User talk:MChesterMC

How do I tell from the photo who I should cite or can I just cite Wikipedia as the source?Dlmilner (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI
I fixed the issues you described, perhaps you could now comment on how you feel about the articles nomination. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hidden response
Just to let you know, I hid your response here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=567790652&oldid=567789401] as the editor concerned is banned so we shouldn't be encouraged them to respond and I don't see your message means much without the editor's response collapsed. Feel free to modify or unhide your response or remove future responses from banned editor or even the extant ones if you desire. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, shame, didn't realise it was him. Kinda wishing he'd just get an account, since his contributions aren't too bad when he's not being a jerk... (and I think he was mostly right on this one, just putting it badly as usual) MChesterMC (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi MChesterMC,

You posed a follow on question after my post explaining imperfect black bodies on Science Reference Desk - "What about glass? - it glows when heated."

It certainly does. I don't actually know the answer to this one. However, glass is an interesting material from a couple of standpoints. Firstly, it is not a true solid, such as a crystal. It is an amorphous liquid of very extremely high viscosity at normal temperatures, with no clear melting point - a sort of continous phase change. I'm on thin ice here, but maybe it changes in opacity as it is heated up. When heated, many types of glass initially become more transparent. On more solid ground, I note that standard glass is not all that transparent. It's good enough to make windows out of, where the light has to pass through 6 or 7 mm. However, try to view objects thru 60 or 70 mm of window glass and it is a different story - not at all fully transparent. It would be interesting if the special high purity glass used for telecomms optic fibre glows when heated. It has transparency thousands of times better than window glass.

I've given you a response here because the enforcement nutters have reacted on the Reference Desk again. They think that I am someone they call Ratbone and/or Keit, who they have taken an extreme dislike to. I'm not either person, however, I AM another identity that was blocked the same day I started posting. Sometimes they delete or hide my posts. Mostly they leave them alone. Stuffed if I care really. I've seen all the crap about various folks blocked/banned/otherwise messed about with. It's nearly always the same jerks putting forward dubious arguments and who make silly posts on Ref Desk themselves. I've got time for technical debates, but don't get involved in silly person debates.

Posting conflict: In what way was what I wrote on Ref Desk about balck body radiation and transparency etc badly put? Nimur and Steve got part of it wrong. I politely put it right, with supporting information and explanation.

Regards, RJB


 * Your best bet would be to create an account (since even if people still think you are Ratbone/keit/etc., most are unopposed to him coming back with an account). All of your facts were correct (I think), but it came across as somewhat dismissive and combative.  In future, when disagreeing with other editors, citing sources or articles is a lot more useful that just writing an essay at them. Compare the length of your responses with those of the other editors, overly long responses can come across as browbeating. MChesterMC (User talk:MChesterMC)
 * A bit of digging after I submitted a complaint about one of my posts being repeatedly deleted (I had thought it was just some vandal, so I restored it each time) I was pointed to a discussion about it. The discussion about Ratbone/Keit/Wickwack and more is very lengthy, takes some bizare turns, and would take hours to study. I didn't study it in detail, as it seemed not to apply to me.  I regarded it as someone else's problem.  However, it did say that the ban applies regardless of registering or not, and is "indefinite" ie forever.  Further, it appears ANY person, registered or not, can effect the ban and delete me. That makes it completely pointless for myself, and anyone else for that matter, to register.  As soon as some turkey thinks it's Ratbone etc, or merely doesn't like my post for whatever reason, I can be blocked/banned and any posts made under that registration deleted.  No consensus process or administration process is required. It doesn't matter if you, for instance, want to take a favourable view.  Another can effect the ban.  Regards, RJB
 * Firstly, "indefinite" doesn't mean forever, it means "until the person understands why they are banned and it is reasonable to assume they won't do it again". Secondly, consensus can change, and registering an account will make you contributions more trackable, and make it easier for people to judge whether or not your posts are constructive (which they mostly appear to be), at which point escaping the topic ban should be pretty easy. Thirdly, the topic ban only applies to the reference desks, so feel free to edit other areas (again, helping to show that your editing is constructive).
 * The wickwack situation is annoying, but he'd managed to piss off a lot of people on the ref desks, not quite enough to justify the ban on its own, but it then seemed as if he was using multiple personae (in violation of the spirit of WP:SOCK, even if not the letter), and due to his refusal to create an account, what amounts to a topic ban for half of Australia was imposed...
 * My suggestions:
 * Make an account, this will make it a lot easier to convince people you aren't wickwack (and actually, people wouldn't be able to tell it was you anyway without a checkuser, so you effectively get a WP:CLEANSTART if you don't want to deal with the topic ban issue)
 * Wander around some other areas of wikipedia, edit some articles, get known (a lot easier with an account). You seem to have a decent amount of knowledge, so apply that to some of the articles where you know the subject (but remember to cite sources for as much as possible).
 * If you want to go the contentious route, then you could bring something up about the topic ban on WP:AN, but this is likely to stir up a hornet's nest, and probably won't work...
 * Sign your posts using four tildes ~, and don't sign with a name at the end (since this is the major characteristic of wickwack et. al., and will raise serious red flags). If you wish to be known by a certain name, make an account!
 * Hope this is at least somewhat helpful, it kinda sucks that the topic ban has lead to a presumption of guilt for a massive IP range, but that's the way it is unfortunately, and I doubt it will change for a little while at least. MChesterMC (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

 * Wrong teahouse template Benison! I tend to lurk around the TH a fair bit, but don't do much in the way of substantive editing since I mainly come on at work. MChesterMC (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Through the Dragon's Eye
It's on YouTube, if that's what you meant by "get it". Understanding may be more tricky. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

wi-fi
I'll try, thank you! --Ulisse0 (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)