User talk:Markozeta/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

User Adoption

Yay! A fellow MechE on Wikipedia! I'd love to lend a hand in helping you on Wikipedia. Please let me know what areas you would like assistance with. I promise you I won't know everything, but I'll try my best to help you. Also, please let me know what times you generally edit on Wikipedia so that I can try to be online as well as you edit.  :-) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hola! I'd mostly like to be able to get help with style. There's a lot of people who think my wording is a bit textbook-ish (see the changes I did on relative density, you'll have to go back in the history about 6 months ago.) As a mech, I'm good with the numbers, bad with the reports.  :-P

I'm usually on during lunch at work, or today, when I'm downloading large files for work... But I'm usually on about 18:00 - 20:00, if that helps. --Markozeta (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear! Just FYI, in case I don't respond to your message within a day or so, copy the message to my talk page. My watchlist is way too overcrowded to register blips. :-)
On style, have you reviewed the basics of WP:MOS? It contains a lot of what I base my edits on when I make significant changes. I'll take a look at relative density tomorrow when I get a chance so I can review the types of changes you've made. Good to hear at least one of the two users I've offered adoption is still logging in.  :-) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Moment magnitude scale

Hey, I wanted to give you a heads up that I had to revert your change to Moment magnitude scale because it made the article contradictory; I think you missed the factor of 2/3? A one-point increase means the log has to increase by 1.5, which is a factor of 10^1.5 ≈ 31. —AySz88\^-^ 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to edit it to show the contrast, someone reverted it though, so I left it as is. My bad. --Markozeta (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Proof that the neutral axis of a beam lies on the centroid of the cross section

A tag has been placed on Proof that the neutral axis of a beam lies on the centroid of the cross section requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Booglamay (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You should probably find an existing article that covers part of this topic to include this information in. I am unfamiliar with this topic of study,m but know that an article with this title is not a valid title for this project. Perhaps you can find an article on the base topic or a closely related article to incorporate it into? If not, perhaps you can provide broader coverage of the topic instead of just the proof? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree with you on that aspect. However, I've been criticized in the past of making articles to technical for readers. I was attempting to edit the neutral axis article, and put the proof as a side vehicle. I'll simply add it to the neutral axis article then, and wait for the technical criticism to begin. --Markozeta (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

There was more than enough reason to speedy delete your article. After all, it was nominated due to lack of context. The subject was set without context - and so people reading the article (without prior knowledge) would gain nothing from it (this is kind of what the admin on the previous message was getting it). Fair enough that you were in the middle of editing it, but that's what the preview and {{hangon}} functions are for. Please don't insult my contributions to Wikipedia by calling me a "delete freak". Your article was correctly deleted (through consensus of more than one editor) due to lack of context and not the content. If - like the admin said - you can work the subject into a broader area (or at least give a little introduction or background) there's probably no reason not to have the article. Booglamay (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried {{hangon}} but the article was still deleted. Sorry for the insults, I've had a bad day. I was attempting to do something similar to the pi page with Proof that π is irrational. --Markozeta (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I should also mention that while I use preview, the problem is that my internet connection is a bit choppy, and was showing signs of going out. I've had the unfortunate problem of having my entire edit erased due to poor connections, so I saved the page. When my connection stabalized, I went back to see a message on my page. By the time I put a hang on template in, it was deleted. I guess I'm just upset about my bad connection and the circumstances surrounding the deletion. Fortunately due to the edit history I was able to copy it to the neutral axis page, where it has enough context to remain. I apologize for the insults, I did not assume good faith. --Markozeta (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries! We all make mistakes - perhaps a {{merge}} tag would have been better in this situation. At least it wasn't lost forever... Booglamay (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)