Jump to content

User talk:Wizard191/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Wizard191/Archive 1: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Kukini 06:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrought iron

Dear Wizard191. You have made a real mess of the above article. I do not want to be harsh with you, and have little doubt that what you have done is only from an excess of enthusiasm. However, before you edit articles on the history of metallurgy, you need to be sure that you really do understand what you are changing. I have no dount that the 1854 book that you cite reflects how iron was made in the 1850s, but that does not mean that the author really knew what had gone on before. You have clearly not understood the difference between pig iron and wrought iron and that the the fining of pig iron involves a chemical process, not merely a mechanical one. I would strongly suggest that you take a look at the articles on History of Ferrous Metallurgy; Bloomery; Finery forge; and such like. I do not want to start having to engage in edit wars with you. Please ensure that you cite credible authorities, written by people who know their subject. I have not seen "Engineer to win", but assume this to be a book on engineering, not on metallurgy. I have spent a lot of time trying to get the various articles on the iron and steel industry correct, as regards historical processes, but you appear to be undoing that work.

I will confess that my knowledge of post-1850 processes is not strong, my research having mainly been for the charcoal iron industry, on which I have a doctorate in economic history. I do not want to discourage you from constructive editing, but I am afraid that some of what you are doing is not that. I will be substantially amending some of what you have done, but not tonight. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if the above appeared harsh. The truth is that I was somewhat exasperated to find reasonably correct text replaced with errors. It may well be that the article in its recent state was not very satisfactory. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia is liable to produce a series of parallel articles dealing with the same subject. This is unsatisfactory, unless these form a "tree", where a general article leads to various more detailed ones. I tried construct such a tree with History of Ferrous Metallurgy at the top and a variety of subsidiary articles below, but there were so many that this was difficult. I suspect that I ought to have picked up what you were doing, as you were doing it, but I was probably only checking the last change, where you had made a number of them between occasions when I looked in the course of checking my watchlist. You will note that I had reverted a large number of not very good changes not long before you started work. I will hope before long to work over what you have done and deal with the issues raised above. When I have done so, I will welcome your having a good critical look at I have done. However, I wanted to avoid the two of us having an edit war, which is a waste of very one's time.
Some months ago, I had to discourage some one else, who sought to expand an account of puddling in an article where it was purposely dealt with only briefly, rather than adding to the detailed article, which is (I think) puddling (metallurgy). Many articles expand by different editors adding a bit more. Every so often, some one has to go through them and tidy them up, eliminating the dross. I am sure that is what you were trying to do. It just is that I did not think you had done it well. I hope that when I have had a go at it, you will recognise some of what you did as still there. Some of what you did is good. If that were not the case, I would have reverted the lot.
the New Year begins here in 20 minutes time, though no dount it is only early evening for you. So many I wish you a Happy New Year? I hope that it will be one in whcih you can do some profitable editing on WP. There is plenty of trash to be revised and plenty of stub articles to be expanded, so we need all the editors we can get. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to thank you for your interference, as it has stimulated me to carry out a major revision of the historical section of the article, including making good its lack of citations. As I said, I have not seen Engineer to win, but if the content you wrote about "forging method" citing it is accurately cited, the author does not understand what he was writing about. I tried to eliminate all mention of this, but the reference books that I have to hand do not give temperatures, so that I found it necessary to restore a citation of it. However, it would be better if it could be eliminated entirely, at least from the historical section. I have hardly touched anything outside the historiccal section; "puddling" has been edited. However, I eliminated your "forging method" section (which was - I fear - full of misunderstandings and restored what was there before you started. I then edited and expanded this to provide what I hope is a better account, with fuller citations. Additionally, I have added some new sections. There are a few red links. This is intentional, as articles are needed. I have been intending to produce one on "potting and stamping" for some time, but in doing so, I would want to express my own views, which are still unpublished and so constitute WP:OR. I therefore need to write an article and publish it in a journal before I can provide a summary for WP. I think I have done about all to this article that I want to for the moment, so it is over to you to see what you can do to improve it further. One concern that I have is that there may be too much on puddling here and that the detail should appear in the article puddling (metallurgy). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell at a quick glance, The Manufacture of Iron, in All Its Various Branches appears to be a satisfactory source for its period. However, you must bear in mind that the author is writing about what was done in his time. This may differ from what was done earlier and, of course, he could not know what would happened after he wrote. For example, I observe a section on the German forge, but not on the Walloon process, the one used in Great Britain and probably in colonial period in America. Puddling began in the 1780s, but only worked for whate cast iron until preliminary refining in a refinery or running out furnace was combined. The practice of adding a source of iron oxide to the charge only began in about the 1830s - see Joseph Hall (metallurgist). Subject to this qualification, by all means use this work. Unfortuantely, the volume of Percy's metallurgy (published 1860s) on iron, which is frequently cited as an authorative source, appears not to be available on Google Books. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the modern steel industry

I am glad you are tackling this article. Some one else started out on it with great enthusiasm and then gave up. The result is that there is a reasonable section on USA, and virtually nothign else. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that

It seems to have been a bug, I simply don't do that kind of thing. I've no idea how or whether I triggered it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note about UNS! I guess I may be a bit too attached to that debate and I appreciate your perspective. I don't think that simply walking away is the best solution, but I will try to balance my actions and words to match the low importance of the issue at stake. Thank you for mediating us.--Yannick (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Phase diagram

I saw your note on the talk page at heat treatment. I'm impressed with your creation of the diagram. I did have just one comment.

It's nice to have a visual for the temperatures for subcritical/process annealing and spherodizing relative to the austenitizing (critical) temperature, but the diagram implies these two processes are only done on steels with certain carbon contents. In fact, subcritical annealing can be done on both steels and irons (the diagram implies it can be done only on steels with less than 0.30% carbon), while spherodizing is done only on steels and not irons (the diagram implies it is only done to steels with more than 0.60%, and also to irons - alloys that have up to several percent carbon).

I suspect you were trying to show the times involved in these processes, but I worry the effect is more confusing than informative. LyrlTalk C 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

categories

I have restored categories that you have removed from articles. They may not be exactly the right ones, but are not too bad. I see no objection to removing categories, if you replace them with something better, but they are primarily there to be a navigation tool, and are best left as they are, unless clearly wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuous cooling transformation

Thank you for editing the article, its now much better. Sometimes the only way to get a rubbish article improved is to threaten it with deletion! Cheers, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Leaching (chemical science)

A tag has been placed on Leaching (chemical science) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 a copy be emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Leaching (chemical science). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. If you feel that the page shouldnt be deleted you're welcome to post on the talk page, but dont remove the template until the situation has been resolved. Ironholds (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You said to look at the talk page; what am i meant to be looking at? you dont seem to have posted anything. thanks. Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick note:

It's not a good idea to put the {{prod}} template on things that you're not proposing for deletion (like other people's talk pages when you're showing it to them). It puts the page on a list of pages that have been proposed for deletion. I suggest using {{tl|prod}} instead. That creates a link to the template page. That's all, thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Blast furnace

I'm really pleased to see the work you're doing on this article. Too often when the GA Sweep comes along the article has been long abandoned, and nobody rallies round to save it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of disambiguation templates

Hello, I'm afraid you've interpreted links to disambiguated topics incorrectly. This section refers to inline links to disambiguation articles, and not the {{See also]] template, which is specifically intended to point out to the reader that there are other meanings of the word. See disambiguation templates Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this - are you going to unlink all the other articles that use the {{this}} and {{otheruses}} templates too? In that case, maybe a TfD is needed for these templates too? Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of speedy

Anyone other than the article's creator is permitted to remove a speedy tag. Please see Wikipedia:DELETION#Speedy_deletion. --Eastmain (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Symbolic Hammer edits

Dear Wizard191. I can appreciate that there may be some justifiable reason for removing entries in a particular article, but it would be really helpful (not to mention courteous) to at least leave the previous editor/contributor a note and reason for removing the edits. Right now I am dumbfounded as to why you have done this, and I request that you refrain from doing so in the future without a decent explanation. Otherwise, your removal of information appears to be vandalism. Thank you for your kind attention, Gbeith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbeith (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Pig iron

This was missing from my watch list, and I am surprised to see what a horrible article this is - mostly not about pig iron at all. I am not sure what to do about it. What do you think? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

McMaster Carr

You need to stop shopping at McMaster Carr. Sure, they can save yor ass with their 24 hour will call, and the fact that they have 10,000 of every item in stock, but you could save at least 40% by going through a mfg's rep.

Let me know what you are buying from them and I am sure I could suggest a substitue. CENSEI (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Chrome/Chromium

Actually, Chromium is the name of the web browser without Google's branding. Only official Google releases have the Google branding and the name Google Chrome. Madlobster (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Repousse and chasing categories

I'm wondering why you removed the Category:Art history by medium|Sculpture I added to the Repousse and chasing article? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because the articles in the category Category:Art history by medium are based upon mediums. The article Repousse and chasing is much too detailed to be included in in this category, in my opinion. Rather a more proper article, along the same lines, would be something like History of metal art. --Wizard191 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I found one for Category:Sculpture techniques, will that work for you? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...that seems much more fitting. --Wizard191 (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Meyer's Law

Hi and thanks for getting in touch with me. Assuming you are an expert on the subject, you are quite welcome to remove the {{Expert}} tag. I am simply wandering through the new pages as they get added to wikipedia and taking any immediate action I see necessary. If you are able to expand this, I see no problem! Go ahead, and thank you for discussing this with me. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Drywall

Companies listed i.e. United State Gypsum was accepted, National Gypsum was not.

This is not an add for the companies, but represent an example of the top 2 US drywall companies.

Savolya (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Savolya

Images for Induction Forging

Hi I have some images for Induction Forging as you have requested. The problem is that I am not familier enough to upload them onto the wiki article. What do you suggest? Heatingcity (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Uploading pictures is pretty easy. The biggest question is whether or not the pictures are already posted online at another website. If they are then you will have to go through an extra step otherwise it is very straightforward: go to the wikimedia commons [1], which is a repository of our media files, and then click on the link "Upload file" on the left side (or just click on this link to take you right there http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload). From there you'll just follow the on screen directions. If your picture is already posted elsewhere on the internet then you will have to file an OTRS by emailing wikimedia with the proper permissions. Instructions for this are on the "Permissions" line of the form when you are uploading your image. If you need any other assistance please don't hesitate to ask. --Wizard191 (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I have uploaded 2 images and one of them is a duplicate (3 in total so one needs deleting). I know you said it was easy but hey guess what, anything is easy when you know ho to do it. Not sure what to do next. Can you embed them in the Induction Forging page? That way I will see the code that you have created and then understand how you have done it etc?Heatingcity (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about not explaining how to insert them into an article. I just looked up the images you uploaded and inserted one of them into the induction forging article. You can find the code there, but I'll repost it here for you as well: [[Image:Induction Forging of Shafts - Stage 1 Insertion.jpg|thumb|right|300px|First stage of induction forging process]]. The first argument is the file name, the second makes it a thumbnail (which you will almost always want to do), the third specifies where you want it to display (left, center, or right), the forth is how big you want it in width of pixels (300px is usually a good size; you can also omit it and wikipedia will automatically size it), and the last is the caption for the image. Note that you can omit any of the arguments except the file name, but it won't look very clean (aka it could be [[Image:Induction Forging of Shafts - Stage 1 Insertion.jpg]]). Also, the duplicate you uploaded automatically overwrote the original, so you don't have to worry about deleting.
P.S. You will want to go back and add your own caption to the image I put in the induction forging article. --Wizard191 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Induction Heater

Hi Wizard, I will look to tidy up some of my article work generally as I re-read it. Also you have requested some sources of the material for some articles, which is no problem and I will endevour to achieve this over the next week or so. The main question was relating to induction furnace. I will review both articles and then suggest a course or action over the next week or so. Generally there is a differance and also another subject which is known as induction melting which is currently acting as a redirect to induction furnace. I will feedback soon on this. I hope that this helps. At some stage the actual page induction heating will need a review as although it is content rich, it is definately a mish-mash of information and not of a high technical standard Heatingcity (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cutting oils compatibility with Composite PUsh in Fittings

Hi,

In your opinion, are Cutting oils generally compatible with Composite fittings. The body of the fitting is PBT, the release ring is POM, and the Form ring is Buna.

Thanks,

meme

I'm not very familiar with machining the plastics you've listed. I guess it depends on what you are doing, but you might not even need cutting fluid. If there isn't a lot of material removal I would probably do it dry. Otherwise you'll have to use a special cutting fluid that will not damage the various types of plastics. I would shy away from anything oil based, unless it specifically says its safe for the plastics listed above, because oils have a tendency to attack various types of plastics. Even if you are removing a lot of material, you could get away with not using a cutting fluid if you take it in enough small passes. Hope that helps. --Wizard191 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Harald Wallin

Hi. Why is an approved scientific report regarding the galling phenomenon rejected as a conflict of interest? If you read the report you will see that it’s uses a Neutral point of view and discuss galling in aspect of the ASTM standard and the involved test equipment and materials and say nothing about other types of equipment and materials.

It clearly doesn’t promote my own point of view because it’s clear in the text that the subject is controversial and my (and others) views are not accepted through out the tribological community. I have also seen other writers using there own work as a reference.

Also for a new reader can a reference be a god source for discussion and the presented figures in the report and descriptions of the involved tribological mechanisms are universal and already accepted by researchers around the globe.

Thanks for contribute in making the wiki text about galling better, but I think all references should be accepted if they are scientifically acceptable.

Harald Wallin, responsible for the text regarding the galling phenomenon found in the Wiki archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Plastics applications

Hi...I see that you have added the category:plastics applications to blow molding and vacuum forming. I don't think that it is the right category for those articles, as those are processes for forming and creating parts from plastic. I believe that cat is for articles that are about plastic products. I would like your side of the story though before I just remove them. Wizard191 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Items which are blow molded and vacuum formed seem to be applications of plastics. These two articles discuss items manufactured by these processes. I suggest that we keep the category references broad. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

metal spinning

Wizard I dont know why you have removed my credit from the image I made just for Wikipedia, maybe you found it an offence. And the link to my website which has helped 1000's of poeple learn more about the nearly forgotten craft of metal spinning. I know one thing, you are not a metal spinner. probably just passing through with nothing else to do.

T Tynan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Tynan (talk • contribs) 02:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Inline Citations

Hi I am in a position to place inline citations to my articles on Wiki. I have tried to work out how this is done and am not sure how to do it. I have looked at the forging page for example and it is not clear how it is done? I am not sure how to proceed with this. Maybe you can set up a dummy run on induction forging with one reference source etc? This seems to use something called a 'reflist' which is an area which seems hidden and non accessible. Again I am unfamiliar with this etc?Heatingcity (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Feeler Gauge

Wizard191, The changes I made to Feeler Gauge removing the reference to Andrejs Muiza was correct. Feeler gauges were in existence LONG before Mr. Muiza made his patent.

If you research the patent itself, you will see that it only is for the feeler gauge blade holder.

For reference see

http://books.google.com/books?id=AcYUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA532&dq=%22feeler+gage%22&lr=&num=100&as_brr=1&ei=9nwjSay4E5WszASJ5bXRBQ&client=firefox-a#PPA533,M1

which is the Machinists' Monthly Journal dated January 1909 On page 532 you will see a Starrett model 245 feeler gauge which is still being made to this day. http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/catalog/groups.asp?GroupID=112

Please delete the reference to Mr. Muiza.

Ironbutt (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

maybe I understood something wrong, but I checked the other links and I thougt there is a link missing to laser bonding systems. Laser can not be assembled by hand - this external link could be a help for all people working with all kind of laser.

I already know that all links are set to "no follow" - If I'm using Wikipedia to learn something about a new topic for my job - I'm absolutely happy to find more external links (no Wiki links) related to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.216.250 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Phase diagram

Please see my talk page for a continuation of this discussion. Petergans (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Packaging

Thank you for your clarification of the issue on the Packaging page. I hope this is closer to resolution. One of the subjects in packaging which is not covered well in WK is strapping. I note that you work for Signode. Do you think a page should be started on strapping? This could cover types (steel, PP, PET), seals, uses/applications, equipment basics, standards, . . . Rlsheehan (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a strapping article created, but I've been reluctant to because it's a COI for me. I have plenty to contribute to it, but would need it "peer-reviewed" for bias. I did go in an clean up the strap article, as it was a complete mess, but, again, I haven't contributed anything new to it. I think that the industrial and packaging uses of strapping should be noted there as well. Wizard191 (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean whit this message, 19:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Please do not use this account as a sock puppet to User:Haraldwallin. This is the only warning you will receive. If you violate the sock puppet rules again I will report you. Wizard191 (talk)

Hi. I don´t understand What do you mean by this, see above.

I haven’t done any kind of sock puppet actions. If there is a problem I want to know exactly what you referee to, please? If there is somebody high jacking my account I want to know.

Thanks for letting me know. whit regards Harald Wallin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.233.10 (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Spinning (polymers)

Updated DYK query On 25 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spinning (polymers), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Flexible Manufacturing Systems

Wizard, The Content removed form FMS Flexable Manufacturing Systems was a picture of a stand alone Haas SL 20 Turning Center. The machine pictured didn't even have a bar feeder on it which is one of the most basic forms for factory automation. I beleive that the picture was misleading therefore it was removed. I can provide a personal picture of a dual gantry loaded dual head CNC chucker with in feed and out feed tables for the section to assist in clean up or a HMC Cell with a multi level pallet rack and an RGV loader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statemachinetool (talk • contribs) 16:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of them were pretty good. I see no good reason for deleting all of them. Akoebel (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Because they did not adhere to WP:EL. Specifically WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTHOWTO. Wizard191 (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Per the guidelines the body of the article should not be a directory or a how-to guide , but a few links to some how-to information in a separate section is entirely appropriate. IMO you went too far. But, of course, that is the nature of Wikipedia. And the reason why information here should never be accepted as truly authoritative. Akoebel (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Internal wrenching nut

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Internal wrenching nut, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDICT

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. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Alenut is a good article, but it really needs a picture! Could you draw one, or do you have one? That would totally justify removal of the 'confusing' template. Stijndon (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

G7

For future reference, could you please link to a user's request for deletion when you tag a page for G7 deletion on their behalf? I was close to not deleting those two images by Clivedog because there was no evidence that the user himself had requested deletion. Thanks, no need to reply. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Helical camshaft article.

Hello Wizard, About the matter of copyright on the "Helical camshaft" article - I couldn't work out how to email the black-bordered permission statement (does anybody else have problems with these apparently-simple tasks?). I sent my own version of what I think is required to the "info-en-c@wikimedia.org address. Is this OK? Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clivedog (talk • contribs)

Hello Wizard - I think I have finally managed to send off the copyright consent form (after three attempts). Please let me know if I need to do anything more to get the "Helical camshaft" article unblocked. Sorry to be a nuisance. Regards Clivedog.Clivedog (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wizard - I see you have been "Wikifying" the article- it certainly looks more "Wikilike" now. One slight objection would be to having the pictures all in one block. The pictures were positioned before to illustrate particular points being made in the nearby text - the picture placement now looks a bit random. On the question of inline citations. The statement about there never having been a workable variable duration camshaft etc. The whole subject of mechanical continuous VVA is a very specialised (and obscure) subject. It is difficult to find the topic discussed at all let alone the exact quote you need. Certainly over the last thirty years or so various engineers, cam grinders, car magazine editors etc. etc. have expressed this opinion to me but I doubt if any of them could ever actually offer irrefutable evidence to support their position. Clearly the statement is partly self-evidently true in that a variable camshaft (of the type with my specific provisos) are certainly not in common use. Whether there has been at some time such a camshaft that has remained unknown (or if one is a bit paranoid, suppressed) is another question. If there is one it has remained well hidden - but it is possible. The only other way the statement could have been made is to make all sorts of qualifications about it being probably true but one never be absolutely sure etc. etc. As it was the article ran to over 6,000 words and it was all ready over-long by Wiki guidelines - making explanations like the preceding arguments really do lead to excessive rambling - something I am always prone to do. If I had no word limit I would most likely take the long-winded approach - it think it is ultimately the best way. There are times when sweeping statements and generalisations are very useful - as in this case. On a slightly different subject - I notice that you have been showing some interest in the "Variable Valve Actuation" article (mostly a series of headings at present). I think this aticle could be developed into a fairly definitive article article about the various obscure types (and there are a lot) of attempts at mechanical VVA as well as "mainstream" VVA. As I implied above I have never seen a really good article, book, paper or whatever on the subject - if there is one it is not very accessible. Such an article could be very useful to big company engineers and private inventors alike. I should mention that I have no connection with the VVA article (at least, not yet). Anyhow thank you for your assistance with my article. Regards, Clivedog. Clivedog (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for the long delay...I read this and then got side tracked and forgot to respond when you first sent this.)
Unfortunately, I think that most of those photos are overkill, as is part of the article text. A lot of time is spent on THAT particular cam which does not give justice to the whole concept as a whole. Therefore I see a lot of the text and pictures going, but you are more than welcome to position them more aptly than they are currently.
As for the things I added inline texts to, generalized or not they need references if anyone, myself or otherwise, requests them, otherwise they are open for deletion. In the first case, I believe that it can be reworded to say that no one has patented anything else in the field until XXXX. In the second case you might have to devote a section to why other systems haven't achieved it, with references, if you can't get a source with the blanket statement. I must also note to you that you are worrying me here a little bit by your statement "Certainly over the last thirty years or so various engineers, cam grinders, car magazine editors etc. etc. have expressed this opinion to me but I doubt if any of them could ever actually offer irrefutable evidence to support their position." This amounts to original research (OR) which isn't allowed on wikipedia. If inline refs to primary and secondary sources aren't added then significant portions may be removed as OR. Just a warning.
As for the VVA article, I was just doing a little house cleaning. I work my way around to a lot of side articles and clean up anything that jumps at me. Wizard191 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wizard, Thank you for your comments. On the point about excessive pictures - I have always been a great believer in a picture being worth a thousand words. I have to admit that I was not totally aware of the Wikipedian definition of OR. I will work on the citations needed and the "dubious" question. Regards, Clivedog. Clivedog (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wizard, I see I have a warning now about the helical cam article being written like an advertisement. I would prefer to say that is is written like a magazine article. Anyhow I have removed the last five lines which admittedly were getting a bit carried away and didn't add any useful information to the article. I have also removed one of the earlier sections that required a citation. I am not sure who put the warning up - was it "Fiskbil"? He/She doesn't seem to have a normal talk page and appears to be new to Wiki. What other sections would you consider to be advertising? Clivedog. Clivedog (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...I didn't add that, however I can see why someone did. I haven't read the whole thing through yet; I'm sort of working my way through a little at a time and cleaning up as I go. However, the biggest thing I see is that it is call "the helical camshaft", implying that there is but one, much like an advert. If they were all changed to "a helical camshaft" that would help. Wizard191 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wizard, I see that I have been awarded a rash of new "citations needed" plus a POV warning and some other problems as well. I am starting to feel that I am fighting a losing battle at present. Note that I don't deny that by Wiki guideline standards these actions are probably at least partly justified. My intention now is to basically remove (or heavily modify) most of these contentious statements and transfer them to the discussion page. I see in the Wiki guidelines about discussion pages that this is allowed (or even encouraged to some extent) as long as it is not too extreme. I am a bit surprised at the protests about links to other Wiki pages. Personally I would feel that anyone who is interested enough to look at these other Wiki pages would also be interested to see the "helical camshaft" article - I certainly would. What possible harm could inviting people to look at "helical camshaft" do? If one is offended for some reason by the article - don't read it. You seem to have a supporter now for your POV - have I no support at all for my POV? (POV - dear oh dear, I am starting to write like a true Wikipedian). Clivedog. Clivedog (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Clivedog, I don't want you to feel like "we" are ganging up on you. We, you me and most other users of wikipedia, are just trying to all make it better. I added the {{fact}} temps in order to prompt you or others to add inline references for thing that I felt needed them. I chose them because I felt they could be challenged for their verifiability. Just because the temp is there doesn't mean that it will be removed; I believe that everything that is there is true, it just needs a reference. You don't have to move these to the talk page if you don't want, however, it might be a good idea if you don't plan on adding references to them in a timely manner, as anyone can come along and delete them due to the lack of reference. It is your call.
As for the links, that's spamming. Links are only supposed to be added if they are directly related. As TomRawlinson noted, a lot of the articles you added a link to were only secondarily related. Not all of the links were removed, only the ones that weren't as applicable.
My goal in the note about POV is to move the articles text towards a neutral point of view. I recommend that you read through that link to understand where I'm coming from.
Just a side note, all of the contributors here are humans, and as such we have various opinions for what should be included. As the article was first published, it had a very advertisy feel. Someone could have come along and proposed it for a deletion, and it probably would have been. The point here is we all have a different views for articles, especially between someone who wrote the article and someone who didn't. Sometimes it helps to take a step back and try to look at it from the other persons shoes. Again, I don't want you to feel alienated. Wizard191 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Wizard, thank you for your comments which I thought were very reasonable indeed. The main reason I am in a bit of trouble is that being a first time Wiki writer I wrote the article in the wrong style, like a magazine article - which is not what is really needed by Wiki. I still intend to use the talk page to explain (and possibly expand) on some of the contentious points. As I find relevant references I will transfer things back to the main article page. I know now that I will have trouble finding a really good reference for some of the points. I wish I could - in some cases I have been looking for more than thirty years. A lot of the evidence I will use on the talk page is circumstantial (if that is the correct word) or "negative" evidence. Clearly the Wiki main article page is not the place for this type of non-encyclopaedic writing even though I think very good arguments can be made in this way. My main object in making so many internal links was in the hope of someone suddenly saying "I know just the reference for that particular point etc. etc." or even "the helical cam is just like the such-and-such cam from 1935" or whatever. Regards, Clivedog.Clivedog (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wizard, I see you have deleted my "see discussion note" etc. I don't think the discussion page material makes much sense unless it is linked to the main article in some way. Unless it is definitely against Wiki rules or whatever I would prefer that it was un-deleted. Also thank you for the format straightening-up. Clivedog (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually delete it, I hid it. I put it there so if someone comes along and wants to delete the information they'll see the note and reference the talk page. It's not against policy, per-se, to put a visible note referencing the talk page, but it's "clumsy". By hiding it, only those who are trying to delete it will see it, but not all of the readers. Wizard191 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Work of Friction

Interesting, while walking to school today I was just thinking that maybe I should ask you to weigh in on the conversation started by User:Another Stickler. I wasn't sure if you were watching the page. He might actually be correct that the surface of the earth is not an inertial reference frame, although it is sufficiently 'stationary' for the purposes of determining the sign of work done by friction. Perhaps we can find a reference that actually calculates the magnitude of Coriolis and Centripetal or Centrifugal accelerations. The current Inertial frame of reference article is a mess. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that A.S. is probably right that technically the Earth is not a legitimate IFOR, however, for the example, it is so close to being one that the difference is termed "negligible". Physicists and engineers often do this to simplify calculations and examples so that they don't need to go through tedious and needless work. However, I feel that I am preaching to the choir here. If A.S. continues to press the issue I will raise this point to him. I feel that it wouldn't be too hard to find a source stating this point. Wizard191 (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Copper

Hello, I just reverted some vandalism on the Copper article. You reverted an edit by one user here to the version by a previous anon user. However, that user's version was a vandalized version as well, so I further reverted to the version before that here . I am just letting you know that you missed a bit of vandalism, that you should have reverted further. Thanks. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I missed it when looking at the history. Thanks for catching that. Wizard191 (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"GearHeads"' contibutions

Here you see a fair number of "stub" or otherwise very short articles. Should some of them get unified? Should some be listed together in a topics-list article? Michael Hardy (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. It looks like Buscuttin started to fix the problem by creating the article: list of gear nomenclature. We can take the current stubs and merge them into that article. Let me know what you think. Wizard191 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

size as a determining characteristic of threaded fasteners

I see you reverted my edit [2] on the screw article and changed it back to "It generally refers to a smaller threaded fastener" adding the reference <ref name="szykitka">Szykitka, p. 465.</ref>. I'm not sure what reference this refers to. (is it perhaps incomplete?) I'd appreciate it if you could clarify this for me, as I suspect you are mistaken. At the bare minimum we should add that self-tapping or non is a determining characteristic. (I would say the most important one). Thanks. --Keithonearth (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, its not incomplete. "Szykitka" is the last name of the author of the book, and "p. 465." refers to the page number from his book. The book is listed in the bibliography section of the article.
As for your other point, the section title over which the "bolt" and "screw" definitions are under already note the self-tapping or non-self-tapping characteristics. This, I would say, already asserts the fact it is the more important characteristic. Wizard191 (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I should have figured that out. And good point re: section heading...--Keithonearth (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Holger F. Struer

Hi Wizard191, I have edited the text, please review the new text and let me know if you have any comments.

Br Jacob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.24.10.66 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have any problem with the text. The problem with the article is there are no secondary sources asserting the notability of Struer. The WP:BIO guideline states that a secondary source is required for biographies. Wizard191 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizard191/Archive_1&oldid=1144745317"