User talk:Wizard191

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Reference for mold constant

The text I acquired the equation from is in a series of PDF's that do not state their creators, publish date or anything else about their creation. Sorry. I too spent a couple hours trying to find the blasted thing online but to no avail so I gave up trying to find it online and pulled up the PDF so that I could put it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.67.160 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright...thanks for the equation! Wizard191 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!

I would like to take this chance to thank you for your informative guides :)

Clarajohnson (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert red links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moving to the article talk page, where this conversation should be happening. Wizard191 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are good for the wiki. Leave it in. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with red links in general, but I do for hatnotes. If you are working on an article, just add the link once the article exists. That seems pretty easy to me, so I don't get why this is a big deal. Wizard191 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3RR

Exactly, it's not such a big deal, so why did you risk me blocking you for the 3RR you just committed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:3RR, because I didn't commit it. Wizard191 (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flow drilling > friction drilling

I agree to your comments on Flow drilling. So I moved (copy-paste) the whole page to 'friction drilling', replaced every word 'flow drill' by 'friction drill' and then I replaced the original 'flow drilling' page by a 'redirect' to the new lemma. But now I see that that move is just reverted. Did I do something wrong? I just wanted to remove the regd. trade mark term as you suggested, but I seem to have done it the wrong way. ? In my talk, I am referred to the sandbox, but (having done more than 200 modifications in the Dutch Wikipedia) I think I have grown too old now for the sand box. --Erik Wannee (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do anything terribly wrong, but when a page needs to move, it must be done the right way (at WP:Requested moves) not via copy and pasting. This is because of licensing issues that must retain the edit history. I already listed it at WP:Requested moves, so the ball is rolling in the right direction now. Wizard191 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind advice. I learned a lot. (But I think I can better sometimes make a mistake than doing nothing at all.) I will keep my hands off this item now for a while and see the ball rolling. --Erik Wannee (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The move was completed yesterday, and I just went through and cleaned it up a little. Feel free to work on it now, if you have anything more to add. Wizard191 (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casting (metalworking)/Terminology

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Casting (metalworking)/Terminology, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.me.unlv.edu/Undergraduate/coursenotes/wang/meg426/web/wk7/class1.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Casting (metalworking)/Terminology

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Casting (metalworking)/Terminology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} 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 hang-on 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. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 16:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Casting terminology

A tag has been placed on Template:Casting terminology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} 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 hang-on 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 16:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cathodic Protection

Hi, I realise I was a bit premature in removing the references tag from the Cathodic protection article, which you reverted the other day. I've since revised the article and added more references and I'm planning to remove the tag again. There are a still a few unreferenced sections, but nothing too controversial that's likely to be challenged, I think. However, I am still researching sources and will add more as I find them. In the meantime, before I remove the tag again, I'd be grateful for your opinion, if you have time. Apau98 (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its looking good. I'd be OK with removing it now. Wizard191 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drill

Hi, I noticed you reverted my changes when I removed the following text from a comment:

"IF YOU CAME HERE EITHER TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DOWN SYNDROME OR TO PATRONIZE OR SEQUESTER THEM, SIMPLY CLICK "CANCEL" ON YOUR EDIT TOOLBAR."

I felt there were a number of issues, in particular it did not actually provide much information to editors about what the problem was. I have replaced it with the following:

"Current consensus is that the previous image should not be removed. Please do not remove without discussing this on the talk page"

This comment indicates what the isue is and will be more helpful to editors. If you are unhappy with this comment, please discuss before reverting as this will be more constructive than simply going through the whole edit/revert/edit/revert loop. Thx 87.114.2.26 (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me; just as long as there's a notice there informing editors that there is consensus to leave the image alone. Wizard191 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, looks like that's resolved. I'll keep an eye on the article for a while to see if any other editor has an issue with the rephrase 87.114.2.26 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Wizard191,

There is incomplete information on Biodegradable Plastic as well as BioPlastics.

Most of the information is advertising BPI( A 3rd party Certification entity, not even a testing lab, they charge $4500 for the certification and require a membership fee) PLA, PHA etc..these are resins which comply with BPI's standards. You can also convert Petroleum plastics into biodegradable plastics as seen on websites across the internet. Please review the intended links so you are aware of the changes.

Please take into consideration if you are going to allow them to have their advertising, the flip side should allow for information to be supplied to the public as well.

Information is key and I do believe the public should be entitled to both sides rather then a biased opinion.

Thank You, Callsign — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callsign (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Callsign (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove the other advert. in the article; however, its existence doesn't give you (nor anyone else) good reason to add more advertising. Wizard191 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem will do, My next question is why did you delete the EPA's information on methane capturing? There is no reference to "MOST" landfills let off methane gas and aren't captured. I am simply stating this information as incorrect. I sit on Methane to Markets ran by the EPA, after 1999 and the clean air act all landfills that take over 20 MT of garbage must be schedule D landfills. Please don't delete the information on Methane to Markets as this is ran by the EPA and I would site them as a source of knowledge since they regulate landfills.Callsign (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methane to Markets no longer exists to http://www.globalmethane.org/ , which does say that's its a global entity (and it looks so according to the big map on the home page). As such, I'm sure the EPA doesn't run it. Therefore its no different than BPI, which I saw you recently deleted. Wizard191 (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Turning

Hello,

Thanks for correcting the error I made on the citation about electroless nickel and plated aluminum. It was actually just my own expansion to broaden the material list so that it contains more accurate descriptions, but I have to make sure it's cited (or not). I'll change it at some point in the future to include additional materials from other sources.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Casale (talk • contribs) 17:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. Wizard191 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ductile iron pipe#Europe

User:Peter Horn/Sandbox#Ductile iron pipe#Europe & Ductile iron pipe#Europe. That was precisely what I wanted and needed, we are in the {{clear}} now. As you can see I have implemented this in the article. Thanks a million. Peter Horn User talk 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. Wizard191 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mushet

I know you've written about Mushet and Mushet Steel onWikipedia in the past, so I thougt you might be interested to know that I've begun an article on Darkhill Ironworks, where he worked. Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, however, that's getting quite outside my realm of expertise. Keep up the good work nonetheless! Wizard191 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caption links

I noticed that you removed links from a caption in brass, citing overlinking. While I appreciate the concern about a sea of blue and such, I think it's important to have links from captions as one's attention is often independently drawn to images, and linking below them seems a natural, important, and non-redundant utility in learning. Would you offer other thoughts, or perhaps point to relevant guidelines? ENeville (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:OVERLINK; if you still strongly feel that the links should stand after reading the guideline, then revert me. Wizard191 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linchpin

I guess I don't understand if the additional use of the word belongs in the Wiktionary why the original word is in the Wikipedia? It was a valid reference to the use of this word for a thing that is NOT a thing. Pabobfin (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC) regards[reply]

Please review WP:NOTDICT. If you think the topic still doesn't violated WP:NOTDICT and it is notable enough for Wikipedia, then the topic deserves it's own article; perhaps linchpin (politics)? Wizard191 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal conductivity

I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, but I'm interested to know why you say that Thermal conductivity uses American English? Looking back over the history of the article it seems to have been using metres rather than meters (apart from one relatively recent introduction of meters when there were already a number of instances of metres). The only sign I can see of long-standing Americanese is a sulfur, but there is also an aluminium. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second edit to the article includes the American spelling of "meter"; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermal_conductivity&diff=154401&oldid=154397. Wizard191 (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steel alloys

As it seems, you are good at answering questions about Chemistry. Well, you see, i am struggling on the topic of steel alloys and i would love some help? Reply if you can please? :D Kimberly K. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.18.100 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, where or what's the question? Wizard191 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loctite entry status

Hi,

Where do we stand on the flag of the Loctite entry for allegedly sounding like an advertisement? Your last post in the talk page said you would listen to other thoughts on the matter. This was back in November, and only one has been posted since - last month (just noticed this myself), agreeing that the piece meets Wikipedia's objectivity standards. I understand one more opinion does not constitute overwhelming evidence, but I would like to have this resolved one way or another soon. Perhaps asking for a third opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.244.240 (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the third opinion I'll remove the tag. Wizard191 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Loctite is very commonly used and referred to among technicians and engineers. The page seems OK to me, but I've heard that my eyes don't see commercialism as well as some. Perhaps I'm exposed to so much that I automatically disregard large portions of it.

Anyhow, it's fine with me if you want the Loctite page revsied, but I think that it would be good to at least retain some shred of the reference. As a new professor of engineering, after having been in industry for 14 years, I often send my students to Wikipedia to begin to get a handle on anything that is unfamiliar to them. It is a wonderful starting point for a person who has no idea of the universe of things awaiting them in a topic area! Last week, for example, I noticed that nearly all of the presentations in my Design class started with Wikipedia and followed the paths laid down here to other references that they might otherwise never have found.

Thank you!

Crystal

CHeshmat (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

Hi,

I hope you don't mind -- I'm trying out this new option to give people stars and kittens. The one labled "Defender of the Wiki" seemed best for your work that I've read so far.

Thanks!

CHeshmat (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! Although I don't know how deserving I am right now, because I've been pretty inactive over the last few weeks. Wizard191 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Catalogs

Hey Wiz, before we continue with the deletion/addition game, I thought I'd chat with you a little. In the Wiki guidelines on links to avoid there is no prohibition of catalogs per se, even though catalogs are explicitly commercial. As long as the links provide an additional resource containing information useful to someone seeking more information on a topic, they have merit. The links I provided in the roller screw article go into a level of detail and specificity on the topic that the article does not. Thus the links have merit. If you disagree, then perhaps we should open the discussion up in a broader forum. I await your response. In the meantime, I'll leave the article as it stands after your last deletion. Cheers, Catsquisher (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long delay, but I don't have much time for Wikipedia these days. Please outline what in the catalogs you feel is important to the article, on the article talk page, so that we can discuss this more. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob on the delay; we're all busy. The catalogs I linked to have images, details and specific information including sizes, configurations, loading (e.g. dynamic and static), lubrication, mounting, efficiency, applications, lifetime, mechanical equations (e.g. speed, buckling and deflection), etc. The catalogs happen to be some of the most informative and readily available resources on the subject. As I stated previously, I believe they are likely useful to many seeking more information than the article provides. But there's no need for me to tell you. When you have a moment why don't you take a look? Per your request I'm also posting a related comment on the article's talk page presently. Cheers, Catsquisher (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jigsaw

Lol, thanks for poking me. No, ofc it's not a hoax, I meant to delete Jigsaw Squirting and mistakenly deleted that page instead, thought I had restored it but apparently I hadn't. Thanks so much for poking me :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, OK, that makes sense. Wizard191 (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

There is an article about a strap or tape: Polyester coord-bandage Tape. I can't make any sense of it. This is an area you have background in. Am I missing something or should this wierd article just be deleted? thanks. Rlsheehan (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it ought to be deleted, because I can't even figure out what its trying to talk about. I think it's supposed to be about strap, but it keeps talking about tape, so I'm not sure. Wizard191 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as a hoax. Feezo (Talk) 22:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rlsheehan (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons from working on Kitchen cabinet

When I tried doing a revamp of kitchen cabinet, I found there were hardly any good references, mostly a lot of links to advertising, cabinet makers, and such. And my sense is the same kind of thing will happen to Drill -- it's such a basic thing that any kind of reference search will push away from the basics of this tool -- that is there may be articles on new types of drills, innovative uses of drills, that sort of thing -- but what I'm saying is that will push away from the essence of the tool itself. Do you see what I mean? But perhaps you are right and there is good secondary search information; still that the tag has been there for two years, and not much has been added -- there might be a reason for that in the sense that there isn't a lot of published material about this. See, the article right now is pretty good as it is. Tell u what -- why not try to do a secondary search and see what you get?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you say that. I had a very similar discussion at Talk:File_(tool)#References_or_sources. If you must see that good secondary references exist for common topics, I'll give you a list. Wizard191 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I think you're going to win this argument, unfortunately for my ego. Wondering how you search to only get Google Books to come up. I'll try to get to this when I get time. I'm also thinking that the electricians right-angle drill should be in the article; I have one; good for drilling in tight spaces. Perhaps I'll take a picture.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some refs: Wizard191 (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Will paste to talk page of Drill and add stuff at a later time. Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actuator

I will appreciate your help, when controlling illumination of a room is the actuator a mechanical device?...may be!...i think is a light source, the world is not only mechanics!...regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponchobonjo (talk • contribs) 04:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What do you mean by "when controlling illumination of a room"? And what is this with respect to? Wizard191 (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actuator

what i mean mr wizard is simply we need to define clearly and widely, an actuator execute an act, an action and the actuations are not limited to mechanical.......does a heater actuates on a thermal process?....does a light source actuate on illumintaion?....i think your deletion on my contribution is not proper. best regards