Hey there Shreditor, I wanted to contact you about the Pressure carburetor article you created. It's a great article all in all, and I found your description of the carburetor's internal mechanics and design to be very lucid. However, there's just one part that is puzzling to me. In the Construction section of the article, you state that the carburetor is very similar to a float carburetor, except that it doesn't have a needle valve in it. But later, in the Operation section, you describe the pressure carburetor as having a needle valve, through which the air bleeds from Chamber A to the low pressure in the venturi (I assume this is short for venturi meter?), and that this needle valve is operated by the pilot or an 'aneroid bellows' (should this be linked to Pressure_measurement#Aneroid?).
These contradictory descriptions are a bit confusing, and I wasn't sure how exactly to fix it as I'm unfamiliar with most of these mechanical devices. Should the Construction section be edited to remove the reference to the needle valve, or is it a different needle valve that is not present in the pressured carburetor. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could clear up this issue in the article whenever you get the chance. Or, if you could explain things to me, I'd be willing to be make the edits for you.--Subversive Sound (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not remove content without citing a valid rationale in an Edit Summary, or add material without citing a verifiable source, as you did with this edit to Jeff Dunham. To the first point, there was no rationale given for the removal of Dunham's hobby of building his own kit helicopters or flying them or further details about them. To the second point, the url you provided does not lead to any information on Dunham, but redirects to this page. Moreover, the url wasn't formatted into a link visible in the References section, but as plain text. (WP:Citing sources explains how to format references.) If you need any other help editing, just let me know. Nightscream (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that your edits were intended in good faith. :-) We're required, in fact, to Assume Good Faith in situations like this. I myself have sometimes mis-written urls, edited without knowing certain policies when I was a newbie, etc. In fact, if you scroll up two sections above the one you created on my Talk Page, you'll notice someone pointed out an error on my part, and two sections above that, yet someone else did for another one. So don't sweat it, and if you ever have questions about editing or policies, don't hesitate to contact me. :-)
- Regarding the content of our edits, I don't think that mentioning some of the helicopter's capabilities gives the impression that this is all it can do, but I think you have a point that it's not relevant to an article on Dunham. However, I did not copy anything "verbatim", as that is not my practice. I paraphrased the material, just as I always do from a source. As for whether material is false, if it is in a reliable, verifiable source, then an editor's removal of it based on his/her personal knowledge is problematic, since, as it states at WP:Truth, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." However, again, this particular material may not be relevant to the article, so I've removed it. For future reference though, it's not a good idea to remove well-sourced material simply because you have personal knowledge that it's wrong. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)