User talk:Count Iblis

Reply

If you disagree with the delisting of the article, then perhaps you should renominate it for an FLC. If someone had given a sign that they were adressing concerns, then it would have been left open, but nobody did so it was delisted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray's Rules

I have a list of ten rules as a reminder on my office wall. One is "don't waste your time arguing with an idiot." Apply liberally to affected areas. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I'm the author of the article Myrzakulov equations and I'm not the author of these equations. But I would like ask you to keep this my article. Ngn 92.46.65.69 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

my responce

My responce to your "solution" to "combat pedophillia" is to ban all illegeal sites in the USA. The "explict images of underage person(s)" is illegeal and against USA , and International laws. Did you at least read the ANI discussion on the subject of it. Just looking illegeal, its the same thing if someone saw the images at their work , its illegel and wrong. Why would Wikipedia host illegeal images. Their violating USA Laws. And you Count your pro-pedo because you support. SHAME ON YOU . You have been warned.--Rio de oro (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an absolutely bloody outrageous personal attack to call someone pro pedo simply because they disagree with you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why I did what I did was just standing for what I belive in okay. I just thought it was unethical for grown men to have "images of youth"(umbrella term) in an obsecne manner. I just thought why does wikipedia allow this for. I may have jumped the gun , and acted like Joe MacCarthy , and started a witch hunt for pedos , I'm sorry for that. I just thought that Dr. guy was really a peodphile that hurt kids. I stand for what I believe is right , and good. Okay. I just thought if a person(s) has in poseesion X rated images of kids its illegal offence because of all the laws the USA law has passes in Congrees ,and the Senate okay. The thing about Interpol is that I was just upset by the fact that people didnt do something about the matter regarding the Dr, and his collection OF "PICS". I thought he was from overseas , and I requeted a checkuser on his ip adress, because I thought he broke International Laws on poessing obcene images. There I said it. --Rio de oro (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you might have had a case there, child porn is illegal. However, a posting a checkuser would be pointless since they wouldn't disclose information to you. I have a feeling that you would have gotten a better response if you would have notified you state attorney general, they could transfer the case to the proper authorities in the area where the abuse was coming from, and I'm sure checkuser would gladly cooperate with any state attorney general unlike regular users like you and me. If it was bonafide child porn, you would not be wasting your time contacting such agencies. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. If you'd like to participate in drafting it, please feel free. Cla68 (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition at Robot

Hi. Your sentence would probably make more sense in the Future of robotics article, which could use some help. Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helmholtz free energy

If IUPAC says A (rather than F) shouldn't we go with that?

As I understand it, F is deprecated because Chemists used to use it for the Gibbs free energy. Jheald (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my textbooks used F as well, with A used for Availability (a.k.a. Exergy).

But I think A is widely used now (and is used in other articles on Wikipedia). Can I suggest restore A for the time being, but (once you've finished your edits to the rest of the article) maybe raise it at WikiProjects Physics, Chemistry and Engineering, so as to canvass wider opinion at on the talk page? Cheers, Jheald (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Perhaps you should improve Count Iblis, as I've left a tag on it ([1]). Your curious username is the reason I visited the article.Bless sins (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adiabatic process

Hi Count Iblis. On 16 June you amended Adiabatic process by adding the statement: In theoretical physics, by "adiabatic process", one usually means a reversible adiabatic process. You left no citation to support your statement. The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:Verifiable

I disagree with your addition. A reversible adiabatic process is an important sub-set of all adiabatic processes, but it is incorrect to suggest all adiabatic processes are also reversible. The Second Law of Thermodynamics focusses on the reversibility of adiabatic processes - there are many adiabatic processes but only a small proportion of them are reversible. It can be shown that a reversible adiabatic process takes place with constant entropy. If you believe your added statement is correct please add a citation to support it. If you have changed your mind, please delete your statement. Happy editing! Dolphin51 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isenthalpic process

Hi again Count Iblis! In addition to my comments immediately above, I need to draw your attention to your recent changes to Isenthalpic process. You summarised your changes by writing: Note that the system must be at constant pressure and hence will in general do work. You also deleted the word pressure from a statement that, in an isenthalpic process there will generally be significant changes in pressure and temperature. You left no citation to support your changes.

The article Isenthalpic process now contains a statement that the throttling process (in which a fluid passes from higher pressure to lower without exchange of heat or work with the environment) is a good example of an isenthalpic process. It also contains your changes indicating constant pressure is a significant criterion for an isenthalpic process. Isenthalpic process is therefore now self-contradictory.

My understanding of an isenthalpic process has always been that it is simply any process that takes place with no change in enthalpy; and that significant changes in pressure or temperature do not disqualify a process from being isenthalpic. Please review your changes and post a suitable citation to support your changes. If you are unable to post a suitable citation please delete your changes. The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:Verifiability. Best wishes. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revisions to Joule-Thomson effect

Your revisions to the subject article misleads readers into thinking that a Joule-Thomson effect requires a free expansion through a porous plug. There are quite literally hundreds of Joule-Thomson effects used in industrial plants (crogenic processes, natural gas processing, helium production, low temperature fractionation systems and various petrochemical plants) where the free expansion occurs through a throttling valve ... not a porous plug.

Using a porous plug may be the way its done in a physics laboratory, but it is not how its done on an industrial scale by chemical engineers and others. Please redo your revisions to use the "throttling device" or something similar to replace "porous plug". Thanks in advance. - mbeychok (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the Talk page of Joule-Thomson effect

What make me sick is when some young college student says of any article "... it almost made me sick to read that". You need some lessons on how to interact with people. That may be how people behave in that alternate universe you claim to be from, but it is really childish behavior here on earth. Grow up! - mbeychok (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Count Iblis, in recent times you have reverted legitimate edits on Isenthalpic process to repeatedly impose your particular view of what the article should say. Most recently, you deleted my reference to Van Wylen and Sonntag’s excellent book Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, and my citation of Section 5.13 of that book. I regard your activities on Isenthalpic process as a form of vandalism. You have never added a citation to this article to support your point of view.

Please cease your repeated reverting of legitimate edits. If you disagree with what is being said please explain this in detail on the talk page. You have repeatedly made claims about errors but your efforts to explain these errors are very unclear. It is foolish to claim there are many errors without satisfactorily explaining what you think these errors are.

Become a member of the Wikipedia community and participate as an equal, not as a superior. Please stop being a vandal. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JT effect

Do you plan to keep working on that article for a little while? Headbomb {^{— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.}
_{— ταλκ / Wikiproject Physics: Projects of the Week} 01:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do any significant edits in the coming days. The appendix needs to be renamed as you pointed out but that can be done tomorrow, or you or someone else could do that.... Count Iblis (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nevermind then. Headbomb {^{— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.}
_{— ταλκ / Wikiproject Physics: Projects of the Week} 01:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]