User talk:68.110.171.226

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special:Contributions/68.110.171.226 User_talk:70.167.217.162

Appears you can't edit new pages, so I may be done with Wikipedia now...

Contents

Personal Statement(s) / History

Be Bold

Be bold in adding new facts, and modifying organization or correcting english, or re-writing for style or flow.
Be cautious in deleting facts, disputed or otherwise. Preferably caveat them within the article. If you have to, move them to the Talk page.

I'm much more of a 'put it out there, and let everyone work to improve it' type of person. Who knows when, or if, I'll have time to finish something up, and the work I've already put into a project should be accessible to someone else. Otherwise they'll have to re-carve the wheel that I've already done in order to get started on the axle, which will eventually lead to a nice cart for us to use.

Primary example of this is Pearlash. I'd only found reference to it in my readings on Potash, so I'd added it there, but still linked it up (red-link). Hadn't gotten around to messing with it until last week or so, and found someone else had made an article indicating it was a precursor to baking soda. That was information I never would've found out... And now of course, Potash is doing much better, and links to actual chemical formulas. Ahh, joy!

Articles of mine that you won't see my contributions on, because of the way wikipedia is organized:

  • Lists of fictional animals (and most of the sub-lists that I also created: historical versus fictional, indices of the lists, etc) - Which has/had been listed as an unusual article. (check out the discussion). There were also admin-edit wars on this, taking out several of the articles, a couple of times....
  • Spacecraft propulsion - I can't even find any acknowledgements of my first edits were on this one... but damn, that was like in 2001/2002? Several revisions ago. I was the first to include specific impulse and thrust in the list of proposed propulsions: mainly because I read the list, saw Ion drive (much used in fiction, but also real) not listed, and did some research on it. The manufacturers listed the specific impulse their drives were capable of, and I included it. Which then prompted everyone else to research theirs...

No new page creation for wikipedia.

I've now found 4 topics that wikipedia does not cover. And I've not added them, because wikipedia does not want them added.

Personal Notes

Hi ender! Haven't seen you in a while... Dysprosia 02:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Been around. Different IP addys, but this one is fairly stable for awhile... Been busy, rm -r * my home directory, and other fun things :P


[edit] Deleting Articles

[edit] Who needs US National Monument articles on Wikipedia?, Delete!

I've deleted two of your articles so far. Encyclopedias have articles, not just links. You need to write in sentences, locate your sites, and say why they are historic. Wikipedia is not an link farm. If you want any help, let me know. jimfbleak 06:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? Which two? I'm not making link-farms.
And I'm curious, why do you think, apparently by default, that U.S. National Monuments are not historic?
And, why aren't you proposing for deletion, and allowing people time/opportunity to fix articles?
According to Wikipedia:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion, The Cases, paragraph 2 - you shouldn't be deleting it while I'm working on it. I also assume you're going to say that you were following policy: Articles, section 3. There was however more than just a link or a category in those articles. And using any type of common sense, would show that the article could be redirected (I just couldn't find it, because there were not redirects, and the categories weren't done). Following policy is a good thing, try it.

[edit] Administrators playing God

Seems that someone deleted Category:Theories created on 2005-05-20. Recreated 2005-05-30. And I'm probably keep recreating it until someone tells me why I shouldn't.
A much better way to get rid of this category (should you dislike it) is via following policy (above), or doing a personal note (like Hobbler-Bosch) below.
~ender 2005-05-30 05:05:MST

[edit] Topological map

I've redirected to cartography. If this is a problem, let me know. --Viriditas | Talk 09:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Aloha. I don't understand your comments on my talk page, nor your entry on the current dab page you created, although it might make good sense to have a dab page instead of a redirect. The example you left on my talk page is that of a metaphor, so that doesn't really help. I'll try modifying the dab page instead. --Viriditas | Talk 03:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbler-Bosch synthesis

Hello, it seems that you created this article based on this web page, which contains the text

Vaclav Smeil, an energy geographer, has asked people about the most important invention of the twentieth century, the most important and the most fundamental, in existential terms, for the largest number of people. He says nothing comes close to the Hobber-Bosch synthesis of ammonia, first introduced in 1913 and commercialized after World War I. Synthetic nitrogen now supplies about half of the nutrients to the world's annual and permanent crops. Roughly one-half of humanity is now alive due to Hobbler-Bosch synthesis. So we can ask how many of the 5.3 billion global total population would be here without this nitrogen input and the natural gas that is the feed stock for it.

In my reading, the point is that Hobbler-Bosch synthesis is a process to make ammonia, which is used for making fertilizer, and the invention of this process helps the survival for half of humanity. In fact, the author probably means the Haber process, which is also called Haber-Bosch. So, I think the Hobbler-Bosch synthesis article is wrong. First, I wanted to list it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, but then I realized that we could short-circuit the bureaucracy by doing a speedy deletion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). If you agree, then please put the text

{{deletebecause|I am the original author and I created this article by mistake}}

on the top of Hobbler-Bosch synthesis and somebody will delete it. You can of course replace the text by any other text. Cheers, Jitse Niesen 02:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contact process

Why redirect contact process, with a lower-case p, to contact Process, with an incorrectly capitalized P? The redirect should go in the other direction. Michael Hardy 20:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because all the stuff I was reading had it as a proper noun, thus capitalized. I see someone has already changed it however...
~ender 2005-06-07 02:04:AM MST

Thank you for experimenting with the page George Washington on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Dcflyer 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)