User talk:Geoffrey Wickham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia! Hello Geoffrey Wickham, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are some tips:

Contents

[edit] Thanks for Pacemaker Info

Geoffrey many thanks for the pacemaker info. Sorry for my tardy reply. It could be good material for somebody to incorporate into the Wireless energy transfer page. Best regards.Charles 15:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. There are also the help pages for self-help and the village pump and IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance. You should also feel free to ask me on my Talk page.

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. Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, however, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person. Please read my further comments below and again, welcome! —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL•20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telectronics

Sorry, but I fail to see the logic behind your post on my talk page. To begin with, your revert was not encyclopedic, and it appeared to not follow WP:NPOV. Also, your revert 1 included a removal of the article's sources. These must remain on the page as per Wikipedia policy. Please do not Assume Bad Faith against me, there is no reason to complain. If you disagree with the article bring it up on the talk page before making any significant edits. I will keep your edit for now, but the sources must remain. Kepp in mind we reserve the right to revert. --Winter 03:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

(Reply posted)

[edit] Talk:Telectronics and Welcome!

Thank you for starting discussion on the talk page. I have been privately contacted by Mr. Gray via email and was prepared to side with him until I realized what the issue was. I hope that he chooses to respond to your comments on the talk page in a WP:CIVIL way. I urge both of you to follow the policy I just linked to in your dispute. If your attempt at communication doesn't work, we have the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process.

I realized that no one had welcomed you yet, so I did so above. You will find a number of helpful links, although you seem to be doing a great job figuring stuff out on your own. On the talk page for Telectronics, linked above in my section header, you wrote the date and your initials. It is faster, and standard in Wikipedia, to sign comments by using tildes; I've explained it at the end of the welcome above. If you want to make a new section, bracket the section title with equals signs, e.g. ==Title==. Wikipedia is formatted likea block style letter, so single carriage returns do not produce a new line. To insert a single line break type: <br>. If you want to make a second paragraph, like this one, put two carriage returns making a blank line between the two. If you edit this page, you will see what I mean. The tutorial and how to edit links I left above will cover this. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL•20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the comments I left at User talk:203.217.44.70 regarding the Telectronics talk page.—WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General editing tips

You don't have to say who the last editor was and apologetically edit the article (Telectronics[1]. I know that you had a rough start here, but be bold. You can just say wording change. SJ's contributions are no more valuable than your own. I will admit that the apologetic nature of you summary is only my opinion, but that is how it came off to me. Also, as a logged in contributor, you have special benefits, like being able to mark your edits as minor. Just above the "Save page" button there is a little check box that says "This is a minor edit;" checking this box marks your edit with a minor edit mark, saving you the trouble of writing it yourself. If you click on the history tab for this page, you will see two examples of the minor edit mark (my previous two edits). —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telectronics Mediation

I'll see what I can do. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 02:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The plan

First, go to Telectronics/rewrite. Here you will find a copy of the current article. I would like you to change whatever it is that you want added to the current article here. If all goes well and the article is improved, then we will change the actual Telectronics article to the rewrite edition. I'm signing off for the night, but I will be back on to check up. Make sure you edit Telectronics/rewrite, not Telectronics. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 02:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Telectronics

Well, then there doesn't really need to be any mediation here. I'll just watch the page and revert any vandalism, since it is in good shape right now. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 17:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to make an Arbitration request

elements cross-posted

The edit link it asks for is this one, which contains the formatting template - then copy it out below and fill it in.
If this doesn't work, please ask again. :-)
James F. (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Request for arbitration re: Telectronics

Geoffrey, unfortunately I am not in a good position to look into your case, as I'm incredibly busy these days. I recommend you have a read of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration - you may find answers there. Sorry I could not be of more help. Cnwb 06:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Telectronics

Hi, regarding this comment that you posted, please read WP:NLT. I know you are upset about this, but if you are indeed in the right, and have reliable sources that back up your viewpoint, consensus and/or arbitration will eventually take place that will lead to a ban against this other editor should he refuse to cooperate.

Thanks for understanding. --Chris (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fact

Nope, no hijacking. :) Just a a typo. It should have been {{fact}} instea of {[fact}}. Thanks for noticing. Garion96 (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help with Telectronics

Regarding your request for help with the Telectronics article. To take on a matter as complex and cumbersome as the Telectronics edit war is beyond my means and abilities. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which points to numerous avenues for resolving disputes. Hope this helps. Cnwb 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Göppingen

It is Göppingen not Göttingen. Look at the web site of Schempp-Hirth [2]. Please do not amend articles without at least doing some basic checking. JMcC 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to CLINMED et al.

I've noticed that you've been editing medicine related articles -- from your contributions. We have a place where the medically minded people hang out: WikiProject "Clinical Medicine". You are invited to join or just browse the talk page, which is also known as the doctors' mess.

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Other helpful people are Samir (an internist), QRS (a retired Aussie cardiac surgeon -- that's around occasionally), Ksheka (a cardiologist), Dlodge (a cardiac surgery resident) and Jfdwolff. Nephron  T|C 06:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi,
Sometimes things can be a little bit frustrating... as Wikipedia doesn't (yet) have a formal review process for every edit and doesn't treat an uninformed editor different than a Nobel laureate. Also, people stray outside of their area of knowledge... or just aren't knowlegable period. At some point, I think there will be a formal peer-review process-- the German version of WP is experimenting with it apparently.[3]
That said, I think, with some patience, good faith (WP:AGF), and lots of references (WP:REF, WP:CLINMED/Writing_medical_articles) most of the time things work-out alright in the end. Often, in convincing people you disagree with, a better article is created. Nephron  T|C 00:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email address

Welcome. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia.

One suggestion, rather than posting your email on your user page (where the spambots can find it), there is a Wikipedia form people can use to send you email. This is the link and an example of the form:

[[w:Special:Emailuser/Geoffrey Wickham|Email me]] produces: Email me

You need to allow users to send you email in your preferences by selecting the "Enable e-mail from other users" box (and saving your preferences).

Enjoy! Dlodge 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This link is also available on the left under "E-mail this user". I have reverted the user page to the user's last edit per their request on my talk page. ju66l3r 21:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: A bit of help please

Hi, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you.

I moved Victor Parsonnet. Details on how to move a page are here --> WP:MOVE. The short of the long of it is-- every page has a tab cross the top that says "Move". If you click on that you can move the page in most circumstances.

...and the article Cardiac resynchronization therapy where I suggest deletion because of duplication

If you see something that is wrong... you can be bold and just do it. If someone disagrees... you have a discussion and come to an agreement. Any case, on the topic of Cardiac resynchronization therapy -- it would be best to do a redirect -- WP:redirect. A redirect is the proper way to deal with something for which there are several names. If you're curious about whether a redirect has been created for a given article-- click on the "What links here" in the 'toolbox' on the right. As an example-- here is the link for CABG --> Special:Whatlinkshere/Coronary_artery_bypass_surgery.

Both are a long way from nephrology but it's more about Wikipedia procedure than clinical procedures.

I'm interested in things cardiac and, actually, I published a paper on the hemodynamics of CABGs a while back... but I'm tied up with other things now-- a nephro paper I started... med school... trying to get a residency spot (in radiology)-- which is up in the air at the moment.

Feel free to continue posting on my talk page if you have questions... if you're okay with sometimes things taking a while. I do usually respond. That said, I'll point-out that you can also post on WP:CLINMED's discussion page... someone is always around there and odds are you'll find someone that is willing to help-out. WP functions because most people are good... and interested in writing a good encyclopedia.

As for the breast implant bit... I wouldn't see it some much as "taking flack". Any case, you can see that (1) being tolerant of a diversity of view points is an asset and (2) you can learn from people that have a different perspective. I'll point-out that the issue is complicated... and if you look at the RFC (WP:RFC) related to it (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jance)-- you can, perhaps, also learn something about how WP functions. Nephron  T|C 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Fire Swirls

For some reason, the link still doesnt work, so I just searched for google and found it. I'm not sure what you mean by collaberation, but I have added the document as a reference to dust devil. Feel free to contact me any time, though right now I am more focussed on school than Wikipedia. -Runningonbrains 05:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial hearts

Thanks for the info about the pacemakers. Dailly Rubbings 00:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Query

Thanks for your kind words. As far as copying the definition from that link I don't think it would be appropriate for a couple reasons. Obviously there is the initial concern about plagiarism (the page does have a copyright) but mainly Wikipedia is not a dictionary so I think adding all of that to the disambiguation page wouldn't be proper. The good news is that the sister project wiktionary is a dictionary. What might be best for the composite materials page would be to link to the wiktionary page, this can be done by adding [[wikt:matrix|matrix]] (matrix) rather than a normal piped link. The wiktionary page could then be improved to the desired level. I'll have a look at matrix as well, disambiguation pages aren't my specialty but if it just needs a little TLC...

Also, the tip on my user page you mentioned is actually just a template that changes every day (what excellent timing). You can add {{totd}} to your own user page if you would like it to be displayed there as well. I hope this answers your question (in a round about way) and if you ever have any other questions about wikipedia feel free to ask, I'd be happy to help if I can or at least point you in the right direction! Stardust8212 03:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cardioversion

Very nice job! MoodyGroove 12:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] Bede BD-5

Copyedit from my "talk" page: "Seems we both have more than a casual interest in aviation ! I felt that I should talk with you about the edits I made & your reversions. The changes I made were with best intent; to clarify a few points for better understanding by readers less familiar with sports aviation than you or me. To the various points: The "claim" of being easy to fly. This claim was contained within brochures received by an SAAA member who sought my counsel in the late 70's. My opinion was not supportive of the claim. I suggest that later experience showed the original design, and even the later variants, to be not easy to fly. "Most popular aircraft in modern history", which I changed to "most desired, albeit unproven, light aircraft". I suggest that the most popular a/c in modern history is probably the 747; hence my qualification "light aircraft". Re "Most popular" it was probably the 'most unpopular' experimental cat. a/c among those who purchased kits; but as evidenced by the sales volume it was certainly the "most desired". Re my words "albeit unproven", the record shows that it was definitely an unproven design that was offered. Re "decidely fast" or my words "far too fast", this is mainly semantics, I think 'far too fast' gives a better understanding to the layman. Re "rewarding, if demanding', to which I added "to the pilot" because that is where the decision about any a/c being "rewarding, if demanding" lies. Go kindly Geoffrey Wickham 05:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)."

Hello Geoffrey, thanks for taking the time to write to me. You certainly have laid out an interesting case for the submissions you had provided in the Bede BD-5 article, or should I say, a set of clarifications and elaborations for a number of "edits." The original poster/editor had carefully built the case for the characterization of the Bede BD-5 as a popular homebuilt with reference to contemporary magazine articles that featured the aircraft. Your initial edits IMHO altered the article in a significant way. This may occur even when revisions revolve around a single word especially if it changes the meaning or intent of the original submission.
Unfortunately some of the supporting statements you have provided in your above notes appear to be based on your personal observations or even your own professional judgment. As such, they are not valid within the strict Wikipedia format which requires substantiated statements from second and third-hand sources. In order to place the provisos of "unproven, "most unpopular" or flying "far too fast" there has to be corroborating evidence in the form of cited reference sources. When you state the "record shows that it was definitely an unproven design" and you offer no documentation, then this statement is considered a point-of-view. In Wikipedia, all articles have to be considered encyclopedic with "neutral" tone established. If indeed "the record" can be established then there will be second and third party reference sources that will substantiate that claim. Nothing prevents an article from tackling controversial or unanswered questions, re: Brewster Buffalo or the disappearance of Amelia Earhart, but authors/editors are obligated to thoroughly document the statements that are in variance to accepted or established information.
You have also taken issue with the article in terms of the popularity of the aircraft. I contend that popularity is a nebulous term. How do you measure it, in sales, numbers flying, longevity, user or brand loyalty or... A number of "popular" aircraft types spring to mind, but their popularity can also be based on the era in which they predominated, such as the Concorde or Supermarine Spitfire. One of the points that may have to be clarified is in the type of aircraft the BD-5 represents, which generally can be considered a "general aviation" type as opposed to a "commercial" aircraft mainly used for passenger carrying wherein a general aviation aircraft is a personal or recreational aircraft (sometimes with passenger capability such as the Piper Cub). The Bede BD-5 can also be considered a "homebuilt" or "experimental" aircraft.
One of the reasons for asking for a case to be made is that whenever major revisions are made to the context, sense or direction of an article, these changes are stated in the form of a discussion question in the "talk page" associated with the article. My suggestion is to set up a discussion on the Bede BD-5 talk page and then proceed to put the statements you have made into context in relation with the accepted or authoritative sources you have provided. FWIW Bzuk 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fire whirls

I have updated the article on fire whirls. I haven't gotten into vortex dynamics, although I do intend to expand it to include such information. If you're still interested, feel free to give it a review and make any improvements as you see fit. One thing that is definitely needed is differentiating between flame vortices (small to larger scale) and whirlwinds that form without flame or even outside the fire area, since different processes are involved. I've found publications scant on fire whirls, unfortunately. Evolauxia 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your input; my slow response was not intentional. Regarding the photographs I added to the external links, although I think there may be differences in vortex dynamics/morphology as well as generative mechanisms, they do seem to be fire whirls in that there is an active intense fire. Those just seem to be downwind or away from the burn area and consist of smoke and other debris rather than flame, but the rising and convergent motion from the plume is still buoyant and organizing vorticity (whether the source be environmental, fire, or a combination; or whether downwind or within the burn area). I'm getting enough verifiable information now that I should be able to write something up on various types. I'm coming from an atmospheric sciences background and lumping all whirls caused by fires into the fire whirl category, including smoke/debris devils without any flame and outside the burn area (as is common practice in the literature [4] as well as in the fire service training videos). I also have noticed some differences to other kinds of atmospheric vortices such as you noted near the top of some forms of fire whirl, however, they do seem to me to be vortical (perhaps even a Rankine vortex, certainly it describes some kinds, at least). Can you provide an example of the turbulent upward flow you are thinking of that isn't vortical?
I have been searching for further literature (and found a decent amount by cross-referencing) as well as examples of fire induced vortices. I've personally witnessed some, although I don't have direct experience with major wildfires or other very large fires. I've seen some videos by the US and Canadian forest services (and would assume there has been treatment from other entities such as in Australia since they pose a hazard to fire fighters besides simply being an interesting phenomenon), and also know of some work at the Météotron in the Pyrenees of France (I did a search and added a good work to the article). Additionally, there are a number of good videos on youtube showing various forms of vortices and giving clues to dynamics and different generative mechanisms. Variants of the search fields "fire whirl", "firewhirl", "fire tornado", "firenado", "fire devil", "fire whirlwind", etc. returned results, a handful of the most notable being:
Here, also, is an interesting example of supertanker fire vortices in Monthly Weather Review. My search thus far has been limited to Google; Scholar for literature, Images for photos, and Video (which includes youtube) for videos. I'm looking into hard-to-find forest service and Météotron publications and videos. I've heard that fire whirls occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (some horizontal vortices are produced even in the explosion phase); incendiary bombing did produce firestorm associated whirls occurred in Germany, Japan, etc. Similar vortices have also been observed with volcanic plumes. Evolauxia 00:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Being both a pyromaniac and a vorticmaniac? ;-) I've played with fire and built physical vortex models (and know a fair amount about numerical/computer modelling), using tracers and although I've considered it would be nifty, not combined the two essentially using fire as a tracer. Evolauxia 11:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding images (a reply to your post to the Australian Noticeboard)

A knowledge of HTML isn't required for editing Wikipedia. We use our own custom wiki-markup language. Just edit the article you wish to add the image to, and include the following

[[Image:NameofImage.jpg|right|thumb|Caption]]

replacing the filename and caption accordingly in my example above. That's all there is to it. It might pay to read over Wikipedia:Image copyright tags if you wish to release your own photographs. -- Longhair\talk 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are wanting to upload an image that is on your computer to make it available for use on Wikipedia here's what to do. If you are uploading freely licenced images, it's a good idea to create an account at Wikipedia Commons so the images can be shared with sister projects (eg other-language Wikipedias). Once you've done that, upload the file from your computer. Here is the procedure to follow:
  • On the main page of Wikimedia Commons, click on "Upload file" (located on the panel to the far left of your screen)
  • Once on that page, click the text "entirely my own work" (if it is)
  • On the next page click "Browse..." to find the file on your computer and choose that file.This automatically fills out the boxes "Source filename" and "Destination filename"
  • Fill out the summary (description and date)
  • Select a licence in the "Licensing" box
  • Click upload file --Melburnian 02:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Experimental vortex.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Experimental vortex.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding image to article

You can now just copy and paste the following into the article. Note that the image name is case sensitive, hence .JPG is needed in this case to match your given file name.

[[Image:Experimental vortex.JPG|right|thumb|Caption]]

--Melburnian 01:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the duplicate image --Melburnian 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see what happened, if you copy the text directly from "User talk:Geoffrey Wickham" rather than from "Editing User talk:Geoffrey Wickham" which has the nowiki markup, that will fix it --Melburnian 01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the image at Telectronics, the image title was not quite right. I usually copy and paste the image title from commons, rather than manually type it as it's easy to make a mistake, especially on long titles. --Melburnian 01:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial pacemaker

Hi Goeffrey,

With regard to the Artificial pacemaker article, feel free to post on WP:CLINMED. It isn't an exclusive club. All comments, questions and suggestions are welcome. On cursory glance, the article looks good. Nephron  T|C 07:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)