User talk:Ignitionman

Re:RCAF photo, Spring 1964 001.jpg
Hi Ignitionman. I deleted the file, File:RCAF photo, Spring 1964 001.jpg, because you claimed it under a pd-self license when the image is licensed under a cc-zero license. This really isn't a huge issue because the copyright owner has essentially given up rights to the work - However, you still cannot claim it as your own work and release it in to the public domain. Since the file is already on the Wikimedia Commons, you have no need to upload it to Wikipedia. Commons and Wikipedia are linked so that images on commons can be used on Wikipedia as if they had been uploaded to Wikipedia. For instance: This image is located on Commons but it can be used on Wikipedia. Hope that helps to clear any confusion up. Regards,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 17:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On citing sources
I noticed you made some changes to articles like Ignition system, where you replaced some unsourced content with other unsourced content. You used edit summaries like "Many texts and experiments to back this up." Since the material you replaced didn't have any footnotes to begin with, I can't say you made Wikipedia worse, but it's also fair to say you haven't actually made it better. The problem is that without any citations, you've just replaced one guy's unsourced opinions with a different guy's unsourced opinions. Maybe your opinions are more accurate than the other guy's, but how are we supposed to know? The answer is verifiability. If you supply citations to sources that somebody else can look up and check, then you make it possible to have confidence in what is written there. As it stands now, the edits you've made with no footnotes are very likely to be replaced by yet another guy with his own opinions, and nobody will stop him. If you had cited your sources, other editors like me would have considered your edits more valuable and would make an effort to prevent future editors from deleting them. If a disagreement arose, it would be settled by checking the sources you supplied.Since you've said that 'many texts and experiments back this up', it ought to be easy for you to tell us the titles, authors, and page numbers of the texts that back it up. online sources are not required, or preferred. Quality is all that matters. If you cited sources, your edits would be much more likely to stay around far into the future.Citing sources explains the several different styles you can use to cite sources. You are free to use whatever works for you. You don't have to get fancy -- simply put the title, author, date, and page number in parentheses in the article if you're not sure how to do hyperlinked footnotes. Or ask for help. There's lots of ways to ask for someone to guide you, and many editors are willing to teach you.. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ignition system errors
I reverted your changes at ignition system because of two errors. First, reversed the role of energy storage between the battery and the coil. The battery's primary purpose is to store energy, not the coil. The coil serves as a step-up transformer. You also deleted the entire phrase "step-up transformer". Second, reversed cause and effect in incorrect use of terminology relating to the capacitor's impedance. You wrote "as the capacitor charges, its effective impedance increases which limits current flow to it", implying impedance changes in a DC circuit. A better explanation for non engineers would be simply that current flows until the capacitor is charged. Brianhe (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You may want to refer to the fairly lucid explanation of the condenser in a contact ignition here, which also is out of copyright so you can incorporate the text in the article freely. Additionally, referring to snubber capacitor may be of use. Brianhe (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)