Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:20, 4 June 2018

Re: "level-headed and balanced assessment of the situation"

No problem. This is a very delicate situation where groups have dug in trenches long before this specific issue came up. Emotions can run high, and with all the mounting ridiculousness on Twitter and FB, it's a relief to check the Talk page and find someone like you there. Please, keep it up. clicketyclick 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The above

I have left the above on my talk page not as indicative of my level-headedness, of which I possess almost none, but because in the over five years I have been editing, no-one has ever suggested before that I might be the calm voice of reason. I look forward to it happening again in 2020 or so.

A cynic would observe that, on this occasion, some of the other editors involved may have been associated with the "ethics in internet misogyny" crowd, and that even I look good next to them. Particularly if that cynic was me getting back to my usual unreasonable self. :-) Pinkbeast (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2015

Injector Page Edit

Hi, I'm the person who made the change to the https://en.wikipedia.org/Injector page that you recently undid. Can you tell me what your issue is with my edit? Also, I have no idea how to communicate on[REDACTED] here so please feel free to tell me I'm doing something wrong - literally just made an account to respond to your undo. Honestly, there are a lot of problems with the Venturi/Bernoulli pages as well as the related pages that I'd like to help fix SteveSmith98 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's uncited, and there are cites to say it works as the page currently describes it. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Uncited? It was a quote from an existing citation (#10), and I clearly cited the quote. So...how is that uncited?

The citations that, as you put it, "say it works as the page currently describes" don't actually do that. If you read citation #3, which I have, it matches my edit and not the existing text.

I can't say how accurate it aligns with #4 since that's not accessible online, but my guess is not very well since the existing explanation is factually incorrect. Nevertheless, using the existing citations on the page, I have 2 of them that agree with my change, zero that agree with the existing text, and 1 that we can't evaluate because it is inaccessible.

So...do you still believe the revert is an improvement? If it makes you happier I can replace the Operation section with an exact copy/paste from existing citation #3 (instead of the copy paste from citation #10 with you rejected). Does that work?SteveSmith98 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I added cite #4, which does mention the Venturi effect, which is important; if the input steam remained above atmospheric pressure the water would never get into the combining cone at all. Much of the page is confused because it can't quite decide if it's about boiler injectors or other devices. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you directly quote cite #4 to me then?

The article says "reducing its pressure to below atmospheric which enables it to entrain a fluid" implying (perhaps unintentionally?) that low-pressure is necessary to entrain the fluid. Low pressure might be required to get the fluid up into the combining cone, but per cite 3 and cite 10 it has nothing to do with the entrainment - they clearly state that's momentum exchange via friction/viscosity.

Also, in your statement, "which does mention the Venturi effect, which is important; if the input steam remained above atmospheric pressure" - low pressure is only required in a lifting injector. It's not required in a non-lifting injector. Furthermore, what support do you have for your assertion that the low-pressure (in lifting injects) is a result of the Venturi effect rather than simple viscosity?SteveSmith98 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: The Misplaced Pages page for parsec

Hi there, I just wanted to circle back on an edit of mine you reverted (if this is the wrong place to do it let me know). If your argument is that no Star Wars stuff should be included on the parsec page then shouldn't you delete the existing Star Wars comment? As it stands now, the current Star Wars content is incorrect. Therefore, it should be changed if you are opting to not delete it. Or it should be deleted to be consistant with your reasoning.

Regardless, I would argue that it should be included. Most folks know what a parsec is because of Star Wars. An entire movie's plot (not just any movie but the space opera Star Wars of which its exceptionally huge impact is well-known and documented) centered around shortening the parsecs required to make a particular journey in space. The impact on most people's understanding of what a parsec is and even it's existence is clear so I think it merits inclusion. What do you think? Thanks for your time. - unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:65c0:6630:7de8:b422:d89e:3cf1

It would be better to do it on the article's talk page; I am copying these comments there and will reply there. Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Not good

VeggieTales is not cancelled!

So produce a source to that effect. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

LotLinx page

Hello, I use Misplaced Pages a lot and thought that it would be fun and generous to help contribute back to it. I'm still having trouble getting used to the culture and requirements. You seem like a level-headed and thoughtful person and I thought that I might ask about the LotLinx page that you helped me with.

When I read through the Misplaced Pages requirements on page-building, they were very strict and emphasizing with only writing what was there and present on the sources as Misplaced Pages doesn't have the funds to fight legal battles on libel/slander. So I thought that I was doing the right thing by the way I was writing my articles: I scour them for the facts that I need, make sure they are reworded comprehensibly, and stick them all on the page, with editing to make it flow.

I am learning now that this isn't being a good contributor as it retains all of the marketing. That what I need to do is to strip out all of the fluff words, and also not to assert directly that the subect actually does do what it says as this isn't neutral, but rather what the subject aims to do. QUESTION: But I noticed that the LotLinx page still has NatGertler's {{Advert}} tag, so I feel like I'm missing a few lessons here on what I should be doing; I'm not understanding how it is still advertising?

I used the same page for the sake of examples, but I'm more interested in learning in general and thought that I would take your unusual verboseness as an invitation for a teaching moment. Please let me know if you have any other advice that might help me as I learn to be a good contributor in my Wiki'ing hobby.

Thank you kind sir/ma'am/other,

Reriksenus (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Re the tag, you should probably ask the user who added it, although adding back in their product catalogue doesn't help.

The first thing to do is to answer the question as to whether you have any connection to the company in question. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Regarding my edits in the Arabs article, I am trying to improve the paragraph that I've wrote by making it well-sourced and concise. I can not open a new discussion in the talk page for every small edit that I would make. The talk page is only for radical or controversial edits. Small corrections or re-wordings does not need that. So could you please refrain from reverting my corrective edits? Viaros17 (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because you wrote it doesn't mean you own it. What you appear to be doing is removing cited material, making uncited assertions (eg that the origin of the equatorium is disputed). This is not a "small correction or re-wording". Pinkbeast (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast

The origin of the equatorium is indeed disputed. If you read its article you will see that the earliest prototype is ascribed to Ptolemy. So there is no need to flood the already large paragraph with redundant text and weakly-sourced material. Also the source for Averroes entry is Anne Rooney (children book writer). I personally investigated the claim and it turned out to be unfounded with no strong sources supporting it. See, I am trying to improve the text, not just toss around whatever claims I comes across. 13:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Viaros17 (talk)

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source; you can't cite equatorium (and if you could, it says clearly that Ar-Zarqali invented it and that Ptolemy provided the theoretical basis; I imagine the sources on it, which you can cite, say that too).

Please read WP:OR; your personal investigations are also not a reliable source. Anne Rooney may write for a juvenile audience but she is nevertheless a respectable writer of popular science books; as yet you have provided no reason to suppose she got this one wrong.

Last of all, this is a discussion that could be better had at the article's talk page. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, how about al-Kindi? I will delete "cryptology" part since it is redundant. Al-Kindi is known more for his cryptanalysis which is part of cryptology. Agreed? Viaros17 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If anything you should delete "cryptanalysis"; of the two sources, the one that mentions al-Kindi directly says he is considered the father of cryptology. But more importantly you should be having this discussion at the article's talk page. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast
Cryptanalysis is one part of cryptology. I am here trying to be more specific. Al-kindi is known as the father of cryptanalysis as can be seen in the article here.
Anyway I am going to replace some sources with better ones if that is what matters here in order to change the re-wording of the paragraph. Viaros17 (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I know what cryptanalysis is. You're citing[REDACTED] again;[REDACTED] is not a reliable source. As said, the cite actually in the article says "father of cryptology". Pinkbeast (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33