User talk:Spangineer/archive11

This is an archive. Do not post responses here; rather, copy the section to the current talk page and comment there.

This archive page includes discussions that occurred approximately between the dates 2007-08-04 and 2008-06-06.

Archives: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

---

Request

I'd like to put Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering on the main page soon. Can you beef up the lead a bit? Raul654 17:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

I was wondering if you'd give this a look over prior to a FAC nomination. I spent many days fixing the refs, which were a complete mess. I think what it needs now are: lead reworked, perhaps shorten lead, good copyedit, cut some prose (has 60K prose but over 110K with refs, templates, etc), but I'm having trouble with those parts. Thanks for any help. Rlevse 10:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. Thank you.Rlevse 09:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Any more issues we should work before we nom for FAC?Rlevse 02:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review of GTAW

Hi Spangineer,

I'm new to this Wikipedia stuff and I'm afraid I might have gotten out of hand. I reviewed your GTAW article and made changes. I really appologize if I blew the wiki protocols. I do not have much time to review web-based stuff so I thought I could jump in. You have done a great job, and while my comments weren't minor, I think I complemented your efforts.

These are my credentials. 30 years in welding and machining of industrial and aerospace products. AWS Senior Certified Welding Inspector since 1998, CWI since 1980. Certified Welding Educator since 2007. Taught industrial welding for 12 years. Welding Engineer for automotive and fossil-fuel industries. Project Manager for multi-million dollar defense projects using large-scale welding, multiple processes, and exotic alloys. Quality Assurance Manager for aerospace flight parts and pressure vessels. 1st Vice-Chair of AWS B1 committee on the nondestructive examination of welds. Welding consultant to International Ironworkers and Air Force.

I hope I fit in and I hope you can use my expertise. Please let me know what to do to improve my comment technique and make it more readily available to wikipedia.

We have a shortage of welding information in our country. I would like to promote a deeper understanding of welding.

ArcTech 21:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs info and no more signs

Hi Spangineer,

Thanks for the message. So have you folks had to undo everything I did on the feature article on GTAW? I haven't had time to check. I can add source ref and added it to the end of the artile. And I think I can figure out what I changed. Is there another way I can find all my changes?

My change concerning preheat for low alloy steels to preheat for medium and high carbon steels comes from knowledge. Jargon calls these steels low alloy, but there are plenty of HSLA that is not preheated, whereas one never welds medium or high carbon steels w/o preheat. And the discussion on the cleaning function AC current in Alu GTAW is found in bits and pieces in several books but not described as suscinctly as by me. What do I do regarding these types of items. Leave the inaccurate information alone?

Your guidance and years in this endeavor will make my path easier.

Thanks ArcTech 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Spangineer,

Thanks for leading me through this. Let me bend you ear one more time.

Your section on AC cleaning of aluminum was good (I think). I'm reviewing a lot of specs right now and the words sometimes get mixed up.

It was the discussion of quality. The article stated GTAW is of higher quality than other welding processes. This is fundementally untrue. All open-arc welds are tested the same way (ref AWS B2.1, ASTM A370, and ASME Sec IX). Basically if the given weld meets or exceeds the mechanical properties of the base metal and meets some weld soundness tests, the welding process is qualified. GTAW is just another way of heating metal until it melts.

The word "quality" by itself has little meaning. It is subjective. We may think we know it when we see it, but quality is really in the eye of the beholder. Deming in the 1050's and Juran before him established methods to measure attributes determined to be important to a user. Something may need to be strong. Deming would say is 20 ksi strong enough? 100 ksi? The quality of strength has no meaning unless we have established a minimum requirement to evaluate with. In the 1970's Crosby simplified this idea by saying "Quality is the conformance to requirements." It may be too simple but the MBA's understand it when I talk about it.

GTAW is not a higher quality process than any other welding process. The vast variety of welds the process can successfully make is a great benefit to the engineer and welder. That is a good thing, but not a quality thing.

No welding book will say GTAW is a higher quality process than other welding processes. Some books may say GTAW produces high-quality welds. Those books have fallen into the same trap as the GTAW article. It is a fundemental logic error that is out of step with statistical process control.

There are no books that I can reference that will permit me to clean up the logic error in the GTAW article. If one sites the welding books stating GTAW makes high-quality welds and doesn't consider the depth of the arguement presented by Deming and Crosby, one might in fact not permit the change.

Nothing is easy, is it. My illustration is almost as long as the feature article. I'm sorry and I won't do this to you again. I'm learning. Still, what are your thoughts on correcting those types of inaccuracies without backup reference?

ArcTech 17:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

HIMDIME

Hi, I saw your name listed as the main contributer for the article "Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering". I noticed that the first sentence in the History subtopic states, "Traditionally, the 21st wednesday of every year at 10:30 PM, a massive gang bang is held at the local Hooters." I was wondering if this was an intentional inclusion, or if someone had messed with the article.

If it was intentional, can you please include how this is relevant to the history of the I&M Engineering dept?

Thanks. Gellor 13:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GTAW weld quality

Hi Spangineer,

You made the same logic error, again. You equated stronger with high quality. In its simplest sense, no weld is stronger than the other. They all are equal to or greater than the base metal. If, for example, the weld metal such as mild steel is stronger, then the base metal fails and becomes the limiting factor. A36 steel is, I'm guessing, about 65 ksi UTS. E70 class electrodes used to join this material is typically above 80ksi in strength. In tests I have performed the base metal almost always fails. The same can be said for titanium, aluminum, and other metals. Sometimes weld metal that is less strong than the base metal is used to gain an increase in ductility or reduce the likelihood of stress corrosion cracking. Often we weld dissimilar metals together. An easy example is to join a mild steel connection plate to a 300 series stainless component used to resist corrosive attack by an acid. When we test the joint to verify the "quality" of the welding procedure, the mild steel always fails. The stainless and the optimum filler metal have a higher tensile strength than the mild steel, but the mild steel has no less quality than the stainless. The mild steel performs as the metallurgist developed it and as the welding engineer planned the connection. It would be best to remove the discussion of quality completely in the article or you foster a common misconception that is detrimental to the understanding of engineering and design. Quality is conformance to requirements and we engineers establish those requirements.

Regarding the GTAW process itself: GTAW is considered one of the most demanding processes for the welder to control. It is expensive and requires an exceptional skill most welders will never attain. I am also an AWS certified welding educator and sit on welding program committees. Take my word for it or ask your metallurgy department at Penn State. I think they take AWS awards in welding. The majority of welding done today is not done with GTAW. The selection of welding process will depend upon the industry. Economics will force the choice. All other things being equal, GTAW is just another power source to metal the metal.

Regarding SMAW: SMAW is not used very much in industry. It is slow and messy. In areas such as maintenance work, where it is difficult to find trained welders, or where it is difficult to get equipment the process is popular. Today, we do most of the same welding tasks with FCAW in the shop and field. We achieve the same mechanical properties, the same portability with FCAW and it is faster and cheaper. We still teach SMAW in the schools because it is an inexpensive way to show student how to work an electric arc. Once in industry, however, it is all wire-feeders.

FCAW is the process of choice for versatility, ease of operation, and operator appeal. GMAW is a close second, but it is limited because a gas-shield is required so it cannot be used in windy conditions. SMAW is seldom considered in producation welding anymore.

I appreciate you letting me go on. Most folks fall asleep when I talk of welding.

ArcTech 04:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

would

You're absolutely spot-on. Tony 06:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Spangineer,

Sorry to bother you again, but you are sensei.

In the article on Oxy-Acetylene welding there is a reference to Oxy-gasoline (oxy-petrol) as a oxy-fuel gas combination. It has no external reference and I can not support this combination by books nor experience. I think it is a very dangerous combination.

I didn't feel right about deleting the section, I'm not that comfortable or arrogant. I added a cautionary paragraph urging the reader to stay away from this combination unless they had objective proof that this was a valid system. My paragraph was deleted.

The sub-article is still there and seems to be self-validated.

1) Where would I find the "talk" page for this sub-section? I don't see talk pages except in these emails and they are called discussion.

2) How is it my cautionary comment is deleted and the dangerous sub-article is still there. I can't reference a book or source saying one can't use the oxy-gasoline combination, because I don't believe the old Union Carbide or Praxair's of the world would believe anyone would do this. It's like sticking your face in a fan.

3) How should I make these changes properly. Is there someone's permission I can ask so I don't have to keep repeating my self or doing work twice? I don't have that kind of time.

You guidance will be greatly appreciated.

ArcTech 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of American football

Can you please revisit your comment on this FAC? Raul654 14:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PA-14 Image

Hello, Spangineer!

Just wondering if you can help me sort something out here. I am slowly learning Wikipedia image rules, but this one is stumping me. The website http://www.flickr.com posted something I misinterpreted to mean "public domain". That is why I uploaded this image. After I learned the truth I contacted the photographer who wrote this back to me:

Hey -

When I first joined Flickr, my images were in the public domain. That was until everyone and their mother used them for blogs, wiki and advertising. It was the Advertising (Southwest Airlines used one) that pushed me to use the copywritten 'All Rights Reserved". I don't mind the occasional usage. But The gal I e-mailed at Wiki is a mean one and removed all the aircraft pics that had been posted by Flickr members to Wiki. I told them I would allow their usage, but it is public domain only, No All rights reserved stuff. So short answer long; the wiki folks will remove it eventually.....

Paul

Can you make sense of this? It seems that he is giving official permission to use the image on Wikipedia, yet Wikipedia will not allow it, is that what he is saying here? I'm confused. Thanks! Capt. Phœbus ^(talk) 05:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So what have you got against the passive voice?

An author makes no particular action in order to win a literary prize: the process of writing a book (the active element from the author's viewpoint) is identical, regardless of whether the book wins an award, or even regardless of whether it is published at all. That the prize was awarded to her is the decision, responsibility and action of the committee, and so the sentence should only be active if that body is the subject of the verb. If ever the use of a passive clause was cried out for by a sentence, this is the sentence that would be identified by me as that sentence  :@) Kevin McE 00:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted links

Hey Spangineer,

Thanks for your work on wikipedia. I added an outbound link on the electrode lising that your undid. It was to two free guidebooks that my company publishes that are a real value to people looking at how to prepare tungsten electrodes. My question to you is how is that different than the links already on there, which either are a 404 error or a link to a sales-based website that do not offer a free guide or similar. Not trying to be argumentative, just really trying to learn how to use wikipedia the best. Obviosuly, I benefit from the inbound link, but I look at these books as being similar to the GTAW guidebooks and AWS manuals that are linked on similar welding listings.

Thanks for your insight.

Jon Bowers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbowers (talk • contribs) 02:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Spangineer,

Thanks for your work on wikipedia. I added an outbound link on the electrode listing (among other welding related listings) that your undid. It was to two free guidebooks that my company publishes that are a real value to people looking at how to prepare tungsten electrodes properly. According to the nlink guidelines, they seem to be in order with offering real value to the reader.

My question to you is how is that different than the links already on there, which either are a 404 error or a link to a sales-based website that do not offer a guide or similar.

Not trying to be argumentative, just really trying to learn how to use wikipedia the best. Obviosuly, I benefit from the inbound link, but I look at these books as being similar to the GTAW guidebooks and AWS manuals that are linked on similar welding listings.

Thanks for your insight.

Jon Bowersjonbowers 14:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Salsa Central in external links

Hi, Could you tell me why you removed Salsa Central from the external links on the Salsa Music page when similar sites have been left on? Cheers, Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salsacentral (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Spangineer,

Thanks for your explanation and patience!

jonbowers 17:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

message for Mhking

thanks for the tip !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr3 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Alert!!!!!

Please take a look at the vandal "64.18.36.3". That vandal has been destroying several articles on wikipedia. Take action! Thanks! --Live STSS 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Edwards

Hi Spangineer,

Could you weigh in on the move debate on Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)? Thanks.Brian0324 18:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

I am contacting individuals in the order of the number of featured lists that they had created by Novemeber 10, 2007. You have created several. So you are among the first. There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

message

i had someone leave me a message and ask me a question. i'm not sure how to respond to them. i don't know where else to ask this question. any suggestions? Lilmizmagic4 (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD experiment

My userpage List of the Day experiment is getting under way at WP:LOTD. One of your lists has been nominated. I invite you to come by and represent it. If you would like to represent your list article please reformat your username in the table so it is normal sized. Among the things you may want to do to represent your list are:

1. Change the image selection
2. Add talk page projects to the list and then add them on the summary table
3. Write a summary of the article in less than 500 characters. I will begin doing this later today for those who don't do it themselves.
4. Participate in the feed back process when it starts on December 1.
5. Participate in the voting when it starts on December 11.

You are free to remain uninvolved. Your list was chosen for being among the first [[WP:FL]s ever created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to swap out the image as you feel is appropriate. I don't know where to find the kind you suggest.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 06:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you intend to respond to or participate in the feedback involving your lists or others, please unshrink your name on the nominee table.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!! List of elements by name, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame by date of induction, and List of signatories of the United States Constitution have been selected to be February WP:LOTDs. If you have any particular date preferences please contact me by January 24th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program FAR

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Spangineer, how come I never see you around anymore? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

First Article

How can I make my first article? Thanx. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC:Dwarf planet

I went through your comments you left here. You are welcome to review the updated version of the article. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! Is your vote for the FAC still oppose?! If yes, could you leave a bit more feedback why? THank you for your time, Nergaal (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done with the citation tags too. Nergaal (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to solve the issues you listed. I hope it looks good now. Thanks again, Nergaal (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Happy editing! Nergaal (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Geography portal/Featured article

A tag has been placed on Template:Geography portal/Featured article requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Geography portal/Featured picture

A tag has been placed on Template:Geography portal/Featured picture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

William Hillcourt

I have the biography FAC here and would appreciate any ideas for improvement and review. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Thank you for your very helpful comments and suggestions at Dickinson's FAC and for the nice note you left on my talk page. :) I agree that Wikipedia definitely needs better coverage on such interesting and important literary figures, but they're often overlooked for more "flashy" personas. No matter, though, I'm working on it. :) Take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

David Noebel

Hi, on your abandoned User:Spangineer/comingsoon page, you mentioned an interest in David Noebel. I didn't know anything about him, but the article was a nearly-expired prod, and I realized he was notable, and tried to improve the article, with referencing and a less promotional tone than some of the previous versions. It was a little difficult because most of the sources I could find seem to be critical of him, but I tried to keep it neutral in tone. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you could look at the article and offer any suggestions, or if you know of some other material, please add it. Rigadoun (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FPC delisting nomination

I have nominated Image:Cerro de la Silla.jpg, an image you uploaded, for delisting as a featured picture. I do not feel that this image satisfies Wikipedia's FP standards (which are now more stringent than when this was originally promoted), and have explained why at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Cerro de la Silla. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page.. Thank you for your time. Mangostar (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultrasonic Welding

Hi Spangineer,

I'm working on the ultrasonic welding article. I've been trying to add more information and make the site more factual. I'd like to add some visuals to the ultrasonic welding article but am having trouble finding pictures that aren't copyrighted. I noticed that you had a lot of nice pictures in the welding article and was wondering where you found them.

Thanks, Marylee23 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Methods engineering

Hi

I'm working on the Methods engineering article. Since you were involved in the discussion to keep the article on wikipedia I was wondering if you might take the time to look over the changes I have made. I would appreciate any suggestions that you have to make this article better. Engineer 2009 (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a long time

I am glad to see a few familiar names are still around. A few old wikipedia friends have quit. I am pleased you are still contributing. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

email me next time you are back online. I have a question for you. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Jimi Hendrix Experience...

Thanks for putting up the article The Jimi Hendrix Experience (Box set). Since you made such a good job of the article, I just wondered if you wanted to update it in view of this  _♫ Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Article: Welding

I have left this message on the welding discussion page, but I figure that since your listed as a main contributor I should post it on your page also. I think that the article on welding should be semi-protected from anonymouse IPs and their constant vandalism. I would do this myself, but I don't think I'm able to nor do I know how. 138 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FARC of Kazi Nazrul Islam

Hi Spangineer - you are a proficient copyeditor and analyst of articles, so I request you to take a look at the Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kazi Nazrul Islam. A few editors have raised the view that Banglapedia is an inherently biased source; they also object to books published by the Nazrul Institute. Its a complicated argument that Armanaziz and I have sought to counter, but its time to have more views or we'll keep going round in circles. Vishnava _talk 18:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)