User talk:Pv=mrt

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! SWik78 (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Stirling engine
"Exerpt" is misspelled.--Mikiemike (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Any thoughts on economy/safety priority or should I revert to chronology suggested by refs? Pv=mrt (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Links
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stirling engine introduction
Please stop reverting the introduction of this article to your preferred wording without discussing the issue. An open discussion of this issue is located here, where I express concern that the desire to fully summarise the article's subject within the course of the very first sentence is misguided and leads to a poorer flow. It is expected that when a user is reverted that the next step is to discuss this issue.

Over the last month, you have now reverted to your preferred wording three times without discussion. Edit summaries are no substitute. For now I'm going to leave the article as-is, but if you can't explain why it is that the use of the terms "closed-cycle" and "regenerative" are so essential to the first sentence that it is worth negatively impacting the readability of the article then I'll be removing them again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've now restored the previous version. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page before reinstating your preferred version again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris, Aplogies for my lack of an earlier response - I have been away from the PC during the holiday period.


 * I had assumed that the concise first line definition of what comprises a Stirling engine was simply getting 'lost in the noise' of successive edits and therefore reverted without discussion. I was about to do so again when I saw your comments in the discussion page and the finally looked at my own talk page!


 * The sentence under discussion is not 'my' preferred wording as such, but wording which emerged by concensus after much discussion in April/May '08 and, as far as I can see, meets the requirements of the lead style guidelines admirably. It "unambiguously defines the topic" - a Stirling engine is unequivocably a closed cycle regenerative heat engine with gaseous working fluid (actually I'd prefer 'permanently' gaseous to positively differentiate it from Rankine machines and yes, I am aware of the Malone liquid Stirling engine!). That it is usually an external combustion engine is certainly important (therein lies some of the Stirling engine's greatest strenghths and weaknesses) but this follows from it being a closed cycle device and is not in itself a defining feature. I accept that some of the terms used in the definition might not be immediately familiar to the lay reader but, in accordance with the guideline "where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined and linked", short definitions of 'closed-cycle' and 'regenerative' are included. Lumos observed that 'working fluid' might also be an unfamiliar term to some so that might also be worthy of some explanation.


 * The guide also states that the first sentence should answer the question "why is the subject notable?". I find that a difficult one as the Stirling engine has been an abiding interest of mine for over 30 years so as far as I am concerned its notability hardly needs qualifying!


 * I therefore propose that the first sentence, together with the supporting brief definitions, be reinstated.Pv=mrt (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Internal Fire - Museum of Power
I've started a brief stub off on this. Please join in! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Cheers Andy, while I have done a bit of editing I have never originated an article - quick stub or not! Pv&#61;mrt (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Robinsons hot air engine.pdf


A tag has been placed on File:Robinsons hot air engine.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)