Jump to content

User talk:Modest Genius/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Victoria Line

Please take at a look at this edit you made a few months ago. I am not an expert on the history of LU, but I think you have made a mistake: it should be Walthamstow to Victoria, not Brixton. Please double-check and reply.

Thanks in advance レミリア・スカーレット~Scarlet Devil (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had another look. I think I'm right, although it isn't the clearest sentence ever written. The dates are:
  • 1961 - Construction starts on Walthamstow - Victoria
  • 1965 - Approval granted for extension from Victoria - Brixton; construction starts once the original tunnel section has been bored (not sure of year, probably 1966 or 1967)
  • 1968 - First section from Walthamstow - Highbury opens
  • 1968 - Open from Walthamstow - Warren Street
  • 1969 - Open from Walthamstow - Victoria
  • 1971 - Open from Walthamstow - Brixton
  • 1972 - Last station opens (Pimlico)
See [1], and all those dates are given throughout the rest of the Wikipedia article. Feel free to rephrase what I've written if you can think of a better way of putting it! Modest Genius talk 22:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Storm Thorgerson

Thanks for adding columns. I was thinking of doing it, but didn't want to try and find the code this morning. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Annoyingly the 2 column size currently line breaks in the middle of the Muse entries. There's probably a workaround for that, though I don't know it. Modest Genius talk 15:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. James's Square, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 13:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The changes were part of WP:MOSLINK which among them specifically cites not to link terms that are not helpful or useful to the majority of readers. Broad terms like United States is one of these; along with a handful of others. We do not link Asia or Europe or March 18 or 1998 unless there is a clear and present need for it. Also numerous errors like "100 inch" should be "100-inch" for clarity. My main reason was the date error and addressing it. I am doing MOS adherence in the process to prevent needless additional edits to correct them. I would like you do re-implement such changes, but if you do not I will update the template at minimum later on and fix the one date issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggested you discuss this on the article talk page, not mine. I'm well aware of MOSLINK, which in fact states: "if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables [...]". If you want to tweak the dates and compound units then go ahead, but I didn't actually see any date changes in that edit - just an update to the date in the template. Modest Genius talk 17:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I brought it here because I don't have any concern or intention to work on the page anymore then I absolutely have to. The "if helpful for readers" we disagree on then so be it; I will go back and address the template and the one flip the one incorrect date later on. It is not a big deal to me and if it takes even 10 minutes of our time to argue about such a trivial matter, it is a loss for Wikipedia. I defer to your claim that it is helpful for readers. Thanks for editing, and keep up the good work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply, I've been away. Fair enough, I agree it's not worth arguing about! Thanks. Modest Genius talk 22:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

An other banrstar four you

The Main Page Barnstar
Awarded to Modest Genius for becoming only the fourth editor to make 1,000 edits to WP:ERRORS. With many thanks for all the hard work you do in trying to keep the main page error-free. BencherliteTalk 10:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow, I'm not sure if that's an impressive or an embarrassing statistic! I'm such a pedant... Thanks :) Modest Genius talk 11:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 11:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there. Modest Genius talk 07:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naming of comets, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Comet McNaught and Edwin Holmes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 12:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

T: template redirects

Hi, you participated in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#T:, some of which I have relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November_18#T:WPTECH. Please come along and share your thoughts .. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 15:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there. Thanks for the notification. Modest Genius talk 01:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Improvement Suggestions for Astronomical spectroscopy

Hi Modest Genius,

I was browsing through WP:AST today and saw that you had recently given some advice for Careless Torque on her Seyfert galaxy page. I was wondering, if you had a spare few minutes, if you'd be willing to look at my astronomical spectroscopy article. Similar to Careless, I'm keen to have it upgraded to B-class or better, but I thought it would be a good idea to have some Wikipedians look at it before I put in any official requests. I'm open to any suggestions you may have. If you're busy and can't look at the article, would you be able to point me in the direction of some users who might be interested in helping me out?

Cheers, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I only made one passing technical comment on designations, I didn't even read the Seyfert article! On the other hand, yours is something I do know a lot about, so I'll comment on the article talk page. Modest Genius talk 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dual_EC_DRBG rename

Hi, you're invited to give your comments on the discussion at Talk:Dual elliptic curve deterministic random bit generator#Revert article rename? -- intgr [talk] 22:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Differences

This user understands the difference between its and it's

— May I assume you also understand the difference between lay and lie, which nowadays seemingly few people do? Sca (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You may indeed - I think I do. 'Lie' is a verb meaning to be in a prostrate position, e.g. lie down on a bed; in past tense it is 'lay'. Confusingly, there is another verb to 'lay', which means to place something e.g. lay railway track; in past tense it is 'laid'. Even more confusingly, there is another verb to 'lie', meaning to say something which is not true; in past tense it is 'lied'. This website discusses the differences.
Did I make a mistake with these somewhere? It's entirely possible! I certainly mix up led and lead on occasion. Or was this just a very pedantic enquiry? :p Modest Genius talk 14:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ice Hockey at the 2014 Winter Olympics

What exactly is out of date, could you be specific because all of the information there appears to be correct.18abruce (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In the lead: 'will resemble', 'Both venues will be', 'slated to begin use in 2013'. Have these things not happened yet? If not, why not? It's not just a case of updating tenses either, some reliable sources for these facts after they happened need to be found. Modest Genius talk 23:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, I see, thank you very much. I will check that the venue pages to see whether what was supposed to happen did.18abruce (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I should have made that clear at the time, but I was in a rush! Modest Genius talk 23:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chapman Medal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Lockwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 11:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piccadilly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West End (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed last week. Modest Genius talk 00:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

SN 2014J

You changed Big Dipper to The Plough under the aegis of WP:ENGVAR. Does that really make sense? Will more people understand "The Plough" than the "Big Dipper"? Changing the name in the SN 2014J article doesn't make much sense beyond being a matter of principle, since all it does is re-direct to the Big Dipper page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

'The Plough' is the name used in Britain. 'Big Dipper' is the name used in the US. WP:ENGVAR says to stick with the national variety of English that the article was already written in, unless the subject has a strong tie to the other nation. So in this case, we should stick with the original British version of 'The Plough'. Modest Genius talk 22:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, I understand you did it as a matter of principle. I'm asking that you reconsider, particularly since The Plough just redirects to Big Dipper. That establishes a precedent of sorts towards which term is more common in Wikipedia. Personally, I'd never heard of "The Plough", and seeing that name for an asterism in the article was completely meaningless to me. Perhaps list them both in the text? The purpose behind WP:ENGVAR isn't to make articles specific to one variant of english, it's to prevent edit wars - but when it renders a sentence meaningless to people outside the region, it's being overdone. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I have reconsidered, and taken the relevant guidleline into account. Keeping it with the British name of The Plough is appropriate and correct. The redirect is not broken and does not have any relevance to which name is used in any other article. 'I've not heard of it' isn't a good reason to change; simply clicking on the link explains it. Anyway, this discussion should probably be on the article talk page. Modest Genius talk 11:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

SN 2014J

(self credit) Modest Genius talk 15:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

parentheses

So,[2] any opinion as to whether

1.111 +0.002
−0.001×10−3

should have parentheses, s.t. like

that? — kwami (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes, include the brackets. But I don't have a strong opinion, and both are clear enough for most purposes. Modest Genius talk 13:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SN 2014J, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asterism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

fixed some time ago. Modest Genius talk 13:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Embargoes

Please continue this discussion at Talk:10199 Chariklo. Modest Genius talk 14:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings,

While we could discuss for a while whether or not Wikipedia is bound by ESO (or other) embargoes, the news item about asteroid Chariklo was NOT public and was NOT cited. The source, WRAL.com, had removed the news from their website (at the demand of the ESO from what I gleaned).

Anyhow, there seems to be an edit war on the page about Chariklo, to which I will not contribute as I am at work. I do not like it when embargoes are broken, as they do exist for a reason. And no, I do not work for the ESO or any affiliated organization — I am an amateur journalist who does respect the embargo, and one reason why I don't like when they are broken is that all of us journalists (amateur and professional) lose the "scoop" on the news when it pops up somewhere by an embargo breach...

My two cents...

Best regards, CielProfond (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not WRAL broke the embargo is not our concern. Wikipedia did not sign up for ESO's embargo system and is not bound by it. The archived version of WRAL's page is a matter of public record. It's not a great source, because as you note the original has now been hidden, but it's a source nonetheless. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant - the threshold is whether content is verifiable, not some moral judgement about whether it should be public or not. I'm going to copy this discussion to the article talk page, which is a better location for it. Modest Genius talk 14:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer

Modest Genius talk 11:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Chilean history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concepción (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 01:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Event horizon

I've been looking for an astronomer who can weigh in on a proposed change to Event horizon, and I found you. The discussion is at Talk:Event horizon#Minor Change for Clarity. CorinneSD (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I've replied there. Modest Genius talk 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Army–McCarthy hearings

Why do you keep putting these tags in the Army–McCarthy hearings? Although it's not my job to lead other editors by the hand, I will point you to the answers to your tags that have been in the article even before my addition of another source. My resentment derives from the fact I don't even want that Homosexuality section in the article. But it is well sourced, relevant and consensus is that it belongs in the article.

You first tag:

McCarthy's investigations were largely fruitless, but after the Army accused McCarthy and his staff of seeking special treatment[clarification needed] for Private G. David Schine, a chief consultant to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and a close friend of Cohn's, and who had been drafted into the Army as a private the previous year, McCarthy claimed that the accusation was made in bad faith.

This is further explained in the article in the subsection Cohn, Schine and McCarthy here:

Roy Cohn did take steps to request preferential treatment for Schine, going so far on at least one occasion to sign McCarthy's name without his knowledge on a request for Schine to have access to the Senators' Baths.

With sources listed as 20,21, 22 and 23. Very well sourced.

Your second tag:

A portion of the hearings were taken up for the express purpose of evaluating the security risk of homosexuals in government and the issue would be brought up on other occasions, as well as being an undercurrent in the investigations.[citation needed]

is sourced by many of the same sources. Plus more in the article. It's an undisputed fact. Why in the world would you tag this? Have you read the article or the sourcing? Your last tag:

Senator McCarthy. As I said, I think you may be an authority on what a pixie is.[This quote needs a citation]

is sourced throughout the article also. I also added another source(source #18) for the quote here. So let's stop with the drive-by tagging. It's getting tedious. Dave Dial (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I put the tags back because they hadn't been dealt with. They still haven't.
Did you read the comment in the 'clarification needed' tag? It's pointing out the need for an explanation at this point, not a source and not something hundreds of words later in the article. I was pointing out a problem in the prose, not the sourcing.
The citation needed tags were because the sources for those claims are not clear. The tags do not imply that it isn't true, merely that there needs to be a <ref> tag there.
It would have been much faster for you to simply address the problems, than to write a long rant on my talk page. Modest Genius talk 11:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You're unreasonable. I'll let someone else deal with you. I'm not going to further edit war over this silliness, but do not change the article. The citation tags you are adding are from sourced material. If you can't be bothered to read them, that's your problem. Dave Dial (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I'm being unreasonable, just applying WP:V. It's not hard to add a <ref> tag referring to a source which is already in the article if that's what's required. If you know where the source for that statement is, please add it. You can't expect every reader to go through all the sources until they find it. Modest Genius talk 16:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
That's unreasonable too. Who are you? Are you an editor here at Wikipedia too, just like me? You see the references, I've pointed them out to you. The only difference is, I don't think they are needed in each line, nor explanations for material that is included in the article is one reads through it. If you do, then fix it. But don't just re-tag sections that you know are sourced with citation tags. Dave Dial (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Why not? If I spot a problem but have neither the time nor the familiarity with the material required to fix it, then tagging it seems a perfectly reasonable response. It highlights the problem both to the reader and to other editors, who may be able to fix it. Anyway, I've had enough of arguing about this. I don't know why you've reacted so defensively to a couple of tags. Modest Genius talk 17:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francisco Bilbao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chilean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Fixed. Modest Genius talk 08:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greg Clark, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages NHS and The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no Dab solver link, so fixing this is rendered much more difficult. Please restore the tool and link. Modest Genius talk 12:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piccadilly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no Dab solver link, so fixing this is rendered much more difficult. Please restore the tool and link. Modest Genius talk 12:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Furore / furor

Your revert isn't on point. Although furore is in AE dictionaries, it is marked as usually British and redirects to the furor entry. The New York Times uses furor rather than furore. I did find some AE uses, but they were old (e.g., 1948). Glrx (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:ENGVAR, we're supposed to seek commonality whenever possible. Furore is common and appears in both varieties of English, furor is not and only appears in AmE. I can't be bothered to argue further, but please bear this in mind in future editing. Modest Genius talk 12:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Calcium monohydride

Thanks for your correction to my List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules edits. On closer inspection of the reference sources, the Calcium monohydride article is misleading in its mention of CaH detection in other stars (and possibly in the Sun, which I haven't looked heavily into yet). I opened this topic on the CaH talk page that I welcome your comments on. -- Tom.Reding
 17:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've replied there. Modest Genius talk 23:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Refrain from scolding people

Hey, Modest Genius. Did you know that Jimbo Wales is the founder of Wikipedia? I know, but please refrain from writing words that might hurt people at Talk:Main Page. If the 'F word' appeared, please discuss properly and refrain from scolding any user(s). Your attitude irked me a little, especially that you wasn't assuming good faith. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: Apologies for the slow reply, I've been off-wiki for the Christmas period. For anyone passing through, the edit in question is this one.
I'm well aware of who he is. I also don't believe that he should be treated with unique diffidence - his comments should be judged on their content, not the identity of the person who made them. There's no reason why his opinions should count for any more or less than any other editor's.
I'm also confused as to why you would think I was 'scolding' or not assuming good faith. I pointed out a systemic bias present in Jimbo's comments. At no point did I suggest it was deliberate; indeed I presume he was not aware of the problem or he wouldn't have said it. I also argued that the scheduling of TFA should not be affected by religious holidays or fundraising activities, which is simply my opinion and obviously so. Whilst people might disagree with it, I don't see how they could object to me stating it.
I notice that no-one has objected to my comment on T:MP, despite the fact that it's still there weeks later. Nor has Jimbo Wales replied.
Sorry, but I stand fully by my comments which I think were reasonable and proportionate. Modest Genius talk 21:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology

Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers

Tetra quark (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I do have a decent (Masters level or so) understanding of cosmology, but certainly don't consider myself an expert. My interests are very much at the opposite end of the astronomical size scale - particularly the interstellar medium.
Whilst I'm not opposed to the existence of the WikiProject, I do think you should have discussed it with the other affected projects (WP:AST and WP:PHYSICS) before setting it up. Modest Genius talk 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Central meridian listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Central meridian. Since you had some involvement with the Central meridian redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Iceblock (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:ABDF

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:ABDF, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this redirect makes no sense at all and there are no incoming links

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. SD0001 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have been declined already by a third party. The shortcut makes sense to me - short for Ain't Broke Don't Fix. Modest Genius talk 13:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French Revolutionary Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Basel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SN 2014J, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Bonne Citoyenne (1796), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Naval General Service Medal and Battle of Cape St Vincent. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 11:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Why early Explosives Company propellants were suitable for shotguns but not rifles

I can offer an educated guess in response to your question on the smokeless powder article on the basis of professional knowledge; but in the absence of published test data on the propellent of interest, this would be inappropriate for inclusion within the article. The reaction rate of gelatinized nitrocellulose increases with increasing pressure. This is thought to result from the insulating properties of the foam zone at the reaction front as explained in the article on Piobert's law. Energy released in the flame zone must be transferred as heat through the insulating foam of melted propellant to sustain decomposition of the solid propellent. At low pressures, gas volumes approximated by the ideal gas law will be relatively large in comparison the molten liquid volume, and the foam will be an effective insulator. Smaller gas volumes at higher pressures will allow more efficient heat transfer, and accelerate the rate of reaction.

Pressure will tend to drop as the volume of the reaction chamber increases when the projectile moves down the gun barrel; but the increasing pressure must first overcome static friction of the projectile within its cartridge. The transition from static friction to lower kinetic friction may have been assumed to be faster in a smooth shotgun barrel than within a rifle barrel which must also engrave the rifling into the projectile and overcome rotational inertia. The reaction rate of the early EC powder might have been too fast within the sustained higher reaction chamber pressure of a rifle barrel; and the increased reaction rate might have generated pressures even higher than the firearm could withstand. Thewellman (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. So a short way of putting that would be 'because the lack of rifling in a shotgun allows a smoother expansion of the gas'? Modest Genius talk 10:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That explanation might be satisfactory for individuals understanding the relationship between pressure and reaction rate of nitrocellulose propellents; although I might suggest substituting something like "reduces resistance to" in place of "allows a smoother".
As a matter of historical interest, the paradox gun was designed to utilize the faster burning propellents of its era by delaying the resistance of rifling until expanded reaction chamber volume had dropped peak pressure. As might be expected from its inadequate reference citations, the Wikipedia article fails to mention both the accelerating twist of paradox rifling (initial rate of rotation less than rate of rotation at the muzzle), and the ineffective shot dispersion patterns created by a rifled barrel. The initial paradox guns were not intended for use as shotguns. They were 4 gauge or 8 gauge guns designed to throw very heavy projectiles (sometimes including an exploding charge of mercury fulminate) against large and dangerous "big game" animals before modern rifles were available. The 4 gauge guns created punishing recoil firing a 4-ounce (110 g) projectile. It was said, only partially in jest, that after the hunter fired at the beast, the first to recover their footing finished off the other. Thewellman (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've added a brief explanation to the article, though I adjusted the wording to avoid the double negative (lack...reduces) and link to rifling and smoothbore. Obviously there's no source, but hopefully someone will turn one up add it. Modest Genius talk 10:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sinhalese–Portuguese War

Hi Modest Genius, your edits to Sinhalese–Portuguese War have been coming up on my watchlist. Your edits are highly valued and welcomed, but you have not referenced or cited any of the text you have inserted. Could you please start referencing all your additions. Thank you--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. At present my only sources are the other articles on specific parts of the war (battles, leaders etc.) which I've been summarising in this more general article. I would import the relevant references from those other articles, but they're mostly offline books that I haven't actually seen. It doesn't seem appropriate to cite a source I cannot access, so I've left the prose unreferenced for now. Not ideal I know, but better than no content whatsoever. Modest Genius talk 10:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Turnham Green, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great West Road. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 12:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Modest_Genius/Archive_4&oldid=1230201478"