User talk:Wtshymanski: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:22, 11 March 2011

Grrr, Grr...go away

I'm an uncivil editor, I am, I am. I might dare to disagree with you. (I might even, rarely, be right).

B*ching and moaning

Edit warring

If you parse "official" narrowly enough, you can make it mean anything you want...though it helps to have an admin hammer to make consensus. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba

Oh thank you, I was *so* worried I wasn't going to have permission from some anonymous person on the Wikipedia to have my own opinions.--Wtshymanski (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If arrogance was petroleum, the Mideast and the tar sands would be out of business. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise using a different example

I'd advise using a different example... Cheers!--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at Energy and the environment I'm not sure that also doesn't deserve an AfD. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very well may agree with you there. But I only suggested changing it there so that someone doesn't inevitably point it out leading to side conversations and distracting from the main argument and all that jazz.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also weak and, once again, you do have the right to ignore my input, I won't be hurt, but hmm. Heh.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me I haven't hit another one this time. But it's useful to see that "...and the environment" produces a whole set of feeble articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... management" is another MUAG (Mostly Useless Article Group). Jeh (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And so Environmental management must exist...at least it's not "Management and the environment". --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd try to delete or merge the worst duplications if I had more time, but it can be stressful and time consuming.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NoPoPo Carbon Magnesium Battery

Hi, I see you deleted my edit and called it vandalism. It was not. But I could see how you thought it would be from the silly name. I put it back. -kslays (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were no references, and it was added to a redlink. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paper machine

The references you are deleting meet Wikipedia guidelines, which specify that the sources be: 1. Reliable and 2. Published. These sources are both as the Technical Association for the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) has published books containing this information and currently publish the materials on CDs. Most industry professionals are familiar with this material and many have the referenced publications.

Those aren't references. It's no good saying that you can take a pulp and paper industry course. You need to properly cite a specific title, hopefully with page references and an ISBN. You might as well cite a 4-year history degree as a "reference" for the French Revolution. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is to make sure that references are factual, not that they are freely available. Ordinarily this type of reference material is not widely available in any industry, so perhaps this article is too technical for the average reader. This information is available at the Institute of Paper Science library at Georgia Tech, which I once had a library card for; however, even that cost me $40 about 15 years ago. I wrote most of the article myself, based on my experience as one of the leading professionals in the field (Senior Corporate Staff Paper Engineer for the world's largest paper company) and I have given what I believe to be the best references. To provide the information from individual sources is impractical because of the complicated nature of the individual component technologies, most of which would again only be available in pulp and paper libraries. Again, if you do not agree with the Wikipedia policy, you should not be editing; nor should you try to edit something for which you do not have the expertise.Phmoreno (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you're Stephen bloody Hawking, a secret reference is no reference. Saying "Somebody has a 3-ring binder with all this stuff in it some where" isn't a reference. Don't give the "best" reference, give one that someone could get by interlibrary loan. You don't give a publisher, date, or accurate title of any of the secret documents you allege are references. In spite of what voodoo practitioners think, their rites and cantrips are all on the public record somewhere. So should it be with the pulp and paper business. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Paper Institute library http://www.ipst.gatech.edu/ used to have a research service where they would retrieve articles for a fee, so if there is anything you would like additional information on you can get it by mail. Of course you have to pay for the library card.Phmoreno (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then put this in the citations so that a reader can contact this institution and request the 3-ring binder, though it would also be useful if you'd identify the title of the document, author, date...you know, bibiliographic stuff? As an industry professional you are doubtless familiar with the requirements for bibliographic information in all references, and Wikipedia needs no less. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TAPPI is the publisher, as was noted. The books for the courses have numerous authors and they are updated annually. Again, the sources were listed and also the link to the Paper Institute was there, but I will redo the refs and refer to the library. Removing references that you know nothing about is vandalism. If you want to add to the refs you are certainly welcome to; however, being ignorant of the reference material or too lazy to check with the library is no excuse. Anyone who seriously wants the information can get it as long as the references I added are there.Phmoreno (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to proper citation of these documents. If I had removed someothing that looked like a reference, you may have had a point - but a mysterious assertion that somewhere there exists hidden knowledge, is not a reference in the sense used here on Wikipedia. As an industry insider, you may have noticed bibliographic references written at the ends of papers you've seen - we need similar citations here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are subject matter expert, and perhaps even if you are, the discussion page is the appropriate place to put proposed changes. Please do not tamper with material unless you are absolutely certain that it is in error. If something needs upgrading, per WIki policy, the discussion page is again the appropriate place if a "needs citation" tag is not adequate.

I may only have seen a paper machine once, but you don't have to be a subject matter expert to recognize a faulty citation. This is a common fault of subject matter experts on Wikipedia - they airly assume everyone has the same 5-foot shelf of books they do, and so don't bother opening the front cover and writing down all that stuff that appears on the copyright page. Such authors are considered lazy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Personal computer's talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Stability eqn.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stability eqn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. mechamind 9 0 07:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor grammar note

Hello.
I thought it might be helpful if I perhaps explained the difference. It's what's known as the use-mention distinction. If you say, "a dog refers to a canine", you're saying that some dog itself likes making reference to a particular canine. If, however, you say, "the term 'dog' refers to a canine", then you're making a declaration about the word 'dog'. In the former case, "dog" is being used. In the latter, it's being mentioned. In the absence of actual quotes, omitting "the phrase", "the word", or "the term" firmly cements the meaning as a declaration about the animal, rather than the word.

It's similar to the difference between saying, "I like magma", and "I like 'magma'". If you were to assume that italicized words should always be treated as though they were quoted, you could use it as an alternative to the latter, but that would be somewhat nonstandard and ambiguous. However, it becomes entirely unambiguous when you change it to, "I like the word 'magma'". (Of course, this assumes that you're expressing a fondness for saying 'magma', rather than a fondness for glowing rock sludge. And, really, who doesn't like both?)

Unfortunately, as this is a semi-dynamic IP, a reply on my own talk page wouldn't really work. That said, it certainly won't offend me if you simply delete (and disregard) this note. However, I'd greatly prefer that you not again revert the article to the grammatically incorrect version. 139.57.100.63 (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:MyContributions|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> [[User:Mechamind90|<font color="#0000FF">mechamind</font>]][[User talk:Mechamind90|<font color="#009900">9</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Mechamind90|<font color="#FF0000">0</font>]] 07:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
+== Minor grammar note ==
+Hello.<br/>
+I thought it might be helpful if I perhaps explained the difference. It's what's known as the ''use-mention distinction''.
+If you say, "a dog refers to a canine", you're saying that some dog itself likes making reference to a particular canine. If, however, you say, "the term 'dog' refers to a canine", then you're making a declaration about ''the word'' 'dog'.
+In the former case, "dog" is being ''used''. In the latter, it's being ''mentioned''. In the absence of actual quotes, omitting "the phrase", "the word", or "the term" firmly cements the meaning as a declaration about the animal, rather than the word.
+It's similar to the difference between saying, "I like magma", and "I like 'magma'". If you were to assume that italicized words should ''always'' be treated as though they were quoted, you could use it as an alternative to the latter, but that would be somewhat nonstandard and ambiguous. However, it becomes entirely unambiguous when you change it to, "I like the word 'magma'". (Of course, this assumes that you're expressing a fondness for saying 'magma', rather than a fondness for glowing rock sludge. And, really, who doesn't like ''both''?)
+Unfortunately, as this is a semi-dynamic IP, a reply on my own talk page wouldn't really work. That said, it certainly won't offend me if you simply delete (and disregard) this note. However, I'd greatly prefer that you not again revert the article to the grammatically incorrect version. [[Special:Contributions/139.57.100.63|139.57.100.63]] ([[User talk:139.57.100.63|talk]]) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)