User talk:Nimur/Archive/3

5-Km Run
I did laugh when I read your "A 5 kilometer race is not an extremely strenuous run". I realize that you are perfectly correct within the universe of race-runners, but to the rest of us, for whom a 1-km walk is a matter for grave consideration and a "little lie down", that's funny. May we always have differences! // BL \\ (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

my computer problem
It's several weeks later but the problem you helped me with (now at Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2009 July 16) is fixed. It wasn't the precise solution you suggested but you were right (I think) about it being a hardware issue. Thanks! Tempshill (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it
If you really took my changes into consideration. This "conflict" ur describing was an occupation. They have titled the Syrian presence in Lebanon as an occupation on the wiki article. There is no difference between the occupation and invasion. The 1982 "conflict" became a conflict because WE WERE OCCUPIED AND INVADED. There would not have been a conflict if we were not occupied nor invaded. Merci :) Lebanese bebe (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Lebanese Bebe. Thanks for voicing your concerns.  First of all, I'm well aware of the Israeli occupation, and I'm very much aware of the timeline.  However, the purpose of the encyclopedia article is to inform people (most readers know less about Lebanese history than you and I).  The article needs to be written with these people in mind.  What actually caught my attention were your major changes to the introduction, notably these edits which discuss the backdrop of the invasion (you stated "The people of South Lebanon had been terrorized for years by the PLO.").  The trouble is, for a reader who is unfamiliar with Lebanese history, these statements are confusing - who invaded who?  Who occupied what?  Did the PLO invade Lebanon, or did the Israelis occupy PLO territory?
 * My point is that the Lebanese civil war at large has a lot of interacting players - it's our job to write the most clear, well-written article to explain what happened historically. And most importantly - this is very key - we need to cite sources.  I'm absolutely behind your position about calling the Israeli action an Occupation - that is clearly what it was, and many news and historical sources agree.  What I'm more concerned about is the introduction of non-neutral point of view, especially in the very first opening paragraph.  Let's work together to make this article better, and get all of the facts included, and source them with reliable references.  Okay?  Nimur (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Golan Heights Law
Answered here. I'm awfully busy nowadays but do feel free to call on me for Hebrew assistance. And thanks for pitching in! Cheers -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Forum comments
Please do not restore that section again. Have you ever read the contents of the, and what it says will happen to forum comments? Here it is, applied to your talk page. Please read it.

Now consider what the appropriate thing to do with forum comments is on an actual article talk page.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen your self revert of your reversion when I posted that. I hope everything is calm between us now.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - I had not seen your justification; I think I agree with you, at least in this case. That article... (and its talkpage)... it's a trouble-spot, that much is for sure.  Nimur (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

personal RFC on sneeky edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planetary_habitability&diff=311665773&oldid=311665338

I'm curious to know, do you consider this kind of edit sneeky and/or not encyclopedic?? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It looks like you edited your own comment just a moment after you first posted it, to clarify some detail.  Why would that be sneaky?  Nimur (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ref desk
Much of the "noise" comes from stupid questions, homework questions, trivia quizzes posing as questions, deliberately baiting questions, questioners who haven't even bothered trying google or wikipedia itself, and from IP addresses with lots of warnings on their pages lecturing others on how to behave. FYI, when we used to go to the zoo, we fed marshmallows to the polar bears and it seemed to make them happy. So it could work for the eskimoes also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The question in particular, about polar bears, does not count as a "noise" question. I was able to answer it fairly well, with reliable sources, and provide some angles that the OP might not have thought about.  This is why we are on the reference desk.  We are not there to judge people's questions; we don't know who the OP is, where they come from, how old they are, or what expertise or handicaps they have.  So, we answer the questions and we hope that we can help; and if the questions are overtly ridiculous, we remove them or ignore them.  We do not increase the noise level by adding extra junk.  Nimur (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The marshmallow comment was a fair answer, even if you (and a couple of drive-bys) didn't like it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, find a reference for it before posting it on the reference desk. I'm not an idiot, so don't try to play games here.  Inuit did not defend themselves from polar bears with marshmallows.  Stop being disruptive.  Many of your contributions are helpful, and we appreciate those.  Just lay off the jokes on the Ref Desk, you won't attract negative attention; and the "couple of drive-by" editors who are more irritated than I am will not feel the need to block you.  If you really don't understand what the issue is, discuss it here on the talk page.  Nimur (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an idiot either, and I recognize when people take things too seriously. I would like to hear how you think it would be best to handle the various issues I raised regarding insincere and lazy questions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll address your questions point by point:
 * stupid questions - This is not your or my place to judge. We don't know the OP's age, English familiarity, or education level.  Explain the issue, try to address the point of confusion, and direct the user to a reference about the topic.
 * homework questions - Inform the user of the Homework policy and direct the user to a reference about the topic.
 * trivia quizzes posing as questions - Ignore these, or answer them, or direct the user to a reference about the topic.
 * deliberately baiting questions - Do not engage in discussion or opinion on the reference desk. Inform the user about our policy regarding WP:SOAPBOX, and direct the user to a reference about the topic.
 * questioners who haven't even bothered trying google or wikipedia itself - Skip these questions, if you don't have the energy to answer them. Otherwise, direct the user to a reference about the topic.
 * and from IP addresses with lots of warnings on their pages lecturing others on how to behave. - You don't know that the OP is the same as the vandal, just because they share the IP. If you don't understand the technical details of dynamic IPs or proxies, you can read about them at Why create an account?.  If you feel that the question is valid, inform the user of this page.  If the question falls into one of the "vandalism categories", ignore the question; otherwise try to answer it and direct the user to a reference about the topic.
 * Hopefully you're picking up on a theme for how to answer questions on the Reference Desk. If you do not enjoy searching for references, then probably the reference desk is not the place to be.  There are literally millions of other internet forums you can hang out in where people are less serious, less focused, and will tolerate jokes about marshmallows.  But here, we are working to build an encyclopedia.  Nimur (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than doing the questioner's work for him, which is counterproductive for all, we should ask whether he has tried Google, or - goddess forbid - the search box. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

JAVA repaint
I tried the changes you suggested, but it still didn't work. I've posted the code on WP:RD/C; what else should I change? --204.184.214.2 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Science desk
You may or may not be aware that there's discussion going on as to whether "medical" questions should even be allowed to stand on the ref desks at all, in any way, shape or form. Removing the original question, while still referring to it, seems rather silly. Either leave it stand, or delete it totally. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. In fact, I was one of the originators of this debate; I've discussed my opinions here and here.  I just removed a comment of yours as well (for being a joke-post in a medical advice question).  My stance, if it is not clear, is that we should remove the question, leave the heading, and place a medical advice template (we have many to choose from); and have no further responses.  But, there's room for discussion, because so many questions are "debatably" medical advice requests.  Nimur (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The original post had the ring of a joke to it. In any case, your view would be that the question heading would stay, in case the poster comes back, and the template would tell him to go talk to a professional. Is that it, in a nutshell? (That would presumably also apply for legal advice and the like.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's basically my stance. I can see some corner-cases, where the question is explicitly in the heading, for example. But I feel that we need to simultaneously satisfy our obligation to avoid medical advice without censoring the OP. We don't want them to regret asking, we only want them to ask a professional. Nimur (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you say, the post currently under consideration had, in your opinion, "the ring of a joke to it." But, he also asked about cancer and psychiatric diagnosis.  It's very hard to be certain; we are not qualified to make diagnoses; and the user may have a serious medical condition that needs a professional opinion and an in-person visit.  This is why Kainaw and I and several others prefer a very overly-cautious, don't-touch-medical-advice-with-a-ten-foot-pole stance.  Nimur (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since the rules already state not to give medical or legal advice, I'm not sure what the debate is about, unless it's just about how to format the template. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if the original post had a ring of a joke to it...It must me alright for you to continue to disrespect the wishes of others that the desk be run in a professional manner. More honestly (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't sockpuppet around. It was Bugs' opinion, not mine.  I don't know how the OP intended that question.  Nimur (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a harassment-only account that I've been trying to ignore, but it's not easy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. As I've mentioned above, I'm not an idiot. If you're looking to get more attention from the admins, keep up the stellar work - they'll be happy to block you.  Nimur (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reported that account to AIV, so it's up to them whether to take action. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my point. Just because Bugs 'thinks' that a post has a ring of a joke to it...He does not have the right to continue with his antics.  He has been repeatedly warned.  It is getting tiresome. More honestly (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above user ID has only a handful of edits, most of them intended as harassment in my direction, so he's in no position to be criticizing the behavior of others. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugs, why is it that if I make a comment that you do not like, you feel the need to report me to some AIV? The issue I have is with your behavior at the reference desk.  I don't think that makes me a harassment account.  How about taking some responsibility for your actions? More honestly (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you have only a handful of edits, mostly directed at me. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because I don't have hundreds of edits, doesn't mean my opinion is less valuable, or harassing. I think your antics on the Ref desk need to stop.  I also think you should stop with the games, it is getting old, and others are starting to get tired of those games.More honestly (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That harassment account is not my sock. I don't do socks. There have been several harassment accounts lately with vaguely similar names. I've a hunch who they are, but WP:DENY applies here. I just deal with them as they turn up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, its about someone else being a sock, when the subject is proper behavior at the reference desk. Is there no end to this? More honestly (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nimur removed a comment I posted on the ref desk, I made no attempt to re-post it, and I started what was initially a calm and reasoned discussion with Nimur until you popped in here. You might be someone else's sock or you might be standalone, but it's clear your only purpose for being here is harassment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the great discussion, guys. Glad my talk-page could serve its purpose.  I'll be back in an hour or so after y'all are blocked. Nimur (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The harassment account is indef'd and your false charge of sockpuppetry was removed by an admin, so hopefully that's the end of it. Getting back to the original point, I do support your idea of leaving just the heading and posting a template, where the right answer for medical or legal questions is to direct the questioner to a professional. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The original point was about acting in a professional manner at the reference desk. Please refer to the above if your memory fails you. More often than knot (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nimur, I acknowledge that we disagree about the ref desk, and I acknowledge that I sometimes don't take the questions seriously enough. But if you persist in your false accusations of sockpuppetry against me, which amounts to a gross personal attack, I shall be compelled to take action against you for it. Let's see if we can avoid escalating it to that, OK? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you threatening Legal Action? What do you mean by "to take action against you"?  The bottom line is that you need to stop horsing around at the Reference Desk! More often than knot (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, ya silly. I've reported your false accusations to WP:ANI. That's what I meant by "taking action". You've been duped by these harassment socks. They're trying to get me and you both into trouble. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Legal threats are not taken lightly at Wikipedia. You need to retract your statement.  This is about your conduct, not socks and harassment.  Legal threats only add to the problem. More often than knot (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking someone to ANI is not a "legal threat" and is not against the rules. Harassment is, though, which is why you're now indef'd. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV
Thank you. About time someone took Baseball Bugs to the cleaners. More often than knot (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note the above editor has been blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of a banned editor, and is not a sock of Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs. Please don't put any stock or faith in what they are saying, they are only here to make attacks, disrupt, and to try and pull otherwise productive editors into filing bogus reports for them. Please just ignore them. Dayewalker (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As a note, Dayewalker is not an admin, and neither am I.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Since you are no doubt expecting this, I will make it short and to the point. This is either an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point or an indicator that you do not understand what is and is not vandalism. Either way, I might recommend that you read up and figure it out, because I doubt the next admin to deal with another stunt like this will be as friendly and pleasant about it as I am. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Science desk cont'd
OK, hopefully the brouhaha is over. Back to where we were: I will continue to work to do better at handling the ref desks. As you may have noticed, I like to try to find information where I can. Sometimes questions or "guesswork" are necessary, to discern what the poster is getting at. And other users make worse jokes than I do. But I'll try to take even the dumb questions seriously and either provide a straight answer or ignore them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm glad we're in agreement about that.  Nimur (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a poser of sorts: There was an IP address and also a user named Taxa (alleged by some to be actually the same guy) posing all sorts of provocative questions. There are comments continuing on those questions even since those users were indef'd. But many of those questions were simply "baiting and debating" questions. The issue of removing medical and legal questions is one thing. But what about questions whose purpose appears not to be seeking of a factual answer, but of fomenting debate? Is there a template for that also? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't care to investigate who's doing what. I'm just here to contribute to the encyclopedia; I'll leave the policy-policing to the admins who want to do it.  The template you're asking about would be WP:SOAP; it's a gray-area sort of thing, so use it lightly.  Nimur (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Soapboxing can appear to be asking about facts, but the tipoff is that it can be a "leading question". Medical and legal are probably a little clearer, as they usually involve asking for advice rather than political views. Regardless, the answer that someone gave to your proposal on the template was not especially helpful, as I see it. So I guess it's status quo. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Break
Okay, now that that stuff is all cleared up, I got work to do. I'll be around in November after SEG. See y'all in Texas. Nimur (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content
I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While this sounds like a great project, I don't really have time to commit to a major wikiproject, especially one so far from my areas of normal activity. Sorry.  Nimur (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What causes our windup toy to spark, and what are sparks?
Hello, Nimur. I have only just started looking at the 'Reference desk' area, and appreciated your reply to my comment HERE. Conveniently, you are a Rocket Scientist (among other things, impressive credentials!) Thought this was a very simple issue, but on reading the related articles it got a bit more complicated. I was basically wondering if in space the astronauts ever use anything like a grinder (on EVA), and what the 'sparks' from it look like in a vacuum? Any idea? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. At the moment, I'm just a Ph.D. student; and let me preface this by saying that I've never been to space... (except, of course, that Earth is in space).  I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that grinders are not used in space, especially not during EVAs, because of the risk of debris.  Tiny, sharp metal fragments are very hazardous to the EVA suits, and if there's any word to describe the manned space program, it would be "over-cautious".  Perhaps an urban legend, (perhaps not), NASA does not even allow certain foods in spacecraft because eating them releases crumbs (and in microgravity, crumbs float around and lodge in equipment).  Imagine the kind of caution they must use with regard to metal fragments!  These can short out electrical wires, cut up delicate protective gear and equipment, etc.  I don't know if any sort of cutting tool or grinding tool has ever been used during any space flight, let alone during any EVA - but I would speculate probably not.  Fortunately, Wikipedia has a comprehensive List of EVAs, and you can follow up in great detail to see if there are any cases of such work, historically.  Apparently, a cable cutter was used on the Skylab 2 mission - but this probably ranks among the most hazardous activity ever attempted by an astronaut during a spacewalk.  Despite the awesomeness, most EVAs are pretty boring, menial actual work - typically, there's a lot of fumbling about in bulky gloves trying to tighten a pre-fitted component into a pre-fitted hole, and that sort of thing.  Machining work is best done on the ground.
 * In any case, my guess would be that sparks would look pretty similar in space as they do on the ground, if sparks were ever created up there. One of the most unintuitive things is that they would fly out in perfectly straight lines (in the local sense) - they would not slow down from air resistance (because of the vacuum) and they would not arc back toward the ground (because of the microgravity resulting from the uniform free-fall of a stable orbit).  They might also glow for a longer amount of time, because all the cooling would have to occur by radiation, and not by conduction to air.  We could probably estimate a cooling time constant for a milligram-sized flake of steel, if you're interested in following up.  Nimur (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Thanks for answers. Saw your post back at the Ref Desk. Didn't see it before I dropped my note here though. JUST a Ph.D. student, JUST?, hell you've certainly got a better chance of getting up ↑ there than me! Electrical Engineering, Masters of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, "advanced mathematician", Pursuing Ph.D. in Geophysics. What are you planning to do with your life young lad? Your qualifications sound like good astronaut material!. Unfortunately the Shuttle program is due to END, though apparently it may be kept for a little longer. Would have liked to see a Shuttle launch in person. Suggest start working on replacement for Ares which is replacing shuttle!


 * Concur with what you say about grinders, EVA suits and debris, though I was thinking more from the 'space junk' viewpoint. I gather that a fleck of paint(or metal flake) going that way while you are going the other way at many (relative) thousands of Km/hour is not a good position to be in. I hope NASA are cautious though unfortunately (Challenger, Columbia) hindsight is a good teacher. Your comments re. cooling/trajectory of flakes etc. are as I expected, though if on the 'sunny' side of the work they may not show up well?, or would they reflect the sunlight very well? UTC +11 here (late) so must go. Thanks. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I said?
Original title: '' Did you actually read what I said???????? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Moral_boundary''

I apologise in advance for the rude and vile way this will probably be written but you have very much angered me and this is written practically the moment I read what you wrote on the Referance Desk over my question.

"This question has been removed as it may be a request for medical advice." I'm sorry but did you actually read the question?? It had NOTHING to do with anything medical. It was asking what others would do in a situation I find myself in and also asking where they personally believe the moral boundaries lie!!! My question: "is it morally OK?". Where the heck is there anything about, as you put it, "requests for medical diagnosis"????????? "This question appears to have asked for psychiatric diagnosis." IN NO WAY THROUGHOUT THAT WHOLE CONVERSATION DID I EVER ASK FOR PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS! I asked about what the readers concidered moral and what they didn't!!... as has done previously by others, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_December_28#A_Moral_dillemma.

"visiting the appropriate health professional". What is all this bullshit. I don't want medical help. I don't need medical help. I was asking what is socially acceptable and what isn't. Some other person questioned my mental stability and I tried to politely say that I am fine. See, I don't need diagnosis, and I'm difinately not asking for it!

"we encourage the OP to seek a professional counselor or psychiatrist, who will be better equipped to answer such questions" Oh, fuck off! Ask a psychiatrist about what they personally feel is right? I can ask anyone as I'm asking them about their view on moral boundaries and not psychiatry.

So please undo your edit. And leave me alone unless you have anything reasonable and accurate to say.

Thanks. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

^^Rude, sorry, but I hope you can appreciate how you've vexed me. Particularly after I get so much hassle over asking a perfectly honest and reasonable question on morals and then I find other people chose to twist it and try to change it to me having mental problems! People on here judge others and jump to conclusions much too easily. It appears you couldn't have read what I wrote to say that, so please just read it and you'll see it was merely about moral boundaries. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you were offended. Whatever the case, I think the Reference Desk probably is not the place where you will find the answers you are looking for.  I personally have no idea what your situation is.  That's why I am refraining from making any judgement about your situation, and removed your question from the desk. Nimur (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't know then I think you shouldn't do or say anything about it. By your removing it under a false claim of it possibly being a "request for medical advice" it makes me look bad, as if I had asked for such advice or done something wrong. I merely stated fact and asked a question of a subjective nature. It shouldn't have been removed. I'd very much appreciate it if you'd undo your removal.
 * If you have reason to keep it removed, then please divulge. But as I've explained the reason given is incorrect and so your edit should be reverted if there is no reason for it to be removed.
 * Thanks. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will totally withdraw from this discussion. Somebody has restored your question, and I see no reason to revert.  To your credit, your original post was less problematic than the followup discussion that it spawned; and if I had seen that post alone without the rest of the debate that followed, I probably wouldn't have taken any action at all.  In any case, other editors seem to be handling this better, and hopefully will point you to the resource(s) you seek.  Good luck.   Nimur (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Climate science journal
Hi. You suggested here that I should write up my research and send it to a climate science journal. However, do you have any good suggestions for specific journals where I could submit written work online, either via an online form or by email? I'm looking specifically for speed of response, openess to queries, and expert analysis and review. Do you know any journals where I could get the peer review process done? Please keep in mind that I am not a climate expert, and do not have the credentials required to publish my work in most science journal publications. Also, I am looking for a free service, where the peer review and sending of the manuscript or paper does not require any fees, and also a service where I do not have to provide personal information such as my address, telephone number, age, institution, etc. I also need a website that does not have a limit on things such as time available for communication (on my part), deadlines, age restrictions, file size, length of research period, etc. Also, I have a few questions: Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 23:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any specific format for science journal submissions, as there is the MLA format for writing essays, reports and thesises in high school and university?
 * Do I need to include an abstract?
 * What types of details should I include or omit from my submissions, and are there any "rules" about things such as staying on topic?
 * Should I include any images, and do they have to be free use?
 * How long should the process take until I am able to have a published, peer-reviewed source that could be used for Wikipedia?
 * On Wikipedia, do raw data and global satellite or SST images count as primary sources?
 * Is there a large backlog on most science journal submission websites for manuscript to be reviewed?
 * If the source becomes published, will I need to provide details about my credentials?
 * Are there any institutions I could email to ask for publishible data or written work, for example the National Weather Service in the US?
 * Are science journals normally global, or limited to one country, and does this apply to the reviewers or the submitters?
 * Do I need to cite my sources for data, written publications or otherwise?
 * Will the peer review process be kept private until after it is reviewed, and will I have access to information on when and what parts are being reviewed, redacted or edited?
 * Hang on while I switch hats from my usual Wikipedia WP:NOR mode. Publishing in a research journal is a very different process than writing on Wikipedia.  Most of the questions you are asking will be answered in the Submissions Guidelines for a specific journal - especially the formatting and stylistic details.  You might take a look at Category:Earth and atmospheric sciences journals; specific articles on each journal link to the actual journal website.  Those websites usually have information on submitting, and web-based submission systems.  I'd recommend reading and skimming a few issues of a journal before trying to submit a paper to it; you get a good intuitive feel at a deeper level beyond what the submission "instructions" say (as far as formality of language, style, etc.)  "Free" is a tough requirement - typically, your research grant would cover this sort of thing, but if you're performing independent research, you may have to pay a submission fee out of pocket.  This can vary from trivial processing fees to exorbitant prices ($100s or $1000s of US dollars).  I read JGR a lot, because it's aligned with my research; but as it is a fairly large and "prestigious" journal, there's no telling whether they will throw out your manuscript before reading it - on the grounds that they've never heard of you and your lack of institutional credentials.  (One might optimistically hope that peer review processes do not work like this, but one might be wrong).  But, journal publication is a stairstep process; you begin with smaller journals and work your way up to the widely read ones.  For example, JGR: Atmospheres has a web-based submission system, a Publication Fees brochure, and a publication fee calculator that scans your document for length and number/type of images.  It is highly unlikely you can do any of this completely anonymously - you at least need a real name and a real correspondence address.  You probably don't need much more than that.  As far as "primary sources", the beauty of research publication is that you are a primary source.  Your work is subject to peer review to verify it.  And, you can't be anonymous, as you are purporting to have synthesized new knowledge - so you must be verifiable.  As for your data, if you did the collection yourself (operated the equipment), then you simply write this up ijn your methods section.  If you obtained it from a private or public database, you cite its source and explain who paid for the data collection (e.g. NOAA or NASA or NSF or the ESA, etc.)  Most journals do not have limitations on what country you can submit from - they are "international" in that sense, though their audience may be concentrated to specific geographies.  Regarding images and copyrights, you must cite sources.  Much of the climate data is publically available, as it is generated by U.S. government agencies, such as NOAA and NASA.  You can find their databases, which invariably provide a terms of use; they very often give specific instructions about data use and citation for publication.  The journal may also have specific instructions or interdictions about images from other sources - this will depend heavily on what the image is and how you use it.  You as the author retain copyrights on the work that you did when you submit, but the publication rights are exclusively transferred to the journal that publishes the work.  I'll dig around and see what I can find in terms of "free" atmospheric journals.  I don't know of any reputable ones.  I guess that all this procedural information about publication of original research is what you're supposedly learning when you get a Ph.D., but I'm not sure if the system works... in any case, if you're particularly interested in pursuing this sort of thing "full time", and are not currently involved with a research institute, you might consider applying for a graduate (or undergraduate) program. That will put you in touch with people who can guide you through the process.  Nimur (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would just add this - do not lie about credentials. As far as I know, no journal requires a Ph.D., or even a Bachelor's Degree, as a prerequisite for submission or publication. So, "lack" of credentials is not an immediate disqualification.  Of course, it will help to have a prestigious degree from a prestigious university; and in theory, a Ph.D. in the field should mean you know more than most people about the topic.  But, I know of at least one or two widely respected contributors to my research area who never received a degree related to the topic.  So, if you're submitting a paper, just say what your credentials are, and hope that your referee(s) are enlightened enough to judge the paper on its merits, and not on its pedigree.  Nimur (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I recently sent a web-mail to a meteorologist who is a PhD and was currently attending a conference by the American Meteorological Society. When I searched for climate science journals I could submit to, the first result was the AMS. What do you think of this science journal, would this be a good website to send a manuscript? I did notice that fees around $400 were usually applicable to submissions, but I also saw that a partial or full waiver could be signed for those who cannot pay those fees. Would be waiver mean I'd be able to submit and see the results of peer review for free, or are there still some processing fees? Would it require my postal mailing address in addition to my email address for submission? Also, how long would it take to write such a manuscript, and if it is published and peer-reviewed would it be considered a reliable source? Also, WP:RS and WP:NOR shows that primary sources are sometimes used, but can raw data be considered such a source, or would we need written text interpretations of that data? I have access to plenty of maps and data online supporting my hypothesis, so could those be used in Wikipedia articles or would we need interpretations? If there is a faster way to get more of the information included in Wikipedia, could writing to a science journal be skipped altogether? How long does the peer review process usually take, and does the AMS in particular have guidelines about format and length? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The meteorologist I contacted just replied, and said I had little chance without a university degree in an academic science journal application, and that fees are unlikely to be waived due to my not having the applicable credentials. However, I would still appreciate more input regarding other options. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nissan Leaf (Exterior).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Nissan Leaf (Exterior).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wind
It seems you have been offering good advice -- too bad you've been paid only in blank stares. Believe me, I know the feeling. 99.56.138.51 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Xcel indicates that wind is 0.7% of Xcel Energy's total production capacity. Nimur (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This data is confirmed here. Nimur (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Do you think the GM Converj will sell well in Palo Alto? 99.56.138.51 (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. I think consumers are going to be disappointed with the performance of 100% electric vehicles. I think the Volt is entirely the wrong design philosophy. I think that the electric car had its shot in the early twentieth century, and lost out to the gasoline engine because gasoline engines are more powerful and gasoline stores fuel more efficiently. There is a niche for electric-gasoline hybrid cars, especially in urban areas, but I don't think they are going to supplant the mainstay gas and diesel engines which run the United States' transportation economy. I don't think the average consumers in Palo Alto are very much different than the average consumers in other middle-class/upper-class/extreme-upper-class markets. As such, their purchase decisions for automobiles are very flexible - they have the luxury to buy whatever car they want, more so than the average consumer. A key point is that the market for automobiles in Palo Alto is not representative of the market for automobiles elsewhere. Finally, I'd point you to the Menlo Park Tesla dealership, which I don't believe makes so many sales these days. Electric vehicles are not viable with today's technology. They are toys for the wealthy. It is my understanding of the automotive market that such companies that target high-end consumers can be very profitable. My goal, though, is to produce a solution for the rest of the planet, which is why I worked for Toyota designing electronics for feasible, cost-effective automobiles. For the same reason, I am now applying my efforts toward a broader energy solution.  I'll let you know how that turns out in a few years.  These things take some time.  Nimur (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 100% electric? The Converj will run on petroleum too. 99.56.138.51 (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its drivetrain is 100% electric, it is not a hybrid vehicle. Chevy Volt.  I could go on, but I probably shouldn't.  Nimur (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello!
I just happened across your picture File:Green Hope School (Abandoned Site) 2006.jpg and immediately recognized the photographer's name as the guy who biked with me home from NCSU on a few occasions. Drop me a line at jimes at hiwaay dot net. -- ke4roh (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize
I am truly sorry for having messed up that article. I will of course do my best to prevent this from happening again. With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Substituting Warning Templates
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:uw-test1&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;&#123;uw-test1&#125;&#125;. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. —  Spike Toronto  22:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Geophysics on Wikipedia
Hi Nimur,

I noticed that you're currently doing a PhD in geophysics, working on seismic imaging. My feeling is that geophysics articles on Wikipedia leave a lot to be desired and that one of the problems is getting hold of images of seismic or other geophysical data. Do you know of any resources of images (outside the few things available from the USGS) that could be used to illustrate such articles? Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is certainly a major problem! Our geophysical and seismic articles are pretty substandard; and there is a serious lack of good imagery.  Unfortunately my research group works with a lot of proprietary data - and despite my strong inclinations to support the free flow of information, I am not able to use or publish most of that field data except under very strict circumstances.  However, I am actively working on a project right now involving a land data survey that was conducted entirely by Stanford (and not by a company) - and I am hoping to get permission to release some of those images under a free license.  I have looked far and wide for good quality field data sets that are unrestricted; it's not easy at all.  There are loads of unrestricted synthetics available from SEG and EAGE - maybe I could actually process one of those like a field survey and put the results on Wikipedia (at the risk of conducting WP:original research - at least I can say my method has been published elsewhere!).  Also, one of my professors' entire collection of published textbooks are released under a fairly open license.  Some of those do actually include field data examples, but a lot of the data are old, low-resolution, and crummy.  Here are links: Basic Earth Imaging and Geophysical Image Estimation By Example, both by Jon Claerbout.  Here's a Gulf of Mexico field data processing example.  The data and the code to process it are also available: it's actually our first-year homework assignments.
 * I've been trying to balance my time between updating our internal resources and updating Wikipedia; unfortunately, as much as I espouse free information, I also have to pay rent, so I've been focusing more on the non-free side of things these days... Nimur (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's OK, I work as a consultant and I see the most amazing geophysical images on a daily basis, but I have enough trouble getting permission to write papers about it (let alone the time needed to get from conference abstract to full scientific paper), (when others do publish using my work, I sometimes get into the acknowledgments :-)), but that sort of thing is, at best, a minor hobby, the main thing has to remain the day job. I had vaguely thought of trying to set up a Geophysics WikiProject, but I suspect that the membership would be rather small. Thanks for the links, I'll have a look through them. If you get a chance, would you look through synthetic seismogram for me, I created it a while ago and there have been no changes since then, It would make me more comfortable if a 'real geophysicist' had a look through it. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello!
Hey, that was a welcome message by our welcome bot. dont worry about it. :) -Jyothis (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 USRD newsletter

 * — JCbot (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Chemicalinterest user on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk
You replied too fast for the rare-earth metals. It would have been better to post a notice on my talk page if it confused someone. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Extending your answer at the refdesk with chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010_May_18#Best_extrasolar_planet_candidates_for_habitable_moons_based_only_on_irradiance.3F

24.78.178.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC).


 * It seems that your question should have been, "Will one of you please make me a chart...", but you actually asked "What discovered extrasolar planets are the best candidates for habitable moons...". Had you actually asked us to make a chart for you, we would have promptly redirected you to the homework policy, because whether the homework is for school or not, we will not do your work for you.  Nimur (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance templates
Perhaps your intention when removing templates from V4 engine was to fix the now-redirected too short template, but removing templates without addressing the underlying problem for which they were initially placed on the article is bad form. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantum message
I assumed you were simply busy and my message was kind of long, and I thought it might sound stupid.

I'm new to quantum mechanics. I downloaded The Teaching Company's lectures out of curiousity (I'm about halfway through the set), so I don't know the math, aside from the basic use of kets and thought I might be wasting your time with ignorant babbling.

I posted my questions a bit more concisely at the reference desk. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

rudeness on science ref desk
I would like to point out that your responses in the Wormholes question (03 July 2010) seem unnecessarily rude, inaccurate, and off-topic, and I believe such behavior damages the project by discouraging potential new editors. Obviously your other responses that day were fine and constructive, but as per a discussion I had on this, I'm taking it upon myself to "point out inappropriateness for the purpose of encouraging self-awareness" (quotes added for humorous effect).

To be serious, though, telling an OP - you need to know years of math if you want an answer to this question - is absolutely ridiculous on almost every question other than those directly having to do with math, and even then, there are perfectly unmathematical ways of showing people the topological concept of turning a sphere inside-out - it's the essence of pedagogy at all levels. And while you can have an educated and comedically-forceful opinion on a heavily-debated scientific concept, you had some inaccuracies - there are quite mainstream GR theories that create exotic matter with negative mass (basically frame-dragging on crack, from Kip Thorne's description - I don't study GR), and there are quite mainstream fundamental theories of matter that involve the quantum foam of untraversible wormholes. Further, a wormhole breaks physical laws, but so does a black hole singularity, and in one geometrical point of view so does friction - the fact is that we can shift the laws to account for this (though for wormholes making closed timelike curves we still haven't quite figured that trick out). In conclusion, it's bad to be a jerk, but it's even worse to be a jerk who's wrong. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're probably right, and I probably overstepped some bounds with my response. I'll try to curtail my responses and stay on topic.  Thanks for checking me here, as you know I am regularly on the science desk and I try to be a nice and polite responder.  I'll stay more on-topic and avoid rant-y answers like that one.  As far as the inaccuracy, I am not a GR expert, but I think this boils down to a disagreement between "that which is possible" and "that which is plausible", and that my opinion of exotic matter falls on a different parts of that continuous spectrum.  In any case though, my opinion is largely irrelevant on the reference desk, and I should have merely stated a cited source for scientific opinion on this.  Nimur (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the graciousness, and I've seen you on the desk before and know you're always nice etc. I think we're all entitled to say what we know and what we think on the refdesk, and if it generates either more useful information or correction of a common misconception, so much the better. In GR, I'm sure your opinion is as relevant as mine since I have nothing to do with the field, but my perspective is that they have distinctly different standards for plausible, possible, rough-guess, than those of us in solids, networks, fundamental particles, etc (all those fields having distinct standards themselves). For example, in the math I'm doing now, the results are both interesting and consistent, therefore we consider its natural existence not only possible, but probable. GR would have so little data at such low resolution and such generalized math that I guess it can't afford to talk about every nice solution to the field equations as if it were already possible. But hey, that's just a guess analysis - I should actually ask someone. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Something wrong with Wiki today (21 July)
We cannot see the clock and HotCat is also not there... Jon Ascton   (talk)


 * Was this message intended for me? Nimur (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course


 * I don't know why you're having wiki trouble, or even which wiki you're referring to (but I presume you mean Wikipedia). Have you posted your problem on WP:VP or WP:RDC?  You will get better answers from there than from me (I'm not sure what your environment is like, and I don't regularly use HotCat).  I would guess that if you're having trouble with it, you should check your monobook.js, or some other user scripts.  Did you use a user-space include to install HotCat?  I don't know what clock you're talking about.  It's plausible that you have totally disabled all javascript - check your browser settings.  Nimur (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh ! thanks, man. Got it. Thanks...

My back button difficulties
I may not have done this right. I was trying to keep my "history" as simple as possible so I could record exactly where the glitches took place, so I did some things that might not be kosher. Right now I have a mental block that's preventing me from thinking clearly when I comes to locating my original question and explaining it better. I have found two glitches, which may be a bug in IE8 since they have only been happening since I got IE8. By recording every step, I have discovered that every time the forward button has disappeared when it shouldn't have, clicking on "back" gave me the page that I would have gone to using forward, not the page I should go back to. If you don't understand that, I don't know how better to explain it.

Please be patient as I go to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill page and possibly make other discoveries. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Bears in Yosemite
Thanks much for the correction. I tried searching the NPS website, including going to http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/images and http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit, but the first link is invalid and the second didn't give me what I wanted. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. This was a great case of Reference Desk activity improving the main Encyclopedia (minor corrections notwithstanding).  Unfortunately, the Brown Bear hasn't been in California for about a century because of habitat destruction and culling - so when I saw your captions, I figured I had to fix it.  Nimur (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

part and parcel
Did you mean part and parcel at Reference desk/Science? I was not sure if it was a simple typo because the expression "part and partial" also appears in related contexts. Very interesting explanation, by the way. -84user (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I used the phrase idiomatically; and you are probably correct. "Parcel" is the original usage.  It is actually fairly uncommon to use "part and parcel" in American English; the idiomatic form "partial" is much more popular - but what I meant to say is that the process of formulating relativity is inextricably linked to the process of using generalized coordinates.  I wouldn't read too much into my (possibly incorrect) usage of the phrase "part and partial."  Nimur (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Science and Assumptions
Hey Nimur. Just wanted to say that your summary in the science reference desk of the assumptions made in science was very elegant, and I would love to see it in a textbook one day. Unless, of course, the universe is not constant and we all poof out of existence a second after you read this. Quietmarc (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Some day I may write a textbook.  I actually always wanted to write my own encyclopedia... Nimur (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's awesome. I hear that somewhere there's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so you might want to look into that. Take care!Quietmarc (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser
I would like to point out that I am not a vandal of the Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser article, but have instead edited with loving care. I am the co-president of the GM Skywagon Club, an internationally-recognized classic car club that was founded in 1999 with the intention of honoring those cars. I am recognized as one of the premier experts worldwide regarding that automobile, as I have been involved with that model of automobile since 1982. Bill Stephens Bill S. (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do the best I can
I'm leaving Wikipedia for the weekend. You'll be glad to know my own computer has had no problems except that mysterious history glitch in IE8 which I've been told how to report but I didn't do a very good job. The instreuctions were way over my head and I just did what I could.

Just so you'll know, I go to libraries to go to most web sites to minimize problems on my own computer (and because my Internet is so slow that almost always includes the newspapers that seem to be causing the problems on Firefox; if the nearest library is closed I'll risk the newspaper sites at home, but the main problem is they're just slow). I do this partly because I feel helpless when I'm on my own. When the cost of Internet access went down enough and the cost of gas was $4, I overcame my fear of being alone with a computer. That doesn't mean I can handle anything complicated.

I do the best I can. I don't know why no one seems to be able to understand when I try hard to state my problem. Somewhere in there is an implied "What's causing this? How do I deal with it?" but it just doesn't come to me.

I did get an answer that was useful on one of my reference desk questions. Then it turned out that didn't work either and I have no idea who to ask. And I jsut state the problem as best I can.

For the most part it's more of annoyance that I could live with if I had to, but it seems like the answer should be somewhere. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I (and the other volunteers on WP:RDC do want to help you. (That's why we spend our free moments checking those desks).  It's somewhat frustrating when your questions are hard to decipher.  Good luck; and next time you have technical trouble, try to think about how it can be summarized so that we can provide you the help you actually looking for.  Nimur (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (moved text here so talk page would not look so cluttered) I appreciate your trying. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(moved text here) No problems yesterday or today. Where do you recommend I put the above details in case they help anyone identify the problem? Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 14:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction. The buttons disappeared. I got them back one at a time with Alt-Tab. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 15:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Summer 2010 USRD newsletter

 * — JCbot (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Work
I was away and didn't finish our discussion of work. Watching here, of course&hellip;

Are you saying that the total derivative $$dW = d(PV)$$ does not equal $$P\partial{V} + V\partial{P}$$ ? Or that the term $$V\partial{P} = 0$$ for this case? In either case, I don't understand your reasoning. (The former is a mathematical fact; the latter is because pressure can change in weather systems, and volume is non-zero, so V dP is not negligible). There is additional discussion about path-independent work in our article. Increasing the pressure for a fixed volume requires work; I don't know why you would say "no work is done." Nimur (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Up just one section level from the link you provided, it gives the work equation I did (with a negative sign). The fact is that $$W\neq PV$$, so yes I disagree with that total derivative calculation.  As the article says, $$dW$$ is not an exact differential, so there isn't a true function W in the first place.  Certainly, with real materials, you can't adiabatically increase the pressure on them without doing work on them (because they will contract under the increased pressure).  In the limit of a rigid material, however, you can't do work on it because (fundamentally) $$W=\int_C \vec F\cdot d\vec s$$, and nothing ever moves so C is a point.  --Tardis (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit it's been a long while since my thermodynamics course, so I might be a little rusty here. But I'm pretty sure I've seen a treatment where both integrals are necessary.  I'll try to dig out my relevant textbook and brush up.  In any case, I appreciate your feedback - if it turns out I am mistaken, I don't want to continue perpetuating an incorrect formulation!  Nimur (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)