parkhurst who happened to be retired from a certain shop and to have worked there way, way back in the day, when one day someone older in the shop told him who had built the machine and why and when. And someone happened to ask Parkhurst about it before he died. That's where a lot of the industrial history that we do have came from, and it's how much, much more went to the grave in the heads of the people who could have told it, but there was no "right person" around them to ask them about it at the time. This is why it's really a shame that Fred H. Colvin died before finishing his history of the American machine tool industry of 1800-1950. He was in a very unusual position to know more about it than almost anyone. And I bet a lot of interesting information went to his grave with him, unfortunately. We're lucky that at least he wrote his personal memoir (Sixty Years) in time.
I'm sorry for rambling so much above. "Sorry this reply was so long—I didn't have time to make it shorter." Later, — ¾-10 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I tracked down a Wilkinson lathe at the American Precision Museum. I saw a good photo of it from the museum's web site, which I am not sure is still there. Maudslay's original screw cutting lathe is at the Science Museum in London, which I put a link to a good photo of in the Henry Maudslay Wiki article.Phmoreno (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I found a comparison in McNeil's An Encyclopedia of the History of Technology and updated the David Wilkinson and Henry Maudslay articles. Wilkinson's lathe did not use change gears.Phmoreno (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Colt[edit]

Thanks for the help I took Samuel Colt to GA today and the article on the company is my next goal...then get both of them and maybe John C. Colt to Featured!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Airmail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intermodal transport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Colt, again[edit]

Hi, I don't think its oversimplifying. It was the interchangeable parts that made the difference. Yes there was still hand fitting, sanding, and filing that needed to be done; but 80% of the work was being done by machine in 1862 and the factory had made 400,000 guns by then. Compare that to the 6 years at Paterson where they barely made 4,000. We probably need to expand the section on Root's machines used at the time, too.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know Colt was truly pioneering during this era, and a true leader and training ground of toolmakers and manufacturers---I just don't think *any* claim of "first assembly line", for anyone, can be classified as accurate. It makes the uninformed reader think that such-and-such a person or company "invented" the assembly line, like no such thing had ever yet existed on earth and then this one certain so-and-so thought of it. Whether they try to make it Henry Ford, Ransom Olds, Colt Mfg Co, or anyone else. The timeline presented in the assembly line article (see Assembly line > History) shows why this "first" claim is so shaky. If someone wants to call the 15th-century Venetian shipyards the "first" assembly line, they can call it that as well as anyone else can call Colt or Ford or Olds the "first". Nobody was really first, it just kept getting reinvented and evolving and refining over the centuries. — ¾-10 00:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
PS, you're right that it will be great to expand the content. It would be awesome to cover Root et al in the detail that they deserve. Looking forward to it. Judging just from my own schedule, I think it may take some years, given the scarcity of time to work on it, but I'm confident it will happen eventually, between all of us volunteers. — ¾-10

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Dial indicator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcription (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Allen brand - way to recognize?[edit]

Hello -

Regarding change to external links:

Undid good-faith—External links (ELs) aren't used quite this way in Wikipedia. I know it seems logical to do this, but there are reasons to leave the ELs further down in the article. Let me know at Talk


The passage below does not reference that Allen is a currently registered brand ( www.apextoolgroup.com ) and is treating it as a generacized trademark. I think this is a bit misleading.

A hex key, Allen key, or Allen wrench (also known by various other synonyms) is a tool of hexagonal cross-section used to drive bolts and screws that have a hexagonal socket in the head (internal-wrenching hexagon drive).

I thought by linking to the brand owner's page, it would help clear that up.

What would you recommend as a way to make this more accurate?

Thanks,


Sjotis (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Although an EL embedded in the sentence goes against Wikipedia consensus, you're right that there ought to be a better handling—if not by that method, then by some other method—of the genericization-avoidance principle. I'll make some edits tonight or tomorrow to take care of this. Thanks. — ¾-10 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow. By the time I was done investigating, I had learned of the 1910 Allen patent for the first time (U.S. Patent 960,244). So the history section (Hex key > History) needed a good dose of rework. I revised accordingly. Thanks for helping with the development of the article. — ¾-10 03:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Three-quarter-ten/Fleeting thoughts[edit]

User:Three-quarter-ten/Fleeting thoughts, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Three-quarter-ten/Fleeting thoughts and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Three-quarter-ten/Fleeting thoughts during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Smile![edit]

A Barnstar!
A smile for you

You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.2.116 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the familly name Krupp[edit]

You wrote this section. This doesn't sound too plausible. I've listened to many interviews you members of the Krupp family and by Berthold Beitz. There was never a pronunciation with a long "u". On the other hand, the German /u/-/ʊ/ separation is different in German than in English. The English /ʊ/ is more central than the German one and the German /u/ is further back (closer to the cardinal [u]) than the English /u/. It is possible that what you quote is a misperception of what the German sources said by the British authors of the documentary. Could you tell me more about the documentary you referred to? Berndf (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a British TV show but played on TV here in the U.S. I saw it on either the History Channel or on PBS (no longer remember which). Don't have ref info to cite, sorry. If you want to modify the section, based on any reliable info that you have, I'm fine with that. My main reason for adding the section was simply that I felt Wikipedia should cover the topic of which pronunciation is preferred. And that was the info I had available. Cheers, — ¾-10 14:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Berndf (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Like[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Like has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Trevj (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverting edit at chuck[edit]

Dear Three-quarter-ten If you think about for a moment, you will see that you were hasty in reverting my edit. By pointing the article to wrench, the reader will learn/ understand what a wrench is and what it does. Then, the reader will be in a position to process the additional information "(wrench)-like tool". However, by pointing the link to "Other types of keys", all the information the reader will be directed to is that "These types of keys are not emically classified as wrenches by English speakers, but they are etically similar in function to wrenches.", which means he will still have to go to wrench to know what it is and what it does. Don't you agree? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A good alternative reasoning. "I'll buy that," as they say. I will restore your version. Thanks. — ¾-10 22:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs more people like you ...[edit]

... people who know that to be on a high horse is not the same as on the high ground, who know that to get to or stay on the moral high ground one does not have to trample others underfoot ...

Ice1filteredk3b.png



For (being levelheaded), I hereby award Three-quarter-ten with the “Cool Award.” Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers to effective Wikipedian collaboration … — ¾-10 02:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Speeds and feeds: Woodworking fast and slow backwards?[edit]

Please see my comment at Talk:Speeds and feeds#Woodworking fast and slow backwards?. I believe you have the expertise to evaluate this issue. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Article in your sandbox[edit]

Are you looking for input on Modes of carry of firearms? I like your draft and would be happy to lend a hand. Andrew (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I would welcome development of that article. It probably won't make my priority list anytime soon. It would be nice to get it at least just developed enough to get it out of a user sandbox and into the article namespace. Feel free to work on it if you like. Some of the sources I would like to cite would be books by Massad Ayoob (eg, The Truth about Self-Protection) and books by Chris Bird (eg, The Concealed Handgun Manual). No doubt scores of other authors are available too. — ¾-10 01:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll add it to the in progress list on my User Page and work on it as time allows. Andrew (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Henry Gantt[edit]

Hi, thanks for your update. I hope you appreciate the link change I made to an other version of the book. I do want to ask you if you check this link (which is code and not a description like the link you gave). I am not sure if this is the most stable link there is to that book? -- Mdd (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your edit—I agree that it is probably a more stable link to the same resource. It's funny because when I was pasting that "workwagesandpro02gantgoog" link, the very same thought occurred to me as evidently struck you—"that doesn't look like a permalink to me"—but a (very) cursory glance for a permalink option did not yield any clues, so I decided not to worry about it, with a vague thought that it could always be improved in future ... and thanks to your help, it didn't take long at all! Cheers, — ¾-10 17:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this anecdote. If I happen to get some more info about these permalinks, I will let you know. It does make me wonder: Did you notice to the Internet Archive (see here) offers seven versions of "Work, wages and profits" online? The third links to the 1913 version of the book. I have added this link to the article, because the Google-link doesn't give (me) access to the book. -- Mdd (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. — ¾-10 20:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Metalworking[edit]

Greetings. I came across the Wikiproject:Metalworking not too long ago, and thought it was right up my alley. It looks like a couple of years ago the project was jumping, with lots of regular work and general positive things going on. It seems like once the Wizard191 fellow (a mention of whom I've seen on pretty much every article that even remotely pertains to industry) left, work with the project sort of fell off. You seem like a pretty active contributor, do you have any suggestions for maybe getting the project up to date and working again?

I've spent the past few days just sort of going through the Cleanup list and fixing what I can, but I'd like to really revamp this thing and get people really into it, if I can. Do you think this is possible? Kierkkadon (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kierkkadon. As a Wikipedian for some years now, I've often given thought to the public's Wikipedia-editing participation in general as well as in particular topic areas, with metalworking being a central content area for me. I do have various semi-conclusions (hypotheses, theories, whatever). I think I would summarize my answer as "Not as many people will contribute as you would hope, but that's OK, just do what you can and satisfy your own desire to contribute." An interesting thing, though, is how much gets accomplished by even a small number of contributors. You could pick out about half a dozen biggest contributors to en.WP's metalworking coverage, plus a couple dozen minor contributors, and find that 80% to 90% of the coverage so far is a result of those few souls (out of X-hundred-million English speakers on the planet). The same no doubt carries to other Wikipedias too (de, fr, es, etc). It seems to be a degree of leverage that's orders of magnitude beyond the Pareto principle (80-20) or even the 89-10-1 principle. There are actually many areas of Wikipedia where some large fraction of this extreme ratio holds. Sometimes it blows my mind when I think enough about it. For example, if one added up all the pageviews of all WikiProject Metalworking articles per month, it would be hundreds of thousands—and all of that knowledge base usage, all of that question-answering and learning, is dependent on, albeit not "exclusively provided by", a dozen-odd people's contributions. This may provide motivation to those of us who contribute—knowing that we actually make a difference.
It seems that the only practical advice I can give, regarding the question "any suggestions for maybe getting the project up to date and working again," is that it's active as long as individuals like you or me are. Maybe not "bustling", but at least alive. I do feel that Wikipedia needs more contributors from industrial and trades occupations, from engineering to tradespeople. Some reasons for "why not more already participating" are pondered here. One suggestion for a (big-picture) way to boost participation is pondered here.
Oh well, bedtime for me. Glad you're interested in being a Wikipedian—see you around! — ¾-10 02:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:METALS project page rewrite[edit]

I've done a rewrite of the project page for WikiProject:Metalworking; you can find it here. I'm considering pushing it forward and making it the actual page; I did this basically to make it a little cleaner, clearer, and make sure that it gets updated and noticed. Do you think this is unneccessary, or have recommendations, objections, or anything? I said something on the talk page for the project, but I doubt it will get much notice or response. --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 15:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Overall sounds good. Guess I have only one recommendation so far—I would leave the list of contributors as a table, for a couple reasons. One, there's space for each person to leave a comment, which gives them a way to express themselves. Two, better to avoid a numbered list IMO, in order to avoid implying rank. In fact, alphabetical order might be good for that reason. Other than those thoughts, everything else looks good. — ¾-10 00:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your work on Manifold (engineering) --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 20:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ironworker (machine) reference[edit]

The article Ironworker (machine) needs some serious work, but I can't really do much without a source to work from. The problem is, google searching or library catalogue searching doesn't give me anything to work with because "Ironworker" is such a generic term. Do you have any suggestions for narrowing my search for a source?

I may need to just grab a book about machine tools and pageflip 'till I find a mention of an ironworker... --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 14:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My best suggestion as of this writing is to search Google Books (http://books.google.com/). Make use also of its advanced search form (http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search), where you can better control the parameters of the search. The reason Google Books is a killer app for various kinds of research (armchair and otherwise) is that it really is the only place in the world (that I know of) where millions of books from the 19th and 20th centuries can have search-inside-the-book performed on them, free and fast. Google is not the only organization with search-inside-the-book capabilities (see Amazon, Internet Archive, Lexis Nexis, others), but they are so much more useful to schmoes like me, so far, than anyone else. Many copyright holders (authors, publishers) have hated them for their massive scanning and OCRing of whole libraries, but I disagree, because the way they've done the user interface, access restrictions, etc, does not, in my view, hurt anyone's sales and, quite the opposite, must certainly help them by helping customers to find what they want and pointing them down the conversion funnel toward buying it. Meanwhile, everything that was published in the U.S. before 1923 is public domain in the U.S., and Google Books is the one place where you can really search and browse inside that corpus. It's been a tremendous boost to humanity IMO, and not at all detrimental in the ways that poorly informed naysayers feared it would be. Anyway, I digress ... I don't know who/when/where regarding the origins of calling the multipurpose fabrication machines "ironworkers". I would bet money on my gut guesses that (1) it came after the tradesman sense of the term, and that (2) it began as someone's brand name, although it is long since genericized. I just searched Google Books for ironworker punch and saw results that prove that it's been a generic term for the category of machines since at least the 1960s. My gut says that if I spent another 15 minutes rooting around in there, refining my search strategies, I could probably figure out how many decades back it goes, and maybe a company where it seems to have originated ... Take a look and see what you can find! HTH, — ¾-10 00:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
PS: My wanderings inside Google Books have led me to the opinion that old advertisements in magazines and trade journals are perhaps a greater wealth of industrial history information than are the newsholes themselves (book and article texts). One could ponder why this is true and arrive at some pretty deep thoughts about the nature of socioeconomics, education, and other topics. It's for the same deeply underlying reasons that the McMaster-Carr and MSC Industrial Direct catalogs provide more training on more industrial topics, in some ways, than school tuition can. Someday I may gather my thoughts on this topic into a userspace essay or something. — ¾-10 00:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Industrial etching and Chemical milling merge[edit]

I recently merged the Industrial etching and Chemical milling articles. Johnbod opened up a discussion on Talk:Industrial etching#Merge with Chemical milling disagreeing with the merge, and he and I have discussed it extensively with no indication of consensus arriving any time soon. Would you mind weighing in, if only so the discussion can be brought to a close soon? Thanks. Kierkkadon talk/contribs 17:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I will do that. Hopefully you can give me a few days, because I lack time at the moment. I will try to remember to get back to this (wrote myself a sticky note). — ¾-10 22:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I put in my "third opinion" comment on that page. — ¾-10 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Invention[edit]

Pod lípou návrhovou cs znak.svg
Hello, Three-quarter-ten.

You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pburka (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Good[edit]

Very good

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fred H. Colvin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • || New York, Derry-Collard; London, Locomotive Publishing Company (US-UK co-edition)zed book link]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Here you said; "It is OK if the thing you are photographing is patented; what counts re copyright is that you are the creator of the photograph". Does that also apply if you take a photo of another photo? (ie: a magazine cover?) - theWOLFchild 19:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that's different, although it doesn't necessarily mean that "no use at all" can be made of the image. In such a case the magazine publisher or the content creators own the copyright (depending on what agreement they have with each other), although other people can use the image in limited ways under what is called fair use. For example, Wikipedia (WP) can use a low-resolution image of a cover of an issue of Better Homes and Gardens magazine in the Wikipedia article "Better Homes and Gardens (magazine)". The image filename is File:Better Homes and Gardens (magazine cover).jpg. Click through to that, and click the link that says "Learn more". It takes you to a page where you can read the licensing of that image. It states that neither WP nor the user who scanned and uploaded it owns the copyright to the image, and that the copyright "is most likely held by either the publisher of the magazine or the individual contributors who worked on the cover depicted." Under "Fair use rationale", it lists the reasons why WP considers a certain limited use of the image to be fair (thus "fair use"). What it boils down to is that WP's use of the image is so limited that it is not depriving the copyright owners of any of their revenues or rights. No one is making money off it, it's not hurting their sales, it's not insulting them or the product in any way, it's not high-enough resolution to be used for professional-grade printing, there's no free image available that could be used instead to achieve the same purpose, etc, etc. For the definitive explanation of fair use on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Non-free content.
  What you put your finger on is really a middle case between the two ends of the spectrum, that is, between (1) taking a photo of, say, a Glock-brand pistol or a Ford-brand car (which is clearly a case where you own the copyright to that photo; Glock or Ford does not) and (2) scanning the pages of a copyrighted written text and then distributing the images such that people can read the text (which is clearly a case of violating the copyright; you might ask, well doesn't Google Books and Amazon "search inside" do that? But they are different because they only let you see small snippets, then encourage you to buy a copy from the copyright owner if you want to read the whole thing; you can't evade the copyright by using those services). This middle ground (say, a magazine cover) reflects the "some of both" nature of the thing—the image photographer/scanner/uploader doesn't own copyright to the image, but they can make limited fair use of the image. — ¾-10 22:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of drill and tap sizes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • by itself does not tell you this; but the 85% ± 2 [[percentage point|pp]] guideline supports it).
  • by itself does not tell you this; but the 90% ± 2 [[percentage point|pp]] guideline supports it).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Coal scrip/Company Scrip[edit]

I agree with the move and yes, with the current content of the scrip article. I however have a slight contention with the idea of an area being cash poor. At first, YES, the areas were remote and yes, were in some cases cash poor. HOWEVER it is not a universal characteristic. The example would be the coal scrip I posted from Hot Coal, West Virginia. The winding gulf bank resided at Hot Coal for many years before moving to the city of Beckley. How can a place be cash poor, if a bank resides in its immediate limits??Coal town guy (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt you're correct—all I did was merge the existing text into the {main} article. I didn't change the content of the paragraph. Feel free to improve it—thanks for the note. — ¾-10 13:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your reply. There re a few articles which I am trying to improve which promote the mythos of a coal mining town, but not its reality. Thats why I am sincerely appreciative of any edit which is factualCoal town guy (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Remote citation needed[edit]

We would need to think about what you mean by remote as far as a coal town. The active ones I have been to are remote, BUT they can be accessed by hard top road. However, they are typically nowhere near a high density populated place or city. Current, examples, East Gulf, West Virginia, ITS REMOTE, BUT it is far more accessible than say, Hot Coal, West Virginia which is extinct and never driveable in a normal vehicle, or rather a vehicle you care about.....Coal town guy (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The thought behind that "mention the present day" edit is that, regarding present-day coal mining areas, no matter where in, say, West Virginia or Indiana you go, there are things like rural development, U.S. currency, electricity, indoor plumbing, paved roads, mobile phones, the internet, and potential medevac that are not very far away. So there are towns in those states that began as coal towns and in some cases can still be considered coal towns (mining is a mainstay of the local economy), but they're no longer camps in the wilderness with company scrip for payroll, nowhere to buy anything except the company store, and no medical care within 3 days' travel except the company dispensary. Just trying to convey the differences from the 19th century. The article talks about "what coal towns were back when", but it should also mention "what some coal towns are today"—towns that would seem "regular" to most folks, with nearby mines that are highly mechanized. Oh well, I lack time to do more with it, but see you around ... — ¾-10 02:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Plain bearing[edit]

Re: Plain bearing#Bushing. Thanks for resolving the clenched conundrum. Peter Horn User talk 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

German W and V[edit]

Hello, Three-quarter-ten. Regarding this edit on Hypercorrection, could you either cite a reliable source or re-remove the content? I ask as a favor and perhaps also as a challenge. I spent about an hour and a half searching for academic literature discussing this German hypercorrection, but all I could find was a footnote in a 1928 issue of American Speech suggesting that English-speaking comedy writers use this (mis)pronunciation to stereotype German speakers due to the similarity of [β] with [v] and [w]. There seem to be assertions of this type on the web, but these appear to be based on (a) English speakers' perceptions or stereotypes about German, (b) the Star Trek character Mr. Chekov (an American actor playing a Russian character, with no reference to German), or (c) this section of the Wikipedia article. Maybe there are academic sources in German. There may even be some in English – as I say, I only searched for an hour and a half. But so far, the whole section strikes me as problematic. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I know it's true because I've heard it in the speech of several speakers. However, I have realized that it's not that important to me whether Wikipedia discusses it or not. So I just restored the deletion. Regards, — ¾-10 00:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)