| Revision as of 01:51, 28 August 2019 editPinkbeast (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,725 edits →Romanbow135← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:27, 28 August 2019 edit undoBelbury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers75,019 edits →Romanbow135Next edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| Hello. I noticed you undoing an edit by this sockpuppet user at ]. Any chance you could take a look at ] and offer some advice on how to handle cleaning up this individual's edits more generally? We're at the sad point where we may be losing long-standing London content because this user moved it to a new article without edit summary or credit, where it might get deleted at face value for being apparently "created by banned user", and I'm not sure how to handle it. (The sockpuppeteer is still blithely active, currently as ].) --] (]) 17:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC) | Hello. I noticed you undoing an edit by this sockpuppet user at ]. Any chance you could take a look at ] and offer some advice on how to handle cleaning up this individual's edits more generally? We're at the sad point where we may be losing long-standing London content because this user moved it to a new article without edit summary or credit, where it might get deleted at face value for being apparently "created by banned user", and I'm not sure how to handle it. (The sockpuppeteer is still blithely active, currently as ].) --] (]) 17:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm sorry, but that whole thing was a bit of a mystery to me. I'm hoping editors more familiar with the area can sort it out. Sorry. ] (]) 01:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC) | :I'm sorry, but that whole thing was a bit of a mystery to me. I'm hoping editors more familiar with the area can sort it out. Sorry. ] (]) 01:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::General advice on how to deal with this kind of sockpuppet would also be welcome. ] was blocked a month ago and has carried on making exactly the same edits as an IP instead. I get the impression from ] that IP sockpuppets like this (flagged for weeks now) aren't a big priority? --] (]) 08:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:27, 28 August 2019
Re: "level-headed and balanced assessment of the situation"
No problem. This is a very delicate situation where groups have dug in trenches long before this specific issue came up. Emotions can run high, and with all the mounting ridiculousness on Twitter and FB, it's a relief to check the Talk page and find someone like you there. Please, keep it up. clicketyclick 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The above
I have left the above on my talk page not as indicative of my level-headedness, of which I possess almost none, but because in the over five years I have been editing, no-one has ever suggested before that I might be the calm voice of reason. I look forward to it happening again in 2020 or so.
A cynic would observe that, on this occasion, some of the other editors involved may have been associated with the "ethics in internet misogyny" crowd, and that even I look good next to them. Particularly if that cynic was me getting back to my usual unreasonable self. :-) Pinkbeast (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2015
Injector Page Edit
Hi, I'm the person who made the change to the https://en.wikipedia.org/Injector page that you recently undid. Can you tell me what your issue is with my edit? Also, I have no idea how to communicate on wikipedia here so please feel free to tell me I'm doing something wrong - literally just made an account to respond to your undo. Honestly, there are a lot of problems with the Venturi/Bernoulli pages as well as the related pages that I'd like to help fix SteveSmith98 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's uncited, and there are cites to say it works as the page currently describes it. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Uncited? It was a quote from an existing citation (#10), and I clearly cited the quote. So...how is that uncited?
- The citations that, as you put it, "say it works as the page currently describes" don't actually do that. If you read citation #3, which I have, it matches my edit and not the existing text.
- I can't say how accurate it aligns with #4 since that's not accessible online, but my guess is not very well since the existing explanation is factually incorrect. Nevertheless, using the existing citations on the page, I have 2 of them that agree with my change, zero that agree with the existing text, and 1 that we can't evaluate because it is inaccessible.
- So...do you still believe the revert is an improvement? If it makes you happier I can replace the Operation section with an exact copy/paste from existing citation #3 (instead of the copy paste from citation #10 with you rejected). Does that work?SteveSmith98 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I added cite #4, which does mention the Venturi effect, which is important; if the input steam remained above atmospheric pressure the water would never get into the combining cone at all. Much of the page is confused because it can't quite decide if it's about boiler injectors or other devices. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Can you directly quote cite #4 to me then?
- The article says "reducing its pressure to below atmospheric which enables it to entrain a fluid" implying (perhaps unintentionally?) that low-pressure is necessary to entrain the fluid. Low pressure might be required to get the fluid up into the combining cone, but per cite 3 and cite 10 it has nothing to do with the entrainment - they clearly state that's momentum exchange via friction/viscosity.
- Also, in your statement, "which does mention the Venturi effect, which is important; if the input steam remained above atmospheric pressure" - low pressure is only required in a lifting injector. It's not required in a non-lifting injector. Furthermore, what support do you have for your assertion that the low-pressure (in lifting injects) is a result of the Venturi effect rather than simple viscosity?SteveSmith98 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I added cite #4, which does mention the Venturi effect, which is important; if the input steam remained above atmospheric pressure the water would never get into the combining cone at all. Much of the page is confused because it can't quite decide if it's about boiler injectors or other devices. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Romanbow135
Hello. I noticed you undoing an edit by this sockpuppet user at Fish Island, London. Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Bow_/_Bethnal_Green_sockpuppet_damage and offer some advice on how to handle cleaning up this individual's edits more generally? We're at the sad point where we may be losing long-standing London content because this user moved it to a new article without edit summary or credit, where it might get deleted at face value for being apparently "created by banned user", and I'm not sure how to handle it. (The sockpuppeteer is still blithely active, currently as User:86.161.106.117.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that whole thing was a bit of a mystery to me. I'm hoping editors more familiar with the area can sort it out. Sorry. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- General advice on how to deal with this kind of sockpuppet would also be welcome. User:Romanbow135 was blocked a month ago and has carried on making exactly the same edits as an IP instead. I get the impression from Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hopeful2014 that IP sockpuppets like this (flagged for weeks now) aren't a big priority? --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)