User talk:Seabhcan/archive03

RE: Irish Sea

Sir,

• 1) Can you sign you entries on "talk" pages?
• 2) Titling an entry, "Notes for myself", is not very user friendly. How about "stats to enter"?
• 3) You also don't seem to enter abbreviated notes into the "edit" line on most of your changes, can you do this? This makes it easier for other users when check their “watchlist” and history of a page.
• 4) Can we use both your map and my map? Maybe put mine at the top just to show location, then yours under "Shipping" to show where the ports are.
  • When I saw these sloppy omissions I was very surprised to find that you were and admin.

WikiDon 21:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct that I should have used a different title for my rough work in the talk page. The article seemed to me to be quite neglected when I began, and I wrongly imagined that I was the only one working on it (the last 11 edits have been my own and the last message on the talk page was from 2003). Your point 4 is reasonable, but if the intention is to show the sea's location, perhaps a more 'zoomed out' map of Europe would be better. Also, if you are interested in Irish subjects, please drop into Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. Seabhcán 21:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:SeabcanPics

Using username-based organization is an improper use of the category scheme, AIUI. Ive added a CFD notice, but havent yet made a report on it, hoping you might just take care of it yourself. -St|eve 04:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was an experiment of mine a year or so ago. It is now deleted, along with the Template:Seabhcan/Pics. I have reverted the images in this category to public domain. Seabhcán 07:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Irish nationality law, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Too many capitals

I think you're puttting too many capital letters in section headings; specifically, in Irish nationality law, your wrote "See Also" where "See also" (with a lower-case a) should appear according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and Constitutional History where Constitutional history (with a lower-case initial h) should appear. Michael Hardy 20:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Seabhcan

Do you still use this template? It looks like a templatized version of ~~~~. I wanted to ask you to userfy it, rather than me putting it on WP:TFD. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 09:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted it. Thanks. Seabhcán 09:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

Somebody deleted my entry on this subject from the 22nd, and when you added it for the 23rd, I just deleted it because I assumed it was still there from yesterday, when I added it. My bad for not having rechecked that. I don't really want to dig through the edit history to see who deleted it, but I have restored it, and redeleted your version, since mine was there first. I know, sounds kind of petty and I'm not really going to go into an edit war on it, but it would be interesting to find out who deleted it and why, but not interesting enough to read through all of the edits since then.  :) Zoe 21:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like my fault. When I added it to 23nd I didn't notice that it was down at the end of 22nd. User:Irishpunktom removed the 22nd entry after that. Seabhcán 22:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006

Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 19:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article U.S. border preclearance, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Ireland

I have created the category Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Ireland, please add yourself to an institution or create a new category for your institution if neccessary. If you need help leave a message on my talk page. Spread the word. Djegan 00:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Quinlan

In the article your wrote on Arthur Quinlan, you wrote "He has interviewed every US president from Harry Truman to George Bush". It is not clear from the context whether you meant George H. W. Bush (41st US President), or George W. Bush (43rd US President). Could you please edit the article and change the reference to one or the other? Thanks --Rogerd 01:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 09:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Pat Cox

Thanks for your correction on List of Limerick people - I guess this demonstrates the problem with using Wikipedia as your reference :) I'll add a mention of his Limerick origins to the Pat Cox article. --Ryano 11:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I remember Pat Cox took part in the "I'm from Limerick" promotion film that was shown in Limerick cinemas before each movie for a couple of weeks in 2003 or 2004. The film was produced by Mike Finn and lasted about 5 minutes, made up of a series of clips of famous people from Limerick smiling and saying "I'm from Limerick". It was curious film - designed to promote pride in the city amoung Limerick's citizens - who are unfortunately amoung the most anti-Limerick people there are. (I've been guilty of this too). Interestingly, I noticed that most of the famous people became famous only after leaving Limerick... Seabhcán 11:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Internet

Well done on the Commerce Dept tie in, I had struggled for that dynamic in my rewrite and you got it perfect.Kyle Andrew Brown 15:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the complement. Seabhcán 15:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Irish people

I have no objection to the merger, but what shall be the title of the new article? Fergananim 19:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There once was an article on Limerick

That is exactly the sort of thing that I was asking about. It really didn't need to be overly detailed, but I felt that the historical gap was too apparent, after the sequential sections before it, to go on as an FA without something there. What's there now is far more than adequate, so I switched over to full support. Incidentally, I'm reading (to my shame) Neal Stephenson's novel The Confusion, and it has a description of William's battles in Ireland. Not, of course, that there is much point in going into "historical fiction of William III's campaigns in Ireland," because the list would be horrible and horribly long. The only 18th century (yes, 1690s, but that's "the 18th century" in academia because it's after The Restoration) battles more romanticized and fictionalized are the '15 and '45 Jacobite rebellions/uprisings. I was pleased to support. Geogre 14:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Country logos

Hi Seabhcan,

What are all these country logos you're uploading? I'm not familiar with them, and the article on metrication you pointed to doesn't mention them. Thanks - Tempshill 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

They are the national logos of various metrication campaigns. I've added a few to the approapiate articles, but I still need to add more articles on metrication in countries such as New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, etc. See Metrication in Canada for example. Seabhcán 23:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

History of Limerick

Congrats on getting this to FA status! You are hereby awarded The Barnstar of National Merit in recognition of your efforts.--Lordkinbote 08:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Thanks. I'll copy it to the user page. Seabhcán 10:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Liberia - units of measure

See my response to your comment on my talk page. Alan J Shea 15:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Bounty Board

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Metrication World Map

Hi there, I saw the maps you made for the metrication article and I think I'd like to do something similar for the literacy article for world literacy rates.. Could you tell me how you made them and/or other tricks? Its been suggested to me that I take that map and then mark it up with microsoft paint or something, although that would certainly take a while. Thanks! TastyCakes 16:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid thats all I did. I just took the blank map, picked the colors and used 'fill' on each country. It is inefficeint, but I don't have proper mapping software. It doesn't take as long as you'd think. Seabhcán 17:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, great, thanks. Did you get a blank map from somewhere? Or I think I could use your map and recolour it, would that be ok? TastyCakes 17:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I used the Image:Driving standards.png image. But the current version of Image:SI-adoption-world.png (not my work) now has a lovely color spread. Of course you may use whatever you like. Wiki is freedom. :-) Seabhcán 21:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot. One other thing, did you use paint to make the modifications you did? And if so how did you convert the png into bitmap and then back again? Thanks TastyCakes 21:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I used Paint Shop Pro. But Paint.Net is good too. I think it can do most simple things with all file types. And it's open source. here.

Perfect, thanks again. TastyCakes 23:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Compute Vision at Wikicity

Thanks for the invitation to write something at the Computer Vision Wikicity. I have some other stuff that needs to be taken care of first, but maybe I'll come back and contribute later. Is there an admininstrator of CVW? Something written about how to organize content, etc? KYN 22:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Great, hope to see you there sometime soon. The wiki is very young and so nothing is set in stone, but the current structure is based around the categories of "Techniques | Computer languages | Compression | Hardware | Mathematics | Research Institutions | Industry | Publications | Biology |". I hope the wiki will become not just an encyclopedia on the topic, but also include info on companies and institutions involved in CV, and books and publications on the subject. Seabhcán 11:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Operation Phantom Fury

Dear Seabhcan,

This article is more screwed up than a soup sandwich. Certainly there is a basket of non-controversial things we can do tomorrow to improve it. I look forward to working with you on it.

The thing is this. White phosphorus does not kill through a toxic effect. It is not, therefor a chemical weapon in the ordinary sense of the word. Certainly it is a chemical, and certainly it is a weapon, but so is gunpowder. Is gunpowder a chemical weapon? Napalm? Why not?

Certainly the American's weasally denial of the use of napalm and WP should be mentioned, but this is not the main story here.

So let us try to improve this article (the entire article) by a coöperative effort. Paul, in Saudi 15:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, the deed is done. I have edited the heck out of the page. Please tell me what you think. I have uncovered a bigger mess however. The Fallujah page is full of misinformation and seems to be a (real nice) page on the city with another (nasty) page dealing with the battle of Fallujah. I would suppose we need to move the Battle stuff to the Phantom Fury page. Your thoughts? Paul, in Saudi 06:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to tell you how pleased I am that you removed your rewrite tag. A small bit of progress. (Now, do we want to wrestle with the Fallujah page?)

Also, super user page.Very impressive. Paul, in Saudi 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. But it wasn't 'my' rewrite tag. I didn't put it there, I thought you did! Seabhcán 08:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed that you have listed yourself as an atheist Wikipedian. You will probably be interested to know that Brian0918 has nominated Omnipotence paradox as the front page article for December 25th. You can vote on this matter here. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

172.143.148.165

Isn't it a bit hasty to block him/her after just two warnings (and two vandalisms)? --Nlu 14:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think this maybe the same person as my other recent blocks. Although I could be wrong. Unblock the IP if you like. Seabhcán 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that this is a sock puppet; the pages he/she vandalized don't have history that suggests that this is simply a new IP that popped up. Unless you can think of a major reason to suspect otherwise, I am going to unblock. --Nlu 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry if I was too hasty on this one. Seabhcán 14:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiMaps

Hi,

I am trying to get more info about WikiMaps.

Outside Developed Countries (or Lucrative markets such as US, Canda, Europe, Japan), there is hardly any mapping engine or anyone working on such products.

It would really be cool to have a wiki users created mapping (even if it a 2D and not having a terrain), that can be uploaded and usable by a mapping engine.

Chirags 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Measurement

Template:Measurement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Measurement. Thank you.--Srleffler 03:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Passports

I tried to scan the article in a while back, but it didn't take very well - the magazine is part of a volume, very firmly bound, so the inner half-inch of text didn't get picked up, which made it read pretty patchily! My apologies...

If I get a chance I'll try again, and see if I can get something better this time; I'll let you know if so. Shimgray | talk | 17:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Dublinspire.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dublinspire.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 03:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fuel efficiency

I see you are co-contributing to the page Fuel efficiency. There are a few points I'd like to discuss with you:

• perhaps the comparison with other modes of transport should be restricted to those that are alternative to cars (surface transportation of passengers), therefore removing the data on humans, Space Shuttle and freight trains;
• homogeneization of the units for the energy efficiency: we could keep the figure in the original source, plus the translation in SI units (MJ/km-passenger ?), plus some other unit to make easier the comparison with cars
• when you SI-ized the units for airplanes and ships, did you take into account that they use different fuels than gasoline, with different energy content ?

Hi User:StefanoC,

I don't see why this article should be limited to fuel efficiency of cars only - the term applys to all machines which do work. I'd like to also write a section on power stations, as efficiency is very important here. On units, MJ/km would seem approapiate. On aviation fuel - I have read that modern aviation fuel is not very different in energy terms from gasoline. It is however designed to have a lower freezing point, and a higher flash point. Seabhcán 15:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

oops. I just saw your response on the Fuel Efficiency talk page StefanoC 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

...for putting categories in the Music of Italy article. I've just started this Wikipedia stuff and forget things like that once in a while. Cheers from Naples, Italy.Jeffmatt 05:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:DustinTheTurkey.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DustinTheTurkey.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Bertie gets balls

The Oirish Times needs a Subscription before reading that part. Please quote from the source so I can find a match of it elsewhere?--Irishpunktom\^talk 17:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

He said it in the dail, so it should be reported elsewhere. UTV report part of it... Can I e-mail you the text of the Irish Times? Seabhcán 17:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Boosting

Hi, I trying to bring some sort of order to the various articles which are currently tagged as belonging to Category:Computer vision. Among these I find Boosting which you (?) have tagged for the computer vision category. This article describes machine learning techniques which I assume in principle can be used for solving some problem in computer vision, but the article does not present any material which makes it obvious how it relates to computer vision. Can you please add something to the Boosting article to describe this relation? --KYN 21:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Give me a few weeks. Thanks Seabhcán 09:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Also for Hidden Markov model and Particle filter? --KYN 06:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Metrication Revert

Hi Seabhcan,

Why did you revert Metrication's page back to the knowingly erroneous version? Which part of my edit was not factual?

Thanks, arfon 05:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

AH! I answered my own question, I see on your user page that the very first topic that you are "currently working on" is... (drum roll) "Metrication in New Zealand"! Complete with a bunch of metric logos. Now I understand. arfon 09:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arfon,

You removed the section which said "The process was completed in most of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries..." and declared it a 'Factual Error'. Every book and source I have read, not to mention my personal experience and education, assert that this statement is true. I think you will have to prove otherwise before it can be changed.

Seabhcán 14:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi S,

Metrification has NOT completed anywhere in the world. There are still some traditional units being used when there are equivalent metric units. Show me one country that metrification has completed and traditional units are no longer used or officially accepted.

As for 'book and sources': I can show you books and sources all over that say that "Bush lied" and I can show you books and sources that say "Bush didn't lie"which is true? Just because you see that a book/source says that the oceans are pink, doesn't make it true - ESPICALLY when the subject of the metric system is involved.

arfon 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Which traditional units in which countries are you talking about? Seabhcán 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that Austria, among others, has completely abolished any non-metric measurement (apart from horsepower for cars =]). —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? So Austria doesn't use Nautical Miles or angular measurements with 360 degrees? Only Horsepower eh? arfon 05:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You realise that Austria is a landlocked country, don't you. Why would they use nautical miles? Seabhcán 08:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1) The CIA fact books shows that they have Merchant Marine ships.

2) They even have a port in Vienna- "The city of Vienna and its port are situated in the heart of Europe at the intersection of international trade and transport routes. Thanks to its location at the Rhine-Main-Danube waterway, which connects the North Sea with the Black Sea and opens up important centers of the enlarged European Union, Wiener Hafen is the largest goods distribution center in Eastern Austria.". So my guess is that being landlocked isn't stopping them from having ships and thus using nautical miles (since the metric system fails at world navigation). arfon 06:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Are nautical miles really used on rivers? I took a boat one time (1998 i think) from Budapest to Vienna. Very beautiful, I recommend it. Seabhcán 10:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe they are not, in fact. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 20:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Since you are purposely side-stepping what I said, let me point out that Merchant Marines are usually NOT found on rivers. And since Austria has Merchant Marines ships and large, international shipping companies (e.g. Intercontainer Austria GesmbH), they obviously have ocean/sea going ships which means, they still (legally) use Nautical Miles.
Also, unless they are (probably) the only country in the world, they use Nautical Miles for air traffic. I see that Austrian Airline's frequent flier program is "Miles and More". Ironically, when I go to the 'Miles and More' web-page and look at the data from the UK, Canada, Ireland and Australia (you know, the English speaking 100% metric countries), all of the details are specified in miles and not kilometers. Hell, even the home of the metric monster, France, has it details in miles. So much for sucessful metrification of any country.
REGARDING the Austrian Navy: Here's a wonderful page on it: http://www.eurocollections.com/cointalk/austria_navy.php arfon 20:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, you got me on the degree part (although mathematics from fifth class (= age 15) upwards use 2π instead of 360°...). Regarding nautical miles - hey, we *did* once have a marine, you know... Wilhelm von Tegetthoff ring a bell? ;) —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well put

"Its silly to accuse me of 'claims of false vandalism'. I am an admin and have no history of it." Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but your edits really did look like vandalism. You added "This user blames octopodes, somewhat." to User:Striver's userpage, which sounds like a critism of his 9/11 edits. Seabhcán 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I can understand that it might have looked odd. I don't really see the connection between octopodes and 9/11, but probably that's just as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't go...

You'll be missed. Please reconsider your decision... —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I secound that! Please stay around! Linuxerist L/T 11:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'll stick around for a while to defend my Opuses but I don't think I'll do any more major editing. Seabhcán 11:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Berlin

Hi engl.-BerlinPage Lovers ! would be great to see you voting here Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week , thank you ! Sashandre

Collapse of the World Trade Center

In an edit summary you wrote, "rv. Mongo - DO NOT revert this again while it is being dicussed on talk.If you repeat this action a third time I will block you. Please respond to questions." [1] I don't really think that's an appropriate remark for an edit summary, or anywhere else for that matter. Do you not agree with me that if anyone blocks MONGO, it should probably be someone who's not currently involved in an editing dispute with him? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, blocking me when we are in disagreement with each other would get you an Rfc and quick. Don't misrepresent images in captions and information in text to push a POV.--MONGO 01:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo - You made edit which I questioned on the talk page. You refused to answer these questions and then reverted the page twice. This behaviour is so far beyond the pale as to be embarrassing. You really should be ashamed. Seabhcán 07:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

rfc

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you should fill out the rfc yourself, and then I can choose to endorse yourt summary. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, didn't realise that. I don't have time to finish it today. It will have to wait until tomorrow or friday. Seabhcán

I will help you, what do I need to do? EyesAllMine 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Collapse of the Twin Towers

Disclaimer - I am not a structural engineer, and I don't have professional experience in this area, only academic. Still, seeing as there's no one else to step up I think it's good for me to respond.

To understand why the floor trusses sagged downwards, first take a look at a diagram of the trusses, such as the one at [2], figure 5. The truss consists of a top chord, a bottom chord, and a web (the diagonal elements). The truss is connected by the top chord at both ends.

Now, imagine that the truss is uniformly heated. The truss will want to expand in length, but that expansion is prevented by a horizontal reaction force at the connections. That horizontal reaction force is located at the top chord, resulting in a moment. The response of the truss to that moment is to bend, concave up (i.e. sag).

Even if the truss connections were along the centerline of the truss, it still should buckle concave up instead of concave down because of the applied vertical loads (dead load (self-weight) and live load (people, furniture etc.)).

The NIST analysis in the report [wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6C.pdf NIST-NCSTAR1-6C] (~ 8 mb download) shows calculated horizontal force of floor truss on the columns vs. temperature (fig. 5-37, page 83). The sequence shown is a large outward force on the columns up to about 560 C. Then the force abruptly changes to inward, and the seat bolts fail. Although the bolts connecting the truss to the seat fail, the truss is still resting on the seat at this point. As the truss continues to sag, it "walks-off" the seat at ~720 C.

Here's my understanding of the process - At ~560 C due to the high bending moment (thermal + gravity) and reduced steel strength the truss web fails. With the failure of the web, the truss loses most of its stiffness, and acts more like two cables (top chord and bottom chord) and less like a rigid structure. Without that stiffness, the expansion of the truss is no longer constrained, and it is essentially hanging off the seats in a catenary arc. The web failure may also come with dynamic loads (there's a discontinuity where the force goes from outward to inward). The bolts shear, and the truss falls off the seat as it continues to sag.

The bolted connection is a friction connection, meaning that the bolt provides a clamping force and the bolt is not meant to take shear forces (this is typical structural use of bolts). The bolt is in a slotted hole. It may be that the slot provided enough play for the truss to push directly against the column - I haven't found discussion of that. Also, other elements of the system such as the concrete slab may have taken some of the outward force. Anyway, that's only my speculation on why the bolts failed when the force on the columns was inwards, not outwards although the outward forces were calculated to be higher. It shouldn't make any difference, though - the ultimate failure (truss falling off seats) should be the same regardless of when the bolts failed. Toiyabe 15:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points. One is that for structures, engineers don't think in terms of degree of catastrophic failure. There are simply failures which don't endanger the occupants and failures that do. Once a failure crosses the line into catastrophic, further details of the collapse are not that interesting to engineers because the event that needed to be prevented has already occurred.

Also, after catastrophic failure a structure is no longer a structure but a mechanism. Its behavior is no longer subject to static analysis. Dynamic analysis of something as complicated as a collapsing sky-scraper is so difficult that nobody bothers to do it. Not to say you couldn't attempt it, but the confidence of the engineering community in the results of that analysis would approach 0

If you read the preface, the goals or the NIST investigation were:

• To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster.
• To serve as the basis for:
  • Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed maintained and used;
  • Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
  • Recommended revisions to current codes, standards and practices; and
  • Improved public safety.

Investigation into events after "global collapse ensued" would be out of scope. The only real purpose in doing that would be to counter-argue folks who think that the features of the collapse itself are inconsistent with the plane impact and fires. Apparently the Guvmint doesn't feel that's a good use of taxpayer $, and I don't blame them. First of all my confidence in the conclusions of that report would be low due to the difficulty in modeling the event. Secondly, even if I was highly confident in its conclusions I don't think that it would convince the folks it's aimed at, so why bother? Finaly specifically adressing a conspiracy theory probably would only serve to strengthen its appeal. Toiyabe 17:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats a reasonable answer, but I don't think that questioning why a localised failure would cause a global collapse could be described as conspiracy minded. Especially considering that the buildings were supposed to be designed to withstand such an incident. And also considering that far fewer people would have died if the top of the towers had simply fallen off. I tend to think of it in terms of the Titanic. That ship was designed to stay afloat even in the case of a hull breach. But it sank anyway - and the study into the sinking went into great detail on how this hull breach caused the sinking in this case. By analogy, the Nist report limited itself to discussing the hull breach only. I think thats a shame. Seabhcán 17:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Another analogy would be an investigation as to why the Titanic broke in half as it sank. The NIST report contains scenarios for both towers that continue up until large portions of the structure were in motion. That's about equivalent to when the Titanic's stern reared out of the water. The designers of the Titanic expected her to stay afloat even in case of a hull breach, but I doubt they expected the hull to survive the being cantilevered out of the water. Likewise the WTC's designers expected it to survive an airplane strike (possibly equivalent to the one that occured) but once the top quarter or so was in motion there was no hope. Survival beyond that point is not a reasonable design constraint. Toiyabe 19:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

From TruthSeeker1234

Hi. Yes, it would be interesting to write an article about the edit wars on 9-11. VERY interesting tidbit about MONGO working for USDHS. I'll get something started and contact you within a week or so. It would also be cool to write the WP collpase article NPOV, the way it should be, post it, and archive a copy. THey would revert it immediately, of course, but we could post it somewhere and use if for comparison.

cheers

-alex

Thats a good idea too. Why don't we do it here: User:Seabhcan/Collapse of the World Trade Center. Seabhcán 09:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Russian police template

Hi there. I thought you might be interested in this. AlexPU 18:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Well, the Rfc you wished to file wasn't certified in time, now you move a copy of a contentious article to your userspace to "make it NPOV"...and then to top things off, you are starting to engage in personal attacks both in comments and in edit summaries [3]. In light of your recent disagreements, do you think I am in a mood for a joke? Please see WP:NPA for future reference.--MONGO 13:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its a fair comment given your recent trolling and accusations of 'junk science'. Seabhcán 20:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ard na Caithne

Hi. Would you be able to add anything to the Ard na Caithne page from Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha's book or indeed just your own personal knowledge? Bheinn an-bhuíoch díot as tacaíocht ar bith leis. El Gringo 02:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Maíth an fear leis an óbair. I have been there of course but I don't know much about the place. I'll read through the book again and see if there is any useful info. Seabhcán 10:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Users' nationality

Any remarks about users' nationality are risky.[4] It might be better to avoid anything that could be mistaken for an imputation of bad faith. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was raising the question of bias, not bad faith. I believe there is certainly an eliment of systemic bias amoung some US editors. Seabhcán 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever also consider that the largest concentration of English speakers who have access to Wikipedia are American?--DCAnderson 21:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That is no excuse for bias. Editors need be level headed. Seabhcán 21:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbritation

Thought you might be interested to see this [5] SkeenaR 23:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

No Sebhcan, he has been repeatedly warned. He has threathened to publish other editors here, has been incivil many many times, even when told not to, and has repeatedly called other editors vandals when he has been directed repeatedly to the appropriate link to the correct description page on vandalism. There are many editors that have repeatedly told him that he needs to stop this, yet he continues. A 24 hour block to allow him to examine his bahevior may make him a better contributor, for he has made a few valid points, but no body is endoresing him due to his behavior.--MONGO 20:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted my action for review:[6]--MONGO 20:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad news

You are bad news for wikipedia. I simply fixed links in the article to conform with the rest of them and you reverted me...did you bother to see this?--MONGO 10:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that the revert button reverts all recent changes made by a particular user. I ment only to revert one change. Seabhcán 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hello, as it now longer matters just wanted to explain where those images came from- I made them myself. The locations are taken from O'Doherty- the book was published in B&White so the images werent scanned as you implied. That Damac bloke succeeded in forcing me off wikipedia, see his talk, so it no longer matters :) Keep up the good work! Fluffy999 12:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fluffy999,

You should have explained that. If you made these images yourself then you are allowed to upload them. If you had said - then I would have defended you. They were good images. Its a pity. Seabhcán 13:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a pity but then its a pity im the victim of a fruitcake also. No matter hes someone elses problem now. This is my final comment on wikipedia. Later Fluffy999 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. Most books state that all images and diagrams are copyright also. In such cases, it is not permissable to scan diagrams and images, add a bit of colour and claim you then hold copyright over them or that they are "your" images. As the user in question is continuing to go around Wikipedia insulting me with terms such as "fruitcake", I'd invite you Seabhcán to read the full record at User_talk:Damac#Fluffy999.--Damac 13:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on exactly how Fluffy999 produced these images, but if he created them from raw information contained in the book, then that is not copyright. Seabhcán 13:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The book he refers to is entitled The IRA at War: 1916 to the Present. An Illustrated History (ISBN 0853427534) I don't have the book to hand but I strongly suspect that a similar diagram (in black and white) is contained in it. Scanning from published works is what he was up to. He was producing black and white photographs on Wikipedia, claiming he was copyright holder, and not stating where he got them. These images were not in general circulation (for example photos taken by Helmut Clissmann, since deleted). Scanning diagrams would fit into this pattern well.

Fluffy was asked countless times to provide information on the images he uploaded. He refused, and I think that the fact that he has run away should tell us something.--Damac 13:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I "run away" as you put it because im tired dealing with Damac's kookiness. I refused because I wanted the images deleted in protest at my treatment by Damac. On returning to the computer after 30 minutes and see hes vandalised my talk page. I'm more than happy to "run away" from him like im sure a lot of other people do. Please do check the book for the image I uploaded, it wont be appearing. Fluffy999 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take your arguements to your own userpages. Seabhcán 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

GA

FYI — goethean ॐ 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WTC stuff

I saw your exasperation with User:MONGO on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. I sympathise but wanted to point out that keeping to WP:CIVIL is pretty important to the resolution of debates like this. So, I would say, is not giving up. I am having an interesting and relatively civilised conversation with him on Talk:7 World Trade Center which I thought you might be interested in. As a quarter-Irish Scot, I feel a certain affinity with you and wished to express my support; sorry in advance if this is not welcome, and fair game to you if you feel like giving it a break. --Guinnog 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pep talk Guinnog, but I'm too fed up with this wanker to work on the 9/11 stuff anymore. If I don't avoid US-related topics from now on, the stress will stop me editing wikipedia altogether. I'm finished with it, and I'm taking these subjects off my watchlist.Seabhcán 23:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand entirely. Thanks for the reply. Slainthe! --Guinnog 02:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your intervention regarding the WTC collapses today. I didn't want to go down that road just yet. Odd situation.--Thomas Basboll 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is an odd situation, and I'm afraid that correcting it would require more time than I have available for Wikipedia. Part of the problem is that for many American editors the events of 9/11 have become a kind of religious dogma, and they are unwilling or unable to step back and consider them dispassionately. Seabhcán 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right about the situation. I'm going to put a bit of time into now, as part of my own attempts to understand the collapses. Whatever time or advice you can offer would be great, but I understand your reluctance. I'm going to let my drafts sit there for a while, and make the edits next week (as already announced). We'll see how it turns out. Best,--Thomas Basboll 13:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good plan. I'd be happy to help. If you haven't seen them already, I recommend these [7] [8] [9]. Good luck with your studies. Seabhcán 13:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Naudet Brothers

Thanks for the semi-protect on the discussion page there. Seems just about anything related to 9/11 attracts POV crusaders posting by anonymous IP. --Rosicrucian 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It was an easy judgement call. Seabhcán 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject London

Hi,

You are currently listed as a participant in WikiProject London, so you may like to know that the participation list is being update. Contributors are asked to bold their names if they are still contributing to London-related projects. Inactive members will be removed at the end of the month. Thanks for participating, COME ON ENGLAND! DJR (Talk) 15:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

TruthSeeker1234 indefinite block

Hi. Truthseeker1234[10] has been given an indefinite block by Tom Harrison[11] for using sockpuppet EngineerEd[12]. EngineerEd was very much admired by certain parties in the main 9/11 article talk page[13] for a short time. Are you able to tell me if any other users or IP's are also using or were using sockpuppets? SkeenaR 06:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed had temporarily been flushed down the Memory hole. SkeenaR 06:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

From WP:ANI

I've moved the following from "Conduct Unbecoming an Administrator by User:Seabhcan" on ANI. - brenneman ^{L} 05:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Seabhcan is a Wikipedia administrator but has not been acting like one. I think that some of his comments and actions are the type of conduct that are reasons enough for removal of administrator privleges. In talking about fellow administrators: User:MONGO, User:Tom harrison, and some other users he said on User talk:TruthSeeker1234 It would be a happy day to see all these editors blocked - "a plague on both your houses! [14] Also, after User:TruthSeeker1234 himself acknowledged using a sockpuppet, as he himself stated to "make a point", and was banned indefinately [15] Seabhcan reacted by giving him the "defender of wikipedia" barnstar "for exposing the hypocrisy of some editors". [16] Administrators are suppose to present a neutral ground, how am I suppose to think this user is going to be neutral when he is giving out barnstars to indefinately banned users who self-admittingly use sockpuppets to "make a point"?--Jersey Devil 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He was not blocked due to any decision by the arbitration committee...comments about the block were posted here with only myself and User:Tom harrison making any note of it. Awarding barnstars to indefinitely blocked editors does seem odd.--MONGO 05:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

While this board is an ok place to say "should someone be doing this," this in particular does not relate to use of adminstrator privledges, and really should go somewhere else. Start an RfC? Use talk pages? But not here. I'll move this thread in ten minutes. Judos for providing diffs, at least. - brenneman ^{L} 05:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure move it. I wasn't sure where else to put it.--Jersey Devil 05:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan has always struck me as one of the more reasonable people in this debate. With regards to the EngineerEd flap - take it as a learning experiance. There was no harm done, and with hindsight Truthseeker provided many hints about what he was up to. Yes, he violated our trust, but the point is the internet is an untrusted medium. Reliable sources and sound reasoning are what we should trust, not assertions of credentials. And if you have the right attitude, falling victim to a hoax and then having that hoax revealed can be a very positive experiance.

I think that the net effect will be to increase the quality of the article, and thus I can understand why Seabhcan awarded the barnstar. Toiyabe 23:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hunger Project

A Sheabhcháin, go raibh maith agat as do chabhair, cuardóigh mé ar preas-ráiteas ag rá an rud chéana. Go n-éirí leat. - Dalta 22:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

NPA

I really wish you would avoid this kind of incivil hostility. [17] Mongo has an RfC open; If you must make snide comments, it would be less disruptive to make them there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this. [18] It adds nothing to the discussion, makes an already difficult subject harder to deal with, and degrades our working enviornment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[19] Seabhcan, I understand you are an experienced editor and administrator, so I'm not going to post an npa3 template here. You know the policy as well as I do. I don't know what more I can say to urge you to please stop these attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lighten up Tom. Have you no sense of humour. Anyway - Mongo was too quick on the draw. Seabhcán 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Seabhcan, I want to be straight up with you...have you ever seen the movie "The Insider"? It's a really good movie that demonstrates the issue of corporate control that parent companies may sometimes have over their subsidiary news agencies in the U.S. I don't know how often it happens, but it is fairly rare for huge stories such as that one. Do you have any idea how hard the mainstream press would love (now bear in mind that the American press, in general is no fan of George Bush) to find proof of contolled demolition...do you have any idea how much they would be willing to pay someone to come forward with this kind of information? What I am getting at, is to pull off an inside job and blow up the WTC and do all the other things, would be an endeavour that the bozos that run my government would never be able to hide. Just a few thoughts for you.--MONGO 13:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, you are obsessed with Controlled Demolition! Do you ever notice that you are always the first to raise the issue? The rest of us are just trying to improved the article using what NIST actually said (not what you would have like them to have said) and published opinions about it. You keep harping on about CD like a broke record. I think you need a holiday - or a psychiatrist. Just a few thoughts for you. Seabhcán 13:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Came here to try and be pleasant and you tell me I need a psychiatrist. I think you proved my point that you are incapable of being anything other than snide anymore. Just a few thoughts for you.--MONGO 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

I've asked for an outside view about the exchange at Talk:2006_Qana_airstrike#Category by filing this Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#30_July_2006. I think it's important to try to keep passions down when discussing current events, and I'm saddened by the whole thing. 141.154.225.213 22:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to comment?

There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates for references

I noticed your edits on State terrorism by United States of America

Have you considered using these? :

<ref name = " "> {{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = | title = | publisher = | location = | id = }}</ref>

<ref name = " "> {{cite journal | first = | last = | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = | month = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | id = | url = }}</ref>

<ref name = " "> {{cite web | title = | work = | url = | accessdate=2006-07-30 }} </ref>

<ref name = " "> {{Cite video | People= | ReleaseYear= | Title= | Medium= | DistributorsLocation= | DistributorsName= <nowiki>}}</ref>

Because I am having to go back and add this information in the templates. nice job on the referencing. Travb (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Might be interested

I noticed that you took part in State terrorism by United States of America discussion for deletion. After the article has survived many deletions, you may be interested that there is a user right now who is deleting large portions of the article. 69.150.209.15 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)