User talk:Meggar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Contents

[edit] Nice to see another contributor interested in railroad topics

It's nice to see another contributor interested in railroad topics. You might want to check out WikiProject Trains, too. Thanks, —Morven 18:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter pics

Hi, I've noticed that you've removed a picture from De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter. I reverted, but you reverted it back. I don't want to violate the 3-revert-rule but you've offered no explanation of any kind for the removal. Could you please comment over at Talk:De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter to explain why you don't think this picture should be included? Otherwise, I will replace the picture shortly. Thanks, -Lommer | talk 19:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - I just realized the problem, forget the whole thing. -Lommer | talk 19:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1942 Steel picture caption

Hello: The caption in the article steel now says that the steel is being poured into a mold. My steelmaking days were in a continuous casting plant but I think the previous caption saying that the steel was being poured into an open hearth furnace is probably correct. You can see doors of the furnace behind the ladele in the background. Molds for large forgings would be either open on all sides or else located in a pit below the teeming floor. --Wtshymanski 21:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

Hi. I was wondering why you removed the link to the Failure article? I clicked on it and found a lengthy article about the film. David L Rattigan

[edit] Swing bridge pix

Very nice contribution Image:Railway_swing_bridge.jpg. I was wondering if you have access to that site for another view. I need a good picture of a timber trestle for that article, and the right approach to the bridge would be suitable. Thanks, Leonard G. 04:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The new pix is nice and will illustrate the principle (you will see in 5 min in Trestle, but where is "here" (where the longer pix are)? Leonard G. 01:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the image, the article now looks great! Best wishes, Leonard G. 01:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have created a taxobox for bridge type articles that includes an image and image title - this is needed to avoid bad image flow around the taxobox in some circumstances, and also seems appropriate as a presentation (see clapper bridge). The problem is that now the trestle article is dominated by the taxobox image (due to its aspect ratio) and a clip of this would cut off useful information. The wooden trestle really should be the introductory image, but an image more resembling the steel trestle shown would be better for the layout. Any possibility of an image that would show what the current wood trestle image shows, but with a more appropriate aspect ratio? (I know this sounds a bit fussy, but I think layout is important, especially for this suite of articles indexed by bridge, which I hope to bring to featured article *suite* status.) Thanks, Leonard G. 01:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relays

Yes, good edit on that one. Light current 05:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for helping with spammers. Pavel Vozenilek 23:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ditto -- you beat me to one today, and when I looked I saw you got about 5 from the same person. Way to Wiki! Coll7 01:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Sevigny and everyone else

"Alright, that is a good link for Chloë Sevigny being part Polish. If she says so then it is correct. That is the only acceptable criterion. Each person picks his or her own label, if any. No other facts or opinions matter. Meggar 03:04, 2005 September 6 (UTC)"

OBVIOUSLY. Where do you think all of my info is from? Either interviews or biographies/profiles, etc. That is my area of expertise. Don't revert ANY of my info unless you can find something that directly contradicts it (and I don't mean those one-sentence trivita bits on some websites that say Leelee Sobieski is of "Polish and French" descent", many bits like that are either out-rite wrong or misleading. Interviews or in-depth profiles are the only good sources). Most of the "Jewish Americans" people would hardly consider themselves "German Americans" or whatever, especially after having to escape whichever country to avoid persecution. And none of the ones I removed have any actual ethnic German/Latvian/etc. ancestry.

Anyway, just because Sevigny's last name sounds French doesn't mean she is 100% French, as you have obviously discovered. She probably just has some distant French ancestry - and I only left the "French heritage" thing on there for novelty value. Never ever assume anything, check. I have checked - so either trust me or find info that proves me wrong. But never just revert my edits without proof of your own. Very counter-productive.


[edit] Blue Raspberry /Black cap

Dear Meggar, I dont know if you live in the L.A. surroundings, but since I remember we went to Westwood to collect "Blue Raspberries". No one called these dark red to clear blue raspberries(Rubus leucodermis-not Rubus occidentalis) a blackcap-just blue raspberries. Blackcaps have been kinds of boysenberries aud other black-not blue colored rubus species. Saludos --Quer 20:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pin and sleeve/IEC 309

over at Industrial and multiphase plugs and sockets you added "Pin and Sleeve circular connectors are not compatible with the newer IEC 309 type.". The way this is written kind of implies that IEC 309 is used in the US too. Is this the case? Plugwash 21:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Afraid not, though I'm not aware of the vandalism in the first place. MOD 19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wooden trestle bridge approach.JPG

Hi, just curious but where is the bridge in Image:Wooden trestle bridge approach.JPG? Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turbine

I have put some arguments on the Turbine talk page. Please read and comment.--EvenT 10:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ledum groenlandicum.jpg

Hi Meggar,

I am moving your picture to commons, its name there is . You put a nice GFDL tag on it, which means we need to specify a source. Did you take this picture yourself?

t.i.a.,

TeunSpaans 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(compliments, btw, nice pic))

Done, thanks. Time to put names on the others. Meggar 19:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lift and Bernoulli's principle

Hi there Meggan,

Thought I'd drop you a note in regard to the "Wing" article and your reversions. My amendments to the "Science of the wing" was an attempt to make the "Wing" article consistent with the "Lift (force)" article. I'm not sure if you are reading the "Lift(force)" article correctly. The Lift(force) article is a very comprehensive and correct discussion on lift and it actually attributes lift to Newton's third law of motion. It then raises Bernoulli's principle and the mathematics behind it which can be used to calculate lift (as Lift is one of the variables) but it is not responsible for lift itself.

It states "The force on the wing can also be examined in terms of the pressure differences above and below the wing.". The words "...can also be examined in terms of..." are very different from "...can be explained by...".

In fact, further down the page disguised under the title "Common misconceptions - Equal Transit Time", the author says exactly this (I based part of my edit on this text). "Equal Transit Time" which is what the Bernoulli effect claims to do to the air flowing around wings to create lift, is a misconception (It probably would have been more obvious if the author titled this "Bernoulli Effect"). Reading it he actually states "Such an explanation would predict that an aircraft could not fly inverted, which is demonstrably not the case." and, "It is unclear why this explanation has gained such currency, except by repetition by authors of populist (rather than rigorously scientific) books and perhaps the fact that the explanation is easiest to grasp intuitively without mathematics...Albert Einstein, in attempting to design a practical aircraft based on this principle, came up with an airfoil section that featured a large hump on its upper surface, on the basis that an even longer path must aid lift if the principle is true. Its performance was terrible."

Hope this helps.

Best regards,Fthiang 04:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] You did not put the homology link back into the article

Please stop deleting the discussion page homology material which is meant to settle disputes. It is rude behavior. 136.183.146.158 06:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] singer

May I ask you, why did u change the image of Indian singer from the article. There also 2 other images. But why don't u change that also? Jpandey 08:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potato revision...

I just looked over an edit I made yesterday to the Potato article's 'Trivia' section - Why was the factoid about Dan Quayle removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkmtech (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Edit to Protist

Hi, sorry about about the revision. Is it a good idea to just leave the table and create a sub-section for the 4 main phyla? KeybladeSephi (Talk) (Contributions) (Autograph) 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/g/User_talk%7EMeggar_4f61.html"