User talk:Johnprovis

Metrication leaving no unit conversions
Hi John. Regarding this edit, you said, "Units changed from US customary to SI, as per Manual of Style, and table of unit conversions removed (inappropriate to have it here)". Although it is true that SI units are first choice for Wikipedia, it's not the intent (or letter) of WP:MOS to deprive readers of conversions where it can be expected that many readers will be helped by them. The U.S. has a very large construction industry, in which concrete strengths are often given in psi. WP:MOS says, "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, provide a conversion in parentheses. Examples: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long ... The undefined undefined template is useful for producing such expressions." Even if one didn't want to give multiple parens throughout that whole discussion of concrete strengths, one could have kept the conversion table as a convenience to many readers. Thus "inappropriate to have it here" is really not in keeping with WP:MOS. I didn't attempt to revise your edit, as I didn't find the metrication objectionable, but I just wanted to point out regarding conversions that it's OK (and even preferable) to provide Imperial and US customary units in addition to SI in topics where deleting them all feels a bit like censoring them. Regards, — ¾-10 04:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No problems, and thanks - my other main reason for deleting the table was that the conversions given were imprecise/approximate (to the nearest few MPa); I know it's nice to have clean/round numbers, but there can be up to 10% discrepancy (e.g. rounding 4000 psi to 30 MPa when it's actually 27.6 MPa) in the values in the table. I'm not sure what the correct Manual of Style approach is here, so I have done the rounding according to the NIST conversion/rounding rules - please feel amend further if you know of a different Wikipedia preference Johnprovis (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks great. Thanks very much. — ¾-10 03:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Concrete
Responding to your edit note. Seems that you know more than I do, but my impression is that components of the cocktails used as precursors to concretes actually contain the oxides, especially CaO or its hydrate, which reacts with the silica to give calcium silicates in situ. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Manchester Airport page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=701288200 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F701288200%7CManchester Airport%5D%5D Ask for help])

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not reporting you, but am calling your attention to the dispute where I have reported the other editor. Discussion of the content dispute cannot continue as long as there is a legal threat. Read the legal threat policy. Either the other editor must withdraw the legal threat, or they will be blocked. If it hadn't been for the legal threat, I would still be recommending formal mediation. Apparently there are financial interests involved; at least, I infer that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'd be willing to contribute as needed in the formal mediation process, just let me know if anything I could do would be helpful. Johnprovis (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There cannot be a formal mediation process unless the other editor withdraws the legal threat. They have been blocked, and cannot do anything in Wikipedia except request to be unblocked in order to withdraw the legal threat.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * However, you might want to review Draft:Geopolymer concrete, which they wrote shortly before being blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On a quick look through that draft, I'm pretty dubious that it deserves to be an article of its own; it would either need to repeat a lot of material from other articles to be comprehensible in its own right, or would be too incomplete to be useful. However, it could fit quite nicely as a section of Geopolymer - and is actually relatively well written and referenced, although there are a few barbed comments thrown in amongst the actual information - and would help significantly with the completeness of that article if it were slotted in as a new section below the 'Geopolymer cement' section, in my opinion. Johnprovis (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Geopolymer
Hello. Another editor and I over at Fringe Theory Noticeboard are looking at the Geopolymer article. Here is a link to the discussion so far. I've seen some of your discussion on the talk page and realized that you are probably expert enough for what we two editors have in mind. We would like someone to check the accuracy of the article, and check for biased points of view per WP:NPOV. Do you think this is possible? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Geopolymer
See WP:FTN  Doug Weller  talk 08:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Restored Geopolymer for you
John, as you requested, I have restored the old version. It's not that it was unsalvageable. It was just a question of what was tainted with violations of WP:NPOV and self-promotion. From an overview of the whole article it was hard to tell. Anyway, I am glad to restore to this version so you can work on the old version rather than a blank page. And, again, your efforts are very much appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)