User talk:Cbdorsett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Forum (education) 2 Slow down, big mess 3 Electronic Circuit 4 General circuit theory 4.1 Do you think 5 Circuit Theory 6 Welcome! 7 Template images 8 Germanic languages 9 Disruption and trolling 10 Elseworld's Finest: Supergirl & Batgirl 11 What does or doesn't classify as a force 12 Here's the translation swe->en 13 David Stuart 14 Arab coins 15 WPW newsletter 16 blah blah blah 17 User warnings and question 18 Arabic grammar 19 Hey there 20 latkey 21 Just hi! 22 Dingling 23 Arabic 24 Re: Leo Szilard 25 Engineering

[edit] Forum (education)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Forum (education), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.

Reason given is : Fail to see how this is different from forum (legal) in which schools are mentioned and it is unlikely to be expanded. Sufficient explanation in Wiktionary[1].

If you remove the prod please give me an explanation why you think the article should be kept. Thankyou. Firelement85 15:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, delete it. See my comments on the talk page to the referenced article.--Cbdorsett 15:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done, thanks. Firelement85 15:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slow down, big mess

Cb, I've reverted a large proportion of your recent changes. Take it a little slower next time you feel an urge to make such large-scale changes, and maybe you'll get some help in deciding if it's the right thing to do. In this case, distinguishing electrical from electronic is what you forgot. Dicklyon 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Your talk page is a place for other users to send you a message; you'll get alerted by a banner next time you log in. Then you can reply here, since the guy who posted will then have you on his watch list; so you can carry on a discussion. See mine: user talk:Dicklyon. And always sign you talk with four squiggles, which expands into a name/date signature like this: Dicklyon 16:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic Circuit

12/31/2006

OK, here’s the deal. I found a mess and started cleaning it up. It's a big job. All searches for electronic circuit or any of its synonyms ended up on "Electrical Networks", which itself was a mess. Here's what I wrote on the talk page there:

This page used to be redirected to Electrical Networks, along with about 650 other pages. Electrical Networks are usually thought of as electrical distribution networks, the things with lots of big towers and high-voltage power lines. There also seems to be some sort of collection of electrical components NOT arranged in a loop, but which seems to have no practical application (it doesn’t do anything). Also, plenty of distinct concepts were redirected to this page instead of being explained in their own right, such as Circuit Theory. Circuit Theory was even added to the list of To Do pages. Adding to the confusion is the fact that Electric Circuit, Electronic Circuit and Electrical Circuit all mean the same thing.

I took it upon myself to clean things up. I left a message on the talk page advising that I was going to do it, and nobody objected. The task ended up being bigger than I thought, but at least I could make a dent in it.

The plan is to start off rearranging the redirects and move the existing text to this page from Electrical networks. Then I will plow through the What Links Here pages, directing things either here or to other pages where it makes more sense. I will put some short text in appropriate places, together with stub tags.

I left a few comments on a few of the pages I edited, but it's too much to leave comments everywhere.

If you have comments about any of my changes, please let me know, but follow this protocol: Write the full text of your comments on the talk page of the affected Wikipedia page, and leave me a one-line note here, referring me to the page you are interested in.

When I get the basics out of the way, I will leave instructions for how to help me out, if you are so inclined.

Thanks.

[edit] General circuit theory

I guess, you read the Bibliography section where I listed all the book/lectures notes, I used in this writing. This writing is actually a "cocktail" off all of three components WITH MY THOUGHTS. All three things, tell nothing about circuit generalization. Their purpose is completely different: HEre they are:

• • ALgorythms in C++ by Robert Sedgewick
  • Electric Circuits (unknown author) Chapter 5
  • Electromechanical Devices course manual, by Peter B. from New York City COllege of Technology.
• Peter B. is my current teacher, in NYC COllege of Technology, where I am continuing education now. By the way, on monday I have a final with him.
• Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circuit_theory"

The text may look like lecture notes, since its style is very close to it.

[edit] Do you think

that some of American Colleges has a course on "General Circuit theory" and I copied lecture notes...?

• To oppose this, I can state you that I'd wish to be a student of such a course. Tell me where is it? I'd wish to take it.
• Or, speaking in other words, IT IS A COURSE invented by me. The problem is that I am not a professor, so there is no audience. I have merely BS in Computer Science from Polytechnic University of New York

GK tramrunner 01:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circuit Theory

If it looks like lecture notes, lets move it WIKIVERSITY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GK tramrunner (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template images

I'm wondering, is there a reason why you're creating images of several templates instead of subst'ing them directly onto your talk page? If you subst them, you can then go in and remove the categories and whatnot so your userpage is not included in all of those categories. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for noticing. I wanted the images to appear on my userpage, but I don't want the userpage to appear in any of the automatically generated categories. As far as I know, there is no way to "edit" the automatic category off of a page while still retaining the template tag. Is there a special procedure for this? You mention "subst" - what is it? Thanks.Cbdorsett 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SUBST. In short, substitution (subst, for short) is a way to copy the text and markup that generates the template directly to the article/page where the template is. After you save the page with the subst'd templates, you can edit the page again to remove the categories. It's a little strange to try to explain, but try it out and you'll see. The way you subst a template is just to add "subst:" to it (i.e. typing {{subst:template name}} instead of {{template name}}.

If you do this, the images you've created won't be necessary, so you can then add {{db-author}} to their pages to get them deleted. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the tip. Cbdorsett 06:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did half the job :) You subst'ed the templates, but didn't then edit out the ccategory links (I just did). I also corrected the info about where stub templates should go. BTW, you might also want to add {{sectstub}}, used when just one section of an article needs work (it's put at the bottom of the section that needs expanding). Also, a couple of tricks - if you want to show the name ofa cateegorry as a link without adding the page too the category, type [[:Category:Categoryname]], with a colon at the beginning. It'll add a link like this Category:Stubs. For templates, you can do the same by writing {{tl|templatename}} - it appears as a link like this {{stub}}. Grutness...wha? 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - I can't see anything wrong with the flags... they all look like they've come out OK. It may be just your browser having a bit of trouble displaying them. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germanic languages

Hi there. I reverted your addition to Germanic Languages because your addition seems to relate to the ethnic group, not the language itself. There must be a good place for this information - maybe the pages you included as links? When you do re-insert it, please write the text without any abbreviations. Thanks. Cbdorsett 15:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I who thought that the reason why certain ethni were "Germanic" was because they spoke "Germanic languages". I must be going crazy since I still see a connection. Please, don't worry, I would not venture into reinserting something which was so widely off-topic that you were forced to revert me.--Berig 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the text was worthless, only that it was in the wrong place. Cbdorsett 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think reversion is totally improper behavior unless you are dealing with vandalism. Next time, try seeing how the inserted information might be useful and if needed rewrite parts, or even move it within the article (or to the talkpage if it can't be moved within the article).--Berig 16:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption and trolling

Adding {{dispute-section}} tags [2], [3], [4], [5] to image descriptions that accurately cite reliable sources (in this case a museum) without providing conflicting reliable sources during a dispute is either trolling or disruption. If you wish to get along with other wikipedians, please refrain from such behaviour in the future.--Berig 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elseworld's Finest: Supergirl & Batgirl

Urmmmm I have no idea why you'd revert my edits but can you put them back in when you are done? (Emperor 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

"I'll take the tag off as long as you'll agree not to revert the edits." I find this a rather odd thing to say. I only revert when there has been vandalism. When you've finished I'll take another look through things and see if there is anything else that needs fixing. (Emperor 19:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

I've been through it and just added some more links but I can't work out that sentence I'm afraid - might want to drop the guy a note. As you can see the entry had a rather unusual genesis and, while edit conflicts have happened from time to time, the rapid fire editting meant I have run into it a dozen times with that entry so had stepped back to give it a chance to calm down. It might be another round of edits might take place to clarify certain points but a nudge to the original writer might help move things along. (Emperor 14:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] What does or doesn't classify as a force

Hi Cbdorsett,

I noticed your comment on the Coriolis effect talk page.

"centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force" - neither one of these is a force"

An image that is currently in the Coriolis effect article was manufactured (and uploaded) by me. schematic representation of cyclonic flow (to be used in conjunction with this image )

I maintain a website of my own with articles about physics subjects, and a series of four of them is about the Coriolis effect as taken into account in meteorology. In my articles I use animations to illustrate the concepts. Some of the articles of my website contain material that was also uploaded by me to wikipedia.

Will you please have a look at my website, and tell me whether you agree with what is presented there about the Coriolis effect?

In the long term, I'd like to edit the wikipedia Coriolis effect article. In order to do that I need to build support among wikipedians for the edits I think are in order.

(I have edited the Coriolis effect article in the past (only the image survived), but back then I didn't understand the Coriolis effect in the way that I do now; this didn't help my credibility. My website gives my full understanding.) --Cleonis | Talk 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I think you are on the right track, but neither one of the images quite does it. Let me explain this way.

Let's start with a point on the Northern hemisphere - maybe 20 or 30 degrees N of the equator. Let's shine some heat on it. In time, the air at that point will heat up and expand. When it expands, it becomes less dense, so it rises. Nearby air which is not so heated (maybe because of cloud cover, which reflects light and heat back out into space) remains more dense, so it stays near the ground. However, the rising of the packet of air we talked about first creates lower pressure because the air is moving away (upward). Though the nearby air packets are at the same pressure they were before, that pressure is now relatively high (relative to the pressure of the rising packet). The high pressure air pushes into the place where the low pressure air is rising from.

Now, we're talking about a lot of air here, packets that might be 1,000 km across. It takes a lot of time for the packet to move 1,000 km.

Here's where the Coriolis effect becomes apparent. All the time that these neighboring packets of cold, high-pressure air are traveling, the good old Earth is rotating underneath. So now we have two objects that are moving: the packet of air and the Earth. What happens? Let's just consider a packet directly to the north of the rising packet. It begins motion in a straight south direction - directly toward the center of the rising packet. While it travels south, the surface of the Earth is moving toward the East.

Get a globe. Rotate it toward the East. While it is moving, close your eyes and draw a line straight "south" - use an erasable marker. Open your eyes and see which way that packet of air appears to have moved.

This is something you could animate. Do it in stages - I think it will make a great educational tool.

The images you made are a combination of the physics of the Coriolis effect and the physics of centripetal force. You have to keep them separate.

Let me make a suggestion. Go to used-book stores and buy a bunch of different books on weather and physics. Some will be well written and others will be confusing. The more you read and the more you think about it, the more you will understand. One of them has that unique combination of explanations that will give you the Aha! experience. There's no way to know which one it is in advance.

Keep up the good work. Cbdorsett 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been a misunderstanding.

I didn't mention the two images as a sample of my understanding of meteorology. Those two images are extremely schematized representations. Those images have been reduced to the barest essentials of cyclonic flow, to present the simplest possible picture of cyclonic flow to novices.

Inadvertendly, I have wrongfooted you, it seems.

Unfortunately, you underestimate me now. Ironical twist: you are explaining atmospheric dynamics to me in terms of Hadley's theory, which turned obsolete in the second half of the 19th century. William Ferrel was the first to improve on Hadley's theory. Ferrel's first paper was published in 1856 (Eighteen-fiftysix).

Judging from your response, you haven't checked out my website. Can I persuade you to have a look?

A few samples:

This animation from my own website concerns ballististics and satellite orbits.
This animation concerns meteorology: the phenomenon of inertial oscillations.
--Cleonis | Talk 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what you want from me. I in fact checked out your website and found it hard going. It does not help matters that you use the scientific term "Coriolis effect" interchangeably with the folk term "Coriolis force", and you mention both centripetal and centrifugal as forces. You asked me about the Coriolis effect, and that is what I answered. If you had asked me about atmospheric dynamics, my answer would have been quite different. Are you asking for my opinion about the Coriolis effect or atmospheric dynamics? Are you asking for a general review of the reams of material on your website, or are you asking a specific question? Cbdorsett 10:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What triggered me was your remark '"centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force" - neither one of these is a force"' That is my point of view exactly. I wrote the description of the schematic representation of cyclonic flow in 2005, and rereading it I notice it does contain the expression 'coriolis force'. Back then I had conformed to a usage that I have come to disapprove more and more.

The expressions "centrifugal force" and "coriolis force" do not appear anywhere on my website. (I double-checked just now with a file search; none of the files contains either the string 'centrifugal force' or the string 'coriolis force')

In my opinion, the expressions 'centrifugal force' and 'coriolis force' should never be used in physics education.

The current wikipedia Coriolis effect article is contradicting itself. It states the following two things:

A) That the coriolis force is a fictitious force B) That air mass will go into cyclonic flow around a low pressure area, instead of flowing straight down the pressure gradient, due to the Coriolis force. That means that the article states that a fictitious force is counteracting a physical force - which is impossible. So my specific question is: do you agree with me that the current Coriolis effect is contradicting itself?

Wikipedia is about building consensus. I want to address the self-contradiction issue, but in order to do that I need to find people who also spot the self-contradiction, and who also want to address it. --Cleonis | Talk 14:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's the translation swe->en

OK, here we go... Since I'm not a numismatist, so some of the words may not be correctly translated to the right terms - indicated with (?).

Imitations

An imitation (an "after"coining ?) is a contemporary copy, often in good silver, made far from the coining location stamped on the coin. The most common "stamping location" (?) on early imitations is Madînat as- Salâm, i.e. Baghdad, but they are made in Russia. The khazarian (?) "empire" (or contry ?), between the Black Sea and the Caspian could, thanks to its position, benefit from the commerce between northerners/vikings and moslem merchants. A Khazarian imitation with a tamgha (a clan- or family mark), here in the form of a branch. It is usually associated with Turkish tribes. ”Madînat as-Salâm 803-4” (Coin 12).

Two stamps (the instruments used to stamp coins?) are official khazarian with the text Ard al-Khazar (The land of the Khazarians). Ard al-Khazar 837-38 (Coin 13).

”Moses is Gods messenger" is written in Arabian on one coin (coin 14). Moses is the figurehead of the Jews. The writing is a parallell to the islamic confession of faith ”Mohammed is Gods messenger" on the islamic coins (see coin 5). The phrase ”Moses is Gods messenger” is known from earlier, from four coins from other treasures. The fictive stamping/coin location is ”Madînat as-Salâm 779-80”. The now discovered fifth coin has been stamped with (at?) a different "side stamp" (åtsidesstamp ?), ”Madînat as-Salâm 766-67”. Through this stamp all the Moses coins can be connected to a chain of stamps where the "coining location name" (?) Ard al- Khazar (Land of Khazars) 837-38 is included (see coin 13). From written sources we have the knowledge that the khazarian king and his court converted to Judaism.

Hope this helps... --Janke | Talk 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Stuart

Hi there Cbdorsett, thanks for starting off the article on the Mayanist scholar and then fixing up the redirects after the name change. And sorry 'bout my mistaken attribution of the article's creation to someone else on its talk pg, which I've just now noticed- my bad, I got it confused with another. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 05:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Cbdorsett 05:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arab coins

The first two pictures aren't clear, I could read 2 lines of the 3rd coin...The first 2 lines in the middle says "محمد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم", (Mohammed Rasol Allah Salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam) it means "Mohammed is the messenger of God Peace and prayer upon him). I couldn't read the 3rd and the 4th lines below but I could read "رسول الله" (Rasool Allah), aslo the script bordering the coin is not clear but I could read a short phrase "بحمده عالخير كله" (Behamdah Alkhair Kollah).

I guess that wasn't very helpful, sorry :) radiant guy 10:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No I did not radiant guy 05:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPW newsletter

The Writing systems WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - December 2006
News Welcome to the newsletter of the Writing systems WikiProject, everyone. Our project currently has 29 members. Any questions or requests for assistance on writing system articles can be posted at WT:WPW. Our Article Assessment Project is currently underway. Feel free to contribute by assessing and improving all unassessed articles according to the assessment page. Any help is appreciated. We would like to bring all mid-, high-, and top-importance articles to at least B class by the end of the year. We are working on implementing writing systems templates into appropriate articles. Try to help out!	Writing system articles Importance Top High Mid Low None Total Quality FA 2 1 3 A GA 2 1 3 B 14 13 31 12 8 78 Start 9 19 31 53 20 132 Stub 4 9 95 23 131 Assessed 23 38 74 161 51 347 Unassessed 0 0 0 36 891 927 Total 23 38 74 197 942 1274
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to edit the next issue, please drop a message on the discussion page.

This is the project's first newsletter. If you have any questions, comments, or ideas about it, feel free to post it on WT:WPW. Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blah blah blah

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Hessian. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Cbdorsett 15:40, 1 March 2007

Cbdorsett. For your information I removed "the hessians are pretty cool people go chikens." <-- seems to me it has nothing to do with the article, I guess I could be wrong Hence I was removing vandalism and not creating it. 208.251.68.76 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes FNB, your point being? 208.251.68.76 20:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and yes I do have an account, but am often too lazy to log in for small edits. 208.251.68.76 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User warnings and question

There is no need to place 8 warning at once, there only needs to be one warning at a time. Also, you need to warn the vandal before reporting them to AIV. Do you know for a fact that those writers aren't bisexual? John Reaves (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have looked through the IP's contributions and the categories do, in the cases that I have looked at, seem to match the authors' alledged sexuality in the article (also the category Queer does seem to be in use, and have survived a previous CFD). It might be best to engage in discussion with the contributor as a first step. Cheers TigerShark 10:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at your comment, and it is fully understandable that you acted as you initially did - it can be very disconcerting when you see questionable edits being made so quickly. Cheers TigerShark 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Rettetast 11:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here. Thanks for your quick reply and happy vandalfighting. Rettetast 11:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

:-).I am sorry for not checking your previous warnings to user. I think it is a good idea what you think about doing to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, but you should ask at the talk page since the have done a lot of work on that page the last months and may have discussed it. Have you tried one of the automated tools for warning and reverting like popups or Twinkle. Rettetast 11:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic grammar

Hi,

Thanks for your comments: yes, I'm aware of WP:3RR, and check myself against it every now and then. It's getting to the point where this user should be blocked for a while, but this would not be very effective, as they tend to edit only once or twice a day, and a block would not last more than 24 hours, I would imagine: it's not the typical type of vandalism. May be they just want us to finish off the job of fixing the transcriptions. BTW, do you know of a policy on Arbaic transliteration? Some articles use IPA, others a variation on the more traditional system used for Arabic, which is fine for semiticists but not so great for most others. I think I probably use the latter for Standard Arabic, more IPA for dialects, but am not sure this is the best solution. Drmaik 08:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful.Drmaik 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

I'll go back and have a second look. There was some recent edit warring there (which I was a part of) so I tried to be conservative in my revert. I'll try to find the earlier version you are talking about though. Thanks for the heads up. Tiamut 10:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I checked it out, but I couldn't find any problems with the current version. It's possible I missed something, so if you want to have a look again, that would be good. Tiamut 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird ... but thanks for double-checking again. Salamat. Tiamut 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] latkey

Re this old edit [6]: just for information, latkey.com is a very spammy link that shouldn't appear anywhere, and Veinor presumably blanked it on purpose. Femto 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just hi!

Hello! The reason I don't list Turkish or Faroese is because I don't consider myself to know them. And I was referring to my real name about being unique in the world ;) It's nice to see other technical writers joining in wikipedia (although I've been out of the biz for about 5 years now ever since I decided to concentrate on translating). Have you been studying Linguistics for long? I specialized in Comparative-Historical. -Yupik 10:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dingling

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for the copyedit tag on Dingling. I wasn't aware that template existed. I had attempted some copyediting back in January on that article but the main editor ended up reverting my edits. I ended up giving up. I really don't have much time to deal with difficult collaborations. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify... By "main editor" I mean the editor who is doing all the work expanding the article even though the English is poor. I haven't noticed anyone else contributing, let alone attempting to copyedit the article. I'm hoping the tag will bring more participants. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic

Hi,

Thanks for the message. I'll leave it alone for a little while. Most of your edits look good: but genitive is not used for nouns in construct state: it's the head that's in construct, and the following noun is in the genitive. Regarding genitive/ prepositional case, I've always used genitive (prepositional just doesn't fit for possessive uses) but will accept if that's the major usage. But I'll come back to it later (either in an hour or so or tomorrow). Drmaik 13:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Leo Szilard

My contribution to The World Set Free was H. G. Wells' theme of world government which occurs in much of his fiction and nonfiction. The history for Leó Szilárd contains this entry:

20:58, 11 October 2003 Dpbsmith (Talk | contribs) (Szilard acknowledged Well's "The World Set Free" as an inspiration)

I don't know the facts behind this reference but he is said to have met H. G. Wells in 1929[7]. --Jbergquist 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering

Thank you very much for your comments. I completely agree. Currently there is a discussion going on at the talk page. Please participate as I am also planning to. Thank you. Dr.K. 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)