User talk:SunSw0rd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
- If you leave me a message, I'll respond on your talk unless you request otherwise.
- Please leave your message below this line.
Contents |
[edit] Messages to SunSw0rd
Stuff here.... SunSw0rd 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Use Case
Hello SunSword, I have started a discussion on the talk page of the use case about your last modification. Could you come and join the discussion with us there? Thank you. --Huygens 25 08:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Taekwondo
I removed this section from the World Taekwondo Federation page:
"For Dan certification in the USA, the instructor must have at least a 4th Dan Kukkiwon certificate and USAT membership. Furthermore, the school must be a registered USA Taekwondo Club prior to processing."
The USA is a catagory 2 Member National Association (MNA) of the WTF. This means that any person holding 4th Dan Kukkiwon and above, can send application for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Poom/Dan directly to Kukkiwon and DO NOT have to be a member, or go through the USAT in Colorado Springs. However, persons of 4th Dan Kukkiwon and up that are members of the USAT can apply through the USAT for those who are also members. In the USA, we have the right to apply both ways.
In catagory 1 nations, like Saudi Arabia, no one can go direct to Kukkiwon, they must be a member of their WTF MNA, and must apply with that MNA.--Bigzilla 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of Tools (Performance Engineering)
Per WP:NOT#DIR, we don't maintain a directory in Wikipedia. Yes, we have WP:SAL, so it's better to separate lists with main article, Performance engineering. — Indon (reply) — 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, List of GUI testing tools is terrible. Full of spam and commercial external links. The whole article does not comply with WP:EL and WP:SPAM. — Indon (reply) — 15:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Performance engineering
Sorry, it seems that I made a mistake by removing the reference to Java performance in the Performance engineering article. Reading it quickly (too quickly, I reckon), I thought that it was not about software performance (CPU, etc..), but more about organizations performance. I agree that it was a mistake, so I have put the link back ;-) However, I still think that this article lack sources and sounds a bit to theoretical to me (which is maybe one of the reasons why I made the mistake). I will put it in my watchlist, and try to help (adding sources), if I can Hervegirod 20:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Phaistos Disk's Face B
I noticed that you have suppressed the mention I put that the Phaistos Disk's faces had a top like a spinning-top, saying that you have seen "no reference" of that. My simple question : have you ever seen the Disk yourself, Sir ?.. As for the references, I'll give just one. Here is what Yves Duhoux has written in his book on the Disk ; " Face B is remarkably flat, with nevertheless a small bulge in B30. A similar bulge can be also seen on Face A (in the central area).." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.198.193 (talk) 18:11, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
-
- I made 2 points. One was lack of reference -- and the one you provide here does not equate to the disk being like "a spinning top" -- although it is interesting. The other suggestion is that you should get a login name instead of coming from an IP address if you plan to start editing pages. But I didn't "suppress" anything. Get a log in, provide a good reference to your spinning top idea. And possibly, place it in its own subsection of the article.
[edit] Anti-gravity
Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 00:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Peshtigo Fire
The references I eliminated had nothing to do with the Peshtigo Fire; they were related to a fringe theory that a comet impact was behind the Pleistocene extinctions in North America, something that took place roughly 12,000 years ago. This would have been a massive, catastrophic event (if it happened). I consider the comet theory of the origin of the Peshtigo and other simultaneous fires a "crackpot" explanation, something that only deserves to be cited for historical reasons. Small, grain-of-sand-size pieces of a comet produce what are commonly known as shooting stars when they enter the earth's atmosphere. They burn up completely high in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. If a larger, meteorite-size piece of a comet managed to reach the ground, it would act like a meteorite and lose any surface heat in its passage through the atmosphere. However, it is most unlikely that a piece of a comet a few feet across would ever reach the ground, because comets have a loose, ice/dust composition. Moreover, the passage of a significantly larger fragment of a comet through the atmosphere would produce a fireball that would be visible during the day, and thus could not have escaped notice. What makes the comet theory even more ridiculous is that fact that there were numerous fires already burning in the Peshtigo area, due to the land-clearing practices of the time, as a reference I added points out (http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200211/27_hemphills_peshtigofire/); did you read this? The point is, there is absolutely no need to explain the source of ignition of the Peshtigo Fire, which is already known. Given this, and the tinder-dry condition of the forests at that time, all that was needed to create the forest fire was a stiff wind, which a cold front provided. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Right. But you are missing the point here. The point is not that the comet theory is, in your opinion, a "fringe theory." The point is that, as an encyclopedia article, the article should identify the fact that there are a number of sources that have asserted that the Peshtigo fire was in fact caused by a comet. It does not matter whether or not these sources are correct. What matters is that they exist. Deleting a reference to articles asserting that in the past comets have caused fires (whether or not in your opinion those references are themselves "fringe") -- is not OK. The simple fact is -- there are people that believe this and there are references to comets causing fires. The reference to meteorites is itself less valid than references to comets -- the theory, fringe or not, is that a comet, not a meteorite, caused the Peshtigo fire. Please understand -- it doesn't matter whether or not your scientific background leads you to believe that of course the comet theory is hokum. That is really not relevant. What is relevant is that people for more than 100 years have asserted 3D/Biela as the source. Deleting supporting references to "clean up the science" is in fact not OK -- regardless of the truth of that theory or not. SunSw0rd (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to me that one person suggested that the fire could have been started by a comet, and this fact is not being suppressed by me or anyone else. No one ever asserted that the fire actually was started by a comet - there was never any evidence for that. While the comet theory indeed deserves mention for historical reasons, its shortcomings also need to be pointed out. That is all I have done. Did you actually read and understand the references I deleted? They are not about comets starting fires - they are about a comet impact throwing dust up into the atmosphere that caused climatic cooling around the world. They are irrelevant to the Peshtigo Fire article. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK cool down. I didn't say anything about "suppressing" anything. But it is more than one person. (1) Ignatius Donnelly referenced this in 1883. (2) Mel Waskin in 1985 published "Mrs. O'Leary's Comet" suggesting this. (3) Robert Wood (retired physicist) had a piece on the Discovery Channel suggesting this.
- As for the references you deleted -- they were in fact regarding the "Comet Wiped Out Early North American Culture" story. Which itself may be "fringe" BUT -- relevant in the sense that they assert that a comet can be hot. As the articles assert that this comet melted the North American ice cap. Really, I don't object to those references being deleted but -- then we should delete the references to meteorites being cold since -- they are not relevant.
- It would probably be better to have an expanded section on the comet theory, providing background, discussion, and then the evidence debunking it. What do you think of that? SunSw0rd (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I'm not in favor of an expanded section on the "comet theory" because I don't think its credible. You and others can do as you see fit; I'll edit if I think it's appropriate. Now, about those references I deleted, which seems to be the main thing you are objecting to... I have rechecked both of them and neither says anything about comets starting fires. Even if they did mention something about comets starting fires, it would not be relevant because this is in the context of a major impact event, not a meteor shower of the sort proposed (without good evidence) to be associated with the 1871 fires. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to me that one person suggested that the fire could have been started by a comet, and this fact is not being suppressed by me or anyone else. No one ever asserted that the fire actually was started by a comet - there was never any evidence for that. While the comet theory indeed deserves mention for historical reasons, its shortcomings also need to be pointed out. That is all I have done. Did you actually read and understand the references I deleted? They are not about comets starting fires - they are about a comet impact throwing dust up into the atmosphere that caused climatic cooling around the world. They are irrelevant to the Peshtigo Fire article. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Right. But you are missing the point here. The point is not that the comet theory is, in your opinion, a "fringe theory." The point is that, as an encyclopedia article, the article should identify the fact that there are a number of sources that have asserted that the Peshtigo fire was in fact caused by a comet. It does not matter whether or not these sources are correct. What matters is that they exist. Deleting a reference to articles asserting that in the past comets have caused fires (whether or not in your opinion those references are themselves "fringe") -- is not OK. The simple fact is -- there are people that believe this and there are references to comets causing fires. The reference to meteorites is itself less valid than references to comets -- the theory, fringe or not, is that a comet, not a meteorite, caused the Peshtigo fire. Please understand -- it doesn't matter whether or not your scientific background leads you to believe that of course the comet theory is hokum. That is really not relevant. What is relevant is that people for more than 100 years have asserted 3D/Biela as the source. Deleting supporting references to "clean up the science" is in fact not OK -- regardless of the truth of that theory or not. SunSw0rd (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
