User talk:Carlroddam

Welcome!
Hello, Carlroddam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! satusuro 23:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

May 2016
 Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Jonathan Tah with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry. My mistake. We were both trying to revert vandalism to the article at the same time. My timing was a little off or I just did not notice that your edit and not the vandal's had preceded mine. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Donner60 (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No Problem at all. I'm thinking the article on Jonathan Tah probably needs to be reverted to the version way back on 04:29, 24 April 2016‎by Żyrafał. What do you think? Carlroddam (talk)

Biomass
I entered the following in the Biomass article.

“In Vermont in 2017, biomass cost $85 per megawatt. The price of wholesale power was about $25 a megawatt. Biomass is too expensive when compared to fracked natural gas.(citation)”

This was reverted because the source did not support this material.

The article reads “it costs big biomass plants like the ones in Burlington and Ryegate about $85 a megawatt to generate power, he [Sam Lincoln, Vermont Deputy Director of Forests+] said. Whereas, the price of wholesale power is about $25 a megawatt.” “’Biomass became expensive, compared to fracked natural gas in particular,’ Mr. Lincoln said. ‘”

I can remove the url, since that does not include the above per WP:SOURCELINKS.

The hard copy is quoted above. How do you think it should be summarized?

Thanks.Student7 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Student7
 * Thanks for your message.
 * I just took another look at the source. The reason I did not see support for your words is that the article linked to is behind a paywall. I would need to be a paid subscriber to The Chronicle see the majority of the article. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's rules are about citing news articles behind paywalls. I'll go have a look for a suitable rule, now, and come back to this page ASAP to continue discussion.
 * Regards
 * Carl
 * Carlroddam (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm back. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources, it is OK to cite sources which cost money to access. Sorry about that. I will restore your edit.:
 * Thanks for writing to me, and I again apologise for not noticing that the article was cut short by a paywall. I originally thought it was just a short article which didn't support your words.
 * Regards
 * Carl
 * Carlroddam (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the smooth way in which you handled this! Student7 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a lovely place to be when people talk to each other about edits, as we just have. Carlroddam (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Coupe vs 2-door sedan
Hi Carl. I noted your self-reverted(!) edit about the coupe terminology. Indeed, it is quite a grey area. Adding to the confusion is that the BMW New Class platform (predecessor to the 3 Series) was used for both "2-door sedans" (2002, 1602, etc) and traditional streamlined coupes (2000C, 2000CS). It might be worth trying to establish a convention at WikiProject Auto? Best of luck with it. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Simon. Thanks for messaging me. In an attempt to make this more consistent / accurate / better etc. I've taken a look at the ISO for vehicle body type, ISO 3833-1977 (E) which I think is the latest one. It does not offer much help, sadly, except that it says "Usually, limited rear volume". I think the E21 (and possibly the E30) certainly fall under the term saloon/sedan, in part because they have 5 genuine seats. Do you agree? A coupe always has either two or four seats, but not five. From the E36 onward it gets a bit difficult to decide if it is a coupe or a sedan/saloon.


 * As for trying to establish a convention at WikiProject Auto, I'm not sure I'm up for that. I'll consider it though.Carlroddam (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That was a good idea to check the ISO... what a shame it isn't very helpful. I haven't heard of the difference being based on the number of seats, that seems too easily changeable (for example a manufacturer might offer options of a 3-seat bench or 2 buckets on the same model). My impression was that it is based on the roofline, eg perhaps the angle of the C-pillar. Although maybe there's so many inconsistencies that all we can do is take the manufacturer's description as gospel (such as when Mercedes started the trend by describing their CLS as a "4-door coupe"). These are just some musings out loud, so please take it with a pinch of salt. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the ISO says the following about the Coupe and the Sedan/Saloon: Sedan Coupe ...so not terribly helpful at all in distinguishing between a coupe and a sedan/saloon.Carlroddam (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Body: Closed, with or without central pillar to side windows.
 * Hood/Roof: Fixed, rigid roof. A portion of the roof may, however, be openable.
 * Accommodation: 4 or more seats in at least 2 rows.
 * Doors: 2 or 4 side doors. There may also be a rear opening.
 * Windows: 4 side windows.
 * Body: Closed. Usually, limited rear volume.
 * Hood/Roof: Fixed, rigid roof. A portion of the roof may, however, be openable.
 * Accommodation: 2 or more seats in at least 1 row.
 * Doors: 2 side doors. There may also be a rear opening.
 * Windows: 2 or more side windows.


 * Yeah, they sure are keeping it vague! Thanks for the info. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edit to Phone connector
Just fyi there is no need to "remove unwarranted double spaces". They don't render. Such edits just clutter up the article edit history and make more work for other editors, with no benefit to the reader.

Also, inserting a space between a number and the following unit is just fine, but per WP:MOS it should be a non-breaking space. Code this as e.g.:  or:.

Thanks for helping! Jeh (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Department of State Growth (Tasmania), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Ferguson ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Department_of_State_Growth_%28Tasmania%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Department_of_State_Growth_%28Tasmania%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Metre
You need to provide a source if you think the definition of the metre is changing. The metre is still defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299 792 458 when expressed in the unit m/s. The second is still defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆νCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s–1. In what way are they different from the current definitions? - --David Biddulph (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I realise, of course that the definition of some of the other SI units was changed by last year's conference. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

OOPS. I was trying to revert the valdalism / good faith eddit by Universe128 who changed the year from 2019 to 2018, but I didn't check the facts closely enough, and didn't realise I caught your edit too. Sorry about that, and thanks for fixing it. Carlroddam (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)