KatherinePanciera (talk | contribs) Added request to participate in user study |
Reagan edits |
||
Line 525: | Line 525: | ||
==Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study== |
==Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study== |
||
Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or [[User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring]]. Thanks. [[User:KatherinePanciera|KatherinePanciera]] ([[User talk:KatherinePanciera|talk]]) 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or [[User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring]]. Thanks. [[User:KatherinePanciera|KatherinePanciera]] ([[User talk:KatherinePanciera|talk]]) 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
==Reagan edits== |
|||
As per your repeated ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=203889428&oldid=203544913 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=203900086&oldid=203895382 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=203903493&oldid=203901267 3]) edits in Reagan, I was wondering where in the proffered citation was the text: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
:As with many actors, they were always a superstitious couple, and she consulted atleast one astrologer and adjusted his presidential schedule to try to ensure that he was not harmed again.[http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/19/back.time/ 1] |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
I looked through the reference, and did not find the statements which you ascribed to the reference. As the wording seemed pretty discriminatory, could I trouble you to re-phrase the statement before re-adding it? - [[User:Arcayne|<span style="color:black">'''Arcayne'''</span>]] [[User talk:Arcayne|<small><span style="color:gray">(<sup>'''cast a spell'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 04:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:58, 7 April 2008
References
TDC on Michael Ledeen
- TDC reverted you again, but I restored it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't TDC violated the 3rr rule. I'm not really sure how the precedure works, but could you lodge a complaint to get him blocked.annoynmous 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:BLP
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.
- Consortiumnews.com is self published by Parry, and not a WP:RS for a BLP. Also, the infomation does not mention Ledden, and is being used to advance a postion, making it WP:SYNT. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, I just think you're being tendentious; the information is not derogatory.WolfKeeper 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I most certainly think it is derogatory, and regardless of what either of us thinks, BLP also says this:
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article
- It's not a statement about a living person, it's a statement of somebodies belief about the facts surrounding a view that the living person holds. That's not the same thing (but we'll see what the admin says), IMO at most this is a content disagreement, and you'll note that that's not an excuse to be 3RR.WolfKeeper 22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, its not a statement about Ledeen, its a statement about his beliefs? Interesting, where in the cited material is Ledeen mentioned?
- Exactly, so you've got no BLP leg to stand on. Thanks for that.WolfKeeper 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds suspiciously like WP:OR to me, but, like you said let someone else decide. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- OR isn't a reason for 3RR either. And it's not OR. OR is when you create a new position from one or multiple sources. Merely collating information into the wikipedia is never OR, that's what the wikipedia is; and which is all that was done here.WolfKeeper 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Skylon.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Skylon.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've also listed File:Skylonv.gif ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in the same nomination. Both images are redundant to freely licenced SVG images. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree that they do look similar to the one that you have so kindly drawn my attention to (which I used as a reference in creating them), I can assure you that I created the two images that I uploaded myself. There are several ways in which I can prove they differ.
- You can't do that, the images are too close. You can't just take one image and transcribe it into a different format- that's a derived work. If you had worked from two or more sources or you had hand drew a 3D image or something you could get away with it. The images are very obviously the same, and that makes your image a derived work, and hence subject to the original copyright. If you had taken the image and turned it into a rendered image, that would probably have been fine.WolfKeeper 15:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the image in the PDF is also found here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/hotol/skylon-schem.gif It is a raster file (GIF). My images are vector (SVG). While it is possible to convert raster to vector, the process will produce a single object in the file. If you open the SVGs that I have produced using Inkscape, or a similar programme, you will see that they have been drawn from scratch. There are also differences in the layout of the 4-view image. The raster image has the plan at the top and the side elevation at the bottom, whereas the vector image has these two the other way around. The same is true for the front and rear elevations. There are also no centrelines on my images, as can clearly be seen on the raster file. In short, the images may be similar, but this is only to be expected as they are of the same thing. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. The layout is self-evidently the same, and hence you have produced a slavish copy.WolfKeeper 15:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the images. What makes you think they are the same. I suggest that you look for others to support your claim, because whilst they are similar, this is only reasonable given that they are pictures of the same thing. Also, please remember to assume good faith. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because I took one look at it, and instantly knew what you had done, which image you had worked from, even before you had admitted it.WolfKeeper 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- You took one look at it. Take another one. What do you mean by "even before you had admitted it"? Are you trying to misquote me to support your case? I have not admitted anything, mostly because I have nothing to admit. It seems to me that you are trying, by any means neccesary, to keep your image from being deleted, even to the point of defamation. What, exactly are the similarities between the two images? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not even my image, I just grabbed an image off another website that had a license the wikipedia could live with, and I notified the copyright owner as the license stipulated. I also tried to get some awesome rendered images from elsewhere, but the guy that rendered them didn't own the copyright himself.WolfKeeper 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd love to see a better image on this article.WolfKeeper 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- You took one look at it. Take another one. What do you mean by "even before you had admitted it"? Are you trying to misquote me to support your case? I have not admitted anything, mostly because I have nothing to admit. It seems to me that you are trying, by any means neccesary, to keep your image from being deleted, even to the point of defamation. What, exactly are the similarities between the two images? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because I took one look at it, and instantly knew what you had done, which image you had worked from, even before you had admitted it.WolfKeeper 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Replying to the comment that you embedded in the middle of my earlier post, which I hadn't noticed. - "No, you can't..." - I never stated that I used only one source. I used all the images that I could find to produce the best possible drawing of the article in question. I don't know why I am having this discussion with you, as you will clearly not even consider the possibility that you are not correct. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright protects a particular representation of the subject matter. You're using almost exactly the same representation as the source you worked from- that makes it a derived work, and subject to the same licensing as the original. I'm sure this is entirely unintentional on your part.WolfKeeper 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the images. What makes you think they are the same. I suggest that you look for others to support your claim, because whilst they are similar, this is only reasonable given that they are pictures of the same thing. Also, please remember to assume good faith. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am considering redrawing this to a different level of detail, which may help to fix the problem.--GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how that would help; it's the general presentation that's the trouble. Right now, it's not even completely clear to me whether, if you remove all of the representation items from the original, whether it might still be a derived work of a derived work and hence still under the owners copyright control. I suspect you could argue that one successfully though.
- In exchange, could I have a little more tolerance with regards to the IFD discussion of the .gif image, once I have the modified SVG online later this evening or tomorrow? I am glad that we are starting to see more eye-to-eye, and that you can see that I am acting with good faith, per your last post. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure you are. I fear the image is dead though; unless we get a license to the original that permits modifications like converting to svg format.WolfKeeper 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am redrafting the image in such a way that it will be blatantly obvious that there is no violation. It will be licenced in the same way that the current SVGs are. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- If I encounter a "very litigious lawyer", I will sue him for frivolous litigation. Anyway, detailed analysis would prove that I didn't copy him. The 3-view (or 4-view, 5-view, etc) drawing style is very common. Google returns about 108 million results for it, so he can hardly claim some form of copyright on the style. BTW, I would have liked to have done an orthographic projection, but I can't draw with perspective, so it would look crap. Thanks for your comment, seeing as there is now no major cause for concern, I will go ahead and change the image on the skylon article. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 06:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Bad reversion control on Chard
Sorry Wolfkeeper, I have no idea how I got into the position of messing your Talk page up with my vandalism reversion. I apologise. JohnHarris 03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- no worries- I got caught out with a race-condition between me and a bot, and to make matters worse, I'd picked a suboptimal revert point, so I ended up re-adding some vandalism, but I soon spotted it, and reverted properly, but you must have spotted the intermediate state and assumed I was vandalising; what are the chances of all that? ;-) WolfKeeper 03:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
RAE Bedford
Instead of saying: "reasonably large", could you give dimensions? It is kind of like saying that the Titanic was a reasonably large ship. Doesn't mean much to someone who has never left Iowa and has never seen a ship. WikiDon 04:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I can't remember the exact sizes right now. My father worked on them, I'll add them later. I think the subsonic was 13x9 at the throat (much bigger elsewhere), I forget the supersonic size, but it was much smaller.WolfKeeper 05:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Block someone from Editing
hello, Wolfkeeper
i am still somewhat new to Wikipedia, but believe so firmly in it's mission.
a user continues to vandalize websites, even after notices. i do not know how (or if i am allowed) to block that user. noticed you had a stern warning to this user and they have continued to pervert entries.
the user is 24.148.112.76, and it/he/she vandalized the miniature golf page.
can you block or help put me in touch with someone that can?
Please advise, Sheml+gn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheml+gn (talk • contribs) 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks, Much!
--Sheml+gn 19:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
space weather
The space radiation at the surface of Mars is non negligible; there's only 20 grams/centimeter^2 of atmosphere; you really want 10x that.WolfKeeper 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- 'Space radiation' is very much different from space weather. The cosmic ray flux on Mars is higher than on Earth, fair enough, but 20 g/cm^2 cuts down a flare to the point of sensitive electronics not noticing. Michaelbusch 00:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, but humans notice. The radiation on Mars surface is about 5 Rems/year. Anything above about 200 mRems/year is considered high. And solar flares are what pushes this up; that's space weather- it actually matters when you are on Mars due to the lack of magnetic field and lack of atmosphere. You would probably not want to be out and about during a flare.WolfKeeper 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know why my edits were considered vandalism? I'm not promoting a business, and my site was perfectly relevant to the articles I added it to. What's more, others have done the exact same thing, which is where I got the idea. Why is a site on hydrogen peroxide allowed, but mine is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie herman (talk • contribs) 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Life Expectancy Edit; McDermott Clan
I have managed to find exact and specific citations for the McDermott Gift Segment. As your discussion comment says,please remove the "tag". If you are not happy with it, then please say so in the discussion section and I will add more citations and give more "In-Depth" information on the subject. Just so you know, this is the first time Iv'e ever really contributed to wikipedia and I'm new to the citation thing.
Yours Truly
Seánlaoch Alexxsándrío McGealách —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.88.22 (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- A life expectancy of 110 means that 50% of the family reaches 110 y/o. That is not remotely plausible. There is no pure water in human bodies, human bodies rely on water not being pure; your contributions are simply ridiculous.WolfKeeper 05:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.61.136 (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Complex number
I think we need to keep the "a + bi" bit in (or near) the first sentence of the article on complex numbers to keep from confusing people. It may not be intuitive to some people what an "ordered pair of reals" means. Maybe something like "a pair of real values (a,b) to represent a + bi". Thoughts?--- Wafulz (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Could do, particularly if we moved the rest of the notation stuff out of the introduction into the body- it sits uneasily where it is I think; specifically an example in the introduction is a bit odd to be honest.WolfKeeper (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Nozzle design reference
Wow, that's a great reference you recently cited for the Space Shuttle main engine article! It looks like the version you cite is a copy of this article at the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne consulting website. I think it might be better to reference the original -- do you agree? BTW, that site has lots of other good reference material too! (sdsds - talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. It might also be well worth referencing from the aerospike article as well.WolfKeeper (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Ion thruster edits
So, when I first did my research project on ion thrusters i looked at this page about a year ago and it pretty much gave the impression that ion thrusters were considered electrostatic ion thrusters. After I did all my research and stuff I learned about all the other types and how broad ion thrusters could be. My editing project, for a completely different class, was to find an article that needed editing in a field you liked. Since this page was kinda confusing and not as good as it could have been i chose it. I was torn as to how to edit it since I completely agree with you as to ion thrusters being comprised of many types and not just gridded ones, but the page still seems to be focused on gridded electrostatic ones with the current example of a gridded one and the disclaimer at the top saying that the whole article is focused on gridded thrusters. A major part of editing is editing someone's work while keeping their general intent, so I was going to keep it focusing on gridded thrusters for that purpose. However, now that I know you think it should be a general article on ion thrusters too, I'll stick to that and word the article accordingly.
Sorry thats kinda long and hopefully it made sense, but I thought I'd explain myself.
One more thing, I still think there should be a general design description, and since gridded electrostatic ion thrusters were the first, i feel that it's alright to use it as an example. It's also possible that there can be no description of the design. Let me know what you think.
Dmpdpete (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Pandora's Box and Gary, Indiana
Nothing in either article, other than the link, was present to indicate any sort of connection. Nothing in the Pandora's Box article indicated such; nothing in the Gary article indicated such. I had no other basis to go on. If you're going to place a link of that sort, at least make certain that the connection between the two subjects are apparent. Had that been apparent, I would never have removed the link, nor sent the warning. The veiled insults are not necessary. --Mhking (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Wolfowitz on Pipes article
The way his name is inserted into the narrative is gratuitous, as it adds nothing to the narrative of the article. Simply that that one person was working with him on the team is not notable. Perhaps, if later the article said "Among others on the team were..." and there was a sampling of two or three names, that might be acceptable,
- I agree, go ahead and add them.WolfKeeper (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
but I don't think the way it stands now, as a name randomly dropped into the text about Pipes being on Team B, is appropriate.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's notable, and verifiable, so you don't really have a leg to stand on.WolfKeeper (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I guess it doesn't matter now, but it turns out ol'Wolfowitz wasn't even a member of Team B! Just on its staff. Oh, well no use beating dead horses.--Dudeman5685 17:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
yeah right
i edited some unproven data deal with it
- If you disagree with referenced material (and it was referenced in the dosage section), then you need to discuss it on the talk page.WolfKeeper (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Delta-v (physics)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Delta-v (physics), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Delta-v (physics). Regua (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Centrifugal effects
Wolfkeeper. I'm happy to try telling astronauts that centrifugal effects do not alter weight. Weight is _defined_ by W=mg (and g=GM/r^2) which makes it unchanged by centrifugal effects - this is why it's correct to refer to a "perceived weight". Another example would be standing on bathroom scales in a falling elevator (lower reading due to a reduced reactiopn force with the scales, but the same _weight_ provided it's measured at the same altitude as when the elevator is stationary so g is unchanged). It's a common error to think that weight is changed by non-interial frames of reference, but the definition of weight is clear and adding "perceived" makes the article correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.186.250 (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Delta-v (physics)
Delta-v (physics), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Delta-v (physics) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta-v (physics) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Delta-v (physics) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Dispute on FGC
Hi. I am having a dispute with a user on FGC. I noticed your previous contribution and hoped you might provide some third-party commentary on a dispute at Blackworm’s objections. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Phyesalis (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of The Wolves and Humans Foundation
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Wolves and Humans Foundation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wolves and Humans Foundation. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 16:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Images on Sonic Boom
I removed three images from Sonic Boom that are completely nonsensical and serve only to confuse the reader. You reverted the change. I removed them again, noting in the edit summary that anyone who disagreed could discuss it on the talk page. You reverted this change without discussion. Do you have any reason for reverting my changes, or is it just a knee-jerk reaction to something you don't understand? DES 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can't go around removing stuff from the wikipedia that you don't understand, that's not how this place works, otherwise it would be empty. There's always somebody that doesn't understand something. Those diagrams make perfect sense in fact, and are not nonsensical, and if you don't understand them, you should examine them more carefully.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I appreciate all the good work you have done, but I agree with DES that the area-rule figure is incomprehensible as drawn. I am not a professional aerodynamicist, but I do have a PhD in physics and a garden-variety understanding of the the elements of supersonic flow. Is this a cross section of a vehicle? What is the direction of the flow? Which are the compression and expansion shocks? What is the relation of the two disjoint white regions to each other?
- In the context of an encyclopedia, I think it should be understandable without having to go to an outside sources. It may be sensible and salvageable, but it surely needs more explanation, or references to a source in Wikipedia where sufficient explanation can be found. Wwheaton (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Solar satellites
You're wrong about solar panels on the surface being more economic. it depends on the launch costs. Solar panels in space produce 3x more power, because they don't rotate, but only 1/3 is lost in transmission to the Earth. Therefore if the launch costs are less than the cost of the panels, then it's cheaper to do it in space. It turns out that on a per kwh/kg basis, solar panels and launch costs are pretty comparable to buy; and the space based version isn't subject to weather and seasons.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are other factors at play - maintenance for example. Solar satellites will always be uneconomical compared to earth based solar. On the other hand there will be more people living in space than on the planet before the end of this millennium, and using solar satellites for power, but not to beam it around, but to use it locally. Only the military wants space based solar power, but they want it to fry people, not to provide power. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's wrong, your figures are off. Solar panels weigh about 3-10 kg per kW. and cost around $10,000/kilowatt. Launch costs are about $20,000 per kg right now, but that's at one launch a month or so quantities. If you work out the multiple launches per day cost, the price is more like $700/kg or so (based on the standard economies of scale metrics), and the panel costs comes down as well if you're buying in bulk (but they're already manufactured in bigger bulk that rockets, so they don't come down as much). So the launch costs are actually cheaper than the costs of the panels- but you get more than twice as much power when you put a panel in space and beam it down for much less than twice the total costs.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- You don't maintain them, if they fail, you ignore them. Solar panels don't need maintainance.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just how much did you think that panels cost, anyway? $700/kg is ridiculous to pay for mounting a solar panel when you can just nail it to the roof of your house. Todays panels don't cost $10k/kw, they are closer to $3, and by next year will be down closer to $1.
- No. Average installed costs is $7-9 per watt. There's a big difference between peak and average. The average on orbit is 3 or more times higher; and the launch costs are lower than the cost of the panels to buy. It's quite complicated, but you're wrong. It also depends on where you are in the world. If you're on the equator, yeah, sure maybe. If you're in the UK, no.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The sun still shines in the UK. There is a table of installed solar in the photovoltaics article, and it lists the UK as having kWh/kWp values ranging from 900-1300, meaning that for every Watt installed you get about a kWhr/year out, in the UK, about half what you get in Mexico, but still plenty for everyones needs. The trend also is to use less energy, not more, as efficiencies improve. I have heard, though I don't believe it, that we can save up to 95% of our energy consumption with no loss of quality of life by simply changing how we use energy, and focus more on conservation and efficiency. It certainly is a lot less than what is now used in the UK, whatever the number is, although I can believe 80% more easily than 95%. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dunno, don't care, show me a lifestyle that uses less energy, and I'll show you a way to make that cost even less, using SPS. All I know is, I've got a spreadsheet with realistic figures in with projected costs of energy in roughly the £0.03-£0.06/kwH range or below, which is less than the wholesale costs of the electricity I'm getting from my wall socket, using solar power satellites, and including rocket launch costs, installations costs, power beaming costs, solar panel costs etc. etc. And other people have found the same. And in the last few days, I've been investigating a paper on a plausible launch system with projected costs in $3/kg range to launch it with; and I have every reason to think that can work as well, but the rocket system is much more traditional. Show me a solar panel that can cost $3 per KILOGRAM and we'll talk.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The sun still shines in the UK. There is a table of installed solar in the photovoltaics article, and it lists the UK as having kWh/kWp values ranging from 900-1300, meaning that for every Watt installed you get about a kWhr/year out, in the UK, about half what you get in Mexico, but still plenty for everyones needs. The trend also is to use less energy, not more, as efficiencies improve. I have heard, though I don't believe it, that we can save up to 95% of our energy consumption with no loss of quality of life by simply changing how we use energy, and focus more on conservation and efficiency. It certainly is a lot less than what is now used in the UK, whatever the number is, although I can believe 80% more easily than 95%. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- No. Average installed costs is $7-9 per watt. There's a big difference between peak and average. The average on orbit is 3 or more times higher; and the launch costs are lower than the cost of the panels to buy. It's quite complicated, but you're wrong. It also depends on where you are in the world. If you're on the equator, yeah, sure maybe. If you're in the UK, no.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Think about lifetime cost. While panels don't require much maintenance, they do wear out over time. Panels on your roof can be recycled in 30 years, panels in space become space junk and are not going to be recoverable. Even if you could hoist it into space for free, there is no reason to do so, because you can get all the power you need by just using the panels here on earth. All of this is totally hypothetical of course, because no one is actually building any of these contraptions, and doing so would be a total waste of money. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever, it doesn't matter, that's my point. By the time they wear out they've repaid their costs very many times over; you're acting like maintenance is a cost centre, but it's actually a way of making more money, or otherwise you dispose of it into a graveyard orbit or collide it with the moon or whatever, it's not very expensive.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just how much did you think that panels cost, anyway? $700/kg is ridiculous to pay for mounting a solar panel when you can just nail it to the roof of your house. Todays panels don't cost $10k/kw, they are closer to $3, and by next year will be down closer to $1.
I think your decimal places are in the wrong places. Think about it. If you could launch for $3/kg you could go to the moon for cheaper than it takes to get to the continent. Anyone who weighed 50 kilos for $150 could buy a ticket to get to outer space. I don't think so. $300 for 100 kilos. Why is the going price $10 million if you can get someone into space for 30,000 times less than that? Are you sure you didn't mean $3/gram? 199.125.109.73 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, the estimate I saw was $3/kg. I'm not sure it would quite reach that price point, but it's possible; I'm far more confident in the $300/kg that the first iteration of the system claims for the first year of operation. If the first iteration of the system was still working after the first year, it might well get down to $50-$100/kg though- most of the price in the $300/kg was capital costs that were being paid off (and the payoff period was set at one year). The second scaled up version would be perhaps around $3/kg without any new tech, and yes, it is feasible for suborbital, space tourism and lunar trajectories. The caveats are that it's a scary-looking system; it needs a large launch campaign to work (which SPS would provide), and the technology readiness level is only about 3, but it requires no breakthroughs to be built.[1]- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- p.s. your estimate assumed that you would be launching a lone person, without a space suit; in practice you need to reckon on maybe 1+ tonne per person.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I forgot to pack a lunch, still cheaper by a thousand than what we are currently paying. The space shuttle was supposed to get launch costs down to about $1,000 per lb and ended up being ten times that. While I expect launch costs to decrease there are fundamental physics involved that you run hard up against. Remember that I think that there will be more people living off the planet in space stations, than on the planet by the end of the millennium. That's what is going to be launched into space, not power plants. 199.125.109.73 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you're talking about the Rocket equation the Launch loop isn't limited by it, because it's not a rocket (unless you count the Earth as exhaust!).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I forgot to pack a lunch, still cheaper by a thousand than what we are currently paying. The space shuttle was supposed to get launch costs down to about $1,000 per lb and ended up being ten times that. While I expect launch costs to decrease there are fundamental physics involved that you run hard up against. Remember that I think that there will be more people living off the planet in space stations, than on the planet by the end of the millennium. That's what is going to be launched into space, not power plants. 199.125.109.73 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that technology won't change, I'm saying that it's more practical to put solar panels on rooftops than it is to put power plants in outer space.
- It's not though, they're too expensive. They're showing promise, but right now they never repay the investment. The SPS would repay the investment and be cheaper.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I can also tell you the future never looks like what we think it might look like. One thing you can count on, though, is that more people will be living off the planet than on the planet. 199.125.109.73 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can't count on it. You need to make it happen.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is only one thing that would stop it. According to Geoff Marcy, "It's possible that a technological state that includes advanced weapons shortens the typical lifetime of a civilization, even to no more than a few thousand or million years." The only thing that would stop it would be if we had reached that end prior to the end of the millennium. What I believe, is that advanced weapons makes war obsolete, and that we will learn this truth and eliminate warfare. We are certainly moving in that direction, pushed forward by the gaffe in the US of the last 6 years. One of the tenants of Star Trek was that we either learn to live with each other or we cease to live. Colonizing space, on the other hand, along with reversing global warming, are two of the most important projects of the 21st century, although the former will happen without any intervention, and the latter clearly requires intervention to "make it happen". 199.125.109.77 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, very little that happens to humans is accidental. If you dig deeply enough into almost anything you usually find somebody or lots of people making it happen. Sure some things like global warming or whatever happen as side effects but I don't see that colonising space can happen as a side-effect; and Star Trek is ultimately just fiction, no matter how inspiring it may be, it's not enough.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- One word. Plastics. Oops, I mean real estate. As one teenager put it, there is either intelligent life in the universe or there is one whole lot of unused real estate out there. Getting there, make no mistake, is inevitable. Why did people spread to six continents plus many islands? Not by accident, and not because someone charismatically lead them either. The same is true of colonization of outer space. Oh sure when the history books are written they will falsely credit this person or that for spearheading the migration, but I can emphatically guarantee that it will happen no matter what; barring only one thing, which was mentioned previously. I do not see Star Trek as inspiration, but as entertainment. The inspiration comes just from looking up at night. Global warming happened by accident, and won't be fixed without a major concerted effort. Colonization will continue to occur (by accident), although we will clearly need new treaties, such as agreeing not to beam power to the planet. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, very little that happens to humans is accidental. If you dig deeply enough into almost anything you usually find somebody or lots of people making it happen. Sure some things like global warming or whatever happen as side effects but I don't see that colonising space can happen as a side-effect; and Star Trek is ultimately just fiction, no matter how inspiring it may be, it's not enough.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is only one thing that would stop it. According to Geoff Marcy, "It's possible that a technological state that includes advanced weapons shortens the typical lifetime of a civilization, even to no more than a few thousand or million years." The only thing that would stop it would be if we had reached that end prior to the end of the millennium. What I believe, is that advanced weapons makes war obsolete, and that we will learn this truth and eliminate warfare. We are certainly moving in that direction, pushed forward by the gaffe in the US of the last 6 years. One of the tenants of Star Trek was that we either learn to live with each other or we cease to live. Colonizing space, on the other hand, along with reversing global warming, are two of the most important projects of the 21st century, although the former will happen without any intervention, and the latter clearly requires intervention to "make it happen". 199.125.109.77 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No thanks. I'm not a star wars fan. I don't expect to get to the moon or to outer space, but I know that many billions will in this millennium. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Wolfkeeper. This diagram is neat. How did you make it? Would it be possible to upload an SVG or PNG version of it? --P3d0 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is one, but it's rubbish. It needs titivating before making it go live. The current one is better quality.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed the svg. Looks good! --P3d0 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- tx. it's still a bit rough, I'm intending to do some more work on it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Launch Loops and Space Elevators aren't tall structures
Hi, Wolfkeeper. As cool and exciting as ideas of space elevators and launch loops are, they don't belong on a list of tall structures. Please read my comments on Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world, and please respond to them there. I'd love to hear your response to the issues I raised, and to see what other people think about these as well. Cheers!
Fredwerner (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source for Image:SR71J58.png that is not en.wikipedia? -- carol 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- it's from the flight manual which is declassified and public domain. There's an online copy at: http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/ but i forget which page number.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry ::me=idiot::
Sorry, me bad:-
"attitude - position of aircraft or spacecraft relative to a frame of reference (the horizon or direction of motion"
I guess you do learn something new every day. RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotosaurus (talk • contribs) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Explaining "inaccurate" cite on Net Neutrality page
Hmm, do you mean I need to find another third-party source that points out inaccuracy in the cited source? What I refer to is the Common Cause page saying the organization "hid[es] their relationship with their corporate backers." I don't know of another citation that explicitly rebuts this, but if one visits the homepage for the organization, and right in the right hand sidebar is a list of the member organizations -- so the allegation seems unfounded. Likewise, the Washington Post article which Common Cause cited does not imply that it purported to be a "genuine grassroots concern" or anything like that.
There are a million and one advocacy groups in Washington DC, and they are not all astroturf organizations. I haven't seen any other evidence that the "astroturf" charge has been claimed, so I don't think it belongs in the entry. Additionally, I changed it because rather than just accusing it of being astroturf, it seemed more informative to list some of the big players, to give an idea of its supporters. This change also preserved AT&T as the main backer. Your thoughts? --BunnyColvin (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Splitting comments
Please don't split other users' comments like this.[2] That makes it very hard to respond, and breaks up the train of thought of the original editor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wolfkeeper
Hey. I notice you've edited heavily on WP:LEAD and its talk. It's hard for me to get a grip on, to be honest. It seems to be disruptive (which is NOT acceptable on Wikipedia), but you also seem to be genuinely concerned about your articles, so I'll assume good faith that you don't want problems. Wolfkeeper, PLEASE:
- Do not edit any other policies or guidelines. Note that changing a policy or guideline to suit your argument is, basically, impossible on Wikipedia. You can talk about them, of course, but changing them out of nowhere can be a serious hassle. If you edit LEAD again, you may well be blocked.
- I find this incredibly offensive. What right do you have to threaten me with this? So far as I can tell you aren't even an admin. You're the one trying WP:OWN the article. And the article is, quite frankly, in poor shape.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're upset and want some guidance and help, please post to me. You hate the guidelines?! Hey, that can be talked about, as well. (Do note: I need to sleep too, but I will respond, eventually.) Cheers, Marskell (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was going to say "Hi" too, but Marskell beat me to it. I enjoyed our (partly humorous) exchange on the LEAD talk page. I've also noticed that you have respected my idea to revert to a stable version of the guideline, until there is consensus for change. This is a great, and should address the issues Marskell is worrying about. I couldn't help noticing you are interested in physics related articles. These desperately need a champion: see WP:WikiProject Physics for a starting point (if you don't already know it). I'm a mathematician myself, and also experienced some difficulty adjusting and relating to the way Wikipedia works. It has it's pluses and minuses, but to get anywhere, you have to work with it not against it. I'd be happy to discuss this further with you on either of our talk pages. Geometry guy 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wolfkeeper, I wasn't meaning to threaten you at all. The comment was tacitly a 3RR warning but reading it again it seems sort of patronizing. I apologize for that. It's just that you were peppering multiple threads with aggressive comments; it can appear disruptive. Marskell (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, I tested equally high in vocab as well as scoring in the top 1% in college, graduate and LSAT placement exams, so I am as reasonably sure about my interpretations of terms as you are, if not more so. Let's not turn this into a 'Who's Got the Bigger Dick' competition, as it is is neither productive nor likely to resolve in your favor. Let's keep it objective, shall we? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that would represent a failure on your part as observer, wouldn't it? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Such is life, I have found. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, refactoring posts - to whit, moving them so as to present a chronological progression of their posting - is completely correct, but I am frankly too busy to get into a pissing contest over it. In the future, please present your posts at the bottom of the page, if you would. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:LaunchLoopRotor.png
Thank you for uploading Image:LaunchLoopRotor.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, really.
Perhaps it is just me, but it would seem to me that someone as highly educated as yourself would realize when they haven't achieved a consensus in discussion to make changes that are considered disagreeable. As you have been reverted repeatedly by several others, that should be a clear indicator that you do not have a consensus, and adding the material anyway makes you appear as an - to use your term - edit warrior. You will find that my revert of your material is explained in the edit summary. i won't bother reiterating it, as my time is better spent on matters not involving teaching the nearsighted to see clearly, but suffice it to say that when you do not have a clear consensus for your edits in the discussion, it doesn't magically transmogrify into a mandate to add it repeatedly. My revert is to send you back to discussion and seek consensus, and not to seek to wear down your detractors. I certainly hope that clarifies matters for you.
As well, while my skin is not as thin as others, it is not so thick that uncivil comments do not annoy me. If you want to be treated with respect, then give it. You get three chances with me to prove you aren't some uncivil assclown, and you have blown two of them. Please refine your behavior. I am sure that someone as well-educated as you claim to be can find a way, recall or otherwise hunker down to think up a way to post without engendering negative responses to your posts. I will await the results of your efforts. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest that, with all due respect, putting yourself in the position of defining consensus as well as removing edits that you claim are non consensus is a massive conflict of interest. I think that your above comment would read a lot better if this was not the case.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, let's try this a different way: take me out of the equation completely. You are discussing an issue that you have with the way that an article reads, and you are meeting considerable resistance to the idea. Does it seem at all appropriate - or even conducive to positive interactions with your fellow editors - to repeatedly introduce those edits in contention? Clearly, the answer is a resounding no. If you cannot begin to see this, perhaps you might need to take several steps back. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wish to point out that the particular edit that lead to this particular discussion had never been made before, and yet you still reverted it on 'consensus' grounds, even though there was no prior evidence that it was in any way contentious, nor did you raise it on the talk page, nor was or is there any evidence that it had ever been raised before.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that the other policies and guidelines are subject to quite the degree of reversion that this one is. That concerns me. That concerns me a lot. And if you don't see why that is, then you need to take a lot of steps back.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, let's try this a different way: take me out of the equation completely. You are discussing an issue that you have with the way that an article reads, and you are meeting considerable resistance to the idea. Does it seem at all appropriate - or even conducive to positive interactions with your fellow editors - to repeatedly introduce those edits in contention? Clearly, the answer is a resounding no. If you cannot begin to see this, perhaps you might need to take several steps back. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, I quite understand the concern and in fact share it, though I am not in favor of the changes you advocate. You need to consider the very likely possibility that your definitions are in fact the wrong ones. It becomes ever more so likely when two or more people suggest this to you. You seem to take issue with all of those definitions which are currently in use within the Wikipedia. It is, of course, your right to contend that we are all wrong and you are right, but - and this is going to be the bitterest pill about Wikipedia for you to swallow, I'm sure - but Wikipedia is not about truth. It is about what is cited and agreed to by consensus. It doesn't have to match any other encyclopedia on the planet. You and I both know that the dictionaries and encyclopedias offer the same information in differing methods and degrees. Consider that WP has that right as well.
- My suggestion that if you find yourself unable to accept the will of the majority (i.e., consensus), then you are going to be repeatedly disappointed with Wikipedia. I don't to chase you away; quite the opposite. You are possessed of some intellect and reason, which is a splendid start. If you rid yourself of that pesky inference that its 'your way or the highway', you will find our interactions far less heated. I hate to trounce my fellow editors; it resolves little and only tends to foster ill will.
- As for reversion and consensus goes, if an edit goes back and forth, with your edits assuming definitions not in use and - more importantly - agreements not in place, it creates what we in the regular world call a contentious editing environment. If I choose to take action to prevent an edit war from forming (with a guideline article being one of the casualties), I will take the action I did every single time, and thrice on Sunday. That I chose to do so is a non-issue, as there is nothing at all you can say to convince me that my action in preventing it was not warranted. Let's sidestep that from now on, and focus on the actual edits. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Jet engine
Were you the one looking for a turbofan version of Image:Jet engine.svg? Is figure 15-1 of this FAA manual what you are looking for? I don't quite understand the difference, but I can redraw figure 15-1 pretty easily and it seems a shame to cut the featured image out of the jet engine article. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's a turbojet. We really need a turbofan, a turbofan is a jet engine where the compressor at the front is bigger than the rest of the engine, and much of the air bypasses around the combustors and turbine sections. Turbofans are much more efficient and all current commercial airliners and almost all military aircraft use them. We really want to discuss the common case I think, since we are describing the features, and the bypass duct is fairly important feature that isn't present on a turbojet.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 10:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ideally we really want a jet engine with an inlet on it, as well as an afterburner.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 10:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Me 262
Thought you might be able to help with this question. THanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Railgun article
I think you saw the problems in the description of a railgun even before I added the note to the discussion page. It seems the brief distinction between a railgun and a coilgun is a useful one, because it's a common point of confusion. We shouldn't remove it entirely. Your observation that a coilgun is contactless is a good one, whereas a railgun requires contact through a conductor between the rails.
- Two contacts, one on each side of the moving armature.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I suggest the railgun description should be generic and avoid specific details that are unique to an implementation. A railgun can pass current though the projectile or through a sliding contact behind the projectile. But in the general case, it's the interaction between a magnetic field and a current that produces the force which accelerates the projectile.
- I don't disagree that a current accelerates the projectile, but that's not sufficient to define what a railgun is for somebody reading the lead. Even the question 'why is it a railgun' isn't answered.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
But... railguns don't use two sliding contacts that permit [current] to pass through a projectile. A sliding contact is used as a conductor in place of the projectile to avoid passing high current through the projectile. This method reduces heat in the projectile. Because the projectile and the conductor are two separate masses, this method uses a sabot to guide the projectile between the rails and to isolate it from the conductor. Mtd2006 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- A sliding contact is a mechanism to permit electrical current to pass between two metal conductors that may have relative motion. You seem to be confusing this with the conductor that carries the current after it has traversed the first contact point.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The conductor on a railgun does not use two contacts.
- The projectile is not necessarily the conductor.
- Electrical devices use contacts where there are repetitive, mechanical make-and-break connections in a circuit, or when there's continuing relative motion between parts of a device that conduct current. The contacts in these devices are used to prevent or reduce long-term damage to the device, and to make repair of worn or damaged parts easier. The conductor between the rails of a railgun is a one-time component. It functions as a path for current for a fraction of a second and is not reused. One side of the conductor directly touches one rail and the other side touches the other rail; no contacts are used or needed.
- Whenever you touch two pieces of metal together to conduct an electrical current, then you have an electrical contact. That's all, there doesn't have to be anything different about the metals, it's only necessary that they enable conduction. It's as simple as that. In this case it's 2 sliding contacts. End of discussion.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Technology Review article cited at [3] makes the distinction between the conductor and the separate projectile: The railgun gets its name from two highly conductive rails, which form a complete electric circuit once the metal projectile and a sliding armature are put in place. Note that the projectile does not need to be a conductor of electric current when a separate conductor or armature is used. The term armature comes from analogy with electric motors where the armature is the part that conducts current in the presence of a magnetic field. This current in the conductor, or armature, interacts with the magnetic field to produce a force that results in motion. In a railgun the use of a separate conductor or armature is optional, as the current can pass directly through a conductive projectile. However, when an separate conductor or armature is used, its purpose is to reduce current through the projectile. This arrangement helps the projectile to survive the trip between the rails with less damage caused by heating and arcing. A sabot is another optional part that further protects the projectile from damage.
- I'm not entirely happy with my most recent edit because it's overly specific; it implies the conductor and the projectile must be separate. The Technology Review article makes the same mistake when it states that there is a "complete electric circuit once the metal projectile and a sliding armature are put in place." (my emphasis) This may be true, but often the circuit is not complete until after the railgun is loaded and subsequently fired when a switch is closed to complete the current path. Mtd2006 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think that typically the armature is fired in between the rails by a separate mechanism, otherwise spot welding can occur, which is disastrous; and so the armature itself may close the circuit (or not).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The armature is fired between the rails by the same mechanism as the projectile. That is, when an armature is used, the force produced by the current passing through the armature accelerates both the armature and the projectile down the length of the rails. In the railgun literature that I've seen, spot welding manifests itself as melt deposit, and plasma and arc erosion of the rails. These are all technological challenges that do occur and must be overcome in a practical railgun design. Mtd2006 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, there's often/usually a gas gun that gives the armature its initial motion; but exact mechanisms vary.23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The armature is fired between the rails by the same mechanism as the projectile. That is, when an armature is used, the force produced by the current passing through the armature accelerates both the armature and the projectile down the length of the rails. In the railgun literature that I've seen, spot welding manifests itself as melt deposit, and plasma and arc erosion of the rails. These are all technological challenges that do occur and must be overcome in a practical railgun design. Mtd2006 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think that typically the armature is fired in between the rails by a separate mechanism, otherwise spot welding can occur, which is disastrous; and so the armature itself may close the circuit (or not).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Escape Velocity
I changed it because I'm very certain that an unknowing reader would assume that that link meant that rockets could achieve escape velocity.
- Yes, that's what it means, and that's what they routinely do.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Also assuming that the reader knows that rockets leave earth, they may assume that it is necessary for the rockets to achieve escape velocity to leave the earth, which is a common misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.262144 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's two different assumptions, and neither is encouraged by the text.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Numbers on Gravity drag vector diagram
Hi Woolfkeeper. I was wondering if you'd be willing to change the numbers on Image:GravityDrag.png to match the article text? That would make the hypotenuse 2.6g and the red line 2.4g. --P3d0 (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Courtesy Notice
Hello, Wolfkeeper. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wolfkeeper and WP:LEAD.
I'm not the one who filed this ANI, but it appears you weren't notified about it so I'm leaving you this notification so you can join in the discussion, if desired. Collectonian (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Muhammad Image
I just noted your post on this topic. Thank you so very much for speaking up, I believe we share the exact same view. I have tried hard to make this point on that talk page and ultimately I was very rudely told that Wikipedia has already reached a consensus, and my proposal is irrelevant. I was also advised to get my proposal vetted at village pump. So, I did raise it at: Village Pump (Proposals). Although initially I got swept away with "Oppose" posts, I kept arguing logically and in last few days I have been recieveing more "support"s than "oppose"s. Please take a look. I believe you are proposing the same thing. Arman (Talk) 01:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with these images being in this particular article ultimately on purely logical grounds, based on wikipedia policy, and my experience on a couple of the more difficult articles. So I made the argument, but I'm not sure it will work. The wikipedia doesn't work on logical grounds very much (even though the policies say it should), it works on a bunch of people with agendas, and some of those agendas will inevitably include keeping these images in the article. It can depend on who these people are and what their influence is, and so it may not be possible.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Before you begin posting comments I seriously suggest that you read the important notice in the red box at the top of the page. However if you forgot to look, here it is again. A summary of the current consensus and answers to you question regarding pictures of Muhammad can be found at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you want to avoid seeing the images on that page, you might want to read this: How to set your browser to not see images. Janus8463 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- You clearly haven't read anything I have written. I've already read the FAQ, and it didn't seem to answer this particular question. If I can establish that the point is already answered somewhere, then I will extend the FAQ to cover this point better. It's unclear that this has been done correctly on policy grounds, if it has, then extending the FAQ will cover it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper can you please read the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ more throughly. Specifically, the depictions are, thus, not meant to have any accuracy to them, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted by Muslim artists. Also, there is no need to accuse users of having a hidden "agenda", I'm sorry but there is no massive conspiracy in Wikipedia. Janus8463 (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's certainly no massive conspiracy as you put it; the wikipedia is very difficult to control, but there's certainly people with overlapping/conflicting agendas here (not necessarily secret ones) as with any human situation.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? I was under the impression they had to make contact and officially license the text. Basically they copied all the text from their nn website and that's legit? Suppose I learn something every day. I tossed up speedying it as an ad, would that have been better. Travellingcari (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think if they were representatives of Shaeffler, then they've legally licensed it to us when they hit the save key (there is that disclaimer, and they were self-evidently advertising anyway, so they deliberately put it here.) But we probably can't prove it was them, although an IP check might give fairly convincing evidence. But I doubt they went through the motions to formally acknowledge that this has happened, so your CSD seems reasonable. ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Got it, wasn't entirely sure how the licensing worked. Looks as if someone removed it in the interim, so the page is dealt with. I hate nn companies spamming, especially when it's been here a year with tag soup. Have a good day! Travellingcari (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Lunar Receiving Laboratory Artifacts
Hi..I noticed you undid my website entry which covers LUNAR RECEIVING LABORATORY items and history....for my own education is that because you determined the webpage ( http://www.spaceaholic.com/lrl.htm ) not relevant to the topic?
Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceaholic (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you were making self-interested edits to the wikipedia over a variety of articles. The guidelines say you are better off adding them to the talk pages and letting others do that; otherwise it tends to look like spam linking. The notability of these pages are not ridiculously high (google rank of 3), but you can probably get away with it I suppose, just don't go nuts.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
WHY?
youre an idiot. your obviously some jealous german/american that cant face the fact that it isnt a german invention. proof on source #4 shows Von Ohain had been given the patent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjustinflames (talk • contribs) 12:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I counted 5 falsehoods above; but that aside. The facts we know are: a) Whittle had the patent b) Ohain got something working first c) Whittle believed Ohain when he said he hadn't read the patent. Everything else is pretty much conjecture. Beyond that, I don't really care, and I'm not going to let the article get hijacked by a bunch of very marginal and dodgy 'references'.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand why Sirjustinflames (talk · contribs) is edit warring with you, including a useless, possibly even spiteful, revert at Launch loop, but I'm keeping an eye on him. If you know what may be setting him off, please let me know. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- He just seems to be a POV warrior that believes that Whittle was the Only Inventor (tm) of the jet engine, and that a guy called Ohain 'stole' his idea by reading the patent; there's no hard evidence that he even read the patent, and Whittle believed Ohain when he told him he hadn't. Even if he had, it's not against the law- Ohain was in a different country. And Ohain did build the first working prototype. This guy Sirjustinflames has rewritten the article with relatively poor English on several occasions and added in low quality links to support his contention. He's really pissed off with me because I keep reverting him. He's had multiple accounts/IPs (I think this is the third over several months). If he adds a decent link then he will have achieved NPOV, and I'll let his edits hold, but none of them are so far.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Reblock
No, I will not. The user was discussing in good faith, and the block had lost its preventive value. At that point, the only reason to keep the block was holding technicalities of the WP:3RR above all common sense. The edit dispute is over, and the user is highly unlikely to continue. Mangojuicetalk 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no way that any of this was in good faith, before during or after. You only have to read the stuff they removed from the article, the information I put on their talk page that they totally ignored and all he stuff they've written since.
Combustion instabilities/screeching
Hi -- I guess I am not clear on the relative importance of these issues, or the way they couple to one another in practice. I have no doubt that thinning of the boundary layer is often the immediate cause of disaster, yet it seems inevitable that non-linear gas dynamic effects and acoustic resonances can contribute to that. Let me see review what Sutton has to say about it. I also have a copy of Murray & Cox's book (1989) on the Apollo program, and it devotes a whole chapter (most of Ch 10, and more in Ch 13) to the awful time they had getting the F-1 to behave. I think that is where I picked up the idea that these things like to conspire to cause nasty problems. Eg, p.148:
- "If, for example, the holes in the [injector] plate were drilled so that one side of the flame front had a slightly higher oxygen content that the other side, the high-oxygen area would get hotter and produce higher pressures on that side. In a smaller combustion chamber, this imbalance might not create difficulties. But in the F-1, there was plenty of room for a "racetrack" effect to get started, in which a higher pressure on one side of the chamber would bounce, starting a wave front that would begin careening around the perimeter of the barrel. Within milliseconds, the heat fluxes would be bounding back and forth across the combustion chamber, reinforcing each other, going out of control, and destroying the engine."
- "'The slightest thing could trigger it,' said one of the F-1's engineers of combustion instability. This was a vexing problem, because the inside of an F-1 combustion chamber during launch was prone to develop a variety of 'slightest things'...."
This is the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote that bit yesterday in the mechanical section. The essence of it is positive feedback at some broadly resonant frequency into a complex non-linear system. The H-1 for Saturn 1 had similar problems, though on a smaller scale. Rosen's Viking Rocket Story mentions screeching as a big problem for the Reaction Motors Inc engineers who did that engine (~1% the size of the F-1!), and how it almost invariably led to violent explosions whenever it occurred. Of course that engine, the F-1, and even the SSME, are "old technology", and I imagine that nowadays, given the factor of a million or so improvement in computer capabilities since those experiences, designers can model things better than was conceivable then. But, given the complexity of the coupled mechanical vibration / gas-dynamic / combustion / thermal problem, I suspect that it is still basically a nightmare.
Really appreciate all the effort you have put into that article. It is close to the core of space exploration's practical reality (& thus to my heart), and deserves to be good. I certainly wouldn't want to create problems for you as a cheap-shot kibbitzer. We could paste this discussion into the article talk page if you want, and see if any of our other experts have good ideas and knowledge. Anyhow, based on all the work you have done, I think you are in charge of the article (as much as anyone ever is in the Wiki madhouse!) at this point, and I won't argue too much.
Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, no I'm not in charge of it really, i've just been stuffing info in there, and it's horribly unreferenced at the moment; but everything I've put in there could (to the best of my ability) be referenced (except for any inevitable screw-ups).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly feel free to add more, since you've got access to a copy of Sutton you're actually as qualified as I am...- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- The only other gotcha we have here is that this article is supposed by a general article on rocket engines (including hybrid and solids), whereas other articles cover liquid fuelled rocket engines specifically. I keep accidentally confusing the two and having to move stuff around, but it's worth bearing in mind.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I really wish the rocket engine article was limited to liquid rocket engines, which I think are a core technology driving space exploration for now, with a good robust article on solid rocket motors, which are also important. (And the water rockets off in a little nook or cranny!) Being a Wiki newbie, I better read up on the other articles to get the lay of the land. Wwheaton (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sadly, not all rocket engines are liquid, and it's actually worse than that! Not all liquid rockets are bipropellant, and not all bipropellant rockets are liquid(!) Also, the up and coming NASA vehicle 'stick' uses a big solid for the manned part ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW my understand of the F-1 is just what you've written above, they had a terrible time getting it to work, and combustion instability was the main cause, and instabilities caused frequent failures; it's just the mechanism, I think it was more of a thermal thing, but i'd have to check my copy (or huzel and huang) as well to be absolutely certain.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Just looking at Sutton & Ross, Rocket Propulsion Elements; I have only an older 4th edition from 1975. Chapter 8, Sec 6 (Combustion) & especially Sec 7 (Combustion Instability) has a good (very sobering!) discussion of "chugging", "buzzing", and "screaming" or "screeching", the latter two being described as "the most destructive, capable of destroying an engine in much less than 1 sec". They do mention destruction of the boundary layer as being a typical characteristic of these problems, but also call for pressure fluctuations of no more than 5% about the mean as characterizing "smooth combustion". So I think it is correct to call it a coupled mechanical / gas-dynamic / combustion issue. I don't really have a strong opinion where it should go in the article, but I do think the effect of coupling between the different aspects affecting instability, and the problem of positive, destructive feedback occurring at resonant frequencies ought to be mentioned. If you have the 7th edition (referenced in the article) available (and assuming it has retained the basic material), that could be referenced to satisfy the fact tag I see you inserted on my addition to the mechanical issues subsection; or I can put it in from my copy.
It is conceivable that all these concerns are anachronistic what with the computer modeling programs that exist today, about which I am not very up-to-date. I have a maybe old-fashioned worry that the community wisdom peaked in the 1955-1975 period, and is being lost since. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi again -- I just put in the ref to Sutton & Ross that I hope addresses your "fact" tag (which I therefore removed -- ? -- is that the proper procedure?). I also changed "usually" to "commonly" in the paragraph. Screeching is mentioned as causing rapid disaster in at least three references I have, so I think that is fair. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's in the wrong section, this is an acoustic/thermal problem, not mechanical. There's no way that a high frequency sound wave can burst a rocket engine mechanically (not in just a few seconds); and your references don't say anything different.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Concorde operational cost
Dear Wolfkeeper, I noticed you reverted my edits to the Concorde article with "extreme prejudice" and stated that the links did not support what was written.
I disagree entirely, the old link was to a site of uncertain usefulness, my two new links were to a BBC and CNN newsarticles. The text in the article that I added was in reference to those two links.
Please can you explain how the old edit was superior, before you revert anything more with "extreme prejudice".
Thanks,
Alastairward (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Complex number
Although I deleted the technical details inserted into the introduction, I did not delete the part in complex number about the field of real numbers not being algebraically closed, since it's of high enough importance to mention. The other, more technical details, however, are probably not appropriate for a introduction, which should give a general reader a impression of what the article is about. Xantharius (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- By the time somebody understands what a field is, I fail to really understand how simply naming the field of reals R, and the field of complex numbers C is a 'more technical detail', it's just a name, which they may have heard of. And the bit you deleted about negative numbers being formed from squaring imaginary numbers is logical even within the context of the introduction; so I don't agree with your reversion.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Although mathematicians and people familiar with mathematical notation are not going to be bothered with naming objects by letters or reading equations, a general user might not. According to the math version of WP:MOS the opening paragraphs should be a broad summary and outline the most general concepts involved. Notation and other matters, unless vital, are better left to other sections, and, as far as I can tell, most Wikipedia articles abide by that.
- The blackboard letter notation is mentioned in the very next section. I do not feel that the property that negative numbers are formed from squares of complex numbers is important enough to include in the opening paragraphs, but it may well be important enough to include in later sections. I agreed with you about the importance of the real numbers not being an algebrically closed field, but I should have given more details about my objections: they were not about the content but about its location. It cannot be the case that every property of the complex numbers is important enough to include in the lead (especially if one has to use an equation to do it), and I felt that these should go further down in the article. Xantharius (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Etiquette
I don't appreciate that you just overwrote my comment on the ball bearing talk page (see [4]). See WP:talk for proper talk page etiquette. Thanks... --Wizard191 (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi—while I suspect I agree with your reasons for deleting a big chunk of this page, it would be nice to know what they are. I encourage you to use edit summaries for such large-scale changes. Thanks. —johndburger 13:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
many thanks for your support - moslanka article
dear Wolfkeeper : many thanks for your support in the debate for my article moslanka , you have rightly stated that im a new article writer and an inexperienced member , i pledge to improve my work . iv done all necessary change needed , kindly visit my article and if possible kindly inform me the necessary change .
moreover i wish to request you to kindly guide me to get a copy of my other article TF Quasar International that was deleted instantly after an notice was sent to my talk page , i was not even given some time to edit or reverse my article , had i been warned or asked i sure would have done the needful . and i assure you that if the copy is given i would carefully edit it or reverse it according to encyclopedia standard . regardsPearllysun (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
dear Wolfkeeper : iv edited the article as a 3rd party style and even removed the contact details , and you have supported to keep it and never voted against it . do inform me or if possible assist me how to modify it if needed to be so .regardsPearllysun (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, it needs to have external reliable sources that are uninvolved parties, that refer to this company, so that we can evaluate what you say about it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
People scratching themselves behind their ears
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article People scratching themselves behind their ears, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}}
to the top of People scratching themselves behind their ears. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of People scratching themselves behind their ears
An article that you have been involved in editing, People scratching themselves behind their ears, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People scratching themselves behind their ears. Thank you. Daniel (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Warning on OR
Actually, the page you created falls under Wikitionary, and thus, you must look at the page yourself. The page as it was before was encyclopedic. You changed it from such and used OR to do such. I suggest you revert it now according to your own standards as you put forth. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you cannot see that the entry that you have created is exactly the same as wikitionary, then I suggest that you need to go look at wikitionary, and see that you removed any encyclopedic qualities from the entry. You are severely mistaken and you acted in a way that violates many of Wikipedia's policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Plenum Chamber Burning
Wolf, since you seem to be the resident guru, I thought I'd start wtih you. Do you have any information or sources that could be used to start an article on Plenum Chamber Burning (PCB), or perhaps a section on the Afterburner page if there's not enough info/notability for a full article? Any thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know anything about that really.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I think I'll try to find a reliable source from the Harrier/P.1154 pages, and add a brief explanation on the Afterburner page, with a redirect from Plenum Chamber Burning to the section. Perhaps someone else will have some knowledge andr better sources, and be able to add some more. Thanks anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:NASA_bipropellant_GPN-2000-000548.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:NASA_bipropellant_GPN-2000-000548.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:NASA_bipropellant_Lrockth.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NASA_bipropellant_Lrockth.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study
Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Reagan edits
As per your repeated (1, 2, 3) edits in Reagan, I was wondering where in the proffered citation was the text:
- As with many actors, they were always a superstitious couple, and she consulted atleast one astrologer and adjusted his presidential schedule to try to ensure that he was not harmed again.1
I looked through the reference, and did not find the statements which you ascribed to the reference. As the wording seemed pretty discriminatory, could I trouble you to re-phrase the statement before re-adding it? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)