Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:06, 31 July 2014

• /Archive 1 Created May 1. 2006
• /Archive 2 Created August 24, 2006
• /Archive 3 Created September 30, 2006
• /Archive 4 Created November 19, 2006
• /Archive 5 Created 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 6 Created 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 7 Created 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 08 Created 01:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 09 Created 05:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 10 Created --DHeyward (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• /Archive 11 created --DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• /Archive 12 created --DHeyward (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• /Archive 13
• /Archive 14

Please add comments to the bottom

Reference Errors on 8 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Template:Infobox person/testcases page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page sectioning and headings

You said "You have a bad habit of altering location and headings of other editors comments.". I do have a habit of following the talk page guidelines, but reject the claim that it is a bad one. The WP:TPG says,

• Start new topics at the bottom of the page

And you tacked a new topic at a midpoint subthread, to ask to expand the longstanding topic from the current climate change earth is experiencing to the narrow defintion of GMST

• Make a new heading for a new topic

You didn't make a new heading for your request to change the longstanding article topic

• Create subsections if helpful

So I did that

There are also paragraphs devoted to sectioning and section heading in the discussion of editing other's comments, which I complied with. In my view, its ineffective to try to change a years long consensus about article topic by injecting that argument into the discussions about carrying out the current consensus. You should do a threadfor that express goal, maybe RFC it and invoke DR, and live with the result. There's little liklihood the years long consensus on article topic will change, of course, but you might persuade people. Instead, you seem to be interrupting other discussions with this argument.

I'll leave the current example the ineffective way you want it, but I reserve the right to continue doing sectioning and headings as described in the TPG and we can clash about what's most effective the next time, too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, if you noticed that NAEG was editing the location of my comments, I specifically gave permission. That said, I have some sympathy for your concerns that someone is acting like they are in charge, which can be a good thing if it moves things forward, but problematic if it means dismissing legitimate points. (Don't read too much into this, I'm mostly interested in the points I care about, and so not fully following the interaction between you two.) As a generic point, I'll say how amazed I am that our implicit model (no one is in charge, it will all work out) manages to work at all. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sphilbrick.... in my view, intermixing topics produces a dysfunctional quagmire; and not participating in new discussions out of fear that past experiences of quagmire will repeat is also no good. So I attempt to implement the TPG to move things along in a methodical fashion that eases interaction for all. I don't think I'm in charge.... the TPG is in charge. I'd be glad to share the collating facilitating and organizing chore with the whole world. Of course, some like the noise more than expeditious resolution of differing points of view. Thanks for your vote of confidence regarding your own commentary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view, it was the topic you were discussing about changing the lead sentence as well as use of "unequivocal." (the topic heading). It is why my comment was placed there. You are actually violating the talk page guidelines by manipulating the meaning or intention of what I write. Please stop. I don't post material that is not relevant to the topic being discussed. If you think it is, post it as a question. Don't move it under a new section or refactor entire sections based on on your own belief that it is not relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Siphon

Your additions to the siphon article have greatly improved the entry. I have been watching the article but haven't been inclined to edit for a while. My main interest has been working toward deleting or reworking the siphon coffee section as it is not a siphon but a pressure pump. However, other commitments have put that effort to the bottom of the list. In a month or so my chedule may allow some time to that effort, in the mean time thanks for what you have done, the article is reflecting current knowledge far more than before. However, I would suggest you examine the role of tensile strength of gas and fluid as this may play a greater part than is stated in the current article. Cheers, Tobermory 11:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I think there are tensile strength considerations for most real-world siphons as well as other fluid related physical phenomena like viscosity and laminar flow. For the moment, I was just trying to stick with basic properties of a fluid that distinguish them from a gas like like incompressibility and equal energy throughout the system. The concept that the atmosphere does work as oppose to the atmosphere setting physical limits (like the 0 pressure point for max height) is what I found flawed in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming

Thanks very much for investing energy and time contributing thoughts on efforts to draft a new first lead paragraph for Global warming. Please note I just posted ver 5 of my idea, and would welcome further pro/con criticism. I'm attempting to ping everyone who has taken time to speak up after past versions. If I overlooked anyone, please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor

I particularly enjoyed "If your body is full of them, that's a sign of a problem, but only like how if your apartment is full of firefighters". It has a nice mental image with it. A large excess of firefighters once occurred inside a facility I was partly responsible for. (The facility automatically summoned all available firefighters, and recommended they don breathing equipment; the access corridor wasn't sufficiently large for people so equipped to turn around or otherwise maneuver other than in unison forwards or backwards...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)