User talk:Samw/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Contents

[edit] A Samw page

I created a Samw page before User:Zoe kindly created User:samw. Would people agree I should delete Samw?

It redirects to your user page so it is fine as-is. --mav

--- no problem thanks User:Smith03

[edit] Prescription (medical) vs Medical prescription

Hi,

Don't you think it would be better and more natural to rename Prescription (medical) to Medical prescription ?
--Kpjas 15:53, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why not both? Either might be used. I'd say, have MP #REDIRECT to P(M).
-- Paul Rfc1394 15:07, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Nylon

Hi. Regarding Nylon and its alleged trademark status: In "Made in America" I seem to remember Bill Bryson talking about products that had lost their trademark status due to their names' becoming generic terms. Nylon may have been one of them. However, I attempted to search for a trademark, dead or alive, and only found derivative trademarks ("C Nylon"). I might have to search for something more in-depth at the library to resolve the issue. -- sugarfish 05:47, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Aspirin, Escalator and Cellophane are three words that lost trademark status in the U.S. due to use as if generic. The trademark owners failed to police properly. I suspect nylon is the generic name for spun glass fiber. -- Paul Rfc1394 15:07, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I copied open-loop from closed-loop and must have missed that. If you know controls, you could help immensely in fleshing out the articles. It will take me months to get them all done, especially given how easily I am distracted by random other pages. -rs2 21:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Knots

Are you still interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Knots? kmccoy (talk) 18:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Knots. I could use some oldbie help. Johan Andersson 08:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candy Apple

Thank you for your contributions to Candy apple. Jrobinson5

[edit] Copyvio

I got this from a Google image search for doughnut. It probably is a copyvio, but maybe someone can get permission. --Jrobinson5 19:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Siphon

> Would you be able to add labels for the points and heights described in the Bernoulli's equation section?

done 213.51.209.230 22:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

I've been working on some templates that grant the WikiMedia foundation permission to set one's contributions into any copyleft license it chooses. That way I could let the WikiMedia Foundation relicense my contributions if the need arose. For example, {{WikimediaTextLicensing}} produces the following:
Licensing rights granted to Wikimedia Foundation
I grant non-exclusive permission for the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to relicense my text contributions under any copyleft license that it chooses, provided it maintains the free and open spirit of the GFDL. This permission acknowledges that future licensing needs of the Wikimedia projects may need adapting in unforeseen fashions to facilitate other uses, formats, and locations. It is given for as long as this banner remains.
What do you think? I'm was hoping for some input from others before finalizing the wording. I was not intending this to replace the multi-licensing campaign, but to supplement it. In other words, still give explicit permission to use the CC-by-sa (for WikiTravel), but for future reference let WikiMedia choose for me. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 03:05, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CSD

Heya, good to see you patrolling for bad pages, however keep in mind speedy deletion is only intended for a few very narrowly defined categories of pages, the rest has to go throught Votes for Deletion. You can find the criteria at WP:CSD. --fvw* 14:50, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

[edit] Main namespace cleanup

In an effort to clean up the main namespace, I've moved your old main namespace userpage to User:Samw/old, as there's some edit history you might want to keep. Otherwise just delete it. --fvw* 12:26, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Please don't have the old redirect deleted just yet, we need to fixup the links to it first. If you want to help along and remove them it's much appreciated, but if you don't our little main-to-user-link cleaning taskforce will get to it soon enough. --fvw* 18:59, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

[edit] Quarto by email

Hi Samw, a new mailing list has been set up to distribute news about the Wikimedia foundation, specifically at the moment to publicise Quarto. I saw your name on the quarto talk page requesting a copy by email, and I think this mailing list is how we're going to do it for the moment. It'll be a html email, which I've added to the Quarto talk page m:Talk:WQ. Mailing list is called Foundation-news-l (We also need translators!) Cheers w:User:Cormaggio

[edit] Reading spark plugs for racing

Hi Sam

Thanks again for your support and help.

The reading spark plugs page is hard to classify because while it seems to deal with spark plugs, it really has to do with diagnosis using spark plugs as a media. It is no more about spark plugs than a book on Shakespeare is about books.

That’s why I didn’t add it to an existing page in the first place. After reading all the pertinent sites I could find, I placed it on its own with links to and from other pages in a logical, sequential fashion. Thinking the only way to see it would be to link to it or search for it directly. Still I don’t see a comfortable place to merge it into.

It should be in a place organized something like this: Encyclopedia>technology>automotive>engines>high performance engines>High performance techniques>reading spark plugs for racing

Rather than: Encyclopedia>technology>automotive>engines>components>spark plugs

The page that it can be merged with nicely does not yet exist. To make it a stand-alone article might be needlessly difficult when, once a suitable page does exist, it can be simply transferred as is. I thought placing it on its own as a stub would be the best interim solution. I didn’t think it would enrage anyone. Really, who will see it that is not looking directly for it?

What do you think?

=Nick



[edit] Voigt notation

Thanks for cleaning up the Voigt notation page. I was hoping someone would get to it.

[edit] Shoe polish

Hey buddy, thanks for tidying up the shoe polish page; you may be able to tell I hadn't really made a page before. Shoe polish rox. Proto 12:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

Sam, thank you for the warm welcome to the Wiki. I never have much time, but I am involved in a variety of pursuits and feel that I should be able to pitch in every once in a while. Thanks again for the welcome note with all the useful links!

DeweyQ 05:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewellery Quarter/Temp

Jewellery Quarter/Temp is not a copyvio of [1]; the latter is simply a wikipedia mirror, with a proper reference to wikipedia at the bottom as required by the GFDL. Thue | talk 18:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian reserves

I moved those for consistency. All first nations reserves are given the names that StatsCan uses. This is for the sake of convenience, because- if I were to write an article on a reserve I didnt know much about (aside from having stats on it) I would want to use the official name, because I would know the more common name. Just something to consider. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Nichole Arsenault

Unfortunately, someone speedy-ed it and I'm NOT happy. What is the purpose of fighting and agreeing to rewrite something if it only gets speedy-ed by someone pointing to a Vfd (that I wasn't a part of). IF I repost (adding what we discussed), and it gets speedy-ed again, then I'll be labeled a vandal. This sucks. Antares33712 19:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Re: welcome and genericized trademarks

Thanks for the welcome. Getting the hang of everything I think. I only changed the list to capitalize everything at the beginning of each bullet, not because each term should actually be capitalized. But I am not sure if I am doing this talk thing correctly. Jcrwiki 19:12, 7 Jun 2005 (EST)

[edit] Wikipedia:Bible source text

Hiya,

having read your vote, I have created three new sections of the voting, would you consider moving your vote there, as I feel it might be more appropriate? ~~~~ 19:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Reading spark plugs for racing

Why was this page speedy deleted? There was a VfD. The decision of the VfD is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reading spark plugs for racing and it was to transwiki. The tag at the time clearly indicated that if it could be reworked, it shouldn't be transwiki'd. I and the original author reworked it. Furthermore, I notified all the original VfD participants of that and their comments to keep the article are now logged in the talk page. Can you please restore the article? (You can respond at the article talk page.) Thanks. Samw 21:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It was Dmcdevit who transwikied the article and Master Thief Garrett who deleted it. My involvement was only peripheral, in that I tagged the article as a speedy after it had been listed in the "Have been transwikied and await deletion" section of the transwiki queue (this section is now obsolete, since the new CSD case for vfd'd-and-transwikied articles took effect), and the talk page after it had been orphaned.
I do not recall whether the article was still tagged {{move to wikisource}} when I tagged it, and since I was performing neither the transwiki nor the deletion, I did not compare the article to the state it was in when it was vfd'd. If it was indeed different enough that the vfd should not apply, I suggest that you list it at Votes for undeletion; as I am not an administrator, I cannot restore the article. My own opinion is that the article as transwikied still reads like a how-to, which are better suited to Wikibooks. —Cryptic (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Signing" the talk page

Hi, Thanks for the advice about this. I think I was just confused by this page. --Hamiltonian 03:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We met at the James Harris Simons page.. You were wearing a red sweater... I was arguing with the waitress...

Sam, just noticed your edit at the Simons page. I'm curious to know what you think of the article, Simons himself, and how you found the page.

It's been a blast developing the article, and there's lots left to do.

Also, if you're interested, check out the new John Keston page.

Paul Klenk 02:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back! Good to hear from you. Paul Klenk 00:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Transwiki to wiktionary

Thanks for notifying. It's pretty apparent, no matter she/he agrees or not, that these articles are not dictionary definition. :-D — Instantnood 08:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We seem to disagree on Evangelical

Hey, I've been doing some disambiguation link repair on the Evangelical disambiguation page and saw that you had reverted a couple of changes to articles on your watchlist. I apologize for re-reverting Pascal's Wager before I checked the history, but I'll leave the other up to you. My reason for changing the link on Pascal's Wager to evangelistic was that not all evangelicals use the "Hell insurance" argument, but those Christians who do (evangelical or not), are engaging in evangelism. My reason for the change to What would Jesus do? is that in the U.S., the word evangelical is most commonly used to refer to evangelicalism. Links from pages should be as specific as possible, and avoid linking to disambiguation pages. I would rather that the word evangelical be struck from that article, but I am not bold enough to make such drastic changes. Please either revert to the evangelicalism link, or post your argument here. Thanks, BonsaiViking 03:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Continued discussion on the talk pages of both articles. Samw 03:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Math rendering - Thanks!

I was hoping someone would fix that. Tom harrison 11:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome message!

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia & for providing helpful information! I am assuming this is the talk page you referred to where I could ask you quesitons. I'm not sure that you want a long post from a random person on your talk page, but I do have a few questions. Would I be able to e-mail you at your gmail account listed on your user page? ARA 06:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NYSDTF Full title

Created new page with New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and created a redirect from NYSDTF to the full title. That should work a little better =) --N3twrkM4n 00:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternating tread staircase

Thanks for the pointer; I uploaded a new image -- Diomidis Spinellis 16:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note from User:Mbeychok

First, let me say that I appreciate the time you have taken to look at contributions and to change them for the better. However, I would like to have a semi-philosophical discussion about these comments of yours on my Talk page: I think the content is fine and the Wikipedia community will eventually address the formatting/style issues. I think the issue that people are having is that your articles are isolated from the context and content of the rest of Wikipedia.

What that really says to me is that you feel highly scientific or technical engineering articles are isolated from the context of the rest of Wikipedia. Visit the Thermodynamics category and, for example, you will articles such as Exergy, Free energy and [[Conjugate variables (thermodynamics)]. I dare say that 99% of the visitors to Wikipedia haven't the faintest notion what those articles are about nor do they wish to learn about them. Does that mean they are isolated from the rest of Wikpedia? On the other hand, although I have absolutely no knowledge of or interest in abstract modern art, I do understand that it is a subject worth including in any encyclopedia.

You made one other comment:"Accidental release source terms" has maybe a dozen Google hits. Encyclopedia subjects should be something that people search for. I completely agree with you. But in order to do a successful Google search, one must know something about the subject being looked for in order to formulate a query that works. For example, I just did a Google search on the word Flow plus the phrase Source terms using the Google advanced search function and I got 149,000 hits rather than just a dozen hits. Samw, the phrase source terms is definitely technical jargon, but it is jargon that is familiar to a great many scientists, physicists, engineers and university students who are familiar with fluid dynamics and similar fields. If I dumb the title down, they'll have a difficult time finding the article in either Google or Wikipedia. On the other hand, if visitors take just a minute or two to read the first few sentences of that article , they will find a simple, plain English explanation of what is meant by "source terms" and by "accidental release".

I will be looking here on your Talk page for any response you may have to offer ... and please excuse me for being so long-winded. - mbeychok 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I hope deeply technical/scientific articles will appear on Wikipedia. There are lots of science undergrads writing on Wikipedia and the thermodynamics category has been well built up over time (like mathematics). Engineering, for whatever, reason, has less writers. (I guess we engineers are stereotypically illiterate.) As for accidental release source terms, I take your word for it that it is an established phrase amongst the right group. The "context" problem is that there isn't even an article on source terms nor accidental release. I would suggest these articles should be written first. Furthermore, "accidental release source terms" isn't used anywhere else in Wikipedia right now. Hence it is out of "context" of the rest of Wikipedia. Hopefully, one day, they'll be lots of chemical engineers writing for Wikipedia and and there will be a rich set of articles surrounding these subjects and then this article will be "in context". Without the supporting articles, you can understand why some are taken aback by it (just like folks were when reading spark plugs for racing appeared when the spark plugs article was in terrible shape. Samw 21:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
To quote an old cliche, "Rome wasn't built in a day". I only started in Wikipedia a few weeks ago. I have already created the new category of "Air dispersion modeling" and I have now populated it with five articles ... plus contributing other articles and slowly learning how to Wikify my articles. I don't think that is too shabby for just a few weeks. I am sure as more people in the air dispersion community slowly join in, phrases like "source terms" and "accidental releases" will receive much more attention. If there are any meteorologists, physicists and/or engineers on the Wikipedia working in the nuclear power field or the field of security against airborne bioweapons and you know them, you might ask them to get involved in the new "Air dispersion modeling" category. - mbeychok 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong; your contributions are fabulous. The issue is the context in the rest of Wikipedia. To use your analogy, Rome's sewers and roadways are in terrible shape and you're busy building an art gallery. You can understand why others don't know what to make of your contributions. The whole fun of writing in Wikipedia is to collaborative nature; otherwise you might as well publish on your own website. Without other experts in your field, it's harder for the Wikipedia community to appreciate the writing. Sorry, I don't know of other interested parties in the Air disperson modelling category. Good luck though! Samw 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you give me a little advice?

I want to contribute another article for the Category:Air dispersion modeling. It will be a list (fairly large) of the air dispersion models available worldwide with perhaps a sentennce or two about each one. Are there any Wiki policies or listing styles that I should be aware of? Thanks in advance. I will watch for your answer here in your Talk page. - mbeychok 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lists which then points to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Samw 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galloping minds

hi -- this company Galloping Minds.. I tried to edit their information (put in some original content), but it keeps reverting back to an old post which says the information is violating copyright. What do you think..

Follow the instructions on the copyright page and create a new subpage with the new content. Samw 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for collaboration.

Hello,

Thank you for tagging the Blue Stone article for wikification. However, if you would, could you please {{wikify-date|April 2006}} tag instead of the {{wikify}} tag? An effort is underway to make it easier to sort through articles that may require wikification, and your assistance with this effort will be greatly appreciated.

Cheers. Folajimi 13:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for smaller TeX font for creating equations

This is an equation created with Wikipedia's TeX font for math markup:

Q\;=\;C\;A\;P\;\sqrt{\bigg(\frac{\;\,g_c\;k\;M}{Z\;R\;T}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{2}{k+1}\bigg)^{(k+1)/(k-1)}}

This is the same equation created using WikiCities' TeX font for the very same math markup:

Image:ChokedFlowCAPUS.png

It is quite obvious that the WikCities TeX font is smaller than the Wikipedia's TeX font. In my opinion, the WikiCities font is also much neater and tidier. What I mean by neater and tidier is that it is much closer to the size of the regular text so that the overall look of an article that uses equations is more balanced.

Also, the smaller TeX font allows for displaying longer equations (within the limited display screen width) than does the Wikipedia font.

I submitted a request to Bugzilla about a month ago asking that Wikipedia make available the smaller WikiCities font as an alternate option ... not to replace the font now used by Wikipedia, but only to offer the smaller WikiCities font as an optional choice to Wikipedians. My request was assigned the bug number 4915. Anyone can vote in favor of proceeding with the bug request at Bugzilla Bug 4915 and thus far I am the only one who has voted to proceed.

If you agree with me that the smaller font should be offered as an alternate, please visit the bugzilla page at Bugzilla Bug 4915 and scroll down to the page bottom where is says "Vote for this bug" and do so. If you are not already registered with bugzilla, it will ask you to do that first ... but it only takes a minute to do so.

If it isn't correct for me to lobby you for the smaller font, please let me know. Thanks and please vote.
mbeychok 00:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the Wikicities business model correctly, they plan to stay on the same software as Wikipedia. So, I'm sure they'll eventually be reconcilled. Personally I don't have an opinion. Samw 01:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omnipresence

In response to your removal of the cite needed on Islam, Sukru removed the entire section on Islam without any rationale. I reverted his edit, which is likely vandalism, but I thought you should know in case he tries to start a revert war, KI 20:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Medical prescription - Exhibits

Yes I agree that the main text mentioned the exhibits - I was though about to so alter the main text. I think that various aspects of regulation of prescriptions (physical form details, completed information, prescribing data, pharmacist handling etc) should be described. Where there are specific variations then this also to be indicated in the text. If a fact needs to be cited for verification, then citation details in a footnote seem far more appropriate than reproducing long lists of regulations.

I generally try to adhere to the 1RR, so please see Talk:Medical prescription#Legal Regulation "Exhibits", for further discussion and an example of how I envisaged copyediting the article :-) David Ruben Talk 14:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reading spark plugs for racing listed for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Reading spark plugs for racing, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reading spark plugs for racing/3. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-- SonicAD (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sam

Now its in wikibooks and of course the same shit all over again.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Votes_for_deletion#Reading_spark_plugs_for_racing

Im thinking I need a better place to make information accessible to others, wiki seems like it panders to the lowest common denominator.

--=Motorhead 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets get together!

I think we should all sit down and drink and eat and what not. I propose a meetup at Future Bakery, on the corner of Brunswick and Bloor, on Wed. August 16, 2006 @ 7pm. Lets discuss it. joshbuddy, talk 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your deleted content on Tadeusz Pankiewicz

The information you deleted from the page on Tadeusz Pankiewicz, his birthplace, can be easily found by clicking on the interwiki link to the article in Polish (Polski) in the lefthand navigation bar under "In Other Languages". I've restored the information without marking it as an internal link. If you know this fact to be in error, it would be best to note that on the article's Talk page to indicate the need for further editing. Otherwise, if all you wanted to do was "correct a redlink," that would be better done by removing the paired double brackets surrounding the text, rather than deleting content. If I made an error in style in citing his birthplace along with date of birth, I'd appreciate its revision. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 06:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome!

I've seen most of the articles you recomended, and I think they are quite good!

I'll be looking at technical articles mostly.

Could you tell me where can I find mathematical, chemical or other sort of technical templates (as flowsheet diagrams, box diagrams, etc ?

Is this sort of stuff available in wikipedia? because I wanted to add some interesting things in this presentation.

Whatever your answer is, thanks a lot and happy editing for you too!

regards WiKimik 05:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)