User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]


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

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2009[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Post and lintel has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. RaseaC (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding! Do you seriously think this clarification was vandalism? With full respect to you, I can't see remotely how this could appear to be unconstructive. You might disagree as an editor with the grammar or substance of my edit, or you might think I'm wrong, but I can't imagine a line of thought that would lead to the conclusion that I was trying to degrade the article. Would you please explain to me why you thought so?
I think the text is much clearer with the minor change I made. The top of the lintel is under compression, the bottom is under tension, and so it deforms concave up (i.e., the top is concave.) Am I misunderstanding basic physics and mechanical engineering? (That's a serious question; it's always /possible/.) Further, the sentence structure was incorrect for the intended meaning. Before my edit, the sentence I edited was "The underside of the lintel is under tension, and will deform concave up while the topside is under compression." Literally, it said (and now says again after reversion) that the topside being under compression is a sufficient condition for it to deform concave up. The word "while" here, in this grammatical construction without a comma before it, specifically means "as long as", rather than "at the same time also that". The comma after "tension" seems to be syntactically invalid regardless of interpretation. (It could be either removed, or the word "it" inserted after it, to correct the grammar; however, the semantics would still be wrong.) The subject of the predicate phrase "will deform concave up" is "underside", the only subject noun in the sentence. The unedited sentence can be rewritten with a different structure, without changing its meaning, as "The underside of the lintel will deform concave up while the topside is under compression, and the underside of the lintel is under tension." In this phrasing, which is in fact semantically equivalent to the original, it is obvious that the sentence makes little sense, and it is corrupt--how can the underside deform concave up? I mean, if you consider the underside as a Platonic geometric surface, OK, it could deform concave up. But this is an awfully awkward way to describe the flexing, a.k.a. deformation, of the lintel as a whole, and to describe that is clearly the intention of the sentence. It is the lintel that is under tension and compression--the top part (actually all of it above approximately the horizontal midline) is in compression, and the rest is in tension, while an infinitely fine line of it running between the sections is in perfect resting equilibrium between tension and compression--discounting the effects of atmospheric pressure and other such minor influences. As a result, the *whole lintel* deforms concave up as the bottom part elastically extends under tension and the top part elastically compresses (assuming proper engineering, as no one wants a structure that will permanently deform under loads, except in special cases like perhaps expendable rocket launch systems or automotive crash-absorbing structures).
If my understanding is wrong, please explain; otherwise, if I don't hear from you, then in a day or a few (unless I forget) I'll reinstate my edit.
I'll admit to not leaving an edit summary. I was editing and passing and didn't want to take a lot of time. (Now I have taken a lot of time, but now . . . was not then.) I should have written something like "clarification and linguistic correction". Though, that's a little awkward and over-academic; but I couldn't then, and can't now, think of a concise way to say "The sentence didn't say what it meant to say and was grammatically defective, and I restructured and corrected it to technically say what it was meant to and to be clearer and easier to read."
I also note that the sentence I edited had been marked in the past with a "citation needed" tag. Perhaps that contributed to your skepticism about the text. From my perspective, this is basic mechanical engineering which I'm sure could be found in any statics textbook used within the last 50 years in an undergraduate course offered by an engineering department at a decent university. My degree is in electrical engineering, so I don't actually own one of those books to cite. Also, the book might not specifically mention post and lintel, though I'm sure it would cover the case of a horizontal beam supported underneath the ends and loaded on top at the middle.
This was just one of those unclear things that I come across while reading a chain of Wikipedia articles, things that momentarily puzzle me, but then, when I figure out what they're trying to say, I reword them to say that (if I'm pretty sure that I've figured out correctly what they're trying to say, or if at least I'm sure that what I'm writing is true and verifiable). This sentence struck me as particularly awkward (broken, frankly) from a linguistic point of view, as I explained above, and after figuring out how it was broken, I put in my two cents to fix it before moving on. Edits in passing like this are my way of supporting Wikipedia in return for all the good information I've gotten from it. On occasion, I've undertaken more substantial edits of articles on subjects I know well. I've been doing this for years as an anonymous editor, which for the time being I've chosen to remain. But I've read the principles and basic rules of WP, plus a few of the less basic rules, and I'm familiar with the general culture here, which has a lot of good things and some bad things about it (like most organizations). I get the impression that my edits are usually appreciated, and I've had relatively few reversions, though some of those reversions I've accepted on admission to myself that maybe my edit wasn't quite NPOV or could be considered OR, at least technically. But this "unconstructive" thing out of the blue seems uncoordinated with the spirit of Wikipedia (e.g. Assume Good Will, Don't Byte The Newbies [even though I'm actually not one], ...). I think I had one other edit reverted as unconstructive about a year ago, but that was a case where it was (in my opinion) a plausible judgement, and I reworked the edit to be milder and more strictly by-the book, IIRC. And the other party spontaneously apologized for responding too quickly and not looking closely enough to see that my edit really wasn't probable vandalism. That might be the case here, and if it is . . . it's very forgivable. Let's just clear it up. (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just skimmed through your post on my talk and had a look at the edit in question. It appears that I would have reverted that edit because your version did not read as well as the previosus one. I think the wording as it is (i.e. after my revert) is better. I am unable to address any other concerns you may have raised on your talk or mine because I make a point of not reading long posts, with some editors making several changes a minute they, like me, prefer messages to be short and concise. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC).
Although I still think my version sounded better (the last 'and' just didn't read well in my opinion) I can see where you were coming from so have made a further edit, have a look and see what you think. Unfortunately we can't just reserve ourself to clear-cut vandalism because that's when people become 867 years old and others kill instead of spill, for instance. Also, unfortuantely (especially in your case) vandals tend to be IPs, infact a lot of vandal watchers will only look through IP edits, which is why registering is such a good idea. Cheers, RaseaC (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC).
I replied on RaseaC's talk page. Also, not sure what you mean by "especially in your case", but I'll disregard. (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Model 500 telephone[edit]

thank you for contributing to the model 500 telephone article. badmachine (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)