User talk:Biscuittin/Archive3

Proposed deletion of Möbius operating system

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Möbius operating system, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable software project.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jfire (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have added Möbius to List_of_operating_systems#Hobby and I do not oppose deletion. Biscuittin (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

List of gear nomenclature

Hi, I've been working on the article list of gear nomenclature recently. I just finished up merging 60 odd articles into it and now have a mess. I was wondering if you might be able to help me untangle it. I would like to organize the terms as best possible, but I'm not sure what the best way to do it is. My first idea was to group them by topic, but my second idea was to group them by similar terms (i.e. all of the "cylinder" terms together). I'm not sure what makes the most sense. I was hoping you might be able to help, because you started the article. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it but I didn't start the article. It was started more than 500 edits ago. Biscuittin (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this it says you started it. But either way I don't care, as long as you can help =) Wizard191 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have done a good job and it looks fine to me. I have just put in lines to separate the sections. 2 January 2008 is the earliest edit listed but the article was started long before that. Biscuittin (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the second pair of eyes. Wizard191 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I see from the talk page that I actually did create the article (as a merger of several other articles) but I had forgotten about it. Biscuittin (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of water fuel inventions

I have nominated List of water fuel inventions, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of water fuel inventions. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Alexander McDonnell (engineer)

A tag has been placed on Alexander McDonnell (engineer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. ww2censor (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As it was listed for Speedy, I thought I ought to take action for you! (Didn't want you to wake up and find it gone!) I've expanded the text with enough to keep the notability watchers at bay (I hope!). Note that a large chunk of the para about the Great Southern and Western Railway was copied from the LNER Encyclopaedia page, so you will want to adjust it to avoid copyvio claims!

It would be useful if there was some precedent we could follow to ensure that all railway CMEs were considered 'notable'.

Over to you...Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That'll do nicely! As it was under a 'speedy' rather than a 'PROD' I had to act quickly in case someone deleted it underneath me -- normally I would re-write such stuff before saving. Cheers. EdJogg (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

North British Loco Classifications

I agree that there must be a logical classification of NBR locos. Classes which passed into LNER hands should be classified by the LNER system whereas locos withdrawn before the grouping should have the NBR classification + wheel arrangement and if necessary name of designer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of George J. Flanigen IV

I have nominated George J. Flanigen IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Superhard materials

Could you please expand your references in the article Superhard materials. Currently, they do not qualify as references and will be deleted. Thank you. NIMSoffice (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help on this. I didn't insert the references, I just moved them from the body of the article to a References section. Biscuittin (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Direct-coupled

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Direct-coupled, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Direct coupled. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this applies to disambig pages. Biscuittin (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hydromechanics

Hello Biscuittin. Thanks for sectioning Hydromechanics. It has been in my "headache" list for quite some time, since it is just an Encyclopedia Brittanica article from 1911, which of course stops around that time. But your bravery inspires me to start thinking again about what to do with it. That means incorporate it into the Category:Fluid mechanics in a logical fashion. The first thing to do is change its name. Regards, Crowsnest (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What name would you suggest? Biscuittin (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe History of fluid mechanics. Note it is really a 1911 mastodont: the 19th century assessment is completely different from how we see it now (who were important for the development of the field and who not), and the 20th century is of course missing. The language used is also ancient, sometimes. Further, if renamed towards a "History" article, (large parts of) Hydraulics needs to be merged into it (almost exclusively talking about history before 1600). Only the intro of Hydraulics will remain as a stub (but I think that is good for a fresh new start for a real article on hydraulics). Crowsnest (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Hydraulics should be left out for the moment. It is so strongly concentrated on "innovations" instead of science. -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have put your suggestion on Talk:Hydromechanics. Biscuittin (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I also put it forward on the talk page of the Fluid Dynamics Task Force. -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Primary cell terminology

Hi. Please excuse the impersonal tone in the following message, but it's a standard Wikipedia template. What I mean is that I think that the article would be better off as a short comment in Primary cell. Most of the information in the article is outdated and I fear that it might confuse more people than it helps. I'll be interested to hear your opinion on this. The article won't get deleted until a consensus is reached.

AfD nomination of Primary cell terminology

I have nominated Primary cell terminology, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primary cell terminology. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Heron (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Thomas Parker (engineer)

A tag has been placed on Thomas Parker (engineer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jamesrnorwood (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy deletion template. Globbet (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation discussion

You might like to look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_7#Locomotive_designer_and_railway_engineer_categories. Globbet (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Textle air duct (sic)

Someone's created this rather incoherent article. It can't be moved to Textile air duct as that's a redirect to Air sock. I have no knowledge about these things. Since you're the most recent active editor on Air sock can you check Textle air duct, merge any relevant/coherent info into Air sock then redirect the page? I'd do it myself but lack the knowledge to interpret anything. Cheers. Exxolon (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone has changed Textle air duct into a redirect to Air sock so I think this solves the problem. Biscuittin (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

List of GE engines

You're welcome, and thanks for creating the list. :-)

—BMRR (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

perlipnice

i have started to clean up the article you can see the location and all that there. it is in kosovo. thanks, mike Mdupont (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs)

Përlepnica. Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Optical fiber#Materials

Thanks for your help ! -- logger9 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Street Legal (band)

The article Street Legal (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BAND: no assertion of notability. 'Fauquier County's Band of the Year' does not seem to be a major competition. I cannot find significant coverage of this band in independent reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robofish (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to deletion. Biscuittin (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pissing contest

Hi there. Where did you find those bits you added? I'd like to make sure they're cited properly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read the books, but I haven't got copies of them so I can't give you exact details. I'll try to find out though. Biscuittin (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are the bits added from memory? I looked, but couldn't find anything online. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, from memory. I will borrow the books from the library and check. Biscuittin (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool. It's sourced now. Do you know of other stories in Irish Folklore about this subject or only that one? The other bits in that section also need citations. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is one about Medb here [1] but it's not a contest so it's not relevant to the article. Biscuittin (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

BR Class 17 multiple working

Are you sure that the Class 17 multiple working equipment was the same as on the 56/58? The 56 wasn't introduced until after the 17 was withdrawn, so BR might have re-used the 'red diamond' code for a new system. (I don't know this for certain, just a nagging feeling that I'd read something like that somewhere...)

EdJogg (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you could be right. I think the same thing happened with one of the DMU codes. Biscuittin (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have put a note about it at Talk:Multiple working. Biscuittin (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good move. I had a quick look on-line but didn't find anything helpful apart from an excellent page about the Claytons (suitable as a future reference...) EdJogg (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Gas diffusion electrode

Hi Biscuittin, could you do some proofreading on Gas diffusion electrode  ? I translated the other part as well from the German wiki, i think the author pointed to new developments in the filed of these electrodes. Thanks Mion (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Biscuittin (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have tidied up the article. Please check that I have not introduced any technical errors. Biscuittin (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for checking, i think the wrongly translated part about the bacon fuel cell is fixed, the other note about pressure flow in the layers, still need an update, and following ref 2 on the pages and numerous other approaches to produce electrodes, the page is far from finished, it lacks a proper explaining image of the build up, work in progress, so to speak. Cheers Mion (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have also made some minor changes to Liquid hydrogen tank car. Biscuittin (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for helping out there. Mion (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Winston Churchill as historian

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Winston Churchill as historian. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston Churchill as historian. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of BL Challenge

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is BL Challenge. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BL Challenge. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Your work on the article Geo metro truck, what I previously considered to be an article doomed to be deleted, gave the article extended life. For your efforts, I award this barnstar. Take care! --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Biscuittin (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Torque converter

Hi, I just want to notify you that I have deleted the section regarding manufacturers on the article Torque converter, due to an edit that removed original text (some of it your own) and replaced it with promotional links. Due to edit conflicts, I wasn't able to undo the changes and salvage prior information. Just letting you know so you can repost what you had written there before. Pewpewpchew (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, doesn't require your attention. Pewpewpchew (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)