User talk:Rracecarr/Archives

Powerball

I would like to discuss if it was necessary to create a redirect to gyroscopic exercise tool from the powerball (exercise tool) page. Powerball is the brand name known to all users of such exercise tool and it is important as the Coca-Cola for soft drinks. Moreover Powerballs are provided with the precisely calibrated rotors and electronic revolutions counter, which is lacking on competitors devices. It also well known for the build quality and life-long warranty.

I spent lot of time fixing that Powerball page removing vandalism and adding additional information, like photos and model range updates, so I will highly appreciate if you change your opinion on this subject and revert changes you made to that page by yourself.

-- Dmitrek (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Players articles

I have seen that you are listed under Wikiproject Volleyball. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 21:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Foot-pound

Hi Racecarr, can we both agree (despite what may have been writen) that energy and torque are different?

If so let’s see if we can make the foot-pound (energy) page better. I would purpose a compromise between your level of understand or amount of information on the page and my level of understand or amount of information on the page. I want an elementry school level of communication and a lot more info. Do you think we can compromise?

I will do a rewite containing what you have posted this morning and then submit it here on your discusion page as a new thread called Foot-pound rewrite. Then, you have at it and I’ll come back an look in a few days. Lets see if we can do better.

Also, can we rename the Pound-foot page “foot-pound (torque)”? Greg Glover (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ok. I'm not opposed to renaming Pound-foot (torque) to Foot-pound (torque). I think they are both used but the foot-pound is more common. It might be good to check on that before making the change. Rracecarr (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will go over to the Library today and look up “Pound foot” in the Oxford dictionary and the Mc Graw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology.

This is a rhetorical question. I pose it only as food for thought. If the definition for foot pound is, “the force of one pound through the distance of one foot” why is it called Foot-pound? Shouldn’t it be called pound-foot? Greg Glover (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working within a new spirit of cooperation

I had a thought to help end the edit warring. You have the PhD. I have the H.S. Diploma. In the real world that you and I live, you are the most qualified; that’s just a fact. So, in spirit of cooperation, I will let you review any edits to pages or any page I create (as it pertains to the three subsystems of FPS) before the edits/page are posted.

Are you amicable to that?

Also, I just reformatted the math on the Pound force page from typed format (QWERT) to Wiki math format (HTML). Is that okay?

And, great job on cleaning up the pound force page!!! Greg Glover (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Greg,

As long as we're not too stubborn about sticking to our own exact versions of everything, I think we'll do fine. Thanks for the effort. Rracecarr (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pound Foot

Hi Raceccar,

I have done my research. The word “pound foot” does not appear in any dictionary or encyclopedia as a word or term. The word/term appears only once as an A.K.A for the "Foot pound" in the Mc Graw-Hill Dictionary of Science and Technology Terms; 5th Edition.

Therefore, if you agree. The Pound-foot (torque) page should be renamed (or redirected to) Foot-pound (torque). How others wish to edit that page is up to them. I could careless about that page in its currant form, except for the page name.

If you and others agree, then maybe someone who knows the Wiki procedure for renaming or redirecting can do it. Greg Glover (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note in at Talk:Pound-foot (torque). No one has commented yet. Rracecarr (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit of Foot-pound (energy) page

The foot-pound force, or simply foot-pound (symbol: ft-lb_f or ft-lb) is a unit of work or energy in the Engineering and Gravitational Systems in United States customary and Imperial units of measure. It is the energy transferred on applying a force of 1 pound-force (lb_f) through a displacement of 1 foot. The corresponding SI unit is the joule.

Usage

The foot-pound is often used to specify the muzzle energy of a bullet in small arms ballistics, particularly in the United States.

"Foot-pound" is sometimes also used as a unit of torque (see Pound-foot (torque)). In the United States this unit is often used to specify, for example, the tightness of a bolt or the output of an engine. Although they are dimensionally equivalent, energy (a scalar), and torque (a vector) are distinct physical quantities. Both energy and torque can be expressed as a product of a force vector with a displacement vector (hence pounds and feet); energy is the dot product of the two, and torque is the cross product.

Other units of energy

1 foot-pound is equivalent to:

1.3558179483314 joules
13558179.483314 ergs
0.001285067 British Thermal Units
0.323832 gram calories
0.000323832 kilogram calories or food calories

Related units of power

1 watt ≈ 44.25372896 ft-lb_f/min ~~(energy)~~
1 horsepower (mechanical) = 33,000 ft-lb_f/min = 550 ft-lb_f/s ~~(torque)~~

How does this look to you? For clarification I put the subcategories in bold so it was easier to edit. As a page we can add back the HTML symbols (==xxx==). Greg Glover (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits: foot-pound is not equivalent to joule or newton-meter, so I took out those statements. I also changed the statement about the mathematical difference between energy and torque. Rracecarr (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Racecarr,

I used strike through for editing.

1) Newton metre: to conform to Wiki usage of SI units; see here .

Agreed. Rracecarr (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) vector: I felt that the use of vector here would be confusing since just above it says, energy (a scalar) and torque (a vector)

Force and distance are both vectors. There are two common ways to multiply two vectors together (as opposed to a vector and a scalar or two scalars, for which there is only one form of multiplication each): the dot product and the cross product. Combining a force vector with the displacement vector representing the distance through which the force acts using the dot product gives you energy, which is a scalar. Combining a force vector with a distance vector representing the separation between the point where a force acts and a pivot or center of rotation, using the cross product, gives you torque, which is a vector. I think it is helpful to emphasize that the two quantities being multiplied are both vectors. So I disagree with the changes.Rracecarr (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Force vector and displacement vector is a bit wonky and way above my head in mathematical theory but I won’t disagree. Can you link the two to another article? Greg Glover (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked force and displacement in the intro.Rracecarr (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3) joules: Since you said the Joule is not equivalent and its in the 3rd sentence as corresponding to the foot-pound force.

A Joule is not equivalent to a foot-pound because the two units represent different amounts of energy. Nonetheless, they both measure energy, and it is appropriate and called-for to provide the conversion. So I disagree with the change.Rracecarr (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry I don’t think I was clear. Yes the joule belongs in the article but I was speaking of the section, Other units of energy. Do you think the joule equivalent should be there since we already linked it in the 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence? Greg Glover (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it still belongs in the "other units" section. Otherwise the conversion factor would be left out of the article. Rracecarr (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Greg Glover (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Words added in italics.

1) Quantity: I think it is more correct to say, “a scalar quantity” than “a scalar”.

I think having the word "quantity" three times in such a short sentence is clumsy, and I don't think it aids understanding, so I disagree with the change. Rracecarr (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t see the word “quantities” at the end of the sentence. I agree with you on the word "quantity". However, can we delete the word “a” in front of energy and vector? Greg Glover (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an "a" in front of "energy", and I think the one in front of "vector" is grammatically necessary.

Sorry, these are the two a's i'm talking about; (a scalar), and torque (a vector). Can we remove them?. Greg Glover (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better with the "a's". Click on scalar. The article starts off with: "In physics, a scalar is a simple physical quantity that...", not "In physics, scalar is a simple physical quantity that..." Scalar and vector are being used as nouns, so they need an article in front of them. Rracecarr (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you think? Greg Glover (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the version above to reflect my comments. If you don't like the changes, you can just use the "undo" button. That will get rid of this statement too, which is ok. Rracecarr (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that I think the artical is ready to go. What say you? Greg Glover (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed the "Usage" section to read better. I think this version is fine. Rracecarr (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Usage" section does read better. Greg Glover (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's it. If you want to move the finished product over to Foot-pound (energy) page that's okay with me. Also, if you want to delete this work that's okay too. I takes up a lot of space on your discussion page. Greg Glover (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. I changed a couple more things. I took out (energy) and (torque) in the "related units of power" section, because the conversion is from energy foot-pounds per time to horsepower, not from torque foot-pounds per time (struck out the words here). I also changed some headings a little bit. Rracecarr (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look's good, very clean. Greg Glover (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task force

Good afternoon Rracecarr,

would be interested in heading up a “Task force” to clean up and standardize all the pages (stubs) that pertain the Foot-Pound-Second System (FPS). The writings and math for pages like Poundal and Foot-poundal is all over the place. I checked out the Pound (mass) page. What are people thinking and for what reason was the Foot-Pound-Second System page redirected to the Pound (mass) page? See here for the proposal.

I would be more than glad to do as much of the work as possible. I think User:Dorminton and User:MarcusMaximus would support this proposal. If you are interested, I will leave a message for Dorminton, MarcusMaximus and anyone else that might be interested. Greg Glover (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg,

I don't follow everything that's on your list, but go for it. Changes are most likely to go unreverted if you make them in smallish steps, I think. Rracecarr (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rracecarr, I was at a seminar for the last 4 days. I’ll start picking at the articles one by one this week. I’ll shoot you over the edits, one article at a time until we finish each article. As for the renaming or redirecting of an article I’ll leave that to you or others as I have no idea how to do that. Greg Glover (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federer wording

Hi Rracecarr,

over the weekend, several of us had what you might call a "spirited" debate on the very question of "tennis player" being used twice in the sentence. A moderator was even called in to adjudicate. Please keep the wording as it was ... and feel free to examine the discussion on the Federer talkpage.

yours, Schpinbo (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Equal temper demo.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Equal temper demo.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CrossFit

I'm afraid I've put your article on Annie Thorisdottir up for AfD. It may well be that she passes WP:GNG, I'm honestly not sure. But it seems like the use of CrossFit related sources should be something that other editors at least have a look at. At the worst you'll get input on improving sourcing. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked this article as a copyvio CrossFit. You have done a lot of work on it, the other users listed as editors have either been banned as socks or are limited use IP accounts. From your edits it appears you at least attempted to improve some of the very badly written text. However, in attempting to find portions of text that are not from the corporate websites, I found that almost all of the article is just copied and pasted.

It requires an entire rewrite. It would be nice to have it rewritten as an encyclopedia article. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Profiling float, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conductivity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Lane splitting. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Magnus hitch

The article Magnus hitch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable knot. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gyroscopic exercise tool

The article Gyroscopic exercise tool has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research from beginning to end. Most of this article is a lengthy summary of a small number of papers describing the physics, none of these sources is a secondary source to support the significance of the subject or its real-world use, especially since the authors of the papers all appear to have ties to one or other manufacturer.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help - Image of SAR 11 needed

Hi Rracecarr, SAR11, oceans' most abundant organism, has been in the news.

I saw the article, strangely no image of possibly the commonest living organism in the world exists on Commons. Since I'm doing a MOOC with UCSD on Climate Change, I thought that a Scripps Institution user could possibly help out. AshLin (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CrossFit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swimming. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2007 CrossFit Games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pullup. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Davis

Please stop moving the Anthony Davis page. Your undiscussed move was reverted. If you want to move the page, take it to RM. Guettarda (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And don't re-tag pages for speedy deletion after they were previously declined. Not to mention, your claim that this is uncontroversial is simply false. Guettarda (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really give a shit. I'm not taking it to RM or anywhere else. I was just trying to improve the encyclopedia, and you're standing in the way. It would obviously be better my way--the first dozens of google results are all the basketball player. If you understood the reason for the move, then you're out of line to use the edit summary "unnecessary qualifier" when you revert--you should acknowledge that you understand the reason the qualifier was added was to make way for a move. If you didn't understand, then what's up with getting your panties in a bunch? The move may have been controversial in 2012. It is emphatically not now. Rracecarr (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? There were two move requests. BOTH were refused. And then you mislead in your speedy delete request. TWICE! You're not improving the encyclopaedia, you're POV-pushing. Guettarda (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't give a shit about consensus, you don't give a shit about the project. That's the way we've worked all these years. Guettarda (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I put in a delete request for Anthony Davis (disambiguation), which was a redirect, so that I could move Anthony Davis, which was a disambiguation page, there. That page was duly deleted. I made the move. Then I found I couldn't move Anthony Davis (basketball) to Anthony Davis, because of the redirect that remained there, so I put a speedy delete request on Anthony Davis, which you declined with no explanation. How did I mislead? Because I didn't mention that this was brought up 3 years ago, when he was a high school player? He's one of the top handful of players in the NBA now. I don't think I'm misleading, and certainly not bucking any consensus.Rracecarr (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your delete request on Anthony Davis was refused. Because your claims that it was uncontroversial was false. I don't see how an athlete with two years professional play can be, in an sense, be the primary topic. Not when there are fifteen people on the dab page. He's been playing for two years. He might quit tomorrow and leave no impact on the sport whatsoever. Even among the athletes, there's a guy with six years professional experience in American football. And these are minor sports - these aren't the big international sports. Hands down, Beenie Man has them all beat. He's got a worldwide following, he's been active for 35+ years. There's no way some athlete who plays for a team no one has ever heard of is so much more notable that it isn't even worth discussing. That's absurd. Guettarda (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make me laugh. You can't be serious. Basketball a minor sport? Top NBA player not notable? You're off your nut. I have wasted enough time on this and won't engage further, here or on any of the other talk pages. But don't be surprised if some editors with a bit of common sense come along and set you straight. Good day. Rracecarr (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course basketball is a minor sport. The NBA article actually lists notable non-American players. It's kinda amusing that you don't even realise the global audience of a sport like football or cricket. But seriously, it's rather less than honest to claim a page move as "uncontroversial" when it was turned down twice in the last few years. And to make matters worse, you reposted the same argument after your speedy deletion request was turned down. OK... Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must STOP edit warring over the question of Anthony Davis and disambiguation. You have been told, over and over, that your preferred person Anthony Davis (basketball) is not the primary meaning of "Anthony Davis". You have repeatedly requested deletion of the page Anthony Davis because you want to put the basketball player there, and you have falsely claimed that this deletion would be uncontroversial. You have tried to redirect the page Anthony Davis to your hero. You are way past the point of WP:3RR on this matter, and if you do it again, you are likely to be blocked for edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many false statements can you make in one post? I never got anywhere close to 3RR. I only "reverted" (by re-adding a db tag) once because the decline edit summary indicated that the reason the delete was declined was that the qualifier "disambiguation" was unnecessary, which I interpreted to mean that the admin did not appreciate the reason for the move, which was to make room for Anthony Davis (basketball) at Anthony Davis. When I added the db tag the second time, I include a longer explanation. I haven't reverted anything a single time since anyone said anything to me about not supporting the move. The only other thing I did was change Anthony Davis to a redirect and add an "other people" template to the top of Anthony Davis (basketball), which was not a revert. Once the redirect was reverted, I took the template out, which was reverting myself, so does not count. 1 revert is not way past 3 RR. I was mistaken that the move would be uncontroversial--obviously the basketball player is the most famous and most searched for person by the name, but apparently not everyone agrees that that means he should be the primary topic. Fine. I already declared that I was done with the topic and moved on. And now you come with your rude and completely false post to my talk page. Rracecarr (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]