User talk:Wolfkeeper/Archive 2

Oberth effect

I hope I didn't give offense: I only replaced the explanation because I was certain I was right. The paradox does need a resolution.

The potential energy difference does not explain the effect. Consider a modified version of the example I give on Oberth effect, where the difference in speed comes from the speed being invested into potential energy, that is, the spacecraft was moving away from some mass. We now have two different cases. One, the rocket at a certain distance from a mass moving away from it below escape velocity, two, the rocket after its speed has reached zero, converting all of the speed from case one into potential energy, 1/10 of which was invested into the propellant. It started with a speed of 9. We don't need to know the size of the mass or the exact distances. A speed of 9 gives initial kinetic/potential energy of 81, 8.1 of which is held in the propellant. The rocket fires in the same way as in my previous example, and kinetic energy is assigned in the same way. Potential energy does not change because nothing has changed its height. We still have an 89.1 difference in kinetic energy of the rocket between the two cases, and the difference in potential energy of the propellant is 8.1 between the two cases, insufficient to explain the effect.

--Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... the Oberth effect only happens when there is a change in potential energy. Your explanation doesn't cover potential energy, so is clearly incomplete. The kinetic energy of the propellant is generated from potential energy before it gives it up that energy to the body of the rocket, so the ultimate source of the energy is potential energy. In some cases the vehicle can have no significant initial kinetic energy until it falls close to the gravitating body.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying quickly, I've been away for awhile. The Oberth effect absolutely requires a change in kinetic energy, and this is almost always due to a change in potential energy, however it is not required: The kinetic energy could come from another supply of kinetic energy, such as after a collision, or a transfer from a skyhook-like device. My example above does in fact cover potential energy: I refer to the change in both the potential energy of the propellant and the rest of the craft, and it is not sufficient to explain the change in kinetic energy. The difference between the kinetic energy of the rocket between the two examples is 89.1, the difference in potential energy of both the propellant and the rocket is only 81, it is the difference between the initial kinetic energy between the two examples. The first example has a potential energy of 81, the second kinetic energy of 81 instead (it's the rocket if it had fallen and then used its engine).

I think I had already satisfied you that the potential energy of the propellant alome could not provide the energy, the equations are clear. I am surprised you reverted the article to your old version. Unless this argument convinces you, I think we need to ask for arbitration. Wingedsubmariner (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, arbitration means something else...I mean "dispute resolution", as described at Wikipedia:DR. Wingedsubmariner (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're simply talking nonsense. First you need to analyse everything in an inertial reference frame- we'll use Saturn. If the vehicle is travelling at 5 km/s and falls in towards Saturn and gains 20km/s, it then fires a thruster that emits exhaust at 3km/s relative to the rocket. It would leave the exhaust moving at 22km/s; whereas if it applies this burn in mid-space then the propellant would be left at 2 km/s; if it applies this close to saturn. The propellant has *more* kinetic energy when fired close to Saturn than when fired away; as does the rocket, and the rocket, when it has left the planet will be moving much faster than if it had applied it in deep space. The reason is that the potential energy of the propellant ends up much lower in the first case than the second, and the rocket was able to benefit from that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is the change in total energy that matters. 5 -> 2 means 25 - 4 = 19 change in potential energy, or 19, whereas 25 -> 22 means 625 - 484 = 141. Close to the planet the propellant loses more kinetic energy. It gained kinetic energy for its potential energy when falling into Saturn just as the rocket did, and still has this energy, less the 141 lost as a result of the rocket.

The Oberth effect also works when slowing down a rocket. Firing the engines to slow down the rock in this case gives 5 -> 8 which means 25 - 64 = -39 as compared to 25 -> 28 which means 625 - 784 = -159. In this case, the propellant gains more energy despite being expended lower in the gravity well.

The Delta-v page gives a good description of the dependency on speed and direction of speed: "when applying delta-v in the direction of the velocity the specific orbital energy gained per unit delta-v is equal to the instantaneous speed." Wingedsubmariner (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I copy and pasted our discussion onto Talk:Oberth_effect#Disagreement_over_explantion_of_paradox, can we continue it there? I added a request onto the WikiProject Physics page for help settling the dispute. Wingedsubmariner (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but they're not going to agree with you. The problem is you're only looking at one side of the coin. The Oberth effect isn't simply that rockets gain/lose more speed when their velocity is high; it's that you can gain/lose more speed by plunging into a deep gravity well. Or at least, that seems to be the way the term is used currently.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I wrote that bit as well. You're just quoting me back to myself to try to prove me wrong...- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Insert passive-aggressive subject line here

If the first line of an article gives an inaccurate description of what the article is actually about, I would consider that a fault of the article and not the person reading it. (Also, conforming a disambiguation page to guidelines in the face of someone who doesn't appear to understand those guidelines is not edit-warring.) Propaniac (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would consider it a fault of the editor if they edit war, and this clearly was. When an article is on synonymous usages, which in general they are, then the first sentence cannot necessarily capture the whole topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also like to look up the term 'passive-aggressive', you don't seem to know what that means, either.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, I have to ask since you apparently know: how can one person edit-war? If you can provide a satisfactory answer, I'll applaud you with only one hand.

Also, apparently you can capture the whole topic with one sentence in this case, since your preferred version of the disambig page was still able to summarize the topic of the linked article with a single phrase. If you think the topic of the article is X, it doesn't make sense to begin with "Originally, glamour meant Y" and then get around to mentioning X several sentences later. A better beginning would be "Glamour is X. The word originally referred to an item, such as jewelry..." blah blah blah. Your version is like beginning the article about the film Titanic with "The Titanic was a huge passenger ship" and not mentioning the movie until the second paragraph.

In regard to passive-aggressiveness in section titles such as "Sigh," let me see. A sigh is a fairly passive act. The implication, however, that you're sighing to express your immense weariness from dealing with foolish incompetents who expect that an article's opening will mention what the article is actually about? I would call that aggressive. Perhaps you could have saved yourself some heartache by simply including a more helpful edit summary on the dab page, such as "The article begins by talking about items but goes on to discuss this more general definition." But instead you chose to point out (as if I would have any reason to know or care) that you wrote the article's misleading introduction yourself. Well, to each his own, but you might have saved yourself some oxygen. Propaniac (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not what the term 'passive aggressive' means. I'll get back to you with what it is.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you've been as busy as I am over the past two days and haven't had time to check in on Wikipedia either. But since the definition of "passive-aggressive" could not be further from the real point of my last message, I don't mind your failure to enlighten me.

I think there's little point in prolonging this discussion much further, but I do want to reiterate the following facts:

1. I made a mistake, due to a combination of my failure to check the linked article as well as I should have, the failure of the linked article to be as clear as it should be, and my being accustomed to cleaning up edits on disambig pages by people who have no idea what they're doing.
2. Since you understood the mistake I had made that had led me to revert your changes, you could have tried to politely explain the misunderstanding in an edit summary (as I attempted to do, in this diff, when I thought you were the one making the error). If you had, I doubt there would have been any need for us to correspond further. Instead, you chose to leave me an indisputably obnoxious note (regardless of whether the subject line was passive-aggressive or not) on my talk page accusing me of edit-warring (which was a ridiculous accusation, as I implied above; if you had pointed out my mistake and I had said "I don't care" and continued to revert your changes, that could have been edit-warring, but I was clearly acting in good faith and assuming the same of you).

I suppose that's all I have to say about the matter, and hopefully all that I will be saying. Propaniac (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

acne "preparations"

Light therapy (on my watchlist) is now in a "preparation" category. What nonsense. So I followed links and found the discussion where you did a good job fighting said nonsense. Thanks for trying. - Hordaland (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Types and uses of radar

Hi,

I've proposed the merger of Types and uses of radar article into Radar. Could you give your input on that as one of the author at Talk:Radar/Archive 1#Types and uses of radar. Pierre cb (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why revert my edit?

Saul Bellow should not be linked at the bottom of the neoconservative page, when he has no association with the movement. 81.102.129.189 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Long EZ

Yes, I believe you are correct, the aircraft on display is the PDE. Thanks for catching that.- Ken keisel (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your report at ANI

I have closed and archived this as premature. You appear to have made no attempt to discuss this directly with the admin concerned. Please consider doing this before you start a report that is inevitably going to lead to additional drama. Secondly, you should really have notified the user concern that you had mentioned them at ANI. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:DICDEF

• Your reference to my edit as "vandal" is uncivil. Please retract it. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  I agree. It was not helpful to the discussion (or our respect for you) at all. Please consider your words more carefully before hitting "save". -- Quiddity (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely stand by my characterisation in every way. I do not take it back, nor will I take it back.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a self evidently deceptive edit, which had a completely inaccurate subject line, and did not represent any contemporaneous consensus on the talk page at the time that edit was made, nor had there been any recent discussion, nor had there been anything like the level of discussion that is necessary to turn a policy page into a guideline. If you wish I will complain on WP:ANI, and request Colonel Warden be suspended for a week. I do not consider this to be appropriate behaviour for any user of the wikipedia at any level. I cannot put it more or less strongly than that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• We do not use blocks ("suspension") for punitive reasons, we only use them to prevent ongoing problems from continuing. They are not punishment. Please read WP:BLOCK if that is unclear.
• WP:Vandalism has a very particular set of meanings, and his edit was not vandalism. It could be considered violating WP:POINT, but nothing more.
• Please see Wikipedia:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT and WP:SHOUT for suggestions on not shouting in bold text, as this also lessens other editors' respect for your ability to discuss things calmly and rationally.

Feel free to ask, if you have any more questions. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a bad faith edit that attacked the foundations of the entire wikipedia. I do not believe that this user is coming from a position that can be considered trustworthy, and it cannot be considered to be merely ill-considered.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What position is that? You seem to compound your offensive comments with a personal attack and so I shall take the matter further. Please see WP:Wikiquette_alerts#Wolfkeeper. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Go right ahead. You don't have a leg to stand on. Calling a vandal a vandal is not offensive or a personal attack, it is merely a correct, accurate characterisation. That edit was a vandalism because you used a factually incorrect and deceptive subject line.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible proposed Wikiproject of interest

Hi, I noticed from an edit history that you seem to have an interest in flight, including animal flight, and was wondering if you'd be interested in a wikiproject I'm trying to get off the ground, Wikiproject - Organismal biomechanics, dealing with, among other things, animal flight (I've got a temporary list of pages on my userpage). It'd be great if you could help out, because I'm much more of a terrestrial locomotion specialist. Anyway, just thought you might be interested. Mokele (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help categorizing acne topics. If avaliable, any other additional feedback on the categorization of pharmacology-related articles would be welcomed at WT:PHARM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hash tables: order of sections

Hi there. About hash table: would you consider rearranging the sections in the order "Uses"/"Advantages+Drawbacks"/"Algorithms" ? That order seems better matched to the readers' interests. Namely, for each implementor who wants to know the algorithms, there is likely to be 10 readers who need to choose between hashtable package or or other structures, and 100 readers who meerely want to know what is a hashtable and what it is good for. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. The purpose of an article in the wikipedia is to cover the subject, not help people do something with the subject. The general principle is that the wikipedia is not a how-to.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the article doesn't even cover the algorithm properly, somebody who doesn't know the algorithm will find it fairly difficult to understand. That's really bad. The algorithm is sort of mentioned briefly in the lead, and then nowhere else.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The general point is that understanding what something is, will normally help you understand how it's used, but the converse is not true. So the article needs to cover what a hash table is first, and then cover the associated uses later.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Recursion

There is a longstanding consensus not to have the recursion article link to itself. Pleaser revert your inappropriate joke. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is meaningless without the link. Either that sentence shouldn't be there, or it should be linked.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So remove the sentence. If you look through the talk page, you'll see several other people arguing that a self-link is inappropriate. In any case, I asked for someone from the math project to come over and deal with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, in the meantime, did you know there's no article on gullible in the wikipedia?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jet engine performance

Wolf, Jet engine performance has been around for about 5 years now, and there was not a single source in the article until today. My PROD was contested, but as another user is trying to work on the article now, so I won't AFD it for several days to allow him some time to work on it. Is there anything you can do to help save the article, such as adding sources? Is it even worth saving? It really seems too in depth and of too narrow a scope for an encyclopedia. . It's been suggested that it be moved to Wikiversity, but without sources I doubt they would accept it either. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think on balance I would prefer it and hope it improves, but I don't feel that strongly about it, I agree with your characterisation of it. Just because it's badly written doesn't make it not a notable topic though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with its notability - my major issue it that it's been here 5 years without sources. - BillCJ (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, none of it is actually wrong AFAIK. Unfortunately, I can't source it. If I had a decent textbook available I could reference it up, but the textbooks I own to this kind of detail and can access are all on rocketry.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

reactive cf

W, check the cited source on that bit I removed. There's no indication in it of what Newton is referring to as centrifugal force. And the additional interpretive bit is totally unsourced. Dicklyon (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, non inertial reference frames weren't invented yet, but Newton had invented his 3rd law, so we know what type of centrifugal force was.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

References

In reference to the Access concurrency section in the B-Tree article. Thanks for explain the wikipedia policy about external links, however I still think this section is wrong, because in order to understand what it means, you must check the link. If it is not removed, at least I expect a more serious explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.107.147 (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to send you some Reaction Engines related material.

hkhenson@rogers.com Keith Henson (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Invention page

That invention page is terrible. The Terminator and Optimus Prime are robots, a wind up toy is not a robot. That guy is using this page for Muslim propaganda. He claimed the "supergun" at the Siege of Constantinople was a Muslim invention, in reality it was just a big cannon, not a new invention, built by a Hungarian Christian named Urban. That page has to be seriously cleaned up. Gunslinger1812 (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is the wikipedia. We don't work on whether Gunslinger1812 or Wolfkeeper says that something is or isn't so, we rely on reliable sources. If a reliable source says that a wind up toy is a robot, then for the purposes of the wikipedia it's a robot.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The exact thing is that it was a programmable robot; without rebuilding it, by winding the cord around a shaft in different ways you can get it to do different (arbitrary) sequences of movement.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Drug categorization: consensus sought

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Comments are much appreciated! Thanks ---kilbad (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Rocket Equation Plot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rocket_mass_ratio_versus_delta-v.png

Can you double check this? The rocket equation has deltav = ve*ln(m0/m1) and so m1/m0 = exp(-deltav/ve). 68.53.161.117 (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, but m0/m1 (the "mass ratio") = exp(deltav/ve), which is what is graphed.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're probably confusing the mass fraction with the mass ratio.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Varying mass dynamics

Hi Wolfkeeper. We've had many discussions over the past 12 months about the applicability of Newton's Second Law to variable-mass systems. Please see the discussion page section called "Constant mass? Special case?" and the article section on open_systems (in particular references 17 and 18. In my opinion, it was resolved in favor of the idea that the 2nd Law as stated in the article only applies to closed systems. Please let me know if you think the issue is unresolved. Thanks! MarcusMaximus (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's wrong, and harmfully so. Newton's 2nd law is that the force is equal to the rate of change of momentum, and applies even when the mass is decreasing over time (e.g. a rocket, with unreacted propellant). The F=ma equation is an approximation used only when the mass is constant, which it frequently is, but in general is not.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your reply makes me question whether you read the references. I would appreciate it if you at least take a look at 17 and 18 and let me know why you think they are wrong. MarcusMaximus (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I don't see a reply I'm going change it back. MarcusMaximus (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment re vandals

Hi there; I have come to your page from the discussion which you started re automatic sanctions on vandals. You weaken your argument by using the word "ban" rather than the word "block". The two things are not equivalent, nor are they applied for the same reasons, nor can they be applied by the same people. See WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Cheers. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

peer-to-peer

Hey, I see that you've reverted a number of my edits within the same minute that I made the last of these, which suggests that you did not review those edits. You should do so, because a number of them remove blatant copyright violations. Re-insertion of content that violates copyright is against policy. If you have a problem with some of those edits, please pick something very specific - perhaps a sentence or paragraph - and say why it should be in the article on that talk page. As far as I can see, everything removed has been copyvio (and fluff).    M   19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a big problem with your edits because the material I reintroduced was present in the wikipedia before the date that is claimed on the webpage you claim sourced the material. I also have a problem because you didn't follow any of the wikipedia's processes when claiming copyvio and appear to have simply arbitrarily removed material.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. Please provide an explanation in your edit summaries. You should be careful when reverting - you reverted a lot of cleanup that had nothing to do with the copyvio.    M   19:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not my job to clear up after your messes. I reverted to a version before you screwed up, and I'm not sure I shouldn't have gone a lot further back. Fix it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting

Hey, please stop reverting the merging of those articles. Yes, the article is huge. This is because the majority of the inserted content is a) entirely redundant, b) original research, and c) useless junk. I'm trying to cleanup this set of articles, which is a lot harder than going in and reverting another editor's work-in-progress. It would be more helpful if you simply told me what you had an issue with, and I could fix it myself (which I did - for example, when you told me it was probably not a copyvio, I reinserted the content). At the very least, some information about what you have a problem with on the relevant talk page would be good.    M   21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't find that your editing is being done with consensus.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you link me to where WP:CONSENSUS is against these edits? That is, to a discussion specifically about the merges. I left a message on the relevant talk pages explaining what my actions would be, waited, and then did the merge. My comments about redundancy and original research (which I said I was in the process of cleaning up) were a response to your article-length objection.    M   21:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The article, after merger was over 85k. I kinda doubt that you would be able to remove 2/3 of the article without losing something. The fact is, the articles were already split, and that split was self-evidently consensus. You had not followed the process for merging articles together; there was no discussion where this had been agreed as a course of action. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine that anyone else would have agreed to this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The split was done in the same way as my merge was. See Talk:Copyrighted_content_on_file_sharing_networks#Article_creator.27s_note. This removed a very large chunk of content from the file sharing article. While something like file sharing in Canada deserves its own article, the legality of file sharing in general is probably the most important issue in file sharing as a whole. Before I made significant edits to file sharing (I think over a month ago), the gap left by the split was filled with all sorts of uncited, pov, and OR stuff on the subject of the legality of file sharing. The articles need cleanup (or do you disagree?). I'm willing to do that cleanup. If you don't like how I'm doing it, please join me and we can work together. But don't just revert a bunch of work that is obviously in progress, and then walk away.    M   22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference is; that was 2 years ago, and the edit stuck. That's consensus. Your edit hasn't stuck. If you want to discuss it, in the normal way on the talk pages, go ahead. Right now I don't think you'll get anyone else to agree to it, but who knows.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit hasn't stuck because you keep reverting it. It's being discussed on the talk pages, and I'm waiting for you to elaborate on your reason for reverting the non-copyvio content.    M   22:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Either you don't understand what an encyclopedia is, or this is some kind of troll. I'm honestly not sure which, and I'm rather tempted to drag the administrators in on this. They're not allowed to intervene on questions of content, but your editing behaviour here is so unusual that I would appreciate their opinion on whether you deleting large chunks of articles and merging articles into excessively big articles and accusing fellow editors of copyvio, when there self evidently isn't; whether this is reasonable editing behaviour, because it doesn't seem to be.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. There's the WP:ANB, WP:DISPUTE, WP:WQA, and WP:RFC. Odds are, they're going to tell you to read WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, and WP:AGF. Let me know when you're willing to discuss the specific changes you object to - something you should be prepared to do when reverting another editor.    M   23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the reasoning for reverting 15 edits on this article may have been valid, I was slightly surprised to see no description of the change given, as well as slightly disappointed to see you had not noticed edits by other users in addition to those of M's that you contest. For example, I removed a cyclic link to a page that just re-directs to the original topic, but after your revert this was added back in. I'm sure this wasn't deliberate, but as a fairly an extremely new user to editing Wikipedia, it would be easy for me to get put off making edits if I thought they were going to be reverted without checking to see what they were. Kind regards, Ed. 78.145.178.112 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The article had unfortunately gone completely the wrong way due to the actions of a single editor. It was impractical for me to go through all the edits and reapply them, and the longer his edits stood, the worse it would have been. The editor involved was unilaterally making major changes to the wikipedia, the quality had suffered, and he was violating a whole slew of the wikipedia's guidelines.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

At one point, you apologized for not being motivated enough to 'save' those edits. After a somewhat minor disagreement, your position has reversed, and you have been reverting when possible, without regard for the work others have put in. This isn't about me and you - when you revert, you don't undo "my work", you undo improvements to the article - who cares who made them. If someone makes a mistake (which they say they will correct!), this doesn't give you license to undo all the other changes to the article just to make a point, especially the changes of other editors. It would have taken you an extra 30 seconds - much, much less time than it takes other editors to make their changes.    M   17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I will always revert to an earlier article if that earlier article is higher quality than the current one; I will not, in general, reintroduce others edits in that situation, that's their problem.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a bunch of other editors trying to work on articles, so unfortunately it quickly becomes your (our) problem. Some minor consideration for their edits would have made this entire section unnecessary. Anyway, would you mind having a look at my recent individual edits to file sharing, starting with this one? I'd like to run them by you before continuing to work on that article, in case you have objections. If you do, please let me know and we can work them out.    M  

Hohmann Launch Windows

I notice you've participated in an article on Launch Windows. I'm hoping you'll regard http://www.clowder.net/hop/railroad/sched.html a useful resource. It gives departure and arrival dates from/to various planets. The page also allows download of the spreadsheet used to make the schedule. http://www.clowder.net/hop/railroad/Hohmann.xls User can type in destination and departure planets, periapsis and apoapsis of departure & arrival orbits. Spreadsheet returns launch windows, trip time, arrival time, and delta vees

Regards,

Hop David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.34.250 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Concorde

Thanks for your efforts in re-organising this.

However please remember to use an edit summary, especially on the last edit of the batch. As it was (from a watchlist) it looked all too much like the ubiquitous section-deletion vandals blanking a section and it then needs hunting through the edit history to see that it isn't. The vandals have time to burn, the people trying to stop them don't. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Rocket FAC

Please can you not strike my comments. I will decide when the issues that I have raised have been addressed. --GW… 23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please can you not remove my strikes as it's a waste of my, and your time. If you wish to unstrike things you feel have not been adequately addressed, then that's fine.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Striking other editors comments is against the policy at FAC, if you decide to continue, I'm sure SandyGeorgia or Raul654 will have something to say about it. Just don't do it, it is a sure-fire way to have the FAC fail. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am also noticing that every single reply of yours is breaking the numbering and bulleting. Please try and preserve them by looking at how they are properly formatted so consistent numbering is used, for instance, here is my clean-up of one of your more recent edits: [1] -MBK₀₀₄ 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

NICE interface modification: We need more users!

Hello. I am one of the developers of the NICE tool and the related study's contact person. I hope you have been finding the modification helpful so far. We have been gathering users for a little over a month now, but we haven't gotten as many users as we had hoped. We'd appreciate it if you would share the NICE tool with any editors that might find it useful. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer-to-peer and Usenet

Would you mind discussing Usenet on Talk:Peer-to-peer, rather than in the edit summaries? --Una Smith (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Report at ANI

Thought you might be interested in this report over at ANI. Though it isn't directly considering my actions or yours, our names did come up. Cheers. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gravity Mill

Hello Wolfkeeper, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Gravity Mill - a page you tagged - because: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Closedmouth (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just something made up on the back of a napkin and stuffed into the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Gravity Mill

I appreciate your attempt to question the validity of the page however i would have appreciated if you helped me clean it up and make it acceptable for the physics community to see as an imperative for defense and expansion of peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya.m4 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The device cannot work, and in any case, the wikipedia is not for something you made up WP:ONEDAY.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 09:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Skylon orbit 1m.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Skylon orbit 1m.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NW (Talk) 16:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Wolfkeeper. You have new messages at Ray Ellis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WT:LINKING

Hi, and thanks a lot for your efforts to improve this guideline. However, some editors are concerned about the pace at which the text is being changed, and the large changes that are being made. Could you discuss it, please? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative index metamaterials

I have a few responses for you over at Talk:Negative index metamaterials. Hopefully these responses are seen as positive, mends fences, and allows work on the article to begin. Ti-30X (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Viewing instrument

Hi! You recently moved the -scope article to viewing instrument. I've nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viewing instrument, because I feel it's nothing more than a dictionary definition. Feel free to state your opinion on the AfD page. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Negative index metamaterials

On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Negative index metamaterials, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cars with Turbojets

There are some dragsters and land speed record cars with turbojets, there are equally few roadworthy cars with turboshaft gas turbines. To claim from this that "turbojets have been used for cars" is vague and wilfully misleading in a way that's unacceptable in an encyclopedia.

If you're determined to describe jet cars here (which are so rare they have almost no place in an article on turbojets, see WP:UNDUEWEIGHT) then at least make this a decently clear paragraph that clarifies how rare any gas turbine cars are, and at least draws the distinction between gas turbine, turboshaft and turbojet. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be an idiot. They're not that uncommon, and never have been. I live near a drag strip, I hear them firing up every few months. You know of Richard Hammond? Guess what he was driving when he nearly died?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No-one is questioning that there's at least one jet dragster in the world, which means that "turbojets have been used for cars" isn't demonstrably false. However it's still inappropriate for that statement to appear in an encyclopedia, without further qualification. It would cause confusion amongst readers, which is bad. In particular, we would need to make it very clear that "jet cars" like the Chrysler Turbine Car or the more outrageously styled examples like the Fiat turbine car or the General Motors Firebird have never used turbojets.

Incidentally, if you're going to note an example of an LSR jet car, then rather than Thrust 2 I'd suggest either the first Spirit of America or the Green Monster as the most notable of the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Add one of those as well if you want. Thrust2 held the world record for 14 years though, none of the others came close to that. I can imagine those would be more famous in America, after Richard Noble arrived on the scene I doubt there was much discussion of the LSR.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor flag

Thanks for the information. I had no idea that might cause problems, and I see your point. So I removed the check mark from my box for default minor edits. And you are right, it is only meant for minor edits. Ti-30X (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

Btw you did a good job writing that introduction area. I like it. Ti-30X (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It still needs a bit more work. It's about 80% of where it should be.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Transwikis w/o edit summary not minor

I think marking pages for Transwiki is hardly a "minor" edit and should not be done without an edit summary, as you did with -phil- and -omics. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have no plans to delete them after; it's a pure transwiki copy right now. I'd do an AFD if/when I want to delete them. That's the only template I could find to kick the bot (the bot doesn't seem to be working right now anyway).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Full version of NICE to be released

Thanks for helping me and my colleagues test the NICE interface modification. Depending on when you installed the tool, you were only presented with a specific subset of the features we have developed. We are ready to roll out the full feature set which, we expect, will make the gadget significantly more useful. Before we do that, we'd like you to answer a few questions about your activity in Wikipedia as it relates to undoing other's edits and what you thought of the NICE features you were shown.

The survey will ask for your Wikipedia username, but you can participate anonymously if you choose. To do so, send me an email with an address I can respond to and I will have the survey software respond with an anonymous token for you to continue. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Acoustic Metamaterials

Here is one journal article that I am using for this section. I might try to use, other prior journal articles on this subject, referenced in this article, as well:

Guenneau, Sébastien (2007-11-06). "Acoustic metamaterials for sound focusing and confinement" (PDF). 9 (399). Liverpool,England Marseille,France Kanpur,India: New Journal of Physics: 1367–2630. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/11/399. Retrieved 2009-08-24. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help).

If you see technical corrections that need to be made in the sections, where I added content, feel free to do so. Ti-30X (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the journal article related to the New Scientist article that you posted on the talk page. Ti-30X (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV lead

Hi, question for you here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tensor field

Hello, I noticed your complaint about the Tensor field lead, and did my best to change it up some. I also have an illustration, used in Talk:Tensor/Rewrite#Tensor Fields, but I'm not sure if I should add it. LokiClock (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki

I took a while, but responded to your last comment at User talk:Hersfold's. I also imported the -omics history over at Wiktionary and put a "merge" flag on it. Goldenrowley (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There's also:

   * -onym

that need doing as well, and cannot be done very easily due to restrictions that you apparently helped champion.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to set up a page that can be used by users requesting transwikiing from clerks with this power, I doubt anyone would stop you. My suspicion is that this can get old very quickly. I'm pretty convinced that this isn't something that needs nearly as much protection as it is currently getting, but if you want to go the extra mile, that's up to you I suppose.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not me, its the organization, people voted on the criteria at Wiktionary long before I knew it existed. I am one of the most dedicated person to turn Wikipedians import entries into definitions at Wiktionary. Frankly I've set up all sorts of flags, flag entries by language, by month, by requests for script, etc, etc to help sort them. Herford thinks we may make it easier for you, and that's his forte he knows how to write Bots (I don't). I just wonder how important it is, because I wouldn't bother to write programs if its only to import, say, 10-30 duplicate words. Goldenrowley (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Got your message...

I didn't mean to spam. I am restoring the credit for naming witricity, which I did not add and which has been on the witricity article for some time. Hope I am replying appropriately. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.gerding (talk • contribs) 02:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you want for proof. Would having Prof. Soljacic email you help? I have emails back and forth from he and I. I sold his group the domain name and any rights or interest in trademark, etc..., which I had registered as part of a project to trickle charge cell phone batteries using a ladder of capacitors connected to a rectifying antenna. As far as I know the name is now a trademark. I did not add the wikipedia entry - had always assumed he had because in the sale I had expressed interest in wanting credit for coining the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.gerding (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well a reliable source is needed. I don't know who added the claim, I tracked it back to an anonymous IP, and given that it was not referenced it was clear that it should be removed until it could be referenced.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, I was just editing the page again. As I indicated, I have email records to prove the claim - which, while I don't want to publish I am happy to forward to you. More importantly, www.archive.org shows the domain name witricity active in 2004 (I registered it January 6, 2004 at domainbank.com and have the email receipt to prove it. Your diligence is cool... it actually helped me drag up the documentation to substantiate the assertion.) I will add a link to the www.archive.org wayback that points to the domain name being active by their measure as early as March, 2004. Hope this helps. Going back in and editing again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.gerding (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest even if you could prove that, it's of peripheral interest at best. The WiTricity article isn't about the word 'WiTricity' it's about a particular type of resonant power transmission. The etiology of the term used for a different wireless system would be better off being covered in wiktionary; but I warn you, they also require references, and what you have so far proves nothing. Even if you were the one that registered the domain, that still doesn't prove you coined it (although it may be evidence towards that). You actually need something that says you coined it in so many words.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem locked in on this, what's verifiable to you? I hope you noted that in the progression of way back machine thumbnails, my own company's site became the destination for the witricity domain. There aren't publicly linkable versions of the domain name record, though I can send it to you directly. This is a bit weird to me. I have the earliest "documentable" use of the word. Will you tell me an acceptable way to present that to you, since you are the one that seems to be disputing it? I'm sincere in asking for help here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.gerding (talk • contribs) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to respectfully disagree a bit about the naming issue, since the notion of witricity as a portmanteau has been in the article for a long time - and someone since added the additional information that it's a pending trademark. You've left in the WiTricity coporation's claim to have invented the word - but I think I've already provided usage documentation that precedes theirs. Since I believe that the term is likely to become a household name, I did in fact want to be credited for it. I always assumed that someone from MIT added my name as a nod to me - and I admit I was grateful and pleased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.gerding (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm bored with arguing about this. Provided you follow WP:Conflict of interest and use WP:Reliable and WP:NPOV and don't do any WP:Original Research; following each of these to the letter, then I won't remove your edits. It seems to me right now, you're violating all of them. If you continue to do that, I will get the article locked down.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a strong argument though that this shouldn't even be on this page- that use of the term is about a different, non synonymous topic; resonant wireless transmission is not synonymous with microwave beamed power. However, provided you can get it down to one sentence and get really, really solid references then it's probably just about OK.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the time. I'm not trying to cause trouble - and I hope my user name indicates very clearly I wasn't trying to hide anything. I'll keep searching for an additional verifiable link of some kind and will review the rules you posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.gerding (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Accelerated electrons

See my delayed answer in Talk:G-force. Basically, the radiation seen FROM a cyclotron electron DOES depend on jerk as seen in the inertial frame. Even if you're in an accelerated constant V frame where you see a constant acceleration around a circle, the radiation you see from the electron still comes from the Euler retarding radiation reaction force: see the cyclotron section in the special relativity article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_relativity&section=16. If you (de)accelerate dw/dt tangentially to match THIS, so you're at rest to the electron, you no longer see it radiate (not all frames need to see an accelerated electron radiate-- accelerated frames where it is at TOTAL rest, obviously will not!). The same is true if you sit next to it in a g-field. SBHarris 02:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolution

You blanked your reply before I was even able to see it, but I wanted to at least reply myself. The thing is that I completely agree with your view. Dictionary articles should not co-exist on Wikipedia (they have Wikitionary anyway!). This isn't about the substance of the document(s) at all! WP:NOT is a hard edged policy, absolutely. It's used all of the time, and that's proper. WP:NAD supports WP:NOT, and that relationship isn't going to change simply by marking it a "policy". It's a guideline on how to implement one aspect of the WP:NOT policy. These claims about "weakening" it are just... silly!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It does more than that, it defines what the wikipedia's definition of an encyclopedia is. It's the real version, and the quick copy in WP:ISNOT is just a watered down summary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I agree, I just don't see how that changes anything. That doesn't seem to be a distinction that matters to users (based on the usage and watchlist numbers). I don't see how labelling WP:NAD is a "demotion" or "weakening" of the document at all, and I would say that correctly classifying it as a guideline directly supporting WP:NOT should actually lend it additional credence. The statement "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" alone is something I would classify as policy. The rest of the material in WP:NAD I would classify as guidance on how to apply that policy statement. I think that the current relationship between the two documents is actually perfect (and they are both very well written for policy documents) except for the fact that the label is wrong on WP:NAD.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for editing Wikipedia

Dear User talk:Wolfkeeper Thank for editing wikipedia. I'm going to ask request for unprotecting Wikipedia in the article about it so don't edit it until i've made a unprotecting request. 75.141.100.115 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to avoid editing it. If you want to contribute to the article, by all means put the information on the talk page, and I'm sure I or someone else will make the change if it's reasonable to do so.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hate sex

I put that amount of work into finding sources, I argue against most of the proffered deletion rationales, I write a Wiktionary entry on the term, I suggest moving the article to the Article Incubator - which is not deletion - and you think I'm trying to be a deletionist?! You're getting me wrong. I would like to write a coherent article on the topic, but we need decent sources in order to do this. The current article content, "It is related to the fact opposition between two people can heighten sexual tension, attraction and interest. The polarity[clarification needed] generated by a man who demonstrates comfort with, and lack of neediness for, a woman by verbally pushing her away, even playfully teasing her and issuing negs[clarification needed] (similar to the Mystery Method) can play into this" is pretty pathetic and is pure original research; the sources just added by Ash don't actually support the article contents. I have looked hard for discussion of the topic rather than just uses of the term and mostly I've come up blank. The Virginia Ironside quote and some of the law journal info is the closest I've found to discussion of the concept, but it's in passing and pretty flimsy material for basing an article on. Dig up some signs that there are sources out there and we might be able to make this more than a list of uses. Fences&Windows 01:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not sure this counts as a reliable source, but I wish it did:[2]. Student newspaper article about "angry sex":[3] Fences&Windows 04:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

contact?

Would like to talk to you about Skylon and related.

hkeithhenson@gmail.com Keith Henson (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Secularity and Secularism are distinct concepts

Wolfkeeper, you redirected Secularity to Secularism, however these are two distinct concepts and have seperate entries for that reason. The rationale you stated in your edit summary is not correct as "secularity" is a noun. "Secular" is the adjective form, as the entry clearly states. If you believe "secularity" is only appropriate for a Wictionary entry, then the correct avenue is AfD since secularlity and secularism are, once again, not synonymous. Please discuss this matter here or on the entry talk page instead of simply reverting without as much as an edit summary. Please take note of WP:BRD as well. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)