User talk:Jcjack

October 2012
Your edits to Pump seemed to be well intentioned but providing a link to a personal web-site or blog are not considered reputable sources or useful as external links. Sorry.  Velella  Velella Talk 20:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC) I think if you took the time to look at the web site you would find that there is way more information than pumpschool.com, anyway your decision I guess. Jacques — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.251.81 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I did look at the website before taking action, hence my decision. I will however look at the other links to try ensure that all content is treated equally and fairly  Velella  Velella Talk 21:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I happen to think my web site is the best educational site on pumps on the web, I am biased of course. However, I would hate it if you removed pumpschool.com or anyone else from wikipedia because of my intervention. Let sleeping dogs lie. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.251.81 (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Pump. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)



Right, not only do I want to improve the article but I want to correct it because it is factually wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, when an equation is wrong on the simple basis of units being incompatible it should be corrected.If there are any editors that have a scientific background they will easily see the mistake.