User talk:DocFergus

Welcome

Hello, DocFergus, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

DocFergus, good luck, and have fun. Jack Frost (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may owe you an apology...

Didn't read the exchange on ANI too well... My peeved reply was unwarranted. Apologies. Kleuske (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: Accepted. You did have me scratching my head wondering what you were on though!! DocFergus (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't blame you. Reading it back, I'm embarrassed by my reaction. Somehow I got the impression I was chided for incorrect use of the word "thrice", which lasted until I read the complete thing and heard a giant "woooosh" from the joke going over my head. Now I'm immortalized in the Annals of ANI with egg on my face... Yay! Kleuske (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: Since your post is not relevant to the actual case and no one has responded to it, there is nothing stopping you from deleting your comment and regaining your cholesterol free mortality. The fact that the case is closed should not be a problem. DocFergus (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phew... Done. Thanks for the advice. Kleuske (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: You are entirely welcome. Looks lie you got it in time because it was archived out of reach shortly after. DocFergus (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting incorrect precision of Template:Convert

Thank you for noting precision problems at Template_talk:Convert (rev: [1]), where 2,000 tonnes should default to "1,970 long tons" per scientific rounding rules. For over 10 years, I have been working to fix the default calculations to match the sensible results typically used by scientists, as coded in the regulations related to U.S. NIST SP811. During the prior 10 years, there have been a lot of refusals to use sourced calculations for conversions, including the excuse: Wikipedia "is not a U.S. product" to follow NIST regulations. I don't know why some people think over-rounding is preferable to slightly extra precision, because the over-rounding for 10 years has produced illogical conversions, such as {{convert|105|-|106|F|C}} –> 105–106 °F (41–41 °C) rather than the correct 105–106 °F (40.6–41.1 °C). Having two temperatures both convert to "41" is just a nonsense range and cannot be called "preferable" to showing different results for different numbers. Because your hunches about the unusual precision have been correct, I suspect you are too intelligent for typical WP issues, and so thank you for tolerating the current format problems in Wikipedia pages. It often takes extreme patience to make progress on WP. Anyway, to remind people how to determine a correct conversion, then I have added a note at Template_talk:Convert to re-explain how precision should be calculated:

"Just a reminder, in the U.S. there are legal regulations to increase the precision of measurement conversions, such as for danger limits (to not overround) or for product sizes (to not fail measurement validation tests), by using calculations developed in 2006 by NIST. In general, when the output number drops to lower first digit, then increase precision by +1, as in 2,000 tonnes treated as 2 significant digits but with 3-digit output:

2,000 tonnes (1,970 long tons)

"To match product labeling, truncate the output amount, rather than risk rounding up to an untrue larger amount. The NIST temperature conversions round Celsius output to 0.5 increments, as in 78 °F (25.5 °C), but that would expand climate tables to show many extra ".5" digits, and WP would need to use extra rounding in climate tables, to keep the Celsius numbers shorter as they appear now. The over-rounding in the Lua version of Convert tends to be within a 2% error margin, but many of our users still notice the peculiar amounts, compared to typical U.S. calculations which have better precision." (see: link)

Thanks again for taking time to improve Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikid77: Many thanks for your explanation. In the end I came to the conclusion that the 2000 tonnes that I was trying to convert (at German battleship Tirpitz) was such an approximation that expressing it converted as 1970 long tons was rather over pedantic as it is most likely equally approximately 2000 long tons.

Expressing temperature to any precision greater that 1 degree is problematic because temperature is very difficult to measure to any greater accuracy. Digital thermometers are often designed to read to a precision of 0.1 degree (in any temperature scale), but their accuracy seldom comes close to this (mostly because of the difficulty of getting the probe to be at the same temperature as that which is being measured). I assume from your post that you understand the difference between precision and accuracy. In fact calibrating temperature measuring instruments to an accuracy of 0.1 degree is nigh on impossible as it requires the ability to subject the probe to a temperature of the desired value ±0.01 of a degree which is impossible to reliably and repeatedly produce. Even ±0.1 degree requires some fairly fancy equipment. DocFergus (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photoflood moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Photoflood, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Whispe ring 17:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DocFergus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DocFergus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Photoflood (November 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vincent60030 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Photoflood and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Photoflood, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 10:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DocFergus! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 10:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Magnet Trinity College Academy

Thank you for adding that source. I have been cleaning up articles that have often been edited by people related with the topics, as well as points often going unsourced for years. Markvs88 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Photoflood (December 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoySmith was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Yesterday, I used an automated tool to convert the bare URL references to the correct format. This was reverted, with the comment that "CS2 citation style is not mandatory". While it's certainly true that we don't enforce any particular reference format, we do require (or, at least, strongly encourage) that you use a format which contains full bibliographic information, as opposed to just a bare URL. Please see WP:CITE#Generally considered helpful.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Photoflood and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Photoflood, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

I wished to inform you that anyone may remove a Proposed Deletion tag, including the page creator/principal contributor. It is speedy deletion tags that cannot be removed by the page creator. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Photoflood has been accepted

Photoflood, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]