Jump to content

User talk:Wizard191/Archive 2

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

Images for Induction Forging

Hi Wizard. A bot has deleted the images which were on Induction Forging. Can you help on this matter as I thought that all was in order? I know that a message has been left but I am sure that I stated on upload that the images were license free etc? Heatingcity (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there isn't much I can do. However, I found the administrator who deleted the files: User:Misza13. What I would do if I were you, is leave him a message on his talk page, User talk:Misza13, and ask him if he could undelete the images. Also ask him what you need to do to correct the licensing issues. Wizard191 (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wizard happy new year. I am back after a short break and will be looking at some more work on Induction type pages. Thanks for your help above and I will try again I think. On a side note I dont understand people who just come on Wiki and add a link and nothing else. There is so much that can be done a more balanced input approach. Heatingcity (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Years to you too! I look forward to seeing you contributions to the induction pages. As for those people who just come along and add spam to articles, it's very annoying, but that's why we are here...to balance things out. Wizard191 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

2008's been a pleasure, and I look forward to 2009. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and Happy New Years to you as well! It's been a pleasure editing with you! Wizard191 (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Swage Nut

Fair Enough - Removed Tags--Christopher Kraus (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Clearance hole

A tag has been placed on Clearance hole requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

List of gear nomenclature

I have replied on my talk page. Biscuittin (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mass finishing

Updated DYK query On January 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mass finishing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Vacuum Arc Remelting

According to a Google search, Vacuum Arc Remelting is used as a proper noun, and capitalized, although both capitalized and uncapitalized are used, sometimes even by the same author. Ditto for Vacuum Induction Melting. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While some authors may treat it as a proper noun, wikipedia doesn't. If you look up any other process, such as injection molding, basic oxygen steelmaking, etc., they are all lower case. As such, vacuum arc remelting should be lower case as well. Wizard191 (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

my editing

i wondering is there any way i can change it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunna003 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Change it back as in undoing your edits? If you go to the history tab for the article and then use the radio buttons to compare the edit prior to your first edit to your last edit it, and then click "compare selected versions" you'll see all of your edits. You can then press the "undo" link above the last revision to undo it those edits. Note that if you want to test editing Wikipedia you should do that at Wikipedia:Sandbox and not on articles. Wizard191 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking/Main page

If no content was merged then I don't see why there should be any issues, although I don't know what the usual procedure is for inactive wikiprojects. Guest9999 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PVC

Sorry, but Tm will never be below Tg. This source has it at 182C (http://www.texwire.us/cablewire/pvcproperties.html)

I do not appreciate it when I try to fix a mistake on wikipedia and then am accused of being a vandal.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.38.113 (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

First, your edits look like classic vandalism: an IP user changing a number in an article with no edit summary. I can't read your mind, so I don't know if you are editing it with a reference or not. In the future if you are going to correct something, please add your reference to the article and use the edit summary to explain why you've done what you've done.
Second, according to [1] the melting point is 80 C. Wizard191 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

K-factor (marketing)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of K-factor (marketing), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: K-factor. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

linkspam

I saw you reverted my edit in Box and pan brake saying that it was linkspam. First of all, I think it is not good practice accusing registered and established users with thousands of edits to be spamers. Apart from that, this was a valid reference which contained the information mentioned in the article. That they also sell the thing doesn't mean we can not use their information. Also, I understand linkspam to relate to the external link section rather than to references (see Wikipedia:Spam, although I'll admit a reference might be considered an External Link). Debresser (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look at your contributions before reverting the modification, so I didn't know you were so well esteemed around here. When I first looked at the site I just saw the items for sale and the obvious fact that it's a website made to sell things, so I presumed it was link spam. Upon looking at it again, I do see that there is a brief description of what a box and pan brake is. As such, I'm more than willing to undo my edit.
As a side note, I would recommend in the future that you don't just revert someones edit before discussing it with them (see the date codes on [2] & [3]), that's how revert wars start. Wizard191 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling differences

"In a recent edit to the page Lead, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Wizard191 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)"

Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately there are many words in American which appear as mistakes in British English and it is impossible to recognise all such cases unless you are American. Spelling and grammar are very important in propagating knowledge clearly and therefore I think some leeway should be allowed here - the alternative is to discourage spelling and grammar corrections to wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.222.15 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that it can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference between a spelling error and British English (or American English in your case), but there's a Wikipedia policy that states it shouldn't be changed arbitrarily, which is what your edit appeared to be. This policy doesn't affect correcting grammar mistakes, because grammar is grammar in either country. Wizard191 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading the post above mine I would be careful accusing other people of making arbitrary edits. Wikipedia itself promotes updating pages for spelling and grammar mistakes - grammar is not grammar - it varies massively between "english" speaking nations:

"Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better - for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability and removing unconstructive edits." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

From what you are suggesting I shouldn't correct any spelling until I can find (in Britain) American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand etc dictionaries and check the wrong spelling against all possible permutations. All I am saying is that common sense should prevail and a balance should be struck between allowing people the freedom to participate and following policy.

I'm sorry I can't engage further with such intransigence and I don't intend on reading any replies to this. I shall continue to correct spelling and grammar as I see fit as encouraged by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.222.15 (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ultimet

Hi, could you have a look at Ultimet when you get a chance? Cheers! Tommfuller (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I took a look at it and changed some pretty minor stuff. Overall, I'd say it's not bad for a start. I just have three recommendations:
  1. I'd convert the table of the chemical composition into prose, because there's only one row, so a table is not required. With that I would take the second paragraph in the introduction and merge that with the new prose, so that you aren't repeating yourself.
  2. Based on looking at the limited preview of the ASM Handbook, I wasn't able to find the information for the applications you cited. That doesn't mean that you aren't right, but I would appreciated it if you added page numbers.
  3. It appears that both sources you've cited have a lot more information that can be used to grow the article.
Thanks for your contributions! Wizard191 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

Dear Sir, You alleged me of vandalism on the polyvinyl chlordie page, but I did no such thing. I shall also take this oppurtunity to enlighten you that this I.P. address belongs to a school network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.20.66 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your IP definitely did commit vandalism to the polyvinyl chloride article, as shown here: [4]. If you don't wish to see vandalism warnings that you didn't commit I highly recommend creating an account, so that you don't confused for someone else who also uses that IP. Wizard191 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! SBHarris 23:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is my name whit time stamp deleted from the article I wrote, see article about Galling.

Hi.

I edited the galling article some days ago and my name and time stamp is deleted from the text. This is not appropriate because I couldn´t see any changes to the text done by somebody else. It would be nice to hear a explanation for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are asking here. I can tell you that I removed your signature from the article a few days ago, per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Wizard191 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject I want to put in is a categorization of galling as a friction and wear related phenomenon between metallic surfaces and not a welding phenomenon. It is however likely that galling is related to cold welding which is also a friction related phenomenon. Please describe why this is wrong if you delete the categorization.

Harald Wallin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the pin on disk test equipment.

It is clear that there exist several different test equipments to examining friction, wear and the galling phenomenon. I´m sorry to say that the pin on disk equipment is not the best equipment for galling evaluation because it has problems whit separating different wear regimes if only the coefficient of friction is observed. Also the pin on disk equipment does not save the total history of the disk damage caused by the pin if several strokes are applied. If only one stroke is used than the sliding length is to short and the galling build up might be insignificant for most materials. Why do you want to put it as an “Also see” and connect this equipment to galling evaluation?? Here are some examples of other equipments.

  • Slider on flat surface (SOFS),

(The SOFS measures the contact between fresh material on the work sheet and one constant spot on the tested tool steel.

  • Load scanner (LD,

(The LD measures the contact between new fresh material on both the work sheet and tested tool steel.)

  • Button on cylinder test equipment the contact between different

(The BOC measures the contact between fresh material on the work sheet and one constant spot on the tested tool steel.)

  • Deep drawing process simulator (DDPS)

The DDPS measures the contact between fresh material on the work sheet and one constant spot on the tested tool steel.)

  • Cylinder on strip method

The COS measures the contact between fresh material on the work sheet and one constant spot on the tested tool steel.)

All these methods are relevant for galling evaluations and some even more than the pin on disk equipment. --Haraldwallin (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You realize that you were the one who added the link to the article first. I just restored it after doing a revert. I know nothing about the testing equipment. Wizard191 (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, it is true that I was the one introducing the pin-on-disk-tester to the galling page, but you deleted all the other paragraphs, see below. And it is quite strange if you only reverted my changes and most of the below categorise where aborted? if you didn´t delete them some other person must have. The result was that only the pin-on-disk-tester was linked to galling and that is not perfect as discussed previously. This has of course not a great importance but the galling page is my baby and time wasting object LOL.

See also

--Haraldwallin (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Forging press page

I added a few comments on the discussion page for forging press. Any thoughts? 80.176.88.36 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw you reverted my edit "www.mat24.de" as extrnal link in the article for "Aluminium" saying that it was linkspam. For your infomation, mat24.de is a FREE internet platform about materials, especially metallic materials. It includes all informations like physical, mechanical and technological properties as well as chemical composition about Steel, Aluminium, Magnesium, Copper, Nikkel, Titanium, Zink, Technical Ceramics and Welding Technique. As far as I know, there is no such internet portal which can offer so much detailed information for the above mentioned topics. Please reconsider it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mat24.de (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in that it has a lot of information, but the problem is that it is littered with advertisements and you can't link directly to the information, for say aluminium. So when the link is clicked on it just brings you to the front page and not directly to the info. If you could link directly to the info then I might reconsider it.
As a side note, it would make a great reference for material specs if they could be directly linked. Wizard191 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nanoindenter

Question: Why were my external links removed from this article??? There are many other articles that use external links such as nanoindentation, Tribology, ect... Is there a set standard that I did not follow when using external links??? Volvera215 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that they all appeared to be link spam, which are links that are for commercial purposes. They were all links to companies that make equipment for that industry, and we are not here to promote companies that make the equipment. Legitimate links are links that supply information on the topic that can't be included in the article for various reasons. See WP:EL for more information. Just because similar links exist in other articles doesn't mean that makes it legitimate. It just means no one has caught them yet. Wizard191 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I do see your point, but those were not my intentions. I feel that some of those sites provide more indepth specifications with regards to the material that was written. These sites do sell products, but they also have much information on various kinds of nano indneters, how they are made,and what they are used for. It is certainly way too much information to include in the artricle itself. It just gives the article more depth for those that are interested in learning more about the various kinds of nano indenters and there specifictaions. Is there any other way that you would suggest, so that I may include these references in the article?? Volvera215 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is legit info there that is too detailed to include link to the specific page(s). When only the main pages is linked it looks like you are just trying to promote the company, plus me as a reader who has never been there doesn't know what to search for. Wizard191 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response, I will work on the error and link them directly to the information related to the article, rather than the site itself. Volvera215 (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My account

Hi. My account dosen´t work. Can you help me start it again. I have some photos in the wikipedia commons and other stuff that I want to have access to.

The e-mail confirm my account
Someone from the IP address 83.227.233.10 has registered the account "Haraldwallin" with this e-mail address on the English Wikipedia. To confirm that this user account really does belong to you and to activate e-mail features on Wikipedia, please open this URL in your browser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ConfirmEmail/3bcbe49deb85940be5c3386206215a6c

If you did not recently register for Wikipedia (or if you registered with a different e-mail address),click the following link to cancel the confirmation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Invalidateemail/3bcbe49deb85940be5c3386206215a6c This confirmation e-mail will automatically expire at 15:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC). ~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harald Wallin--83.227.233.10 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say your account doesn't work. Do you mean you can't log in? Or do you mean it's rejecting your password? I suppose in any case there isn't much I can do as I'm not an administrator. I recommend that you leave a message here: WP:ANB. Wizard191 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I got It working. Pay no attention to the above message. Sorry about that. --Haraldwallin (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear its all working again. Wizard191 (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hot Isostatic Pressing

You will have to excuse my ignorance, but why do you keep removing the links I have posted to this article calling them Spam, when they all contain information that contribute to the topic of Hot Isostatic Processing. Yes, they do represent companies... but all of thoose companies are trying to inform individuals about the HIP process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.0.196 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy on what should and what should not be listed in the "external links" section of an article; the policy can be found here: WP:EL. Essentially what it says is that links to specific information on the topic of the article that cannot be directly included in the article is OK, but most everything else isn't. Now most of the time if someone puts in a link to specific information that can be included in the article, we'll let that slide, because it still is useful. Plus, another editor can come along and integrate the information later. So if you can link to specific pages within those sites that contains pertinent information then it's OK, otherwise it is spam. Wizard191 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Helical cam

I don't think I removed those warning templates. I removed some copyright warnings off the new graphs.
Clivedog (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you did it on purpose, but here's a comparison of the article prior to your changes to that after your changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helical_camshaft&diff=282057113&oldid=268771310. As you can see the templates were deleted. It's no biggie, I just put them back. Wizard191 (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As you say it is a minor matter. I was just surprised to see them gone as I imagine this would require sorting through the history etc. to find the particular item and then removing it - I don't see how it could be done accidentally. Anyhow, no worries.Clivedog (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mediation case name, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Misterlobat (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why in your opinion (not just a cut and paste of wikipedia rules), is residualstress.com not allowed? It is a noncomercial site and not being promoted by us?Rjd2008 (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Residual Stress.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Dump leaching. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Paused merging...

Hello, any reason why? The page seems small and was considering redirecting to that section like the other washers. ZooFari 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 80/20 (company)

A tag has been placed on 80/20 (company) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good riddance. Wizard191 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Standard tolerance

How in the world could you ever get the idea that "Standard tolerance" is in any way "SPAM"? I see you've got a Mechanical Engineering degree, but have you ever spent ANY time in a machine shop?

Please correct your mistake and re-insert the references in the Machining page. LP-mn (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know not much time has passed, but even so... Since you have not responded, I'm going to restore the links and biblio references to the Machining page. Next time you delete someone else's work, could you have the courtesy to discuss it with them? LP-mn (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks; and just for you information I'm in a machine shop every day I'm at work, not that has anything to do it with it. As an engineering I'd be a failure if I didn't know what standard tolerances are.
It's spam in the sense that you applied the standard tolerance link to every "tolerance" word in the machining article. First off, that violates WP:OVERLINKING. Second, it wasn't even the correct link; if the word "tolerance" should link to engineering tolerance and not standard tolerance. So it appears that you just spammed your work to the machining article. Also, note that after I reverted your spam I went back and correctly link "tolerance" to engineering tolerance.
As for discussing it with you, I (nor anyone else) can contact every person for which I've deleted their info. Note that one of the core principles of Wikipedia is open editing.
Also, please read WP:MOS, because you keep capitalizing "tolerance", which shouldn't be. Wizard191 (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the capitialization (sp?), I caught that too late, yes, you were right on that. As for the tolerance link, it's completely irrational to link to a tolerance article that concentrates on tolerance of other individuals or attiudes. The Standard tolerance language has since been moved to a more correct location of Engineering_tolerance#Mechanical_component_tolerance. I see you left the biblio references, that's good. I disagree as to the SPAM designation, the correct link needs to be restored.
LP-mn (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that I made a mistake, I mean to link to engineering tolerance. However, I still see no reason to link directly to standard tolerance over engineering tolerance. If the wording of the article were "standard tolerance" instead of "tolerance" that would be one thing, but its not. Wizard191 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Flatness (mathematics)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Flatness (mathematics), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.cramster.com/reference/wiki.aspx?wiki_name=Flatness. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Abundance of elements in the universe

Hi Wizard191. In the article Abundance of the chemical elements, why do you consider Russell Ash an authority on cosmology, as opposed say to Katharina Lodders? I don't know why Ash rounded his numbers so imprecisely, but if you add them up they come to 1,000,200 parts per million for the top ten elements. The table that was there before you replaced it with Ash's numbers added up to 999,350, which makes a lot more sense. I imagine it was also a lot more up to date: Ash came up with his table way back in 1989. Ash is just a compiler of Top 10 lists and has no particular expertise in cosmology. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the article prior to when I added the ref, here, you will see there is a {{cn}} template on the table. I just took it upon myself to find a ref for it. I never claimed it to be the best ref in the world, but it's better than no ref. However, I had to modify the numbers to match the ref I found. If you have a better ref then update it. No skin off my back. Wizard191 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, done. I used the same ref as in Chemical element, which is where the earlier table came from. Note that the table is for our galaxy; although nearby galaxies are about the same, we don't have up to date information about galaxies further away because of the delay in their light reaching us. Those exhibit a more primordial mixture because we're seeing them as they were billions of years ago, closer to the Big Bang. The presumption is that since then they've aged similarly to our nearby neighbors, though we have no way of knowing for sure. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Steel Mill

My comment regarding gay steel mills was dead serious and in reference to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer%27s_Phobia". I wanted to know if this was a reference to a real life location or not. My comment should be re-reverted and I will be checking on it in the next few days. If you want, I can make reference to this episode to clarify any confusion. Gutch220 (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First, now that you have noted the above I see that it is a real question, but in the future if you are going to post something like that I highly recommend stating some background as to why you are asking because it looks like vandalism. Anytime I see "gay *blank*" it looks like vandalism to me. Second, I don't think that the steel mill talk page is the correct place to ask the question as the whole article is about the industrial aspect and not the cultural aspect. Plus, I don't think that type of info doesn't belong in that article. Third, talk pages aren't forums; you'd have a better chance of finding your info on google. Fourth, don't believe everything on TV. Wizard191 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion: American Engineering Group

Dear Sir,

I got a message from you that my article has been nominated for speedy deletion by you. I wanted to know what problems did you find with the article so that I can rectify them. Please respond.

Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Steel square

Interesting, I did realize that you could link a lower case to an upper case article. Yes, there was some overlinking. Thanks for the revision. --Johnaldentalk 01:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Keep up the good work. Wizard191 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern Steel Construction citation

Hi Wizard,

I'm the author of the article on how structural steel is made that's cited in Fabrication of structural steel by plasma and laser cutting I notice you've changed back the citation for my story away from Architect mag, where it originally appeared, to Modern Steel Construction, where it was subsequently picked up. I think I understand your having done that as trying to create a better link, although I find the look of the MSC version rather horsey. But still, you may see what it was I was trying to do, which was to give appropriate credit to Architect, which assigned, photographed and paid a lot of money to publish the original. I don't mind MSC's piece serving as the main link, but would appreciate it if you would also compose the citation to reflect the article's having originally appeared in Architect or allow me to do so and let it stand.

thank you. Styrax (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason I reverted your change to the Architect link is because the MSC link has more pictures, which helps most readers, so I believe the link should stand as is. You must note a couple of other things here. First, if you are the author of the article, you have a conflict of interest problem, and, as such, shouldn't be involved picking the source. Second, Wikipedia doesn't care who paid for the article; both are published articles, so they are both legitimate sources for Wikipedia. Wizard191 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The operative word is not "paid" but "assigned," i.e., originated. I know mainly the rules for reporters, who are trained to track down the original source of any material and to the extent possible declare it, as is the case in academia and most other fields where good faith abides. Still, it's now recorded, regardless of whether the record survives, who did what, and were it I making the citation I would cheerfully upon disclosure of this information make it as complete as possible. At any rate, I shall let it stand in whatever form it may, engage in no further forms of grievous conflict, and probably think not much more about the matter.

Styrax (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

worm drives

Hi! I don't consider thomasnet a search engine; it's a directory of manufacturers arranged by product that isn't advertising-driven and that I don't think privileges any particular company. I think it could be helpful for people looking for mechanical parts who aren't already aware of it. But I don't feel too strongly one way or another -- I won't argue if you take it out :) cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Pipe

(After a couple tries), I responded to your post on my talk page, and left a question there for you.VegKilla (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Spark testing

Updated DYK query On May 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spark testing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Toothpaste tube theory and extrusion

In my hometown of Chico, CA. We have a state university which comprises a significant minority of the city population. From this culture has arisen many town-gown conflicts. In Chico, we used to have a week long celebration called Pioneer Days. This was a culminating event celebrating local culture, with a parade and other events, etcetera. At some point there were riots, and the university canceled the events. In the intervening years, in the absence of a large culminating event, St. Patrick's Day, and Halloween grew into large events involving as many as ten thousand people. So it is said that the toothpaste tube theory applies to people's human spirit and events like parties and festivals. "If you squeeze one end, it comes out the other." This is what originally inspired me to want to write this article.

I have avoided any personal attack, however, I am wondering about the causes of this whole issue. I merely would prefer the article wasn't an orphan. It seems to me to be perfectly obvious that A) the "toothpaste tube theory" or the "toothpaste tube effect" is completely synonymous with extrusion and B) extrusion is excellently exemplified by the example of squeezing a toothpaste tube. Furthermore, I believe that any "reasonable person of normal sensitivity" really would have no choice but to agree (I only use that term because it seems to be a legal standard in many places).

I see that "extrusion" is an article you started and you have given several "alternative" terms none of which so precisely describes the concept in question. Are you under the impression that this is a zero sum type of things here? If you can find some alternative term, then extrusion is off the hook? I have added a see also section in ejection, which is the only other one that makes any sense. I will take a closer look at expulsion. However, that doesn't mean extrusion is "off the hook" somehow. You state that you believe my claim is because of "one sentence" in the article. Is this a proper way to analyze things? One sentence actually does the trick quite frankly. (Extrusion is actually mentioned elsewhere in the article, as well as in the source for the content). Furthermore, extrusion as a concept is present in all the formulations.

You even claim it as a sketchy description because an expulsion of toothpaste isn't in any particular shape, and therefore not an extrusion. First of all, it IS in a specific shape, it's round and the appropriate size for a toothbrush. Second of all, do you really hold the notion that an expulsion isn't an extrusion unless the shape of the extrusion was predetermined? That makes absolutely no sense at all. That view is consistent with a very narrow view of things, rather than a broad one. A break in the side of a tube also extrudes toothpaste.

"If you squeeze one end , it comes out the other." is a very popular formulation of the toothpaste tube theory. In your mind I have taken the analogy "way too far." I'm sorry but that makes no sense at all. It is absolutely no stretch at all to say that the toothpaste tube theory is an analogy to extrusion. I am very puzzled by your view.

I recently read Zizek's Sublime Object of Ideology which describes how ideology shapes our beliefs on a level between conscious and unconscious. I cannot help but think that this is an example, where someone who has studied extrusion on more than a causal level cannot see how the tooth paste tube is a perfect example of it. I find the whole thing fascinating. I wish you well. I think this whole thing is way too much to go through over a link in a see also section. I, for one, have certainly dropped issues over less. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion because we cannot seem to see eye to eye on this. Wizard191 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Titanium Page

Dustin,

Alan Gamble here, from Metal Suppliers Online. This is day one for me in understanding how to add information to Wikipedia articles.

I'm spent my career in the field - 32 years in all, and in 1995 I created www.suppliersonline.com.

I personally researched and wrote every word of our property data pages and was interested in finding out how to share this data with Wikipedia in an open source manner.

Unfortunately, my first clumsy attempt was flagged by you. My apologies.

Here is a link to some of the property pages I've created:

http://www.metalsuppliersonline.com/propertypages/index.asp

Any thoughts on how best to share this?

Alan Gamble Metal Suppliers Online —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalsuppliers (talk • contribs) 15:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Alan, you are more than welcome to contribute your vast knowledge to Wikipedia, however you can't just copy the information verbatim because of Wikipedia's license and your website is copyrighted. You have two choices: First, you can paraphrase it and then reference your website, which eliminates any copyright violations. Otherwise you can submit a request to Wikipedia and say that you release your copyright, in which can you can copy your information verbatim. To do that follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online. Wizard191 (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anvil image

The image that is described as a farriers anvil is wrong. That is a double horned European style anvil. Though it is possible that this anvil belonged to a farrier it is not the kind normally used by farriers. A quick browsing of on line farriers supply company catalogs would confirm this. http://www.euroanvils.net/ http://www.farriercorral.com/TFS-Farriers-Anvil-100lb-p/anvil%20-%200041.htm There is also ample documentation to back this up in Richard Postman's book "Anvils in America". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southshoresmith (talk • contribs) 20:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with you changing the description, as long as you can reference it. When I see an edit that breaks the image, changes the description, and doesn't leave an edit summary it looks very much like vandalism. If you want to change it please reference it with a reliable source and note the change in the edit summary. Wizard191 (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

micRo "advert"

Fine, then link in some other small hobbiest CNC mill then. They are out there, and the latest trend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.182.158 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms for Cemeted Carbide

I was looking at the article for Cemented Carbide and saw that you restored "or widia" as another name for the material.

Is this really a generic term I've never heard before? (It isn't in my dictionary.) A quick look around leads me to think it is a trade name. I've created a Talk Page for the article and added a note that unless somebody has a cite for general usage of the term as a synonym I will remove it. jam (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on the article's talk page. Wizard191 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Categories

What qualifies your removal of categories I was adding to articles about cast iron alloys? Why did you remove the category I was working on? Mfields1 (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mushet steel

Updated DYK query On June 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mushet steel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Screw

You did a great job on the table even better than the EL. Thank you. Sorry I made you work so hard. --Weetoddid (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Hi Wizzy.... I read your post.

"I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?"


Ok so you noticed my user name and you decided to make yourself concerned about it....

Let me get this right, you have just told me that you have chosen to create your own problem with which to keep yourself entertained with.

Well that is nice.

My question to you is;

Since this is something you have chosen to create and entertain yourself with - Why are you trying to bother me with your problem?

It's a rehtorical question for you to answer to yourself; since your problems and your compulsion to drag everyone into your reality with you, is also your problem, well I am not particularly interested in participating in your having chosen to make yourself into the sort of person who spends their time entertaining themselves with thier own problems.

So you will have to come to the conclusions that satisfy yourself as to why you have chosen to create and entertain yourself with your own problems, and since I am not medically qualified psychiatrist - may I suggest that you find out a qualified and competent mental health practitioner who is happy to hear and discuss with you, the problems you have, that are of your own creation.

Thanks for sharing.


Ebay Noway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebay.Noway (talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Awwwwww you pooor thing you.

You sound so lonely and so lost......

Judging by the way you like to float around the net, waggling you finger at people, shoving your opinions in their face, for things that are either really petty, rather trivial, or just plain old none of your business.... you don't seem to be getting much appreciation for your efforts do you.

That's because Wizzy, they would probably be forming the opinion that your a bit of a prick with too much free time on your hands.

So until you choose to be respectful towards other people,then your going to keep right on getting people coming back at you with comments like "Fuck your opinion" and by way of association, "Fuck you too".

Why? Because they don't have to wear the crap your dishing out on them, if they don't want too.

So your going to either choose to mind your own business - and get what comes with that, OR your going to have to choose to mind everyone elses business - and get what comes with doing that.

After all Wizzy, you are the person who is responsible for making himself into what he is today.

Cheers

Ebay Noway.

Wizzy - you are the problem of your own creation.

Ohhhh Wizzy,

See the problem is that while pushing people around and being nasty to them, might make you feel ever so important, what really happens is that all you do is make more people not like you.

It's called the cycle of abuse and neglect; You abuse other people and they neglect you, so to make youself feel all important; your now trying to make them pay attention to you by being even more nasty to them and others; and again - they and even more people want to have nothing to do with you.

There really are no bonus points to be had in being a bully who is nasty to everyone; but again you are responsible for making yourself into that kind of a person; so therefore it's a personal problem that is up to you to resolve by taking responsibility for the fact that you are choosing to be nasty to other people.

As to what you do about your problem - which is you and your attitude towards others and how you treat them; is really nothing to do with me.

So anyway, I am off to have a great day.

Cheers

Ebay Noway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebay.Noway (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Strapping

An article on strapping has been started and needs more input. Rlsheehan (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Foundry sand testing equipments CSD

To Univited company & Wizard, I am quating text from the answer for sockpuppetry Well, Wizard, I can understand what you are saying. Pushkraj Janwadkar is my boss and we both work together on research in the field of testing of foundry sands. We site references from sandtesting.com since its our own work and can authorize public usage from the same. We also share IPs since we work from same office. Your claim is obvious yet is most definitely is not correct. I hope you shall appreciate our sencere effort to dessipate knowledge which we have accumulated over the period of time. Well, please site me a site where the linked info is freely available so that the info can be displayed or referred to. Please also notify me when you tag for speedy deletion or atleast give me time of two or three days to work my way through to the notification. Since we are in technical industry its not often that we are connected yet make an effort to put up info whenever the time permits. It really discouraged me to find the charts which were uploaded are gone along with the article itself. Please note that, when editing sand testing equipments, it was noticed that, the article cannot provide support to actual testing technology and selection of equipment from a vriety of 95 standard equipments available with every manufacturer by generic names and thats when decided to create additional page on foundry sand testing equipments. You efforts are well appreciated to keep unwarranted stuff off the encyclopedia, yet on the other hand please also suggest alternative sources to sight if references that are give seem like spam to you. Please delete the foundry sand testing page if the need be.
Assuring sincere efforts always
Kiranisht (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please reply Kiranisht (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please also let me know, why references are being removed? Kiranisht (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


References added as per suggestion foundry sand testing Pushkraj.janwadkar (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dustin, Request: In foundry sand testing, there are around 85 tests on 9 types of sand with around 105 standard test equipments, When writing articles I find it difficult to write everything under one name which defies purpose of the encyclopedia that we should be able to look up things with their particular names. Hence, we were discussing on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sand_rammer that, may be we need an intermediate category called as Foundry sand testing with subcategories as

  • Foundry sand tests
  • Foundry sand testing equipments

The tests are an ever expanding field as the time passes by and quality reserves utmost importance in industry. In such case I would like to have your opinion on whether it is right to have such category/ sub category or intermediate category. If yes, I would request you to please make them since I have no clue how to do that or please guide me in order to be able to do it. Warm regards Vertical.limit (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have found the way, gone ahead and made the category. Please see if its ok --Vertical.limit (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, as long as enough articles are created to populate it. Wizard191 (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent approach, and to encourage the creation of the articles I recommend that the links be created. One caution I would make is to take the time to insure the article names follow standard methods of describing the tests / equipment. For example, an article could be named "Moisture content" but it would lead to the need for some disambiguation. That one might be better names "Green sand moisture content". That is an example it might not be the best description. I recommend looking at either the AFS Mold & Core Test Handbook, or there may be a VDG-Merkblatt, British Foundry Society or Indian Foundry Society test name which could be used. The article could also include photos of some test equipment, test specimens, etc. Mfields1 (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

References of molding sand

DISAMATIC is included as reference in molding sand. Disamatic is a tech pertaining to particular company and if I am not wrong a patented tech. May be the case that we can use vertical molding line as the article for it which, does not exist. That is the reason why the reference was removed in fact Disamatic is a hackneyed used for certain type of molding line and is a brand name on the other hand which means publicizing. Please help on how to take a decision on edit in such a case Pushkraj.janwadkar (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the DISAMATIC process, but if it is a proprietary name/system, then it would be best to move it to a non-proprietary name, for the reasons you outlined above. Wizard191 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
With the same purpose shall i remove DISAMATIC from reference list of molding sand??Vertical.limit (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please also check the discussion page of the same molding sand. think each type of sand should be listed as a different article and in the molding sand page there may be a little bit info in general about molding sand basics and links to various types of it. Vertical.limit (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
DISAMATIC is a registered trademark of the DISA company. Mfields1 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What does that mean? Are there no other processes like it? Wizard191 (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes there are other processes like it but they are called with a different name. Vertical flask less molding can match it good. Still I agree with Mfields1 Vertical.limit (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There may be others like it, but most people I know in this business would often use the term "Disa" or "Disa line"as a somewhat generic term for vertical flaskless green sand molding. The article is tagged correctly but it is so will with the Disa name that is seems like an advertisement for the company, in my opinion. Mfields1 (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Then, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, it should remain at disamatic. However, I think it should be moved to a lowercase spelling per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Wizard191 (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
But, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) the advice is given: "Don't expect readers to know, based on trademarks or brand names, what item is being discussed". As I wrote that most people in the business would know it but it is doubtful people outside the business (of making or buying castings) would know it - as is the case with most people reading wikipedia. The naming of the article would be best with something like "Automatic molding machine - vertically parted" or something like that. It really should be merged into a molding article as a subtopic and should not be an article in an of itself. It is fairly obscure to make an entire article. It's not of the same level (by more common usage) as perhaps Rolex is (per the example in trademarks). I think I have seen those sketches in a book somewhere or in an advertising brochure. I will look into that. Mfields1 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) Oh...ok...I didn't follow what you were saying correctly then earlier. If it is more commonly known by a non-trademarked name, all the better. I'll leave it in your hands, as you definitely know more about it than I. Wizard191 (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Extremely sorry

Thanks for the info, I hope you'll not frown for the sake of wikiimmaturity evident. :) At first I used to think that, you are being hostile but when I saw the comments and the talk page suggests and everything that you did going out of the way to help out I did not know a way to thank. then i found out the barn star and posted it where i could find other barn stars on your page. Extremely sorry for the offence but surely not meant. Warm regards Vertical.limit (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sand rammer

Please check article sand rammer. Please suggest what can be done more with it. Vertical.limit (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed it and made a few minor modifications, as shown by this diff: [5]. Just to note what I did:
  • Standardized capitalization per MOS:CAPS.
  • Removed unrelated items from the see also section and integrated the links that I could. See WP:SEEALSO for more information on what belongs there.
  • Added categories, as every article must have at least one category.
  • Per our manual of style, I removed the abbreviations.
My only concern is that the prerequisites section is quite hard to follow because it's in a bullet form. I think if you converted it into a prose form it might help. Wizard191 (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok not a problem, that will be done.I'll make it a point to add category next time around as well. But the image shown is marked for deletion, I request you to please remove the mark since, it seriously is my work. Warm regards Vertical.limit (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
==Deletion review for File:Sandrammerbaseblock.jpg==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Sandrammerbaseblock.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Vertical.limit (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I hope the new image is ok with you :) Vertical.limit (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as its not published elsewhere on the internet under a non-free license, it looks good to me. Wizard191 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok if i post the previous pic by acquiring proper permission. Please let me know what kind of permission does it need? Vertical.limit (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You can as long as you follow the directions given by user:Nil Einne at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 18#File:Sandrammerbaseblock.jpg Wizard191 (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

EDM

Hi Wizard191,

I didn't know if you are watching the discussion about EDM so I dared to contact you here. I've seen that you have restored back the bit I removed from the abstract of the EDM article. I know on wikipedia you use a different name for this part of the article, but I cannot remember it. So I'm using the name I'm familiar with, i.e. abstract.

I have two remarks: One about putting `die sinking or wire erosion' as synonimous of Electric discharge machining. And the second regarding the use of a link or reference with an abstract.

1) `die sinking and wire erosion' are not synonimous of EDM (electric discharge `machining'). Their are two particular way of making a machine that exploit this machining process (where process is what happen between a tool and a workpiece). They are two applications, if you like. Again, If you like, it is the same as saying that machining is also known as `milling or drilling'. I don't think is correct. If you allow me a definition that convey the meaning, I would say that machining is any process whereby you obtain the desired form of an object by removing small parts of material (chips) by mechanical forces from a given initial object of different form. So is not correct to say machining is also known as `milling or drilling', because it doesn't capture the essence of the term machining and because it leaves out a very large number of machines/pieces of equipment/applications that exploit the machining concept: turning, grinding, etc. In the same way, when introducing EDM by defining it, as I did, it does seem appropriate to say that is also known as `die sinking or wire erosion'. They are two machines/pieces of equipment/applications that exploit the process and they don't capture all the possible applications of EDM (EDM-grinding, EDM-dressing, etc. just for example).

The fact of having such an accuracy (as I see it) straight at the beginning of the article has then a twofold effect. On one hand, If somebody knows a bit about EDM it may be put off and not to read any further than the first two lines of the article (he/she may think:`no point for me wasting my time in reading something which says something very questionable since the very beginning. I won't gain anything in reading further'. if somebody doesn't know about EDM it will be utterly misled, and this is much worse, I believe. THe fact then that somebody might be looking for `die sinking or wire erosion', will still be reading this article becuase both of these applications are given a very visibible place as sections within the article. So they appear in the table of contents.

2) Regarding the link, which incidentally is pointing toward a commercial web site, I don't think it is appropriate to have any link in an abstract. An abstract, should be self contained. Therefore, by definition, it should not refer to any external source of information. And the link does that. At least, this is may experience in the more traditional word of mostly printed information. But I think also wikipedia has some suggestion of this nature in place somewhere.

Let me know, if my remarks are acceptable. If so, could you please remove again `die sinking or wire erosion' from the first lines and shift the commercial link to the section about wire-EDM.

If you don't agree, well, never mind. You will have your good reasons to do so. I respect them, albait not approving, and both `die sinking or wire erosion' and the link will stay where you have put them (wrongly, in my view).

Best regards,

Cemaf (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay, but I've been quite busy off-wiki. First, the introduction is usually called the lead around here. There is nothing that says you can't have a link in the lead. For more details see WP:LEADCITE.
As for your other point, I'm not intimately familiar with the terminology, whereas it seems that you are. If those two terms are referring to a more specific type of EMDing then go ahead and correct the article, but make sure you add a source to back up your changes, per WP:V. Wizard191 (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wizard191, thanks for getting back and apologies I couldn't answer earlier (my employment has just been terminated, sob! And looking for another, since today, full-time :)). I've read WP:LEADCITE and also, using the wiki terminology if it makes you feel more comfortable, the lead of that article were it is written `The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.' (second paragraph). It seems quite contradictory to me that the lead should be able to stand alone and at the same time it is allowed to refer to pieces of information external to the lead itself, i.e. citations. But, Ehyo, apparently on Wikipedia there is not as much attention about this kind of matters as there is scholarly journals, where such contradiction wouldn't be normally tolerated.
Are you asking to put a reference for supporting something that is not there? I mean, if `die sinking or wire erosion' are removed from the lead, but not from the article, where they have one a dedicated and well visible sub-section each, what would be a reference needed for? Also I think that the reasoning in my previous message was already quite clear. But above all, I don't have handy at the moment any book about these basic matters. For peace of mind, if you like, there must be something here
http://books.google.com/books?id=FJbdIKGmfSgC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=sme+electrical+discharge+machining&source=bl&ots=1977xtAalG&sig=Zmg3zJ0yk7ooT4bygS9pssWLgOQ&hl=en
Having said that, I would feel uncomfortable in putting the things back to where I put them last time, before your modification (i.e. removal of `die sinking or wire erosion' in the lead and post-position of the citation link in the pertinent section 5.2). If you agree with my reasons written above and in my previous message, I let you draw your consequent actions. If you do not, let's leave the things as you put them. I don't think there is much of an advancement for anybody in doing differently.
Thanks anyway for your active interest on the topic and in Wikipedia matters. Both most appreciated. Best regards,Cemaf (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Coremaking

Please go through, shall we delete this? Sounds like an advert, not sure becasue of the language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coremaking#External_links --Vertical.limit (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, so I removed the link. This topic doesn't deserve its own article, so when I find time I'll merge it into another article. Wizard191 (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Foundry

Please see the revision I hope its been done correctly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foundry&diff=298089363&oldid=298085624 Vertical.limit (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed it. First, what's with all of random colons you inserted in this diff? Second, in the same diff you removed "10 2008" from the file name and broke the image. Please be careful. Please see this diff for how to properly do what you were trying to do. I've also left an article wide suggestion on the talk page. Wizard191 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Galistan ERROR

What are you doing? A melting point of -19 degree Celsius is OBVIOUSLY WRONG !!! Do you like to defend errors and mis-information in the(se) article(s)? I hope NOT. :-/ Look at the eutectic temperature of the Ga-In-Sn mixture!

Regards Achim1999 (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't defend errors, but the proper way to handle this type of situation is to add a {{fact}} template and find a reliable source (RS) to correct or uphold the info. If it bothers you so much and you are so sure that you are right, please find a RS to defend your stance. Wizard191 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is in the "fusible alloy" article a very reliable resource given: Weast, R.C., "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", 55th ed, CRC Press, Cleveland, 1974, p. F-22 I have the 68th edition from 2005 at home and it is no misprint. :) Thanks, Achim1999 (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) If you are cable to read german: (online reference) http://www.wikipatents.com/de/2857121.html, section CLAIMS or search for "DD-PS 21 490", but I think this is reliable but no good reference for WP. ;) Achim1999 (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that up! Wizard191 (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Cotter pin

Please go through the discussion below the section Cotter pin vs Split pin whenever you have time to spare. Thanks Altafqadir (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed your comment and replied at talk:cotter pin. Wizard191 (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what sub-point of WP:ELNO meets the request for removal the link to Standard Specification for Low Melting Point Alloys doi:10.1520/B0774-00R05E01 ? Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO point 6 states "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation." A better choice might be creating a ==Further reading== section and then relisting it there, because WP:EL will no longer apply to it. Wizard191 (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you suggest this in this current case or better totally avoid this link in the article-page? (I wonder why it is then allowed in ==Further reading== section .) Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

External links have a lot of rules to control what and what not is placed in an article, because a lot of people like to use Wikipedia as a form of advertisement or as a quick way to dump a link. However, the further reading section is a place to list works that are applicable, but not so much that it can be a reference. It's like the middle ground between references and ELs. This is the type of thing that would perfectly fit in a further reading section. See WP:FURTHER for explicit details. Wizard191 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can not follow logically. Your remove looks in contradiction to: This section may be substituted by an "External links" section; editors will occasionally merge the two if both are very short. which is a citation from WP:FURTHER. I wonder what I should do. Would you please add the link into the subsection or section you believe it should appear? Else I would think you believe it should nowhere appear on the article-page. Regrads, Achim1999 (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying; there is a fine line here. You linked to the webpage that allows you to buy an ASTM publication. The link to the page requesting money/registration breaks the EL rule I listed previously. But what you really want the readers to read is the publication itself, not the webpage you linked to. Therefore you want to list the publication in the ==Further reading== section, as it's not an external link, and therefore perfectly legitimate. I'll do the modification to the article to help illustrate the point. Wizard191 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How gets stub into start status?

How to get an article in category start? The articel/page in question is Noble metals. If you look at the edit history, I I just commented the article to be in inorganic chemistry as a stub, which is placed at the end of the article-page. I did not want simply to copy a Wiki-Chemistry or Wiki-Element template on top the discussion-page of this article. ;-) Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

After an article is past the stub state, nothing is noted on the article page until its a featured article. The class of the article in between those states is usually only important if there's a WikiProject for it, as they would be the only ones that can properly classify it. Therefore, I just removed the stub template and then added the chemistry wikiproject template to the talk page to note that it's a "start" class article. Hope that helps. Wizard191 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Achim1999 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizard191/Archive_2&oldid=1079389173"