User talk:1capybara

This user may have left Wikipedia. 1capybara has not edited Wikipedia since 24 December 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

IP messages do not apply to logged in users[edit]

As long as you are logged in with your user name, you should not see the warnings addressed to the IP, much less be subject to them. The warnings only apply to the IP and edits made while you are logged in are in a different category. I do not know why you saw the message if your were logged in. Are you sure you did not see them while you were logged out? Obviously there are no warnings on this page, and that is all that really counts. Good luck in your editing. Donner60 (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photoionization mode[edit]

I think the bottom line on the templates is that there is only one footnote (inline citation), It probably would take at least 25 in a technical article such as this to verify the content. That might satisfy anyone who put the templates in or think they are justified. Some of the other points made in the templates more or less follow from the lack of citations. There are several references (which I did not try to check), which is good, but they do not directly support the points made in the article. People want to go to the specific pages in the articles, not have to read the entire article, in order to see that the text is supported. I would not remove the templates unless the article has inline citations which in turn could be viewed as taking care of the other issues. I have only removed a few such templates and only when there is a minimum of one citation per paragraph. Even though some additions have been made to the article, I would not remove the templates because I think the citation issue must be satisfied first. By the way, I am not an administrator so I give this opinion based on my experience. Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Critical Power (November 21)[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Critical Power.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! 1capybara, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Fault Current Limiters[edit]

Hello and Good Morning! I took your good advice and referred the article on fault Current Limiters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fault_current_limiter to WikiProject Physics for advice on whether there should be a new article FCL, which reference both this article, which should be re-titled Superconducting FCL, and a new article on the mainstream technology (rectifier or solid state FCLs);

or

can I suggest recommend and begin a re-write of the current article in a more balance manner. I am happy with whatever advice WikiProject Physics gives. Thanks for your help! 1capybara (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, and, you're welcome! I do not think that I can be considered as a senior editor - my editcount! - but I took some pleasure and interest in reviewing that subject. I am not at all a specialist on the subject, I only collected what documents are available without searching in depth, e.g. I did not enquire about the companies. I expect that the article will go the way of a rewriting the way you are suggesting it. --Askedonty (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your two questions! :)[edit]

Hello! I'll answer your questions as clearly as I can.

Communication on Wikipedia can be sometimes frustrating. As the reader of a message we can be expecting one given option for the answer and not to get it can be disappointing.

In the answer to your AFC for "Critical Power", motivation for its rejection includes about it "reading like an advertisement" indeed. What is more definitive however if I'm guessing right is the final opinion, hand-written in sorts, By FoCuSandLeArN. You could rewrite the proposal so that it does not fall under the former objection anymore, yet this last comment by FoCuSandLeArN is describing probably the most decisive point regarding the opinion.

Trying to describe the advertisement bias:

"Critical Power" could sound as a trademark
(..) with a common goal: to provide (..) sounds as about a product or the project of a product or series of products.
Critical power is required makes it sound as a concept

If it's a concept it must be described in the technical, but independent litterature, as such, specifically. If it's a product (here, like perhaps a norm) it requires refs.

I think those two apparent directions are giving the draft some kind of a fuzzyness in its logic, which fuzzyness can be perceived as compensated by a somewhat advertizing tone. I'm in fact surprised it's not about some "Critical Power Control" rather than simple Critical Power. It looks like we and you would know about it but it would be about a field with no clear name because they would be protecting methods while also adverizing that they have something in it. My advice: dig into a Wikipedia article related to the subject. Explore all relevant links in depth from there, particularly the internal links. If the concept can be identified you should be able to arrive to it from there, to some reliable source. (Reliable sources often are able to give support to more than one unique encyclopedic article.)

Regarding your second question; you would edit on your computer locally if you wanted to keep your progress private, and remote. It enables you to edit offline as well, which can be a quieter way if using a slow connection. The drawback is that your progress will not come to confrontation before later, so your peace of mind costs you a harder price in the end if you put in it too much work in a finally wrong direction. It will not be a loss however where it helps you too good exercise, and develop your fluency and clearness in expression.

To the same purpose and more directly focused you can otherwise use your sandbox, where your edits are persistent and the internal links you add into your text, active. It provides you with its standard history view, can be usefull for getting an informal advice occasionally and it's keeping you into the "look and feel" of Wikipedia.

Keeping a local copy of what you are typing also can be usefull in case of an accidental loss, the very best being probably to be able to retype it if it ever comes to such sort of accident. When typing huges patches of text and you don't want to commit a "Save page" each line, you can grab a simple clipboard copy ( a copy without a paste ) of the whole instead of saving. If you need pasting some other bit then you commit a Save before. That's how you may find once it has been good you memorized what you had been typing! But this, really helps for good structure; All the best: --Askedonty (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Critical Power[edit]

Hello 1capybara. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Critical Power".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Critical Power}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]