| Revision as of 00:02, 24 April 2010 editSpinningspark (talk | contribs)89,216 edits →Oscilloscope: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:10, 24 April 2010 edit undoSpinningspark (talk | contribs)89,216 edits →Oscilloscope: Referencing is always worthwileNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| Sorry I restored the text while the discussion was still ongoing. I restored before I had read your post so I did not know that anyone was opposed to its inclusion per se, I thought it was just an issue of verifiability. After all, you have been editing this article for a long time and have had plenty of opportunity to remove it before this came up. ] 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | Sorry I restored the text while the discussion was still ongoing. I restored before I had read your post so I did not know that anyone was opposed to its inclusion per se, I thought it was just an issue of verifiability. After all, you have been editing this article for a long time and have had plenty of opportunity to remove it before this came up. ] 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :Referencing gets done one little piece at a time. It is ''always'' worthwile adding a reference. You are out of order criticising me for doing so, even if you believe it is an unimportant part of the article. I had already said on the article talk page that I had no objection to the passage being removed, so why was it necessary to get bitey with me afterwards? | |||
| :You said on my talk page that "I'd no sooner try to schedule any Misplaced Pages editors than I'd try to herd cats" but on the article talk page you had previously responded to me with "Dig up something on PC oscilloscopes, or how sweep works, or *anything* - the article needs that much more than a side-trip down a dead-end". That reads to me as if you are exactly trying to "herd cats". ] 07:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:10, 24 April 2010
Wdl1961
You might have an interest in this: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wdl1961 Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Image removal from Stainless Steel article
As you have provided no justification for re-adding an image that makes an encyclopaedic article "not safe" for use in a lot of workplaces, and for that matter that may well cause it to be blocked by child protection software, I'm removing it again. There are plenty of photos available of stainless steel being used, we don't need one with a scantily clad model in. Much though i like the picture, there's a time and place. Please discuss on the talk page of the article if you feel more examples of stainless steel are needed (personally i feel this would add nothing to the article - the applications are limitless and the article makes that pretty clear) I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/Queued_images#Content "Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)." Provider uk (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
EDTA reaction with sulfated lead plates
You may find the chemical reaction analysis and a few more details regarding the way EDTA cleans the Pb plates in lead acid batteries on this page:
http://sulfarid.com.my/sulfarid_howitworks.htm
You say 'Still not sourced; battery additivies have a long and unsavory history; EDTA dissolves formerly useful active materials'
I have better things to do than keeping on reverting the page content due to your lack of knowledge. If the sulphate crystals are not dissolved, a part of the lead plate will be permanently coated with lead sulphate and therefore be inactive, and will slowly result in a dead battery. Therefore, with or without EDTA, the 'formerly active materials' are still useless. With EDTA, the formerly active material lost is the sulphate, which can be refreshed at any time with fresh acid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.67.65 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
(Blaze Labs Research (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC))
Oscilloscope
Hey, what's with all the criticism? I responded to doubts on factual accuracy by finding verifiable sources. What's wrong with that? Yes, you are right there is much else in the article that needs improving, but I was interested to find out if the "washing" claim was true and having done the research, I posted the citations. One of my pet hates on Misplaced Pages is editors who try to schedule the work of others: if you think that there are more important things to research references for in the article you are welcome to go do it. But please do not tell me or other editors that they should be doing it, we will decide for ourselves what we want to work on.
Sorry I restored the text while the discussion was still ongoing. I restored before I had read your post so I did not know that anyone was opposed to its inclusion per se, I thought it was just an issue of verifiability. After all, you have been editing this article for a long time and have had plenty of opportunity to remove it before this came up. SpinningSpark 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Referencing gets done one little piece at a time. It is always worthwile adding a reference. You are out of order criticising me for doing so, even if you believe it is an unimportant part of the article. I had already said on the article talk page that I had no objection to the passage being removed, so why was it necessary to get bitey with me afterwards?
- You said on my talk page that "I'd no sooner try to schedule any Misplaced Pages editors than I'd try to herd cats" but on the article talk page you had previously responded to me with "Dig up something on PC oscilloscopes, or how sweep works, or *anything* - the article needs that much more than a side-trip down a dead-end". That reads to me as if you are exactly trying to "herd cats". SpinningSpark 07:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)