User talk:Wikianon

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Some P. E rson 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

2007-10-20T16:32:04 | new articles | notepad | vandal info | mystylesheets

cats and interwikis

I guessedf you meant trireme... Thankis for the note. Rich Farmbrough 20:19 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Citation on Galileo Galilei

Thanks for the citation you recently added to the Galileo Galilei article. I have reformatted it to make it more consistent with the style used for most other citations in the article. Please take a look to check that you find the changes satisfactory. In particular, the details I added for the reference to Brodrick's book may not be for the same edition you were referring to. If not, please correct them. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks for improving the referencing on 1/0 and adding the WCCA nominations. That ought to keep the article going for the foreseeable future. I'm undeleting, rationalizing and readding the image of Junior as we speak. Type. As I type. --Kizor 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reactor dynamics

To someone inexperienced in such things, a 4-millisecond time estimate may sound like someone's best guess...but to a nuclear engineer, these sort of post-event analyses are quite within the realm of solid mathematics and engineering. The SL-1 core had a well-known amount of reactivity, and its control rods had a well-known cross-section for neutron absorption...etc., etc.

BTW, the 20 gigawatts is cited elsewhere, as I recall, but there's no need for it as NASA's analysis can stand on its own. If this sort of thing isn't within your realm of experience and/or education, you might want to focus on something else. No harm, no foul. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maasia & Culture Merger Proposal

Practically no one else has joined this discussion. I think it is time to take a next step, and delete the now very redundant, etc etc Culture article. Most of what is in there is now in the Maasai artilce. Can you facilitate that, or do I have to wade through it myself? Steve Pastor (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the work I have done on the Maasai article. Note that all material from the Culture article has been preserved on the Maasai Discussion page. Will you join me in a call for deletion of the Culture article? (And tell me how to get that going?) Steve Pastor (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Are the term "Akali" and "Nihang" one and same thing ? Jon Ascton (talk)

Burmese cat

Hello. With this edit, you broke the referencing in the burmese cat article. Do you think you could fix it so that it still does what you want? What were you trying to do? Skittle (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copy of my reply on your Talk page) I have changed the references style with a note on Talk:Burmese (cat). They weren't really broken; I was trying to move towards a separate bibliography section as per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations, but I would agree that there are too few frequently used cites to do this yet. -Wikianon (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I thought I was probably missing the point :) Thanks. I can see how it could be useful in an article with a lot of inline references that only used a few sources, but its use here just confused me. Although if I were going to use it in the sort of article it would be useful for, I'd probably put the footnotes and the references the other way round, so that the actual reference sources were at the end. Meh, you learn something new :-D Skittle (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

linkspam?!

Could someone please explain why TimeReq.com was removed from the World clock page? Half of the other links have ads and spam throughout them. So, it would seem hypocritical to remove one that has a simple purpose without removing the others. brihar73 —Preceding comment was added at 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copy of my reply on User talk:Brihar73) All the links used advertising of one kind or another. However I have restored that one and cleaned up some others, see my reasons at Talk:World clock#linkspam. However, please read WP:EXT#Advertising and conflicts of interest (COI) to ensure there is no conflict of interest in your edits. Other editors may remove such COI edits. Wikianon (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Energy

Thank you for recognizing how poor the "energy absorbed by the oceans" number was. I was the original contributor of this information but it never got a good citation. The citation always bugged me but I was moving through the page as a whole so the citation slipped from my mind - my bad. I wrote to a fellow at Texas A&M today who has a webpage explaining energy flows and the oceans. The preliminary indication is that the oceans absorb something like 3800 ZJ out of the total 3850 ZJs of solar energy absorbed by the earth i.e. the number I added was over an order of magnitude off. This is surprising but because water is a transparent fluid of high specific heat capacity the light that falls on it is slowly absorbed through its depth all the way down to 100m whereas the light that falls on the 29% of the earth that is dirt and such is mostly reflected and only influences the top meter's temperature. The end result seems to be that 71% of the earth's surface absorbs over 99% of the solar radiation of the total solar energy absorbed by the earth. As I said above this is the preliminary indication so the numbers I'm throwing out might be a bit off but a significant change is required and this is news to me.

So... This shows me how powerful good questions can be by indirectly pointing out that the sun is the primary driver of the climate through its interaction with the oceans. Again... tremendously good catch. It should have been a no brainer but it stood there from 5 months and thousands of views. I'm always proud of myself when I see the obvious in the midst of a blind crowd so I must complement you on doing the same when I was one of the blind myself. Cheers. Mrshaba (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Godvia Question Answered!

I just wanted to say thanks so much for the question you answered in the talk section of criticality accident about the Godiva Device.

You input was really interesting, and thanks for citing outside material. I really dig the Godiva device, because it's one of those strange attempts at pushing the envelope.

Thanks again!

72.23.80.194 (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]