User talk:Vinsci

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia, Vinsci.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - Lady Tenar 00:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Webb

Aloha, thanks for your email. I appreciate your thoughtful response on this matter, but I think it would be helpful if we discuss it on Talk:Gary_Webb. --Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article requests

Hi Vinsci. I ran across your stub for Smith diagram. Just so you know in the future, the accepted way to request an article is through Wikipedia:Requested articles. Just add an entry on the appropriate subpage (for the Smith diagram, I believe that would be Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences). A stub should ideally contain at least a basic definition; otherwise editors who come along might have no idea where to start improving the article.

The other thing to look for are synonymous terms which may already have an article. In this case, I've created a redirect under Smith diagram which now points to Smith chart. This way, content doesn't have to be duplicated and updated in several locations.

Happy editing. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! I had a feeling there was probably a better way and should have trusted that. Did a search though, in hindsight we probably tried searching for 'Smith graph' which failed of course and we obviously didn't do a full text search for 'Smith diagram'. Ah, well. Thanks for setting me straight! --Vinsci 09:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red Squad

I added more information to the Red Squad article you began. I removed two paragraphs and explained why on the talk page. I am writing here because there was a sub-topic on the page with nothing in it. I did a google on the name and it turned up nothing about Red Squads of any kind. Otherwise, I would have expanded that too. Kainaw 20:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Kanzius

You claimed here that the patents numbers I put earlier are from 1880s. Can you prove that? Because the links I put there clearly said 2005 and 2006. I will not reverted. But I do have to response to such false claim. Also, please don't label everything as vandalism. Go see WP:Vandalism. Chris! my talk 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You clearly never tried to use the links yourself. Simply go here to view your old version of the article and click on the "PDF Version" (the 2nd link) on each patent. Eg. the first patent link in your list is number US251233, "Vehicle-spring", dated Dec 20th 1881. Also, I didn't say it was vandalism, I said: "Hopefully that was unintentional vandalism.", a term that is used on the WP:Vandalism#Warnings page itself. "Unintentional" simply means you made a mistake when editing the article. We all do mistakes and I'm sure you will be more careful in the future, so don't worry too much about it. --Vinsci 06:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Kanzius

Vinsci, since you and I clearly disagree on what deserves to be covered in this article, why don't we wait for the other editors to chime in and not edit-war on the article page. Cheers. Abecedare 19:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed ;-) However, I think progress should be made towards merging the invention sections on their relevant pages as suggested, after that, readers shouldn't have a problem finding the information they are looking for and editors can concentrate on one thing (ie. the inventions, or the person). --Vinsci 19:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Aside: although we apparently have a different understanding and point of view coming into this topic, I appreciate your civility throughout this whole debate. Cheers. Abecedare 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts on John Kanzius

Hi Vinsci, you appear to be going substantially over the three-revert rule limit at John Kanzius. For example, on Sept. 15 you made at least the following separate reverts: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Note that the three-revert policy applies to any three reverts to the same page, not only repeated reverts to the same version. Please be aware of the policy, and avoid revert warring. Thank you. --Reuben 00:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of the 3RR. It does seem we have left those edits behind for now. --Vinsci 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, happy editing! --Reuben 01:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)