User talk:Mandel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Tony Leung

Hi, I notice that you have started adding material to Tony Leung Chiu Wai. Please note:

  • Personal quotes have previously been removed from this article to Wikiquote, see [1]
  • You have left some unfinished sentences and pointers at the end of your work a few days ago. Please tidy this up soon. In future you may want to enclose such work-in-progress between <!-- and --> so that they are saved but do not appear in the article.
  • Please also add references to identify your sources. Thanks, Fayenatic london 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celsius edit

Your recent edit to the Celsius article had several inaccuracies and needed to be immediately corrected. First, you had mentioned the "freezing point" of water. There is a difference between the melting point and freezing points of water. Although many people consider them to be the same, at the millikelvin level, they are different. Accordingly, precise thermometry experiments used to always use the melting point of water for defining the Celsius scale. Today, ITS-90 makes use almost exclusively of the melting points of various elements. The difference between the two is, of course, defined as whether heat is going into the sample during the measurement (melting) or is going out of the sample (freezing). Secondly, the Celsius scale is only approximately 100 divisions between the melting and boiling points. This is an old, outdated definition; since 1954, the Celsius scale has been defined by two entirely different points. As a result of this new definition, there are, today, only 99.9839 degrees between the melting and boiling points of water. The proper definition of the Celsius is precisely covered by the very next paragraph of the article. There is certainly no need for an outdated and scientifically incorrect "definition" immediately before the paragraph that gives the proper one. Your effort at getting the value "100" into the article may be well-intentioned, but can certainly wait for the very next paragraph, which properly addresses the issue by stating as follows:

“Until 1954, 0 °C on the Celsius scale was defined as the melting point of ice and 100 °C was defined as the boiling point of water under a pressure of one standard atmosphere; this close equivalency is taught in schools today.”

Also, Anders Celsius's contribution is overstated when one writes that he developed “the prototype” of the scale. Celsius developed a backwards version of the scale where zero was the boiling point! Accordingly, it's more accurate to state that he developed a "similar" scale. The contribution you made appears that it may have come right out of a textbook of some sort. However, the textbook you chose seems to have been geared to a scientifically entry-level reader and, unfortunately, has several errors and inaccuracies. It was certainly not an encyclopedic resource. Please delete this message at your next convenience. Greg L 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved this all to the Celsius talk page. I see you are making contributions to cinema, music, literature, sports and Chinese. I don't intend this to come across as insulting but your understanding of science isn't as developed as it needs to be in order to make factually correct, encyclopedic improvements to technical articles. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know jack about cinema, music, literature, sports and Chinese and haven't made one single contribution to such articles. There have been long, vitriolic battles over weeks and months and the product you see on that page has satisfied all the contributors to date. But these contributors were all scientifically minded. I'm an engineer and scientist and have corresponded with literally dozens of Ph.D. scientists while working on temperature-related articles on Wikipedia. I also know that I am a total dill-weed when it comes to the arts. I don't think that makes me stupid. It just means that's not where my interests lie and I therefore don't know much about it. Please don't make a battle out of the edits you made to the Celsius article; they were simply i-n-c-o-r-re-c-t. Greg L 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hi, please kindly use edit summary to indicate prod and afd, thanks. --Vsion 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit to English language

Hello. Thank you for your recent edit to English language. Your edit included one or more links to the page Spanish, which is a disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to English language to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) --Russ (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exercise Northstar V

It's for saving time, 2hr or 5 days, the end result would be the same. I contributed most of the content, and agree to merge. Just pretend that you didn't raise the afd, instead we agree in merging after discussion. Be cool! --Vsion 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I protected PRoC, but I did not protect Gautama Buddha. That article has not been hit that frequently in recent days. Nishkid64 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DBS iB Secure Device

Not it's fine for AfD - I see someone has updated the DBS Bank page to include it (maybe you) which I hadn't realised at the time I reverted it.

--PeterMarkSmith 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antimony discussion

Mandel, may I suggest that you calm down and actually read what I wrote?

What is wrong about William Shotyk's publication is not the measurements he reported—I think the measurements themselves are probably accurate—but his apparent suggestion that the time dependence of the increase might be linear. If one reports concentrations at two different times, laymen like you immediately infer that the concentration will keep increasing at the same speed. In fact, the increase will not be linear, but will slown down. Indeed, the rates of chemical processes are usually not linear.

Since you did not understand my previous attempt to explain this, let me try again without math. For any substance diffusing out of a solid, at first the speed is fast, and then it gets slower and slower as time goes on. In other words, first the molecules that were close to the surface of the solid come out. They are able to do so quickly because they do not have to travel far through the solid. As time goes on, the molecules coming out have had to travel further through the solid and that takes longer. The natural law governing this is Fick's Second Law of Diffusion.

For substances coming out of plastics, Fickian diffusion has been shown to be true for all cases studied (in those journal references I suspect you did not bother to look at; certainly you did not understand them). There is no reason to suspect that antimony might disobey the Fick's Second Law. (As it is against Wikipedia policy to cite unpublished work, that is the best I can do on this point.)

The upshot of the slowing of the rate is that we never get anywhere near the allowable concentration in water, not in one year, not in ten years and not in 500 years. I have no doubt that Shotyk will eventually discover how the increase is slowing, so the antimony concentration stays in the safe range, as he keeps measuring his samples over the next 2 or 3 years. I do wonder whether he will bother to publish his results when he gets to that point.

You are apparently also worried that no one is taking the complete exposure toward antimony into consideration. Taking such things into consideration is what public health authorities do when they set standards. Let me explain how toxicoligists and government agencies arrive at "allowable concentrations". First, they take data from all the studies and determine the no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL), which is the amount that you should be able to ingest daily all life long with no ill effect. Then they divide the NOAEL by a large safety factor (100 or 1000, depending on the factors involved with the data quality) and the result of that is called the "tolerable daily intake" (TDI) or sometimes also the "acceptable daily intake" (ADI). Then the toxicologists consider the various kinds of exposure possible (air, food, water, etc.) and set allowable concentration limits for each type of exposure based on that. So, the various kinds of exposure are taken into consideration and in addition there is a large safety factor. Having a large safety factor is important, for as you noted, if we err it should be on the side of caution.

So your marathon runner may keel over from heat exhaustion, but he won't from antimony, even if the bottles are a tad old.

Have a good day.

CindyB 17:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chekhov is important

This comment of yours and some other people's posts about Anton Chekhov eventually got to me and stirred me to action.

Should I add a cleanup sign to the article. Looks like this article has good use for cleanup and research. Chekhov is important.

I've now worked the article up to what I hope is a decent standard and submitted it for Featured Article. If you're still active on Wikipedia, I'd be interested in your thoughts. qp10qp 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on football articles

I just wanted to stop by and show my appreciation for your comments and good suggestions on improving football articles. I could not agree more with you when you said that football articles don't need to be long, but they should be accurate. Thank you for the valuable feedback, keep it up! --ChaChaFut 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major edit 2

Sorry, I can't understand your comment. I don't see you in the edit history anywhere, recently. What are you editing and where are you editing it? (Sorry, might be me being stupid, but I'm confused. AndyJones 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you. AndyJones 17:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare project

I noticed your changes to the main page, and just wondered if you'd like to join. You're very welcome to. Wrad 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I think I may still desagree

Yes, I understand about the folio editing. But is is also commonly accepted that Macbeth as also added to (all the Middleton stuff). Without those Hecate scenes, it was, perhaps, even shorter.

Anyhow, my point is (badly being made, I realize) is that the plays are what we have today - not the earlier versions. No one knows about "earlier versions" or their playing time. As far as the 37 + or - plays that we have today, Macbeth is indeed the shortest tragedy. If we qualify this, it muddies up the opening without explaining it. It seems out of context. Why not just explain in under the textual heading. That info would seem to go there. Does that make sense?Smatprt 19:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Also - are you sure that date and text should be seperate on the shakespeare play articles. I don't think I agree at this point. Take a look at Macbeth, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet to see how intertwined dating and text publication are when it comes to the plays of Shakespeare. I think in many cases, all the dating eveidence we have is based on the various testual publications, quartos, folios, etc.Smatprt 20:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:RedChamber1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RedChamber1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigrTex 18:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RedChambe6.jpg

I have tagged Image:RedChambe6.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 18:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:HuangJX.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HuangJX.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare project collaboration

The Shakespeare Project has begun a collaboration to bring its main article, William Shakespeare, to FA status. If you wish to contribute, please review the to-do list on its talk page. Let's make this article an FA! Wrad 15:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese language

Thank you for your excellent work on this article. If you like to chase down references (I don't) we could get this to GA or even FA status.

Also, please consider joining WP:CHINA. --Ideogram 11:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:DeerandCauldron.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DeerandCauldron.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Encarta.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Encarta.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Naxos.gif

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Naxos.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:XRCD.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:XRCD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You might help

We've got that anti-Strat Smatprt on the ropes in the Shakespeare Authorship form. Come and join - I'm convinced you can land him on the canvas. (Dukeofrutland 19:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

LOL. I have filed a report on Smatprt in the administrator's forum arguing for a ban. You are welcome to contribute testimony. [[2]] (Felsommerfeld 11:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare Collaboration

The Shakespeare Wikiproject is starting another collaboration to bring Romeo and Juliet to GA status. Our last collaboration on William Shakespeare is still in progress, but in the copyedit stage. If you have strong copyedit skills, you may wish to continue the work on that article. Members with skills in other areas are now moving on. Improving Romeo and Juliet article will set a standard for all other Shakespeare plays, so we look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks for all your help with the project. Wrad 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate

The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Next Collaboration to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 04:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet

The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RedChamber2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RedChamber2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DGlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DGlogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Shediao-merge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shediao-merge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)