User talk:Wolfkeeper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Sections older than 45 days will be archived.
Section age is determined by the latest timestamp in the individual sections; any section with no timestamps will not be archived by the bot. All sections archived from this page are listed here. This page's archives are split by size. When an archive reaches 256kb, a new archive is created. The current archive is Archive 1. A list of all archives can be found here.

Click here to leave a new message

1 References
2 Sorry ::me=idiot::
3 Turbojets
4 Personal
5 Reactive centrifugal force
6 Deleting other users' comments on talk pages
7 Doble quote
8 Leslie Ash
9 History of science section in centrifugal force
10 Soviet war in Afghanistan
11 Deleting troll comments

[edit] References

[edit] Sorry ::me=idiot::

Sorry, me bad:-

"attitude - position of aircraft or spacecraft relative to a frame of reference (the horizon or direction of motion"

I guess you do learn something new every day. RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotosaurus (talk • contribs) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turbojets

I did mean turbojets, thanks for pointing it out!

Matt

[edit] Personal

Wolfkeeper;

I have been reading your pages and following your links. I am very impressed by your organization and accomplishments. I share most of your interests, but have not worked at them as you have. I also agree with almost everything I have read (except of course my pet peev about the suitability of solar power for the Space Elevator).

I should add that I do not think that the space elevator will ever be pratical even if possible, as all orbits will eventualy intersect with it and the maintenance required to avoid collisions will not be worth the benefits. However it is a facinating concept. High strenth carbon nanotube derived cable will have many benefits including a role in access to space.

I support the concept of a space tether assisted launch with a scram-jet delivery craft as the most promising approach. Since reading about the Lostrum Loop, I think it has a role in this concept. Assume a space-based Lostrum loop involving a ring of satelites around Earth, instead of rotating synchronized with Earth, they are at about 2/3 to 3/4 velocity so a tether from one attaches to the almost half orbital speed of the aircraft and flings it to orbital speed at the top of its cycle. The cable in this case is relatively short, only about 100km, but has to be very strong. In order for the tether not to intersect with the pellet stream, there could be two parallel streams spaced far enough apart to allow for rotation of the tether and loads to go between the streams.

I would be interested in your opinion of this concept.

Roy Harvie--206.248.175.49 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Space junk and micrometeorites are probably likely to be problematic for large structures in LEO.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reactive centrifugal force

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Reactive centrifugal force, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Centrifugal force. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting other users' comments on talk pages

Wolfkeeper, I would appreciate if you would refrain from deleting other editors' comments on article talk pages without their permission as you did here [1]. One shouldn't compound poor grammar with poor manners. Cheers, --Simple Paradox 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't do that, there's a bug in the wikipedia server/ui that does that sometimes. I had absolutely no reason to delete your comment.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Wolfkeeper. Happy editing. --Simple Paradox 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doble quote

What about a block quote? In fact, thinking about it, the essential is the forced circulation and the small amount of working fluid. I'll have another look. Wasn't satisfied with it anyway, but it's an important point. The Doble/Pritchard boiler is an excellent shock absorber in an accident, as is the Lamont and the Velox.--John of Paris (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, it would probably be best in an 'advanced designs' section or something. Sticking it in the safety section like that was very, very clunky. Anyway, no quoting verbatim, it's illegal. Paraphrasing is normally OK.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leslie Ash

Hi. Can you tell me in what way such bacteriological detail is appropriate in an article about an actress? Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 12:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says "it was announced that she has MRSA". It does not say "she had MRSA". There is a difference. This content deatil is irrelevant in an article about an actress. If you want to treat an Admin's corrections of fact and weight in an article as vandalism, please feel free to raise a request for comment. Meanwhile, please also remember civility policy. --Rodhull andemu 18:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't even say that she announced she had MRSA, it said she announced that she had MSSA. If this harassment of me, and repeated, apparently deliberate inclusion of falsehoods in articles continues then I will take the normal steps. Now leave me the heck alone.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to ensure an article is factually accurate, well-sourced, and does not contain irrelevant information is not harassment, it is discussion. If you're somehow frightened of that, please feel free to complain to the appropriate notice board. --Rodhull andemu 18:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly editing the article to include falsehoods that are in direct opposition to associated links, and then hassling people on their talk page when you reinsert them is though.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And in what way is merely asking a question (which you have yet to answer) harassment? I will fix the article later. Meanwhile, if you have a problem with this, please take it to WP:ANI. --Rodhull andemu 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I already did answer your question, what you twice edited the article to read was a fabrication; there is no evidence that she announced any such thing. Now stop harassing me, or I very much will treat this as ANI.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of science section in centrifugal force

I've now started a section on the historical development of the modern conception of centrifugal force in that article. I am by no means an expert in the history of science, and I'm unsure about how the references I've cited hold together: I'd greatly appreciate it if you could please review the material I have added so far. There appears to be significant work on this topic by Domenico Bertoloni Meli (for example, [2], [3]), however, most of the interesting papers on this subject are behind a paywall and inaccessible to me. -- The Anome (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet war in Afghanistan

You state that "diversity rather than homogenity is enhanced by lack of mixing of one form or another". This statement is counterintuitive. It seems clearly illogical (at least to me) that a given geographically isolated country would develop a MORE ethnically and linguistically diverse culture than would another country that is centrally located and easily accessible by foreigners. Do you believe, for example, that nations with very liberal immigration laws are inherently LESS likely to be ethnically/linguistically diverse? Please explain the logic behind your assertion. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Only that homogeneity and heterogeneity are different. You seem to be confusing the two.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting troll comments

You recently deleted a comment on a talk page: [4] I'm just wondering if it was accidental or on purpouse? Granted, that IP is almost certainly a troll, but in that particular edit, there were no personal attacks or other obvious signs of trolling, and your edit summary gives no explanation. I don't object to your removal per se. In fact, I've stated before that I'd like to see that troll reverted and blocked on sight[5], but I think it needs to be done carefully and with good explanations unless the trolling that you revert is very obvious. Happy editing. --PeR (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, we've no way of knowing 100% whether it is or isn't him, but:

It was self-admittedly attempting to express the same points of view as Tombe
It knew that Tombe had been blocked
It was using an anonymous IP, as Tombe did
IMO it sounded indistinguishable from how Tombe trying to avoid the block would have sounded.
There was no point in answering him anyway, whether it was a troll or not.

All in all, any way you cut it, a waste of space and contributors time, and so I deleted it. Finally, even if it wasn't Tombe, I don't think it matters to the wikipedia (meatpuppet)

I suppose I should have given a subject, but it was kind of difficult to summarise. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Pages archived by Werdnabot