User talk:Sbalfour

Welcome!

Hello, Sbalfour, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sbalfour, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Sbalfour! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Sbalfour. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by xanchester (t) 01:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spix's Macaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 10:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

signature

NB - your signature is oddly formatted. I think you may need to tweak it in your "my preferences" tab. I think you must have hit the tab or space bar or something. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your parrot-related edits...

Hi. I saw what you've been doing with parrot articles recently and I think it looks really good. A lot of that stuff has needed work for a while. Have any of the other WP:BIRDS people messaged you yet and invited you (not that you need to be invited to join...)? You might find that Project interesting/useful. Just a thought... Welcome, anyway. :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the Macaw articles are substantially deficient (as in barely there). Organization, content, grammar and diction, and even factual errors are all areas requiring work. I don't even know where to begin. It seems knowledge of how to write a taxonomic description doesn't exist among the editors of these pages. Morphological descriptions are also weak. Today, we recognize that a bird cannot stand apart from its habitat, and careful description of the ecology of the habitat and the bird's relation to it is essential for conservation. Hardly any bird articles capture the essence of the ecosystem of which it's a part. We can lead in this area, and that's really my primary focus. cf my article on Spix's macaw. I barely made a beginning there, because we know so little about that bird.Sbalfour (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some really good biologically-minded bird-related editors on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Showcase for examples of some featured articles) - however, it seems that a lot of parrot-related articles are edited mainly by aviculturists/pet owners, who write from their own perspective on the birds. I'm not sure if there's any particular reason for that - just an area of interest thing maybe? Passerines and seabirds tend to get a lot more attention, though Kakapo and Red-tailed Black Cockatoo have had a lot of work put into them... -Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know - I did the most recent chunk of work on Red-tailed Black Cockatoo. That one's a high standard. Writing an article is weeks of work; I'm going to own the macaw articles, if do what I think I'd like to do. Now, if I can just get somebody to review them - I've nominated the Spix article for GA, and it's waiting.Sbalfour (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can help with copyediting and rejigging to conform with other bird articles. User:KimvdLinde (talk · contribs) is another editor keen on psittacines. I am not too familiar with the Arini but will add what I can. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Go for it. Just as a matter of interest, do you keep any parrots yourself? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a Crimson Rosella when I was around 10 years old, but none since - and my neighbour had a female Eclectus Parrot which was lovely, but it died of a sudden infection. I've had several pairs of Rainbow Lorikeets breed in my garden - they are really common in Sydney and becoming more so with the profusion of large flowered plant cultivars....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have several cockatiels, a white cockatoo, a Blue-crowned Conure, several Pacific Parrotlets.Sbalfour (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spix's macaw GA

Hello Sbalfour, I wanted to inform you that I have taken up the GA review of Spix's macaw article. I am afraid there are several but minor issues, though the biggest is with sourcing. Anyway, I am not going to fail it till you turn up. Awaiting you, Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! By my own appraisal, sourcing is the most major of the minor problems. I know a lot about this bird from extensive reading, many specific facts, and have a whole bookcase of sources. Actually finding the source book (magazine, monograph, etc) later, after writing, is problemmatic. Flag [citation_needed], or make me a list.

The history might be too detailed. However, everything we know about this bird was learned in the 13 years between 1974 (Sick's journey) and 1987 when the population was reduced to one (how can you observe mating, nesting, weaning, etc with one bird?). The history is an object lesson in what not to do the next time.

Cheers,Sbalfour (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the review is getting much long. Sbalfour, I request of you to first sort out this issue, though it may be hard for you. If this is finished, almost all my comments will be ended. I am giving you all the instances of unsourced lines. Only if you sort them. If you don't have citations, please remove these claims. Or perhaps the citation may be that used just in the previous line (it is, many times). Have a look:

Taxonomy part:

(Sick's remark was in the context of an article on Lear's Macaw, a larger blue macaw. He recognized, as Spix had not 150 years before, that C. spixii is notably different from the larger macaws). Most likely Ref 9 is the ref.

Description part:

In common with many parrots, they have zygodactyl feet with two forward facing and two rearward facing toes. This claim has resulted in a huge issue. Please remove the part in common with many parrots,, or give citation.

Reproduction part:

Incubation period is 25–28 days and only the female performs incubation duties. The chicks fledge in two months and are independent in five months.
Its voice is a repeated short grating. It also makes squawking noises.

Habitat part:

Don't at all describe the whole Caatinga region or woodland gallery. Just keep two or three lines exactly to describe it. The last 3 paragraphs are full of it.

History part has various instances:

Spix's Macaw is named for German naturalist Johann Baptist von Spix, who collected the first specimen in May, 1819 on the bank of the São Francisco River near Juazeiro in Brazil. Spix wrote: "The bird is gregarious and very rare."
Reiser had also seen one in captivity at a railway station in Remanso. These observations resulted in an early supposition of a vast potential range for the species in the dry interior of the northeast... Beginning around 1980, at the very height of the illegal bird trade, traders and trappers removed dozens of Spix's from the wild, and by the early 80's, it was generally believed to be extinct in the wild. (three paragraphs at once!)

Conservation part:

I told you to combine all this 'efforts' part into a few paragraphs. Only the sourced ones, please.
Contributing factors were the anthropic introduction... particularly the Caraibeira seedlings.
The sex of all captive birds has been determined using non-invasive DNA testing of plucked feathers There already is a citation needed template there.
These hand raised birds are strongly imprinted on humans, and this will present a significant issue for their ultimate release into the wild.

Aviculture part:

...and lack of private breeders, there are now no sources from which the bird may be obtained for the pet trade.

Hope you end this problem soon. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carolina Parakeet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arini (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) 12:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Thick-billed Parrot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Charles Bonaparte and Arini

Connersville, Indiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Whitewater River

Jandaya Parakeet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arini

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Psittacinae may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

]: ''[[Agapornis]]'' of Africa and Madagascar was found to be the sister group to ''[[Loriculus]]['' of Australasia and Indo-Malayasia and together they clustered with the Australasian ''[[Loriinae]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Golden Parakeet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arini

Neotropical parrot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Extant

Psittacidae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arini

Psittacinae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arini

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited True parrot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hookbill (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) 09:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Cockatoo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lorie

Epictinae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rena

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, Sbalfour. You have new messages at Sainsf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick word. I see you have began working on some issues since you contacted me. Please leave a notification on my talkpage when you are done with the issues so that I can know about the progress. Good luck! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Quixeramobim River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Madalena, Quixeramobim, Boa Viagem and Santa Quitéria

Canindé River (Piauí) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Amarante

Spix's Macaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arini

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sbalfour. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page.
Message added 16:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

jsfouche ☽☾Talk 16:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Northeast Region, Brazil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Natal, Timon, Salvador and Mesic

Captaincy of Pernambuco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Parallel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Tabajara people, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Reverting back some of your editions

You've deleted and/or transferred relevant material in that article. I believe keeping as it was in some aspects is more informative. Cheers. Grenzer22 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information I am keeping is relevant to the article, no matter if is in other topics. The list of notable Northeast Brazilians is more informative if it is as it was, that is, with the names of notable Northeast Brazilians in a complete way.Grenzer22 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be kept as it was before your changes IMO.Grenzer22 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping information arbitrarily removed

I have made some edits so as to keep the article as it was. The detailed genetic info on Northeast Brazil was moved out of the article, and no source was left. The Northeast of Brazil is often misrepresented, so the detailed information is relevant.

The pics should not have been arbitrary removed, since they are also representative of Northeast Brazil.

And the list of the many notable Brazilians is important, not to be reduced to a few numbers. Northeast Brazil is an outstanding region, and the complete list gives testimony to it.Grenzer22 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until we find a conclusion, the article should be kept as it was.Grenzer22 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mascate War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to São Lourenço

Tabajara people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tamboril

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Governorate General of Brazil may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

united the fifteen original donatary [[Captaincy Colonies of Brazil]] captaincy colonies]] into a single colony, but each captaincy would continue to exist as a provincial administrative

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amazonas (Brazilian state), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Treaty of Madrid and Silves (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) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Amazonas (Brazilian state) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

over any part of the New World.) The contending parties were the sea-faring European powers of [[Portugal], [[Spain]], [[England]], [[France]] and [[Holland]]. These being dominantly [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acre (state), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Treaty of Madrid (1750) and Treaty of San Ildefonso (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) 09:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited State of Maranhão (colonial), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amapa (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) 09:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

El Dorado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Boyacá, Casanare, Cundinamarca and Paria

Bandeirantes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Calabrese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Muisca mythology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Cordillera Oriental and Bogata

El Dorado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Helldorado

Lake Guatavita (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cordillera Oriental

Nhamundá River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Faro

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Colombia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Quimbaya]], and [[Tairona]]. [[Hunter-gatherer]] societies existed near present-day Bogotá (at [[El Abra]] and [[Tequendama (archeological site)|Tequendama]] which traded with one another and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you a favour

Hello, I see that you are very interested in the history of Colombia, then I would like to ask you a favour, could you help me put reliable references to each paragraph in the history section?.

Thank You in Advance --Theryx7 (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can. I'm very proficient in American colonial history, read Portuguese and Spanish (somewhat). This article was once a Good Article nomineee, but I can find no GA review page for it. What's wrong with it? Was it refererencing? (There were a lot of goofy things in History section, some actually wrong, so hopefully between you and I, we fix them :-) ). Please, let's discuss for future, because we are sort of reversing each other, rather than do things together. Cheers,Sbalfour (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic period

Archaic period in North America or Archaic period in South America? --Theryx7 (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I notifed that. Archaic period in the Americas redirects to Archaic period in North America, which is incorrect. Archaic period in South America, with exception of some isolated sites dated to 50,000 BCE, is somewhat later than Archaic period in North America. Bzzzzzt. The redirect page for Archaic Period in the Americas ought to become a Disambiguation page, and we need an article on Archaic period in South America. I'm not prepared to write that article. The wikilink is going to become a redlink pointing to Archaic period in South America; that's where we're at for now.Sbalfour (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable references to achieve a good article

Hi, thanks for your help but it is important not to forget the reliable references. --Theryx7 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to stick them in as I go, but before that, fill in obvious gaps in the history, and fix or delete errors. It's obvious that amateurs wrote most of it. I know the history; citing where I know it from takes much time. Pre-Colombus Colombian history in particular depends much on current archeological studies - I have to do some research myself.Sbalfour (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Epibatidine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Daly (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) 09:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of malaria

I wanted to stop by and say thanks for the excellent work you're doing in cleaning up this article! I may have a go at it myself when you're done, and weigh in at the GAR. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, your contributions will be welcome, now. No need to wait for me. In fact, I very much rely on others, because I am conducting the GA review. My vote do not count, because I'm supposed to be impartial. I'm not an expert on this subject matter, though I have some specific knowledge, so I'm trying to recruit other editors, to do what I cannot.Sbalfour (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of malaria, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wormwood and Belladonna (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, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"More Information Required" regarding Amazon River

Hello, Sbalfour. In February you added {{MIR}} to a statement in Amazon River. I've proposed the "More Information Required" template be deleted, since it's use partially overlaps with {{clarify}} for statements that are not worded clearly, and with {{specify}} for statements that are overly broad. There are also templates for statements whose veracity may be doubted (e.g. {{dubious}}, {{disputed-inline}}, or {{citation needed}}). I wonder if any of those are a more specific statement of the sort of information you think is required? Or, maybe {{expand section}} should be added to the "Scientific exploration" sub-section? Cnilep (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colonialism, parrots? ZOMG! I do that too! Let's be friends!

Heya -- So I edited a pile o' stuff on the thick-billed parrot wiki, but I am only so good at it (I.e., I need to make the sources have, you know, descriptions.)

I added a section on Native American history and colonialism interacting with the thick-billed parrot (and an image) and linked to a map of its historic presence in the U.S.

Can you help my edits not suck, and can I learn who you are?? Or you know, we can be shadowy unknown minions of bird knowledge -- I'm good with that too.

(WooooOOOo000oo0Ooooo shadowy internet figures!)

You can call or text my Google Voice phone number at "42 42 MAGPIE" and I Skype as Gryphern, or you can gmail "gryphus" and get to me that way.

OhboyOhboOhboy you seem really cool! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.77.175 (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Connersville, Indiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Fort Wayne. 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) 09:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Golem's Eye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foliot. 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) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sensorineural hearing loss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. 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) 11:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue

In this edit [1] you added

"

- Avoid possible irritants. Reduce your exposure to things that may make your tinnitus worse. Common examples include loud noises, caffeine and nicotine.
- Cover up the noise. In a quiet setting, a fan, soft music or low-volume radio static may help mask the noise from tinnitus.
- Manage stress. Stress can make tinnitus worse. Stress management, whether through relaxation therapy, biofeedback or exercise, may provide some relief.
- Reduce your alcohol consumption. Alcohol increases the force of your blood by dilating your blood vessels, causing greater blood flow, especially in the inner ear area."

This is word for word the same as here

This of course is copy and pasting of content and is not allowed. Can you explain what happened?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at fault here, though my sin may be minimal. I did copy/paste the text. That text appears on 17,200 websites. With a minor variation in spaces, punctuation and linebreaks, it can be found on tens of thousands of websites. A few inquiries as to copyright ownership leads nowhere. Everybody copied it. With such widespread occurrence of the text, it may effectively be in the public domain. We shall never find a claimant for the copyright. I've since replaced the text, so the problem is gone. I'll be more circumspect in the future. Cheers,Sbalfour (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must paraphrase basically everything going forwards. By the way we have copyright detection software that runs on new edits which is how this was picked up. You can crib from some government sources but not all of them. Copyright is complicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major Mitchell's cockatoo

Hi Sbalfour: I'm working my way through the WP:BIRDS cleanup listing, and I've found your comments on the Major Mitchell's cockatoo article, saying that "beautiful" is a peacock word. That word is used in dozens of books describing the species (see here for example. Is it not appropriate to say "it is often described as the most beautiful of all cockatoos", based on the sources that avow just that? MeegsC (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buy the use of the adjective, as your sources are good. I'm very wary of 'superfluous' or 'exclamatory' adjectives in scholarly articles. Reading professional ornithology papers is an exercise in doldrum due to lack of colorful words. In fact, that is what we are: scholars. If you may, what exactly is beautiful about the bird? Start this way: The Major Mitchel's cockatoo is often described as the most beautiful of all cockatoos because of <its bright plumage>, <contrasting colors>, <ostentatious displays (i.e. behavior)>. You chose the appropriate phrase. Again, as a scholar, what are you conveying to someone, an ornithologist, for example, about the bird? Cheers,Sbalfour (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content without references

It would be good to add references when you add content rather than just adding citation needed tags. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. Guilty as charged. I stick the tags to remind *me* that I'm lax, not for someone else to fixup after me. I'm still working on the article (Tinnitis maskers, I assume). It's threadbare, and until text is settled, I'm struggling with basic exposition. If your concern is some other article, please cite the name. I can indeed provide refs for whatever I add. Cheers, Sbalfour (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing refs

Why did you remove all these refs [2]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expected to get some pushback on this, and you are right to query me. What I found was 1) the refs cited parts of a book devoted exclusively to pediatrics, and pertained exclusively to children. Whether they remain true for adults is not established in that book. 2) page numbers (p.602) were all identical for the refs, but only one ref cited text actually on that page; the rest of the refs citing the same page (via refname) were therefore invalid. 3) when I attempted to locate the portions of the book actually supporting the article text cited by the errant-page-numbered refs, I could only find one, and it was a 10 word copyvio (9 words matched, in sequence). I suspect what the editor did, was copy/paste small statements (sentences/phrases) directly out of the book, changing perhaps one word or some punctuation/capitalization. However, since I could not locate reasonably-related text in the book for most of the refs, I can neither verify the article text supported by the errant refs, nor rule in or out copyvio for those portions of article text. The refs, except one or possibly two, are invalid as they stand. So I deleted them, but left the article text in place. That's a big book - locating proper page numbers for closely paraphrased cited text (can't use literal text search directly, need some kind of wildcard search or heuristic search) is just beyond what I know how to do.Sbalfour (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which text was word for word the same? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hearing loss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Herpes virus. 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) 09:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aging merger proposals

Your merger proposal for History of Pernambuco etc. has sat around since January 2014. Would it be possible to follow up on merger proposals? If there's no consensus (or discussion) the tag should be removed. Thanks. Prburley (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I take the lack of consensus (i.e. no concern on anyone's part) to indicate that I can unilaterally perform the merge. I wouldn't have proposed it if I was unwilling or unable to perform it. I shall forthwith inspect and complete the task.Sbalfour (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide citations for your Chess changes

It looks like you're adding good information in the Chess article, but you haven't given any citations. What's your source for the material which you've been adding? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a chess player, scholar and historian for ~45 years. I know a thing or two. I'll be looking for proper citations. If I'm in error, please let me know.Sbalfour (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sbalfour. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 29 November

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

On the Brivudine page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

In this diff you introduced content copied from this ref.

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

copied message here that was left on my talk page in this diff, to keep discussion in one place Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently advised me of a copyvio edit performed by me in Macular degeneration. That was 13 months ago and I don't remember what I intended to do there. It does indeed appear to be a copy/paste from copyrighted source. I apologize. I didn't find any other hunks of text in the article that could have been copyvios. I'll add appropriate text to the text to the section when I have time.Sbalfour (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

great, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 December

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

On the Paraves page, your edit caused a PMID error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Paraves

I see you've been keeping up the improvement of the page - good work!

On references..... you may find Template:Cite journal useful. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Did I leave something unref'ed? Please quote the text, and I'll get it ref'fed. Also, I have a large chunk of text on the Talk page (above) to integrate into the intro, but worried about accuracy. Could you check it out? I do think intro is not the place for refs, since the intro should summarize the text, and the text should be ref'fed. It's like a thesis statement, and I'll flesh it out later. I know some editors won't buy that.Sbalfour (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had Dececchi et al. (2016) in mind; I've converted it to a proper citation template. I think Dinoguy2, being the resident paravian expert, has the accuracy component covered..... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom bird clubs and ornithological societies

Hi Sbalfour. Well, I prodded List of United Kingdom bird clubs and ornithological societies and it was removed, so now the only option for deleting the article is to take it to AfD. You can do that if you wish. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref

What ref supports "Smallpox is believed to have been acquired by humans originally as a zoonosis from a terrestrial African rodent between 16,000 and 68,000 years ago, well before the dawn of agriculture and civilization."? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's ref #26 under evolution. Since the intro is supposed to be a summary of the text, and the text was alredy ref'ed for it, I didn't copy the ref to the intro. Did I misspeak? That is, is the sole problem that you didn't see the ref, or that you don't believe the statement is an accurate rendition of the ref?Sbalfour (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page styles

I hope that you don't take this the wrong way because I greatly appreciate your editing and love it when disambiguation pages get a polishing, but a decent bit of your changes don't follow MOS:DAB guidelines, especially regarding how we treat pages that do have a primary topic compared to those that don't, as well as appropriate uses of piping within entries. I've gone through and modified a number of articles in your wake, but am looking to avoid extra work on your part or anyone else's part in the future. Again, thanks for sprucing things up and happy editing. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! If I've created a replicating problem, spell it out, and I'll adjust. I often view a disambig page, and immediately know more items, because these aren't kept up to date, as there is no automated way to update them. There's some value to getting the info in there, other editors can copy edit my faux-paux's.Sbalfour (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can just highlight a few things I noticed:

In pretty much every case there should be just one blue link for each entry
Avoid piping in most cases, otherwise we get a whole page of links that just say Bing and it's harder to tell where they go
The lede should really just be a link to the primary topic with a brief description not unlike an entry description. If a DAB article doesn't have "(disambiguation)" in the title then it doesn't have a primary topic and the lede should just say "XX may refer to:". Of course if you think that there should be a primary topic for a given term, feel free to get a page move going.

Edit: And yes, I'd agree that it's worthwhile to have editors just add something that's missing and it can be cleaned up as needed. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're in this together, so I'll do my best; its good in most cases to have editors cooperate, rather than going it alone.Sbalfour (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. President (board game)

I've completed your AFD nomination for this article. The debate is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. President (board game). Note that some similar articles (of, admittedly, better games) have well-referenced articles - so it's possible that sources might come forward for this one as well. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the Twixt page

I think you have rather capriciously removed some very useful information from this page. The "original research" perhaps could not be shown to be "factually correct," but was still quite useful. I think you did beginning Twixt players a serious disservice by removing it.

174.62.130.205 (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Bob Bowden[reply]

As much as I regret removing original research which is in fact well researched, the policy of the encyclopedia expressly forbids any original research WP:NOR. My edits are not capricious, but strictly in accordance with the established policy of the encyclopedia. As an editor, I really have no choice. I don't like being a policeman. Sbalfour (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Links in Article "Ploy (board game)"

Hello Sbalfour,

thanks for the time you have invested in updating the above article half a year ago!

Nevertheless I do not understand why you have deleted the links to the pages containing programs for the Ploy game. I was the author of that table originally and I have checked that those games are not online games (as you have implied in your editing comment), but downloadable programs to be played on a computer.

In my opinion both games give a good idea on how the board game works (especially for somebody not owning the original game) and both are free, open-source programs without any commercial aspect.

My recommendation is to reinsert the table, because it gives significant additional information.

Professor Spock (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are new to wikipedia, so I'll cut you some slack. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, pretty much the same as a print encyclopedia; anything you might find in a bok, you might find here. Typically, you will not find printed links to volatile webpages in a printed permanent book like an encyclopedia. Links to external websites are usually confined to places where additional information about the subject too detailed or specialized for inclusion in the encyclopedia can be found. They do not point to websites where entertainment, commercial products, or proprietary information can be found. Downloadable programs are fringe to the scholarly purpose of the encyclopedia, and in a broad sense, proprietary. If we include a link to one, we should include links to all. Consider the number of downloadable chess programs out there. How about links to downloadable ones you have to pay for? How about links to (free) programs like Stratego, whose distribution is chiefly to promote sales of the company's board game? The encyclopedia article is ABOUT the game, not about how to PLAY the game. In a similar vein, including score of example games is also peripheral to the conciseness of the encyclopedia, though such games have been included in other games articles (to no good end). I'm just not agreeing with your position. If another editor does, and I'm in the minority, I'll concede, and restore the links. Consensus! as always.Sbalfour (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sbalfour,

thanks for the detailed explanation! I am quite aware of the self-concept of Wikipedia, but nevertheless it is helpful to hear your perspective as a principal editor on that.

Your arguments are logical, but I find them a bit extreme. Take your example of chess and its Wikipedia article: there you have a section on "Computer Chess" with linkage to the article "Chess Engine" mentioning the company "ChessBase" with linkage to product "Shredder" and there a prominent direct link to its web site.

You can rightly argue that those are relevant Wikipedia entries, but for a niche game like Ploy you will not find relevant satellite articles where you can wade through to find links to details of whatever kind. If external links to "proprietary" software were problematic, then also the Shredder link would not be okay.

The table deleted (containing the links) might not be the right presentation or placement, but possibly "References" or "External Links" are. Search engine research shows that there are only two computer implementations available, so the list is complete. And both neither are proprietary (but open-source) nor commercial nor related to the board game company 3M (because its game department was sold forty years ago).

Any ideas on how to proceed?

Best regards, Professor Spock (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain a lot of games articles, and attempt to employ a disciplined approach for any one, that can and should apply to all. You've made a good case for the paucity of info on Ploy. I also followed your logic whence you threaded your way to the external website for Shredder. I would say, that in an article about a commercial piece of software like Shredder, a link in the External Links Section to its official website seems appropriate (if not in this place, then where?). Similarly, the link to Jumbo's website in the Stratego article. I'd not object to a link to the 3M games division website in the Ploy article, except that the 3M games division (and acquirer Avalon as well) is defunct. From there, we wander far afield to start listing links to other sites which have no generally recognized relationship to 3M or Ploy. You don't hold a trademark or copyright to Ploy, nor have any business, sporting, or regulatory relationship to Ploy (like FIDE, the International Federation of Chess) that would properly justify an inclusion of your website with proprietary material in the article. The games articles were and still are rife with superfluous inclusions, including much material that's original research, or personal proprietary material, or links to such, or even citations to such (i.e. you can't cite your own research paper in support of some statement). I think that's my primary objection. You might consider including this material in an extended article at Wikiversity.

Pi Filter

Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Pi Filter. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, I'm Tornado chaser. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:FF-UK that didn't seem very civil. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. My edit was a careless mistake, but "shove off" is not a constructive response to good-faith errors Tornado chaser (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leakage inductance

I think you went a bit overboard. Let's start off with the definition I'd like to hear at a job interview, and then build up to the usual Wikipedia extravaganza of vector maths, relativity, and Tesla. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overboard in what way? Too simple? The tone is rather more informal than is generally encountered ala WP:TONE. Should I undo, or do we modify it? I think you raised the bar... a barmaid would be the man-on-the-street type of approach that I adopted here (know nothing about magnetic fields beyond iron filings). A job applicant to a professional EE position would be familiar with magnetic vector fields. Sbalfour (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. It looks like you are doing some good work on leakage inductance. I have a copy of Brenner and Javid if you need anything looked up or clarified. Constant314 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel free to pitch in. It's your encyclopedia. The article is obviously in flux ha! ha! Sbalfour (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sbalfour. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inductance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Current (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal reverted

I reverted your proposal to merge Non-SI units mentioned in the SI into International System of Units because you did not create a talk page thread to discuss the proposal, nor did you put forward any justification for the proposal. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metre per second squared

You have nominated the article for deletion but did not create the nomination page. Since the article with a redlinked AfD template creates all kind of problems, I reverted the edit. Please feel free to renominate of you create the nomination page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power supply filter circuits

Hi there Sbalfour. I have noticed that you have been making a number of contributions to articles related to power supply filter circuits. I have also noticed a number of merge proposals.

I though that you should know that I am in a advanced stage of preparing an article to replace the current offering at Capacitor-input filter. It will probably have to have a different title because it will also discuss the choke-input filter as well, which is an entirely different circuit. Most of the text is complete, but I am now working on the illustrations. I have most of the graphical ones, but just need to find the time for the photographic ones. Also, referencing is taking some time. I am not sure when It will be in an adequate shape to upload, so please bear with me.

Now I just have to figure out how to add illustrations to articles (as in: I can see how to include the illustrations, it's getting them somewhere to include in the first place). DocFergus (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best in that case to bypass touching capacitor-input filter in that case, and replace the whole article with a redirect to yours. You may want to check my work at Rectifier#Rectifier output smoothing and Ripple (electrical)#Ripple voltage. You may also consider covering tuned choke filters, and swinging choke. And where do we cover constructs like a low-pass pi filter with a resistor in the middle instead of a choke? Sbalfour (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what you stated has already been included. As my article will explain, the capacitor-input filter is not a pi-filter (beyond the fact that the three components form a 'pi'). When I get to uploading the article, you are of course free to add anything that you feel I have not covered. I have a working article title of 'Linear power supplies', but that may change. A redirect from the existing article is a likely move. Thanks for you feedback. DocFergus (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sbalfour, given that you seem to have knowledge of the subject, you might be able to assist me with one small matter. I am trying to determine where the name 'swinging choke' came from and why. The earliest reference that I have to it being called a swinging choke is 1929 but there is no clue as to why which suggests that it may have been a common term at this time. I have also uncovered a suggestion that the choke-input filter was developed as a result of the introduction of the cold cathode gas filled rectifier tube (but when was that first developed given that there are precious few examples?). This was allegedly because the gas filled rectifiers of the time could not tolerate the relatively large current pulses of the capacitor-input filter. However, although I have not been able to confirm this, it is a reasonable hypothesis. DocFergus (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your mistaken accusation

In case you didn't see my response to your mistaken assertion on my talkpage, I would like to restate the gist of it here for you... You were wrong, I am not "indefinitely topic banned from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Wikipedia".

Given that your incorrect understanding of my status was the only apparent reason (according to your edit comment) for your revert of my recent edit, perhaps you should consider a self-revert with a suitably explanatory edit comment to return the status-quo and to avoid prolonging my embarrassment. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to embarrass you; your history of editing and administrative actions there on is colorful. My original edit was done in accord with editor user:ceinturion's request, seen on the talk page, and therefore represented the available WP:consensus. Our reasoning follows generally, that France's hiccup was similar to that in most other countries, and would be a matter of detail for the article's metrication section, rather than the lead. The information certainly isn't being lost. We may consider that Britain's resistance to adoption due to the Imperial system, the United states continued resistance due to the common system, and Spain's adoption of the metric system in the 19th century when France was rejecting it, facilitated adoption by Europe, and eventually the rest of the world. These are all arguably more important than France's temporary lag, whatever the reason. Yet none appear in the lead, much less the opening paragraph. The broadest brush of history is stated or should be stated, in that paragraph. The broad brush in this case is that the metric system began during the Age of Enlightenment with simple notions of weight and length taken from natural ones, and integral fractions and multiples thereof, and it was so useful that it became a standard within half a century, and went on to become adopted by the world. We don't even to need to say it was France, or 1799, and etc. Those are details and they are there, in the article. The lead should not duplicate the details, but tell us what the story is about.

Please, join us on the talk page. If you can convince me and editor ceinturion that the edit should be reversed or modified, we will modify it to take into account your concerns. However, the lead itself is under more extensive revision, and may be replaced in it's entirety. Such is under discussion on the talk page, and you can be a part of it. I will say, that I an not the editor-in-chief of the article, but the workhorse, and generally will do what any other editor requests. I have taken your request under advisement, and will try again to accomodate your concerns. Sbalfour (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you make that clear about the talkpage discussion in the edit summary then? Do you accept that you were mistaken in your assertion about my status and are you sorry for using that mistaken assertion in such a blatant way in the edit summary? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting a bit far from editing here - mistakes are inevitable, and reasons are taken from events of the moment. I've re-worked the article text in accord with your comment. The edit history is what it is. What is it you now want? Sbalfour (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-working the comment, it's a pity you didn't think to use the edit summary as before, but this time to retract your mistaken assertion and to apologise for it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the metric system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decimal system (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sbalfour. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of forts in the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fort Washington, Fort Defiance and Fort Jefferson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of forts in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fort Finney

Northwest Territory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Columbia, Ohio

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Symmes Purchase

It's been years since I considered that article. The illustration is all yours to delete or amend as you see fit. jengod (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Piqua, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Johnston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Sbalfour, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Everedux (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

December 2018

Your addition to History of Ohio has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Rekonedth (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging content

Hey, I'm not sure whats going on with the History of Ohio, but you cannot just simply merge content by just wholesale copying and pasting the content to the top of the article (and title the section the exact same thing as the article's title...). These articles already have a structure/sections that was decided upon by a community of editors. Integrate the relevant content into the pre-existing sections, don't disregard them. I already integrated the content merged into Beaver Wars into their relevant sections, but please be aware of how your merging stuff in the future. Leventio (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A whole lot of dubious and unintegrated cruft was dumped into the article History of Ohio by an editor without a home page. Some of it might be usable as part of other articles. But if I simply delee it, I'm charged with section blanking'. What shall we do with such dumped content? The first step is to get the content from here to there. Actually, I don't care if you delete that content - it's pretty amateurish. I have a life and it's not wikipedia. Sbalfour (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the content your removing from History of Ohio is something you consider amateurish for Wikipedia, either improve it, or remove it. Don't just remove it from one article your trying to improve, and dump it in another article. Leventio (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Treaty of Greenville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prophetstown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Battle of Fallen Timbers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Scott

St. Mary's (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fort St. Mary's

Western Confederacy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Six Nations

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Battle of Piqua (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mad River

List of forts in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fort Randolph

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nconwaymicelli

Hi! I see you've been looking at some contribs of user:Nconwaymicelli, and have been asking around about what to do about them. Thank you! I think that for pages he created and that don't have substantial contributions from others, blanking as you've been doing is the best course; you don't need to notify – the CCI notification is a sort of once-and-for-all message. Blanking gives interested editors a week to propose a rewrite, after which the page can be deleted or stubbed; I'll try to deal with some of that (nudge me if you see that I've been falling behind). For pages created by someone else it's a little harder: the options are usually to either revert to the last version before his first edit, or – if you can – remove all text added by him. You don't need to identify a source, you're free to "presumptively remove" any content he added (best to say so in your edit summary, though). There's a special version of {{cclean}} ( {{subst:cclean|CCI= SomeUser }} ) that you can put on the talk-page in those cases. Once the article is sorted you can tick it off in the CCI (there are instructions in the page). I expect you know all this anyway; if you've other questions please just ask, and I'll see if I know the answer ... It would be just excellent to make some headway with this investigation! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I were an admin, he'd be blocked from editing. But since he hasn't edited anything since 2012 except one article, it's a moot point. He appears to be gone. He's got 18K edits and 1000 page creations, the damage is widespread. Yes, we can presumptively delete anything he contributed, since by painstaking investigation, I've failed to find anything that wasn't at base, a copyvio. There must be a term for copy-and-bit-twiddle because that's what he did (very cleverly, I might add). We can't copy-and-paste the encyclopedia; no matter what we do afterward, it's a derivative work, and not a creative one. Sbalfour (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wabash River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern Continental Divide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snow Dome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages

I've reverted your recent changes to Talk:Allegheny River. Quite simply: we don't modify other users' posts on talk pages. Vsmith (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can and do modify talk pages, as this entire project is a wiki, editable by anyone, in any part. I've modified talk pages, as have administrators, for such things as leaving personal information about oneself of others on the page; putting spam or vandalism content on the page; creating a new section out of chronological order (so move it into correct position); creating a section without a title (so add a title like 'Untitled' or 'Comment'); failing to sign ones name (bots now come along and fill this info in, and sometimes so do I when I notice it; correcting inadvertant misformatting that changes the background color of the page, for example. I have also from time to time deleted inflammatory or 'troll' material. In other cses, it appears that various bots have made incorrect or erroneous entries that they "fixed" something, when in fact they didn't. This is a wiki - we're allowed to edit, pretty much anywhere. Sbalfour (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TPO for a better understanding of talk page behavior. Vsmith (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transmogrifier

Not sure if it was intentional, but I appreciated your historical summary that speaks of Ohio's "transmogrification" into an information- and service-based economy. I want to think it was a subtle reference to the "Transmogrifier" in Calvin and Hobbes (which is set in Ohio). :^D – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 02:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated vandalism

Hello, I'm Bacondrum. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to United Patriots Front have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. You reinstated obvious vandalism Bacondrum (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, as I later discovered. I was a Pending Changes Reviewer for the edit, not the editor. And yes, that bit of vandalism slipped by me. I'm glad it was reverted. Live and learn. Sbalfour (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hex (board game) page

You might be interested in my recent edits to the Hex page over the past few days.

On the main page, all I have done so far is:

I added a book to the "Further Reading" list, HEX The Full Story, and
I added an External Link, Hex: A Strategy Guide, which IMO is an excellent free strategy resource.

In the Talk Section I have made several edits.

I added a new section (6) with regards to rewriting the Rules on the main page.
In section 2 Servers, I added names of Hex game servers but not their URLs. I hope this is acceptable.
In 10 board representations I added a comment.
In 18 John Nash apparently did not independently invent Hex, I mention that the new book should resolve this issue.
In 26 online hex 9x9... I added a comment.

I welcome your feedback. --Twixter (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Computer chess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sargon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Excessive range block targeting individual company

Hello, sorry for the inconvenience. I was targetting Eblackadder3 with this block; long and wide rangeblocks are unusual, but not unprecedented; see this block log. Yes, I did the first lengthy block, but many others have followed ... Graham87 03:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Crawford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Flu article, why is The Economist not a reliable source?

Hey, you removed the Economist ref from my Fourth wave 1920 update on the Spanish Flu page per WP:RS. Curious why you don't you think so? In my brain The Economist is the most reliable of sources.

I also saw you changed the end date of the pandemic back to summer 1919. This is a contentious issue, many historians seem to think it was over in 1919 and there was no actual fourth wave. The page previously indicated the flu was over in 1920 so I thought it was important to answer to what happened in 1920, there was just no information before. The fact that Economist mentioned it I thought gave credibility. DallasFletcher (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CCI update

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Nconwaymicelli is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI!

--Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 03:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tecumseh Day

As someone who writes on Shawnee-related topics, you might be interested in this. Thanks! Kevin1776 (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fincastle County, Virginia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jefferson County.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Segment Edits

On the Circular segment, why has the equation for the area of a segment been removed? It seems quite appropriate: R^2 acos((R-h)/R)-(R-h)sqrt(2Rh-h^2) TimeEngineer (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept what I judged to be the simplest or most canonical form(s) of the formula for each of the 6 parameters, which agrees with what I most often see in use, in order to avoid tedious multiplicity.

There are a lot of formulas for area in terms of the 6 basic parameters of the geometry: chord length, height, central angle, radius, area and arc length. All such formulas are "appropriate". Given any two parameters, the other four can be calculated from them. But which two? There are 6*5/2*1=15 possible pairs of givens, and (R,h) is only one of them. For each pair, there will be four equations to obtain the other parameters, a total of 60 equations. But for each equation which uses a trig function or inverse function, any of the 6 functions may be substituted, so that makes 60*6=360 total possible variant equations. But there's more, through use of the trig identities to make more complex substitutions. Most of these variant equations may be found in references like Schaum's Mathematical Formulas and Tables or CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. We only need one formula for each aspect of the geometry here; the encyclopedia is not a substitute for a college analytical geometry lecture, or a mathematical reference book.

It is possible to get from what you're given to what you need, given just the formulas here; one cannot escape the necessity for some mathematics in-between. So, suppose you're given (R,h) and asked for area.

\cos {\tfrac {\theta }{2}}={\tfrac {R-h}{R}}

, so

\theta =2*\arccos {\tfrac {R-h}{R}}

. Now we have (R,θ), and the area is as given in the corresponding section,

{\tfrac {R^{2}}{2}}(\theta -\sin \theta )

.

Cheers, Sbalfour (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the idea that the wikipedia should be packed for maximum information density in the smallest amount of space. The articles on fluid mechanics, for example, do approximate a university lecture in many regards. I think the equation is a valid one to keep in, since its essentially a cartesian way to approach the issue rather than a polar perspective. Also, I've gone to that particular article several times when needing to do some tricky geometry (grad school in engineering) and it pains me to see it so bare. TimeEngineer (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not more empowered to edit this article than you. Feel free to do that which seems appropriate. But have a philosophy; what's important? What else is important? If you are interested in making a serious contribution to this article, either edit or propose something. I will undertake the mathematics, if some are needed. Be bold. Your effort is most welcome. I would suggest we remove further discussion to the talk page of the article itself, for the benefit of other editors. Cheers, Sbalfour (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heuristic search

While your edit summary says to leave the page blank, that is not appropriate, per WP:PAGEBLANKING. If you believe that the redirect should be deleted, please list it at Redirects for Discussion. —Ost (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, it can't go to Heuristic, it's just completely incorrect. Sbalfour (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't break redirects just to make a point. How is Hunting any better of a redirect target? At least the Heuristic is mentioned in the phrase, so it doesn't feel completely disconnected as you say it is. I'd suggest that Heuristic (computer science) is the better target and perhaps that it needs to be reformed as Heuristic (search), but this could be handled much better at WP:RfD. —Ost (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the redirect at RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 22#Heuristic search. —Ost (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not to make a point. Hunting is not better... nothing is. There is no appropriate place in the whole encyclopedia. I do not have authority to delete the page. We don't need a debate, we need to someone to be BOLD and do the right thing. I point out the hypocrity of not being able to do what is sensible. If we can't do forthwith what is sensible then anything nonsensible is just as good anything else. But thanks for your nomination. Sbalfour (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legionnaire

Thanks for your recent updates to Legion of the United States. Canute (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lord Dunmore's War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Fincastle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lord Dunmore's War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algonquin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

History of Kentucky

added a link pointing to John Finley

Ohio River

added a link pointing to Fort Nelson

Timeline of Louisville, Kentucky

added a link pointing to Fort Nelson

Transylvania Colony

added a link pointing to Maysville

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Kentucky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Walker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of law enforcement agencies in Kentucky

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of law enforcement agencies in Kentucky, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Treaty of St. Louis (1825), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of St. Louis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]