User talk:Reify-tech/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Reify-tech, 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 my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Wizard191 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Some comments / ideas regarding Coaxial power connector article
Hi,

I stumbled onto the Wikipedia article, Coaxial power connector today and enjoyed it very much. I notice it is relatively new and you seem to be the only content contributor so far.


 * I'm still pretty new at this, so I'm not even sure whether this is the right place to respond, but here goes... I did not originate the article Coaxial power connector, and I haven't traced its edit history back to the beginning. I stumbled across it while looking for something else, but found the article to be full of useful info.  Many months later, I consulted it again, noticed that it needed some work, and rolled up my sleeves for my first major Wikipedia project.Reify-tech (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to make a few edits in the article but thought I'd list some suggestions here for you since you obviously have spent a lot of time on this article and are probably much more knowledgeable - and more willing to spend time / energy - than I am on this particular topic.

First, I'm a big fan of this kind of article myself (don't ask me why) - Technical standards (or lack thereof) in different areas of our daily lives - especially electronics / consumer goods. And I think this article is a great / comprehensive introduction to the particular topic of these kinds of power connectors. My comments / suggestions are more related to Wikipedia guidelines regarding "how" articles should be written - particularly Wikipedia guidelines on original research, verifiability and neutral point of view.

I hope these suggestions are useful and taken in the spirit offered. Best regards. Pugetbill (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. This article needed a lot of work, once I got into it. Many glitches, inconsistencies, random errors, and gaps. Most of the items you flag were in the original article as I came upon it, and I did not feel comfortable removing them immediately, preferring to work first on other things that needed improvement.  As noted on the Talk:Coaxial_power_connector page, I've already relocated the material on "Universal power supplies" to the article AC adapters, and plan to delete the redundant material from here.  (The AC adapter article itself needs a lot of work, and I've started in a bit, but that's another story.)  I haven't done the deletion yet because I'm not sure whether or not anything from that section should be left behind, or whether the whole thing should be removed, and what kind of pointer should be left behind.Reify-tech (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you can read German. Your help in figuring out DIN 45323 power connectors would be much appreciated.  What the article needs is a better explanation of what applications these DIN connectors are intended to address, and where they are likely to be encountered or used. Still better would be locating an official or unofficial translation of the standards, or a useful gloss on them.Reify-tech (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Try to avoid personal opinions / predictions (even when relatively 'benign' / harmless / obvious) unless quoting (and citing) an independent source (book, newspaper article, etc.). There are certainly many gray areas and this is often a "judgement call." For example, many "facts" (like "Paris is the capital of France") do not require citations because verifiability is "assumed" / is not controversial. But many opinions typically require an independent source for verifiability - or can be left out of the article entirely:


 * "...Many different sizes
 * ...It is quite possible that new sizes will continue to appear and disappear. The most likely reason for a new size is that a particular manufacturer wishes to discourage use of third-party power supplies, either for technical reasons or to promote use of their own products, or both..."

Some comments (like this one directly addressing the Wikipedia reader) should not be in the main article but could be placed in the article's Discussion page:


 * "...Standards
 * ...There are probably other "standards" in use as well; readers are invited to contribute their observations on the "Discussion" page corresponding to this article."

Many "How to" or "advice" statements in the current article seem out of place in an encyclopedia article. The statements are "true" and generally "good ideas," just not particularly "encyclopedic" as written:


 * "...Locking and retention features:
 * ...a feature intended to prevent accidental disconnection. Its presence or absence should be carefully checked when distinguishing very similar sizes and variants."


 * "...Universal Power Supplies:
 * ...Nevertheless, care should be taken if more than a few watts are supplied to a product, even at low voltages, since a malfunction could still start a fire. Thus, an internal fuse, circuit breaker, or thermal limiter may be useful in a powered product, even when a safety-certified external power supply is used."


 * "...it is prudent to record the specifications of the original power supply in advance, to ease replacement if the original is later lost."
 * "Careful labeling of power adaptors can also reduce the likelihood of a disastrous mixup which could cause equipment damage."


 * "...Comprehensive listing of DC coaxial connectors
 * ...Great care should be taken when specifying connectors for these applications, to avoid severe equipment damage or even fire, due to the higher power carried by these designs."

Pugetbill (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. And apologies for my confusion. I see now that when I first looked at the "View History" tab in the Coaxial power connector article, I only saw / looked at your entries (the latest ~50) and I jumped to the (false) conclusion that it was a new article with you the only author. Don't know why I assumed those were the only entries - I should have clicked through to see earlier entries. Again, my apologies for jumping to conclusions.

As for reading the German DIN standards, I was also curious about DIN 45323 and had tried to find a copy or German reference to the standard but all I found was advertisements for connectors / cables / parts for sale that claimed conformance to DIN 45323 - but provide no particular history or info on the connector or its typical / original intended application. I tried both the German and English Google search pages. Even the German DIN site itself returns no result when you search for "45323" or "DIN 45323." Neither does it show up on the German Wikipedia article "List of DIN standards" (Liste_der_DIN-Normen). I suspect it may be a standard that has been retired / superseded by something newer??? But I haven't been able to find anything that references a newer / similar DIN (or EN... / IEC / Euro) standard.

Example of connector & socket:
 * connector spec sheet (pdf link)
 * socket spec sheet (pdf link)

Best regards,

Pugetbill (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to IBM Selectric typewriter
A very nice set of additions. With strong references! Thank you! Jeh (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! It's nice to be appreciated! Reify-tech (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Category Pratical Jokes
Hi. I noticed you added more information to the practical joke list. You may have noticed that there is a discussion on Talk:Practical_joke. I am very interested in what you have to say about the need for such a list. I didn't realize this before, but I believe that the lists are redundant with the Category Practical Jokes Blackwidowhex (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the existence of the other listing, which I was not aware of. The list in the Practical_joke article now gives some idea about why the person is notable (e.g. "full time" prankster vs. film actor but also a prankster, etc.), which is why I annotated the list.  The other listing you mention "only includes persons who would be notable for their pranks alone".  For example, Richard Feynman, George Gamow, and Camille Paglia are primarily known for other achievements, and don't merit inclusion in the [Category Pranksters] listing, but their pranking avocations are noteworthy.


 * I think the lists only partially overlap in function, and are not redundant, but that it might be a good idea to put mutually cross-referencing pointers in the two lists, so readers (and editors) of one listing are aware of the other listing. Perhaps the article listing should be renamed "Examples", and focus more on notable "non-professional" pranksters, and point to the more-comprehensve listing of "professional" pranksters known primarily for their pranking? Also, the latter listing is completely unannotated, giving the non-expert reader no clue where to begin, and should be made more reader-friendly.


 * Anyway, I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, but I do think that notable people who are also pranksters should be listed somewhere, and not completely ignored in favor of "full-time professional" pranksters, which certainly deserve their own (preferably annotated) listing. Reify-tech (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Anybody can make a practical joke; I should not have to be an expert on the topic to know that. There are no sources that note those people as pranksters. I'm sure they were a lot more fun than I am, but that doesn't make them better pranksters than I. Blackwidowhex (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to argue a lot about this, since I'm not a great fan or practitioner myself. But there are sources, if you follow the links to the articles about the persons listed.  Read the articles, and you should find verifiable documentation on their notability for practical jokes (if not, just comment them out until someone sources the backup info).  Nobody is grading anybody on practical joke quality, just notability.  I don't make the rules, I just edit here sometimes. 8^) Reify-tech (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Greenspeak
Greenspeak is not a bad section topic, per se, and, in an edit summary and talk page postingig, it has been explained and re-explained why the initial attempt at the topic was not up to standards. Nonetheless, that clear rational has been ignored or unacknowledged by you, and a baseless charge of a hidden agenda -disguised as a suggestion, was made. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My, my, you're quick to pounce! Your vehemence is impressive in trying to suppress any mention of an aspect of Alan Greenspan's career for which he is well known, and which Greenspan himself has acknowledged repeatedly.  Why the obsession about purging any and all references?  Reify-tech (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not the issue, your crummy sources are. Present credible sources with make for a better approach. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Tips on engaging objective discussions
Hello Reify-tech!

I appreciate your stopping by the Lightning_rod page the other day and providing assistance and recommendations. I have indeed set up a user front page as you suggested, User:Borealdreams.

As I've known all along, I've entered a boiling cauldron in this discussion, [redacted WP:NPA by Borealdreams (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)]

Over and over I dispute his positions and edits due to his repeated violations of Wiki Pillars #1 & #2, Objectivity and Non-Promotion, discrediting his rational using his own words clearly violating The Pillars.

Any suggestions on how to engage others who are willing to approach this topic from an objective position?

p.s. I hope I did this correctly by posting on your page.

Borealdreams (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The great majority of his edits have actually been a positive contribution to Wikipedia, though some fellow editors have found his brusque or sardonic comments style a bit off-putting. All I can do is to encourage you to adhere to Wikipedia policies and etiquette.  Whatever you do, avoid getting caught up in an "edit war".  I have seen some usually reasonable (or at least tolerable) editors get blocked for brief periods because they became exasperated with another editor's real or perceived stubbornness.  It's best to not take various minor slights personally; remember that an annoying editor probably treats others the same way they treated you.  When there's a head-on dispute, it's best to have *several* reasonable allies, and to avoid doing anything rash, no matter what the provocation may be.  All kinds of people from around the world have found their way to Wikipedia editing; it is best to focus on doing good, verifiable work, and to ignore petty annoyances and rudeness, whether intended or not.


 * p.s. "Benjamin" Franklin; "eluded", not "alluded"
 * Reify-tech (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[redacted WP:NPA by Borealdreams (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)]

[Comment self-deleted: Borealdreams has expressed a desire to make a fresh start.] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
Hello Reify-tech, I noticed the promotional tag that you had placed on the SOM page, and tried to remove the 1) blatantly inaccurate info and 2) promo material that someone added. Could you take a look + remove the promo tag if you agree with the edits? I should note that I work at SOM, and am not the original author of the article. Thanks. Kmsom (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning up the promotional tone and doing some factual updates. SOM's many accomplishments speak for themselves far better than the superfluous and embarrassing puffery somebody tacked onto the front of the article. There's still plenty of room for improvement in the article itself, which was rated C-level quality.  But I see you have been making gradual improvements, and encourage you to continue. Working at SOM does not disqualify you from editing the article, as long as you maintain a neutral tone and focus on verifiable and notable factual information. -- Reify-tech (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI about wikilinks
Just noticed something very minor with your edits to the Red Line article. If you're wikilinking to something followed by a parenthetical part,, just use the pipe - and no text - after the destination and it gives you the first part. For example: Red Line (MBTA) gives you Red Line. It's not a big deal, though I have a habit of fixing them when I do copyedits so as to make wikitext a little easier to navigate. Pi.1415926535 (talk)

Cheers!


 * Thank you, whoever you are! I didn't know that particular shortcut, and will happily use it from now on. -- Reify-tech (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops, that was me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

About your request for image of a roof-top cooling tower
Hi, Reify-tech: Here are 3 photos of roof-top air conditioners that may be what you are looking for: They were all found very easily in Wikimedia Commons. Pick one and place it in the Cooling tower article. But PLEASE use only one of them. In my opinion, the article already has too many images (22 of them). mbeychok (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Industrial air conditioning unit (DFdB).JPG
 * File:Roof Plant On Auckland Warehouse II.jpg
 * File:Loop Shopping Centre Exterior I.jpg


 * The last photo was close to what I had in mind, so I've used it. I had already searched Wikimedia Commons, but for some reason failed to find the photos you discovered.


 * Apologies for the slightly delayed response; I've been offline most of a day. I think you've improved the lede, the reason I had tagged it was that I felt it didn't summarize the article that well. I was too tired to rework it, so I figured somebody else could do it, or I would come back later and work on it myself. I think the article is much improved in its clarity and Wikilinking to related topics.


 * Thanks for responding to my call for assistance! -- Reify-tech (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Film capacitor

 * Note: this discussion has been transferred to User talk:Elcap/Film capacitor (which will be talk:Film capacitor soon).

Hi Reify-tech, maybe you remember helping me for better English with “Capacitor plague”. Now I wrote a new article "Film capacitor" and put it under "User:Elcap/Film capacitor". This article is not only a translation from the German Wikipedia article ([]) but have a lot of additional informations especially written in respect of new information. May be I am an expert of capacitors but not of the English language, that is the reason to ask for help in grammar, wordings and so on. Please have a look at my draft and may be you have a little bit time to make a good English article out of this. (I ask "SpinningSpark" for the same) Thanks for helping. --Elcap (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look at your draft, and it looks very comprehensive. I will be happy to help polish up the translation, to the extent that I have time. I assume that you've checked the English Wikipedia for existing coverage of the same topic (I did a quick search, and found nothing). In any event, I'm sure your material will be a notable improvement over the existing coverage. -- Reify-tech (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've done a lot of editing, and probably reached the halfway point, or further. Some questions:
 * 1 - I can't figure out what "a.m.o." means (in most browsers, use ^F to search the article for this)
 * 2 - Is it possible to change the text labels within some of the diagrams?


 * -- Reify-tech (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Following your excellent copyedit, I didn't see any reason for the article not to go live and have moved it to Film capacitor. Regarding the above, after some searches it appears that a.m.o. is short for anodic metal oxide.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yikes! I'm still working on it!  I'm afraid the article will be forked into multiple versions.  Could we hold off on release until it's somewhat more finished? -- Reify-tech (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well sure, I can move it back, but articles can be worked on in the mainspace. Why would people fork it? Anyway, I don't ever want to get in the way of anyone who's doing the heavy lifting so I'll go do it now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to discuss all future questions on the film caps discussion page. (where I have written a.m.o.??) And shure, if you want to change some descriptions in the drawings I easily can do it. But somebody have to tell me what. Maybe it takes a little bit time (holydays now). --Elcap (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Reify-tech, thanks so much for all your assistance. I just ask Fuhghettaboutit to move this draft now to a "Wiki" (because I have never done it before)


 * A copy was taken without warning when I was in the middle of extensive editing over the entire article, and later written back over my edits, effectively reverting them. Then User: Elcap edited further, unaware of my work that was lost.  Thus, I can't simply revert back to the version that was overwritten. which would discard his work.  Somebody will have to examine each change and merge them together by hand, or just abandon my last round of work, or Elcap's work. In other words, the article is forked.


 * I stopped work when I suspected the article was forked, and couldn't get back until now (was out this afternoon and evening). I don't consider the copyedit sweeps finished, as there are major sections that have barely been touched and are still in rough shape.  I was going to finish the first sweep in maybe another day's work, then ask Elcap and anybody else interested to review things before rolling it out.  A premature rollout is just asking to be tagged all over for problems I know are still there, and which I was in the process of fixing.  The fact that the abortive rollout hasn't been noticed by other editors or readers is due to the fact that it isn't Wikilinked yet; those links should be put in after there is a decent article in place to link to.


 * Since English isn't Elcap's native language, what I've just written here may not be entirely clear. I suggest that we discuss things and figure out what we're doing, before taking any further unilateral action. I'm feeling discouraged and tired at this point, and am going to sleep.  -- Reify-tech (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. No copy was taken. It was moved exactly for the reason of preserving the edit history, i.e., not cut and paste anywhere and then moved back at your request above. Nothing has been forked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha! I see what happened. During the interval between your last edit and my move, you were making edits and you saved them to the old name where the article was no longer located which edit was then deleted upon the move. I have fixed it, undeleting that edit into the history (the edit of March 25 at 14:41) and reverted to that version. Nothing's lost. Please continue!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Whew! I've finished an initial copyedit sweep, and the article is now ready for review and further revision. I suggest holding back its release a couple of days, to allow User:Elcap and interested others to do any last-minute editing before public rollout. I have used the tag template to flag items that I couldn't figure out immediately on this first pass, so I or somebody else can go back later and find them quickly in the Wikisource code to resolve them. I think most of these items can be resolved by Elcap, or by referring back to the original German version.

Once a stable and consistent terminology, spelling, and style have been settled upon, the labeling text inside some of the diagrams should be revised, probably by Elcap, since I think he originally produced them.

Thank you for your patience in waiting for me to finish the heavy editing. We should try to loosely coordinate with each other, to avoid WP:Edit conflicts (really, "edit collisions"), and edit only one subsection at a time (when possible), to reduce the likelihood of a collision. I'm going to take a rest break now, and let other editors have a look at the article. I hope you like it. I've definitely learned a lot from reading (and editing) it. -- Reify-tech (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Once you think it's ready (and I may take a quick pass tonight), this is an excellent candidate for a DYK, which rarely gets articles this comprehensive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I hadn't thought about nominating the article for DYK, but you've made an intriguing suggestion here. Maybe the "hook" could be, "Did you know... that metallized film capacitors have a "self-healing" property which allows them to automatically clear away internal short-circuit faults, and to resume normal operation within fractions of a second?" The article subsection pointed to had better be in tip-top condition, including good pictures and sufficient inline citations to verifiable references. The rest of the article should be at least in acceptable condition.


 * I followed the 2 existing refs from the "Self-healing of metallized film capacitors" section (one needs to be slightly updated already), and found more interesting info, including diagrams of "safety film" metallization patterns, which I had not seen before. Clearly, even this well-written subsection could still use improvement in references, and perhaps even in content.


 * If we really want to go for it, the article does need further finishing and polishing before we release it, since public release starts an automatic 5-day maximum limit on eligibility. This rule implies that we should spend time in advance getting the chosen subsection(s) and the overall article into as good shape as possible, then release and nominate it, and be ready for a 5-day sprint to respond to any questions or suggestions for improvement from the panel of judges.  As to when there's a consensus that the article is ready for release, we ought to hear from User:Elcap, who did most of the original writing in German, as well as other editors working on the article. -- Reify-tech (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting hook and by the thinnest hair under the 200 character recommendation limit for DYK (count tool here). Yes, the information for the hook must be cited in the article using a reliable source with an inline citation. I think the rest of the article is already in fairly decent shape, and quite acceptable for DYK, though I am not saying there could not be much more done by any means. I've done many DYK nominations (mostly my own articles, but probably 5 or so others) so if you want me to do the nomination, that would not be a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I've finished my complete copyedit sweep of the entire article, and appreciate other editors standing aside while I worked, to avoid "edit collisions". I consider this initial phase completed, and invite other interested editors to work on the article in tandem with me. I will try to stay out of other's way as I edit within sections, and expect other editors will try their best as well. The article is in much better shape now, but still needs a lot of work before rollout, if we want to try for DYK as discussed above. --Reify-tech (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles get more attention when they're in the mainspace. Since you're done with your main copyedits I really don't see any reason it should not be moved. DYK does not require articles that have been through a peer review and FAC, but is for new articles. I think the article is quite sufficient for DYK, with much thanks to you, so long as the section the hook information comes from is cited. Do you oppose a move to the mainspace?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided at this point. I'd like to hear from User:Elcap, who still seems to be making significant technical additions to the article in spite of being on vacation.  I don't think he has yet expressed interest (or disinterest) in going for WP:DYK. At the least, I'd like to hear his opinion on whether the "hook" is appropriate, and the section it points to is technically correct and fully referenced.  Also, I'd feel more comfortable with the article if Elcap had a chance to look at and resolve the open issues I flagged on my copyedit sweep through the article. Last but not least, I have no idea what kind of connectivity or inclination/ability to respond quickly Elcap may have while on vacation.  Elcap does point out (below, in next section) that his ability to respond quickly is impaired while he's away from his home base in Germany.  If he's like many writers I know, he would be best equipped to respond from home, with all his familiar reference works and notes at hand. I wouldn't mind getting DYK for the article, but I have little experience with responding to a nomination, and the 5-day timeout sounds a bit intimidating without Elcap (who apparently wrote most or nearly all of the original article in German) being able to fully participate. --Reify-tech (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Section headings

 * Note: this discussion has been transferred to User talk:Elcap/Film capacitor (which will be talk:Film capacitor soon).

The Wikipedia Manual of Style recommendation on "Section headings" (MOS:HEAD) says:


 * Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)

Following this recommendation, I [had] removed the many redundant "film capacitors" references in the section headings, except where they were necessary for clarity. I'm not going to be doctrinaire about this, but I do think that following the Wikipedia guideline does result in a better, more readable article. --Reify-tech (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Elcap, I haven't reverted the section headings, out of respect for your previous work. With your consent, I'm willing to remove the multiple redundant "film capacitors" wording again. If not, I'll set this issue aside until other editors voice their opinions. Please look at the Wikisource code items tagged with "elucidate", and see if you can resolve whatever issues I found confusing on my initial sweep.  If the terminology and spelling in the text are acceptable, the diagrams need to be relabeled to be consistent with the text.  I can generate a more-specific list of proposed diagram changes, if you want. --Reify-tech (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikis, The section headings are not a question of Wiki rules but of logic thinking. It is not the polymer film have influence to an electronic circuit but the capacitor behind. Otherwise we have to cancel all advanages of the relevant capacitor in spite of electronics in this section. Not a good idea. If now the name of the capacitor is to long and not good "readable" it is not a problem of the author but of the technique behind. And please have a look to the article "Types of capacitors", it is very important to use the correct capacitor names te eleminate the "Kuddelmuddel" now is written in the English Wiki --Elcap (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, I now spend my holydays "on the sunny side of the world" (Fl). If you want that I read your corrections and change technical parts in spite of my 40 years experiances with capacitors (if required) than you have to give me more time than only 5 days. End of April I will be back at home in Germany.


 * Elcap, I'm not fully convinced regarding the section headings, but I defer to your opinion on this. As I hope you noticed (above, in previous section), User:Fuhghettaboutit would like to immediately release the article to Wikipedia mainspace, and to nominate it for WP:DYK status.  I would like to hear your clear opinion on how finished/unfinished the article is, and whether you could respond quickly to any requests during the 5-day maximum limit on eligibility, once a nomination is submitted.  Fuhghettaboutit and I both think the article stands a good chance of attaining DYK status, but I'd like your opinion on whether to go for it now, or to continue working on improvements and to go for it after you've returned from your vacation. Best wishes! --Reify-tech (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And a second question. Can we copy this discussion to my user page? --Elcap (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding your suggestion that we move further discussion of the article User:Elcap/Film capacitor to User talk:Elcap/Film capacitor, it sounds like a good idea to me. I haven't done such a move before, so I'm not quite sure how to do it (do the logs have to be moved/copied too?). User:Fuhghettaboutit, could you do the move, or still better, point me to info on how to do it, so I can learn how? --Reify-tech (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I could do it as a move, but it would be messy and is unneeded (it requires administrative tools, and is a bit complicated if inexperienced (I've done a few thousand moves and numerous history merges, splits, swaps and the like as I've spent much time implementing requested moves). For transfer of a discussion like this, we would just copy and paste it there, providing copyright attribution in the edit summary by noting where the information came from with a wikilink, e.g, " " This is similar to the copyright attribution requirements of a merge. See also Copying within Wikipedia. Most users don't even bother (or realize there is something to bother about) when moving discussion from talk pages (though they should). Anyway, if you're interested in the mysteries of history tinkering, see How to fix cut-and-paste moves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Some closing remarks from Elcap

 * Note: this discussion has been transferred to User talk:Elcap/Film capacitor (which will be talk:Film capacitor soon).

I found the time to read the actual version once and made some smaller remarks. Now I Think, the article is better than the German one. In the German Wiki the power capacitors do have their own article but for the English version I want to underline the common relationship between the “film capacitors for use in electronic equipment” (heading of the generic specification 60384-1) and the power (film) capacitors. Out of my feeling now you can move the article to the “wiki”. But please inclusive our discussion here on this user page.

If you want to change some descriptions in the drawings please feel free to ask me. Sorry that I did it not in inkscape but I do not master tis software.

Once again, thank you so much in helping to correct my German sounding language into English. I gave you a nugget, you polish it. By the way, the German article got the award “Lesenswert”. Kind regards --Elcap (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Reify-tech, now I am back again in the northern part of Germany, cold - but spring is coming fast. If you found any mistakes in the drawings, please let me know. But otherwise I think, the article film capacitors now can be mooved. Regards --Elcap (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I will read the article from beginning to end once more, looking for continuity, consistency, and clarity. I had held off doing this while we were focussed on cleaning up the details.   It's easy to miss minor or major problems due to "over-familiarity" with an article one has been working on.  A top-to-bottom fresh read is well worth doing. I hope you enjoyed your vacation.  Spring has come very early to Boston, with temperatures as high as 60°F over a month ago. Temperature-based plants have already budded out and flowered, while daylight-hours-synchronized plants are still on schedule.  --Reify-tech (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Reify-tech, greetings from lovely springtime in northern Germany. One question, what hinder now to moove the article? Shall I do it by myself? --Elcap (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Meetup address corrected
Hi Reify-tech, tonight's meetup is at 33 Harrison Avenue, not 33 Harrison Street as was listed on the event page and meetup.com. Both of those are now fixed and I've sent an email to the Boston mailing list, but I wanted to let you know here in case you happened not to catch those other fixes. Map: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=33+Harrison+Ave,+floor+5,+Boston,+MA+02111&hl=en&geocode=+&hnear=33+Harrison+Ave,+Boston,+Massachusetts+02111&t=m&z=16. Best, Emw (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Harvard Bridge
Thanks. It was a typo I went to fix and found you'd put the missing letter in square brackets. Something you should know is that Wikimarkup will treat something in a single pair of square brackets as an external link. If you want the square brackets to show, you need to enclose the whole thing in &lt;nowiki&gt;&lt;/nowiki&gt; tags, like [so]. Thanks for the assist! - Denimadept (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Film Capacitor
Hi Reify-tech. Please see User talk:Elcap. Regards,--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

only a question
Hi Reify-tech,

maybe you remember your lot of work correcting the article Film capacitors. Now I closed another project and I kindly would ask you, if you want to help in grammer and writing mistakes. But it is a lot of work, please before say anything, have a short look at this revised article: User:Elcap/Types of capacitor.

Kind regards and greetings from wet and dark wintertime in northern Germany. --Elcap (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Jury rig
Jesus H Christ, does deleting an IP editor's entirely unsupported additions to an article require a full Support/Oppose voting process now or what? Kolbasz (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool down, it's not a dire emergency (Template:Citation needed). Anyway, this one time I interrupted what I was doing to add a citation to Jury rig.
 * Better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Vandalism should stay, if someone adds a citation needed tag. Check. Also, your citation doesn't mention anon's original research and instead merely echoes what's stated further down in the article about jerry-built. Kolbasz (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no need to get into pitched battle over this. The IP editor's work was an incomplete Good Faith effort, not true vandalism. Anyway, I just took another look, and I think that you have improved the article much better than my quick fix.  A somewhat less peremptory tone in communicating with other editors would make it much easier for everyone to contribute constructively to improving Wikipedia.  Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Electric double-layer capacitor
Hi Reify-tech, I saw, You put a remark "introduction to long" to the EDLC article. I just (since 4 month) write this article complete new, following the German article. If You wat, please have a look at User:Elcap/Supercapacitor. Finishing this article I think the introduction is even to short. Greatings --Elcap (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been very busy with other projects (offline), so I haven't had much time for Wikipedia work. I'm not sure how much time I'll have in the immediate future, so I'm reluctant to make any commitments or promises.  I'll take a look when I have an uninterrupted period of time to work on it.  I hope your work has been going well.  Reify-tech (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're wellcome ever you spend a little time. And, to be honest, the introduction indeed is worth to be shorten. Regards, --Elcap (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Soldering article
Hi! You appear to have blanked the page accidently. I reverted your edit using STiKi. If i've made a mistake let me know. Thanks!  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  09:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look around, and I can't find the issue you're referring to. I checked my edit history, and don't see any recent large deletions.  Anyway, if I did inadvertently blank an article, thanks for repairing it! Reify-tech (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking again a bit later, I see that Soldering might be the article. I did do a mass delete (49,744 bytes), but this was all duplicated content added by an IP editor.  Please double-check to make sure I'm not mistaken.  Reify-tech (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

MIT
Should include C. W. Eliot as a faculty member who later headed "another school" . We should have the "Wright Flyer" incident - as the Great Lawn was the only American exhibit site for it for many years due to the Smithsonian claims, and the Wright Brothers Wind Tunnel was partially funded by Curtiss-Wright and some of Orville Wright's friends in the 30s (he attended the dedication). Also the Naval Architecture ship model museum.. Also the MITSFS library which, IIRC, is largest of its kind. And, of course, the MIT connections to other technical schools (some of which were basically founded by MIT). Lastly, how can we omit Tom Lehrer? Collect (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are lots of interesting sidelights to leaven what otherwise could become a boring, straightforward narrative. Some of these items probably ought to go into related articles (see the infobars at the end of the article) to keep the main article from getting too long.  Your trimming of excess words seems constructive for the most part; my only concern is whether you are saving some of the material (and citations) and moving it into other appropriate articles, rather than losing it altogether. Reify-tech (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot is simply not important - the ship models are a great museum (I assume you are at the Tute?), and a lot is now declassified (the "secret" labs underneath the Great Lawn, etc.) The Wright material is, however, of substantial significance as it relates to MIT and the history of aviation (the first MIT wind tunnell was well before the Wrights).  Tom can easily be tacked on to notable faculty without too much trouble, I am sure (MIT shared him with Wellesley!).  And do not fret - I have a huge amunt of MIT material if you would like - just not the energy to add it all in myself .  I think most of the Psych department research has now been declassified as well in case you want to note the cognition experiments etc.  The Nutrition and Food Science studies ended up being a basis for NASA diets.   and the MIT Rocket Society (founded 1953) is famed in NASA lore for its solid fuel.  Why it is ignored in the model rocketry article is weird.   And Doc Edgerton kept a loaded rifle outside his lab! Collect (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Reify-tech; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Beanie
Thank you! It's nice to be appreciated, especially from the other side of the earth. I actually spent several weeks Down Under during the 1990s, and had a great time there. Aussie blokes have great sense of humour. G'day, mate! Reify-tech (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And we love to have a dig (make a pejorative joke) at ourselves, too! Looking forward to heading over to North America sometime soon myself.  I'll be sure to pack a beanie.  —sroc (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Large copy-edits to MBTA-related articles
Hey, you're very good at copyediting, and I've appreciated the work you're done on MBTA-related articles. Would you mind taking a look at the recent edits by this IP user to a couple articles about the T? They've made some extensive copyedits which strike me as tightening the wording too much, but I wanted a second opinion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look, but may not get to a detailed perusal for a day or so. The Green Line (MBTA) edits look mostly benign in a quick cursory glance, but I share your concerns that ihey might go a bit too far.  Cutting every single non-essential word will leave the articles very desiccated, boring, and unmemorable, as if written by a simple computer program following a rigid formula.  Reify-tech (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've waded through a detailed comparison of Green Line (MBTA) before and after edits by the IP editor in question. While many of the cuts were beneficial, or at least "mostly harmless", a number of them go too far, and impair the readability and clarity of the entire article. Some general observations:
 * The repeated removal of the word "station" reduces clarity. For example, "service to Boylston" is less clear than "service to Boylston station".  While it can be argued that "station" is redundant, the phrase could also have meant "service to Boylston Street", "service to Boylston, Massachusetts", "service to the Boylston neighborhood", etc.
 * The repeated reduction of "Green Line" to "line" reduces clarity, and sometimes can be ambiguous.
 * There seems be a general aversion to repeating the names of things, instead substituting shorter pronouns like "it" or "they", etc. While it is usually possible to figure out the antecedents of the pronouns, some of them appear ambiguous, and forcing the reader to remember or search for the antecedent interrupts the overall flow and readability of the writing.

In many cases of marginal ambiguity, it is certainly possible for the reader to puzzle out what the writer meant. But this slows down and impairs what should be free-flowing and easy communication of facts and ideas, and their relation to the interests of a reader. An article should be more than a dry catalog of minimally-connected facts, which give no hint of why the reader should even care about them.

What is harder to put a finger on is the effect on the entire tone of the article. While the more laconic style may be thought to be "more professional", I think it is also more off-putting to the general reader. The tone is very much like the terse, endlessly detailed catalogs of British rolling stock published in fine print on thin paper in the 1950s, when paper and ink were still scarce and expensive. Partly, this parsimony is a question of style. But the MBTA is located in Boston, not the UK, and I think that Americans in the 2010s prefer a less formal, less elliptical style, even at the expense of a few hundred extra bytes of computer storage.

Wikipedia policy is to place the interests of the reader ahead of the preferences of the writers. I don't like sacrificing readability, clarity, and even some pleasure of reading, on the altar of what was viewed as high style in years past.

I'm not sure what to do about this. From examining the logs, the IP editor seems to have a mission of paring down as many bytes as possible from a large number of railway articles, mostly in the UK and Commonwealth, but also in the US and elsewhere in the world. Re-inserting the unhelpful deletions is going to be a lot of work; certainly, removing them must have taken a while. From the User Talk page, it is apparent that he (or possibly she??) has been repeatedly warned against obsessively overlinking calendar dates, and consistently declining to provide any edit summary. The vast majority of edits have been deletions, with rare and minimal exceptions. In spite of consistent activity since 2009, this editor has spurned repeated invitations to register for a permanent account, and appears to avoid engagement of any kind with fellow editors.

I think that we will get minimal (or no) response from this reticent editor, and may have to infer responses from whatever behavior is visible. I have not researched the reactions of other editors to the roving IP editor's changes, or his reactions in turn (if any). I have the impression that he makes a single pass through an article, and does not return to contend with other editors, but wanders off to whittle away on the next article. Thankfully, the IP editor seems to know better than or is loathe to engage in edit warring. Some digging through edit summaries (say, for New York, San Francisco, or Chicago) should reveal how other editors have reacted, and what they have done. We New Englanders are hardly the first to encounter this lone meandering editor.

Before asking, with due respect, that the IP editor restrain or modify his paring instincts, the other active editors here would need to establish some kind of (at least informal) consensus on some stylistic conventions. There has been a largely unwritten consensus on the style of the MBTA and New England transit articles, and most editors new to the topic seem to adopt and adapt to the local conventions. But perhaps a brief page-length "style guide" may be in order, claiming no global applicability, but adopted wherever there is a local consensus to do so.

What do you think? Reify-tech (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Pi.1415926535, I think your recent revert of Park Street (MBTA station) was very justifiable, in that the overall balance of the reverted changes was negative. Though the original prose could still be tightened a bit, this was not worth the drastic cuts which noticeably impaired the effectiveness of the article.  Cutting a few superfluous words was definitely not worth changing how well the article communicated, for example in the section on Accessibility.  We'll just have to watch for the sporadic appearances of the "Phantom Parer"; fortunately (s)he does not return after making a single pass.  Reify-tech (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
Interesting exchange, have you been to these places too? Counter-Vandalism Unit, and Recent changes patrol, these would appear to be places that NEED you! ;-) Just adding this here as the Helpdesk conversation just got archived, think that they might interest you, had a quick wander through recent changes too, interesting. Captain Screebo Parley! 17:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Useless machine, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! TheOneSean &#124; Talk to me 01:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Please check a page's history before tagging it
Hello, please check a page's history carefully before adding a tag like no lead. You added such a tag to Landfill, but the lead section (among other things) had previously been removed in vandalism by. Graham 87 03:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Rust gallery
I like it. That's even better. I will change my junkbox and use that way from now on. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia New England next meeting
We're looking at holding the next Meetup/New England soon, possibly on Saturday July 20. Do you think you could possibly help with a space for that? Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lovely to see you again :) Next time, with banners and projector!  –  SJ  +  01:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Mottainai for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mottainai is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mottainai until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Edcolins (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

October 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:The Sheep Look Up‎, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  TREK philer any time you're ready, Uhura 21:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like you first inadvertently deleted my comment and those of another editor when you added your comments, possibly due to an WP:EDITCONFLICT. I then inadvertently deleted your comments when I rolled back the version, by misinterpreting your edit summary "Take it out", and not noticing your own addition.  At first glance, your edit had looked like a pure deletion.  Sorry about that.  No offense intended, and none taken.  Reify-tech (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA
I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Your recent editing history at NEMA connector shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not actively involved in an edit war, but may be an innocent bystander to a developing one. I only made some minor copyedits and moved some pictures to a Template:Gallery to improve page layout, but ran into an WP:EDITCONFLICT and  tried to recover from it.  Having been burned by this, I am staying clear of the article until the smoke and dust settle.  Reify-tech (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As of November 23, the two alleged "edit warriors" appear to have apologized and made up; there was some sort of misunderstanding concerning mutual and inadvertent reverts which touched off the dispute. Now that the disputation is finished, I may venture back in and resume editing the article.  Reify-tech (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583807632 your edit] to Takis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * * 2005: Solar Magnetic Fields exhibition at Stavros Mihalarias Art Center in Athens.
 * ow/4ed0b0bd878eaf2a.html Busch, Julia M.; A Decade of Sculpture: the New Media in the 1960s The Art Alliance Press: Philadelphia]

Disclosure request
Evidence indicating that the General Body or Executive Board voted to derecognize the group can be disclosed at Talk:MIT Crime Club. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC) 05:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Change - Mac Address? 71.95.207.102 (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Reify-tech. I have recently gotten a message from you stating that the Escalator Wikipedia page was edited by somebody using our IP Address (71.95.207.102). I had not made the edit, and was wondering if you could send me the Mac Address so I can find out who in my class had edited a page.

The message had said this:

Hello, I'm Reify-tech. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Escalator because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Reify-tech (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Thank you!


 * I am an ordinary editor, not an admin, so I don't have access to the full range of tools for tracing an IP edit. I suggest making this inquiry at WP:HELPDESK to find out how to proceed.  Thank you for taking the time to pursue this, and protecting your organization's reputation.  Cheers!  Reify-tech (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Black ice
Sorry,

The IP was wrong to have removed the text about sea/lake ice end rock ice from the article "Black Ice" as these are know as black ice by the WMO (http://www.eumetcal.org/resources/ukmeteocal/rapid_cyclo/www/english/msg/glossary/index.htm). I have to reinput them. Furthermore, this is not a precipitation and thus not Freezing rain, it is a form of glazed ice.

Sorry that this IP had to make you work and thanks for thinking that the text was worth something!

Pierre cb (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Books & Bytes Sign up for monthly delivery Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world. Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations... Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...  Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...  Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...   Read Books & Bytes , 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Herostratus (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Cocoanut Grove Fire
I am Clifford Johnson's great nephew. Clifford did not burn to death in the accident. He was killed by the jeep overturning on him before the vehicle burned. 71.51.196.1 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Kevin Johnson
 * I have no idea why you left this message here for me. I've edited the article, but did not change anything regarding Clifford Johnson's sad demise, because I have no knowledge about it one way or another.  If what it says is wrong, please post a message about it on Talk:Cocoanut Grove fire, along with any documentation on the true story.  Either I or some other editor will then correct the article, if we have WP:RS to work from.  Sincerely, Reify-tech (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
Books & Bytes Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013 (Sign up for monthly delivery) Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
 * Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
 * Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
 * New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
 * Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
 * Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
 * Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

Digit ratio edits
Hi, the source I cited was a scientific study. The average male digit ratio according to that is .969, with a standard deviation of about .03. The current number on the article is off by nearly a full standard deviation, and the only source cited to back it up is a blog post. I've never added a source to a Wiki article before, so perhaps I made an error while I was submitting it, but the information I added is correct, and the source I tried citing is academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.55.71 (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

blank lines after heading
You seem to like to squeeze out the space after headings, between File: and paragraph, etc. These single blank lines make it much easily to find the structure you're looking for visually, so are a benefit to editors; they are optional, but changing optional things without good reason is generally frowned on; so please don't. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014 News for February from your Wikipedia Library. Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You're invited!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 5, March 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * New Visiting Scholar positions
 * TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
 * Australian articles get a link to librarians
 * Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Jack Parsons (rocket engineer) - grammar edit
Hi

There is an FA copyedit on that article at present - I don't know if you are going to work on it again, but there were some notes on the talk page about proposed changes and some other notes. If you are going to copyedit it again in the next few days, would you mind just taking a glance here to see if changes were being discussed there before you start?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There still seems to be a lot of ongoing development of the article, so I will stand aside and go work on other articles. Best wishes for the FA effort,  Reify-tech (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou
I accept your rebuke. I have removed the sentence that was problematic and not tried to insert an explaination of what it was trying to explain. I am not a new user but an old one, who stopped due to excessive unhelpful reversions when new or foreign language users attempted to create good content in short articles that was just removed rather than fixed some times after I spent significant time trying to fix it. Regards46.208.39.53 (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! As you've probably noticed, I work on a broad and eclectic assortment of topics, but I try to do a thorough job wherever I go.  Interacting in a positive way with other editors is a genuine pleasure!  Reify-tech (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 6, April-May 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
 * TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
 * TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
 * New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

suggested addition to Dunnung-Kruger effect.
I quoted two famous lines from a famous poem, Yeats's "The Second Coming," that I thought highly apropos and too oft-quoted to need a reference. You be the judge.--174.18.94.233 (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)H.Schneidau 6/16/114174.18.94.233 (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you left your message here, since I haven't done any edits to Dunning–Kruger effect in half a year. Also, it is unclear which two lines from the Yeats poem you refer to.  I'm going to take this as a mistaken and misplaced message for somebody else.  00:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

#Clutch
Hi. Just a heads up that your edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_screw_drives&diff=prev&oldid=613720575 here] created a duplicate anchor, and invalid HTML... (see Template:Anchor). You might want to change it to "Clutch drive" or similar, if you're concerned about linking directly to the heading. Cheers. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out; I was unaware of this anomaly. I picked up the practice of setting an anchor of the same name as a section title from observation of other editors, and it seemed a reasonable and effective way to do things.  Apparently, the HTML error generated does not interfere with the intended operation of setting the anchor, and everything appears to work.  It is rather ugly, and might or might not cause undesired behavior in the future.  I'll have to investigate and think about this a bit, and may bring it up for discussion later.  Cheers!  Reify-tech (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, it seems unlikely to cause practical problems for the most part, but since HTML only allows a single anchor with a given name on a page, it also isn't serving any actual purpose unless/until the heading name is changed by someone later on (which is what I presume you're insuring against). I'm not a template monkey, but I wonder if Template:Anchor could be modified to be a no-op if it detects itself to be a duplicate... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * An interesting idea, since it would preserve the usability and learnability aspects, while taking care not to mess up the underlying HTML code. I don't know where/how to suggest a Template change, though.  Reify-tech (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Tires
I believe that you have missed a meaning about tires at Semi-trailer truck. In most descriptions twin tires are counted as single wheels, which they act as. An army 6x6 often has dual rear tires, but it is not a 10x10. One wheel at each end of each axle. A 4x- has two axles, a 6x- has three axles, etc. They are not located in different places, they are called different things. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am not sure about how "wheels" are counted at Semi-trailer truck, and tried to avoid changing anything about that when copyediting the article. I may have inadvertently  changed something that was unclear into something clearer but still erroneous.  For example, I am not clear on how the typical "18-wheeler" is counted; is it a misnomer?.  Thank you for pointing out the problem.  I defer to you and other editors regarding the definition of "tires", "wheels", and "axles", and invite you to try to clear this up.  Reify-tech (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That looks like an old rant of mine, it is repeated in the only other note. Wheel/tire bugs me, and I sometimes do notes. Both probably should be deleted, not really important.


 * Most places in trucking wheels, or axles on combinations, are counted. Some US west coast over the road truckers said “big eighteen-wheeler” type stuff for their 5 axle combinations, industry slang, sort of. Movies about heroic cowboy truckers have made this nickname common, but that’s about the only place where tires are counted. It confuses amateurs, irritates me, and as "super-singles" become more common, it makes even less sense. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have edited Semi-trailer truck to reflect your comments, and I hope it is an improvement. Please look at it, and see if it is more clear about the ambiguous usage, which Wikipedia can only describe but not resolve worldwide.  Reify-tech (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have moved some of this to Talk:Semi-trailer truck, I hope that's right. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
Heya — Thanks again for attending last night! Hope the session was helpful :) See you soon! Girona7 (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your presentation was helpful; you should put it online for other Wikipedians. To restate my two suggestions: 1) Make sure a Street Address and Room Number are clearly visible in all announcements. 2) Always follow the external links in your announcement, and make sure they actually lead to useful information.  Thank you for setting up the session!  Reify-tech (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Reify-tech
That is why there is a heading called EXTERNAL LINKS cos they lead you out of the wiki. WE use Wikipedia for the sake information and the link I shared in the EXTERNAL LINKS is also an information. I'm confused how are you telling me that it's inappropriate. The link you're talking about MIT, it leads you to the top ten Universities in US in which MIT is on the top. [Unsigned by ]

Hi, Reify-tech. This is just a note that I've warned this editor – – on his talk page against continuing to add external links to this site. —S MALL JIM   16:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update, User:Smalljim. I reverted a number of his spam links, but it's good to know that other editors are also defending Wikipedia against spam.  Reify-tech (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on my editing on "Bookmark" page
84.226.171.199 (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Hi, thank you for commenting on my edits. I deleted a broken link and have moved an advertising link from the first place further below in the list of references. In the main text, I deleted the word "leatherette" as this is surely not a relevant material for bookmarks to be mentioned. So, I can't see any marketing activity in my edit, excuse me. Regards.

Re: HVAC and Plumbing editorial help needed
Hi, thanks for leaving a comment on my user talk page. Yes, I'm actually planning to go through the articles in the category "Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning" since the topic is very interesting to me. I'm not a true expert in that particular field, however I do have quite a few years of other technical experience, namely in electrical engineering and electronics. I can try looking into the category "Plumbing" as well, but I might be limited to correcting typos, style, etc. there. My plan is this: I check which articles have an importance-rating above "low" and try to improve what I can there. For things that are beyond my knowledge, I'll probably leave a "clarify", "citation needed", "why", etc. in the article and check back later if someone else contributed. It is a continuous process and will probably never be really finished ;-) Noggo (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan. You seem to have the right combination of technical knowledge, organizational skills, and clear writing ability for the task.  I'll keep an eye on things, add my own edits, help fend off vandals and spammers, and perhaps lend some editorial advice from time to time.  I have a broad technical background with extensive editing experience, and I edit across a wide and eclectic range of articles.  I've flagged some problems with the HVAC articles and tried to fix up some things in the past, but didn't find any editorial partners to work with.  I'll be happy to let you take the lead, and to be a sounding board and source for ideas on how to reorganize things, as well as pitching in with some of the actual editing.


 * I think I'll start by trying to find an info bar template for HVAC, though past searches have turned up nothing. If one still doesn't exist, I'll create one, as a framework for keeping track of the HVAC related articles.  As you may have noticed, there is some overlapping coverage of the same topics in different articles, as well as apparent gaps in coverage.  Gathering a list of all the HVAC related articles will make it easier to figure out what's going on, and how to organize the mass of information that already exists.  Reify-tech (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I just stumbled over this Glossary_of_HVAC_terms. Maybe this can be used/expanded. Noggo (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion; I did use that article, plus some related WP:CATEGORY and many "See also" sections in related articles. I have now released the Template:HVAC, and suggest using Template talk:HVAC for any further discussion of article cleanup, merging, and rewrite efforts.  Reify-tech (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tagging of Adrian Smith (architect)
Hi,

I notice you recently added a cleanup tag to a large new addition of text on Adrian Smith (architect). There were various things in the added text (particularly the tone and the lack of wikilinks) which made me suspicious, and sure enough the text was copied wholesale from this bio page (you may need to click the "more" button at the bottom to see it). If an IP dumps a lot of unformatted but nonetheless well-written content into an article, it's worth having a quick Google to see if it might have been copied from elsewhere. In that case the best thing to do is to revert the edit, rather than tagging it for cleanup, as it isn't appropriate for copyright violations to remain in place longterm. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That was way back in May, and I'd completely forgotten about it. I guess I'll have to be more suspicious about large unreferenced additions in the future.  I always assumed that there were background Wikibots checking for copyvios, plus manual tools available to Wikieditors specializing in finding copyvios.  Is it all based on manual Googling and humans comparing texts?  Reify-tech (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for the efforts of others in fighting copyvio, but I've certainly come across a lot of uncaught examples in my time (of course I also wrote reversecopyvio for false positives, so I've come across that too). I'm not sure what tools other than simple Googling are available: if you're interested I'd advise pinging, for whom this is a specialist subject. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. :) Pinged by Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), I just thought I'd pop in and explain a bit. The only automated tools we currently have scan new articles only, although there is a proposal to make an arrangement with Turnitin to help expand that. It's too soon to say if it'll actually happen and, if it does, how effective it'll be. Watch the Signpost for more on that soon. :) I'm afraid that manual Googling is the peak of the art. There are a few tools I use and others use (see the bottom of Text Copyright Violations 101), but it's been so long since I've bothered with them that I don't even know if they all still work. The only one consistently useful to me is the Duplication detector, which requires that you already know what page was copied. You just eventually develop an eye - if text looks too good, or if the tone is inconsistent (like it's been sewn together from multiple sources) or if there's too much of it all at once, there's reason to do a quick check against the internet to see if it came from somewhere else. (I didn't know you wrote that template, Chris. It's one of my favorites. :D I always like when it turns out that copying is reversed.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for filling me in. With the relative effectiveness of Cluebot in identifying vandalism, I had assumed that there was a behind-the-scenes bot that compared major additions for copyvios, and that human intervention was mostly in determining the priority of first writing when a match was detected.  Having experienced copyright piracy without credit (years ago, of a student-written guide for newcomers), I am certainly aware of the issue.  I won't go looking for copyvios (too busy adding content and fighting vandalism, including the sneaky variety), but I will be more alert to suspicious indicators of possible plagiarism.  Is there a place to report possible copyvios for investigation, for editors who suspect it but aren't really up to doing a full investigation?  Reify-tech (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Boston-area trackless trolleys
Nice edits on the article. I've been thinking of a move (Trolleybuses of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority would nicely match the Commons category) since the article is primarily about MBTA TTs as currently operated. I'll do a formal move request if you think it's necessary, but as the only other editor who's done heavy editing on it in a long while, I'd consider it an uncontroversial move if you agree.

Also, I believe the Silver Line should be (briefly) mentioned, as it would fall under either title. A one or two-paragraph section with a single images of a SL bus under wires (I know I have one at Silver Line Way), would be plenty. You're by no means obligated to add it, but you're certainty welcome to. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine with me. The title and the article itself were oddly written, and at variance with the other MBTA articles.  The Silver Line certainly should be added; you already have a clear plan in mind, so just do it. The coverage of the trackless trolley equipment could be improved somewhat, although I don't have handy access to that information.  Be sure to leave a redirect pointer under the old article name, so that existing Wikilinks don't break.  It's a pleasure to work with you; too bad you couldn't make it to the recent get-together at Boston Public Library.   Reify-tech (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Done and done; I'm not sure how much detail is worth adding to the SL section (though I'd like to at least have some specs on the electric system if I can find them again). The NETransit roster page may be useful. I would have loved to make it, but I couldn't justify the travel expense for the very short time in Boston. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Willis tower (edit request)
hello there, plz add this: "300x200px|thumbnail|Sculpture honoring Khan at the Willis tower. Khan has been called the "Einstein of structural engineering"" in willis tower article before the line: "The Willis Tower was the first building to utilize Khan's bundled tube structure.[10] This innovative..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.12.219 (talk) 2014-07-25T14:06:40


 * Please don't ask me here, you should be discussing this on Talk:Willis Tower. There seems to be a problem with copyright restrictions, and I do not have any permissions beyond your own.  Also, you should sign your comments on Talk pages, in accordance with Signatures.  Cheers!  Reify-tech (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUP access
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP. You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

list of breads
I've asked for semi-protection at WP:RPP. You might wish to comment. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit on pipe
Per WP:SELFREF we should not be linking from articles to the Wikipedia namespace, which is the reason I've removed the hatnote. Sorry if I was unclear; please consider self-reverting as that link is not necessary or appropriate there. – xeno talk 19:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have self-reverted; thank you for the opportunity to do this. Apologies, I didn't know the reasoning behind the deletion of the hatnote. For the benefit of other intermediate-level editors, it would be helpful if the edit summary were more explicit.  Perhaps a firm reminder to read WP:SELFREF, which is more far-reaching than a computer-literate, but Wikipedia-details-naive editor might think.  Reify-tech (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll seek to more clearly explain this point in WP:SELFREF. Thanks for your understanding. See some of my recent contributions for more examples and explanation. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here we go: WP:SELFREFHAT (e.g.). – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your new addition really helps clarify what the goal is. I like the example, which makes it easier to understand the motivation behind the guideline.  I did some minor copyediting for further clarity.  I hope you don't mind; I couldn't help it, since that's what I do here. 8^)  Reify-tech (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

On further consideration, the link on Pipe is probably appropriate for newbies and such. (Someone else restored it) Thanks for your help copy editing my proposed addition there :)  – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  11:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. Thank you for handling this politely, and explaining what you were up to.  I'm not taking a hard position one way or another, but at least there's a clearer explanation of the issue, and I may join in the discussion.  Reify-tech (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't readd warnings from blocked users who tag adding CSDs to their Hoax articles as vandalism.
See the heading. The warnings are completely bogus, see my posting to [WP:AN about it at the time -here but even if they weren't there is no requirement to keep them on the user talk page. Please read and understand the user page guidlines "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages,... There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. ". The IP address has been only used by me so any edits belong to me, and none of them are disruptive, it is my choice to not register an account and the ability to do so is one of the founding principles. I will be removing your edits again and the old warnings, please discontinue trying to label me as vandal (see WP:NPA). Thanks --86.2.216.5 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 8, August-September2014 by, ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter   MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
 * Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
 * New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
 * Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
 * English signup
 * Deutsch signup
 * Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
 * Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
 * British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
 * Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
 *  Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
 * JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
 * Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
 * Pelican Books - ebook monographs
 * Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Wi-Vi
This is the source:

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2498272/technology-law-regulation/mit-researchers-can-see-through-walls-using--wi-vi-.html

--Pediainsight (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Regards --Pediainsight (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Anchor links
Hi, Reify!

I just noticed you made to Manual of Style/Tables a while back. Amongst the changes, you changed the heading "Appropriate" to read "Appropriate use". You will note the shortcut template by that heading refers to WP:WHENTABLE but that shortcut stopped working because it redirected to "#Appropriate" which no longer existed.

When changing headings, it's a good idea to add the anchor template with the old heading as a parameter so that links to the old heading will still find the right place: === Appropriate use === I have  but just wanted to give you the heads up. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 13:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Thermoplastic-Sheathed Cable entry
Hello Reify-tech,

Thank you for your edits to the section of the Thermoplastic-Sheathed Cable (TSC) entry regarding Southwire Company's ROMEX trademark. The line "Type NM cable is often incorrectly referred to generically as 'Romex'..." appears to be a matter of opinion rather than fact. The "Electrical Wiring" entry that is linked to Romex makes no mention of Romex or its use generically. Further, though Bruce Barker's "Old Wiring Methods" article notes "The most common example of a wiring method is nonmetallic sheathed cable (NM), often referred to by the trademark name Romex®," there is no evidence to support the assertion that the trademark is "often" used to refer to NM cable generally. Mr. Barker also notes that "The Romex trademark is owned by Southwire, and only Romex brand NM should be called Romex." Perhaps the following change might be more appropriate and devoid of promotional language:

Old - "Type NM cable is often incorrectly referred to generically as 'Romex', but the Romex name is a trademarked brand of the Southwire Company."

New - "It is incorrect to use 'Romex' to refer to NM cable generically, as the Romex name is a trademarked brand of the Southwire Company."

Let me know your thoughts.

CS30308 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no objection, as this states the facts, and is not overly promotional. Reify-tech (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Phillips screw driver
Hi, the change I made was to make the write up reflect the actual source, which was grossly misquoted. I did not add a new source as the current source is the relevant source for the changes I made.

The article clearly explains that the cam out theory was based on the assumptions of a later individual and in fact Phillip wrote enthusiastically about how his new screws would not strip out as easily as past screws. The cam out being an intentional design flaw is post-hoc reasoning and un-founded speculation. The current source and write up are at odds.

Passages from that article:

"2.1.1.1 Cam-Out Claim Phillips additionally claims that his geometry is such that any foreign particles found in the recess of the screw will be dislodged by a camming or wedging action. This camming action is a result of the bit and screw’s angular planes 6 approaching one another with respect to any particle lodged in the recess. Phillips claims a simple downward thrust of the bit into to the screw will create this camming force.  It is important to note that this camming action claimed by Phillips is not the same as the phrase “cam-out” that is used by industry and cited by Bailey in his September 15, 1988 article.  In a later patent “Hy-Torque Drive Tool” [Cummaro] “cam-out” is referred to as “throw-out”.  In modern terminology, “cam-out” refers to the separation of the bit and screw that can occur when torque is applied to a driver.  “Cam-out” is further defined in sections 1.3 and 5.4.1 of this thesis"

"2.2 Cam-Out Bailey, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, said that Phillips bits are one of the worlds least loved inventions because of their tendency to slip out of the screw recess while attempting to drive the screw [Bailey]. This “cam-out”, as it is referred to in industry, was not a result of an innocent design flaw claims Bailey. According to Bailey, Phillips designed the bit so that when used in automated assembly lines the bits would pop out, he claims the bit was designed to “cam- out”.  However by reviewing Phillips’s patents, this does not appear to be the case.  Unfortunately, Phillips’s claim of a camming or wedging action to dislodge foreign particles found in the screw recess has created confusion.  Phillips’s claim of camming out or crowding out of substances found in the screw recess [Phillips 2,046,837] has nothing to do with the term “cam-out” as Bailey and industry uses it today.

2.2.1 Damage Due to Cam-Out Although Phillips claimed that, because of the perfect fit of his bit geometry with the screw, screws could be driven and removed innumerable times without the slightest indication of mutation to the screw head [Phillips 2.046,837], that is not the case. Even Ben Taber, President of Phillips Screws, admitted his frustration with the Phillips fastener. Apparently Taber had stripped the heads of the Phillips screws on his storm windows at home and had considerable trouble removing them [Bailey]"

Late night service
So it appears that late night T service is getting scaled back - the end time is now 2am, and five bus routes are being removed. Given that all services have differing end times anyway, I don't think it's worth noting the presence of late-night service on individual station articles any more. History of the MBTA will probably deserve a sentence or two detailing the change, and List of key MBTA bus routes can still probably have a blurb since it's the one common element of the remaining service. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm just glad that late-night service is being scaled back in a somewhat reasonable way (hopefully based on real ridership data), rather than being dropped altogether. It is still worth mentioning the Key bus routes (and flagging them when routes are listed), but the decoupling of late-night from "Keyness" complicates things, and the details of service are certainly likely to evolve further over time. It's not worth elaborating on the ever-changing particulars of late-night service for individual stations, but the possibility of extended service on Key routes still might be helpful to mention.  Something like "*Note: This is one of the Key MBTA bus routes (defined as the 15 busiest), which may have extended late-night service hours."


 * BTW, I'm looking forward to seeing your next big batch of photo uploads. Just be *safe* while you're taking some of these great shots! Reify-tech (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Potential Source
I saw your contributions to Harry Weese, including the "more footnotes" template you applied, and thought you might be interested in this source. (See COI disclosed on my talk page.) Josh Wallaert (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I may not use this source immediately, but I will keep this ref for when I next work on the article. Reify-tech (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Random unsigned message
I need to change this to the correct age. The article in the paper got it wrong. How is this possible? Every time I put the correct year in someone changes it back (incorrectly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.78.157 (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Food categories
Hi! I happened to notice you adding these new categories to some pages on my watchlist in the last few days and I was wondering if you've actually gone through each article you're tagging to ensure that the categories are indeed verifiable and defining characteristics of the subjects as described in the guideline at WP:CATDEF. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been checking the articles categorized, and actually have left out some candidates for now, because they do not mention the attributes even though it seems to be commonly accepted that they are applicable. I'm hoping that other Wikipedia editors will eventually join in, as I don't claim to be an expert on all aspects of the attributes. I'm rather surprised that nobody else has added the categories, but did do some preliminary searching for alternative wordings first.  Reify-tech (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

English
Colour is Australian English and this was in the Australia part of the page. 101.181.97.42 (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:ENGVAR, an article is not supposed to be fragmented into sections each with a different variety of English. Reify-tech (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Call for Volunteers

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
 * Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
 * Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
 * Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
 * Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)  Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html  This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!


 * The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
 * Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Maxfield Parrish cross-link template
Thank you for sorting out the template to replace my DIY version – I was in the middle of following your lead for the fashion label, but you beat me to it. Libby norman (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Given your interest in fashion, you might be able to help with some key introductory articles such as Fashion, Fashion design, History of fashion design, Haute couture, and Fashion accessory. Most of these fundamental articles are still stuck at Start class or C class at best, due to a number of deficiencies noted in the article heads or in their Talk pages. I've edited intermittently to do some cleanup, but don't really have the expertise to do major rework on these articles. Your evident interest and knowledge would be very helpful towards improving these fundamental introductions to the field. Reify-tech (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I have looked at most of the biggies and gulped because of the scale of work to be done and the breadth they are supposed to cover. I have added quite a lot of new articles on designers, fashion brands and hats (strange but fascinating territory) and beefed up some key articles that lacked a coherent history and timeline. I agree there is a shortfall in content and structure – not to mention referencing – of many of the main introductory articles, so will have a think and see if there's a plan of approach. Libby norman (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Winchester Center
Hey, I don't mean to arbitrarily delete your good work. However, I think having three images in the article is currently problematic for entirely functional reasons. I mostly edit on a 1366-pixel-wide display which is pretty average; on that, two photos fit cleanly within the History section, but three stretch all the way to halfway through the references. On wider displays, the formatting is even more broken. I think for now (until I inevitably end up expanding the prose even more) we should only have two photos in that section. I like the ramp detail because it shows the actual deterioration, but you present a good argument for having the wider shot instead. (I'll also try to head over there sometime on a sunny day to get better photos, especially of the damaged section.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate the widespread work you do to improve Wikipedia coverage of rail transportation, especially including the great photos you've been taking and uploading. I remember the first time I actually saw Winchester Center station; the ramps really dominate the visual appearance as you approach the station. If anything, the stonework and the ramps are more characteristic of the station than the platforms themselves, which look rather generic. Perhaps the external view of the station should displace the platform shot in the infobox. Or a Gallery could be set up, since I'm sure you have still more interesting and informative pictures (or will shortly). 8^) Reify-tech (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the issue with the ramps is that it's very difficult to get a well-framed shot that's remotely recognizable as a train station. The existing ramp shot was actually a two-shot panorama; it's wider than the ideal 4:3 infobox image, and it's heavily distorted with some chromatic aberration. A good platform shot is much easier to frame for a satisfying infobox image, even if it's not quite as unique. When I go back, I'll try to get a shot from this angle without the tree in the way; that would provide better framing, and get both the ramp and the 1957 station building in a single image. Getting a single shot with the multiple parts of a spread-out station is tricky, but it's the best way to use limited space. Look at North Leominster, Fitchburg, and Yawkey for what I'm going for. (If I'm really good, I'll manage to get the shot with a locomotive halfway down the platform too.)


 * Galleries should be avoided whenever possible; I find that it's very rare to have more photographs desperately needed in an article than there is prose to place them inline. (Here, for example, the article just needs an expansion with historical information). Galleries were a good tool before Commons, and even after it was founded; gallery pages were more commonly used on Commons until around 2008, and some editors were very resistant to using categories there at all. But now, there tend to be used to shoehorn images into articles (WP:GALLERY specifically warns against this) rather than presenting images in an encyclopediac format. The only time thus far that I've ever found a gallery necessary for an MBTA article is Littleton/Route 495, where I used one to present a time series of construction images. I expect others may follow, particularly for the Green Line Extension and for some of the original subway lines that have good construction documentation, but I don't feel they're necessary for merely presenting current images of a station. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Comma after e.g.
Five of six style guides recommend putting a comma after "e.g.":.

Why are you removing them, as here?

(You can read my opinion about this in more detail here.) --Steve (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Office toy vs Executive toy
Hello, I noticed that you reverted my redirect of Office toy to Executive toy. Both articles are almost same so no need to merge them. I think that now will be redirect better. Also I think that office toy and executive toy have same meaning. I will not change it. It's up to you.--Sevela.p 14:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that they mostly overlap in coverage, but in Wikipedia it is customary to propose a WP:MERGE rather than overwriting one or the other of the articles. You are invited to propose a merge; otherwise I will probably propose it in a few days. Reify-tech (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Allergenic foods
Category:Allergenic foods, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Foods producing flatulence
Category:Foods producing flatulence, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

James Dyson
You removed his title with the comment "Removed excessive WP:HONORIFICs". Please note for future reference that British titles are included inline, as it clearly states in the guideline you cited. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2015 (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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize Wikipedia
Several of your edits to Walt Disney have been reverted as vandalism. Please do not vandalize Wikipedia, or your account may be suspended or blocked. Thank you for your cooperation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Um, Coolcaesar, I suggest you rethink this accusation. Reify-tech is one of the most experienced Wikipedia editors (with over 16,000 edits) and a skilled copyeditor. The edit you are referring to is a sweeping copyedit where Reify-Tech made dozens of unambiguously positive changes to the article. MOS:U.S. mentions that Chicago now prefers the unpunctuated version, making the specific changes you reverted at worst slightly misguided and at best just fine. None of this is remotely close to what qualifies as vandalism, nor is that a charge you have any right to levy at an experienced editor who quite obviously is editing in good faith. A polite note of "hey, policy says this abbreviation is generally preferred on U.S. articles" would have been appropriate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

February 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=705043366 your edit] to Edgar Allan Poe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * * Poe's Conchology (and accusations of plagiarism)

April 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=715538941 your edit] to Alexander Calder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * repeatedly. In 1995, Jon Shirley the former president of Microsoft and a Calder collector purchased Two White Dots for $1 million. When Shirley submitted the work to the Calder

Bob Pease article
My post editing the Bob Pease page was from personal knowledge from my longtime office mate and friend Bill Hearn. He told me of Bob's affinity for abandoned cars. How can I provide a reference for personal testimony ? You can verify that Bill and I worked at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory from 1974 through 1993 with a simple phone call. Bill worked together with Bob at Signetics in the late 60's and early 70's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulfr (talk • contribs) 17:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has policy called WP:NOR, for reasons explained in the linked article. Please read it carefully. The basic way to get personal testimony into Wikipedia is to have an unrelated third party publish the information first, and then to reference it from Wikipedia. The third party must not be connected to the information source (in other words, not self-published), and should meet the Wikipedia criteria for WP:RS. For example, the current Wikipedia article on Bob Pease references information which was published in Electronic Design, EE Times, and Electronic Design News, among other sources. Your contributions of knowledge will be much appreciated, but they must follow the Wikipedia guidelines, or another editor will likely remove them. The NOR rule applies to articles, but not WP:TALK pages, where personal observations may be discussed along with possible published evidence supporting or refuting such observations.


 * I hope the articles I linked to from here will help clarify the rules. Best wishes, Reify-tech (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Question about revert on Rapid Transit Technology
I made competent edits for some grammar in that first paragraph. Making is flow and sound better. Why did you revert it?

Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla mother
Hello, I found in the romanian version of Nikola Tesla wikipage that she was romanian and took always in her hair the tricolor of Romania. The name of Tesla was Nicolae Teslea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iuliantm (talk • contribs) 07:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you placed your message here, instead of at the Talk: Nikola Tesla page, where it belongs. I suggest repeating your comments there, where they will be more widely seen and responded to. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

'Opsit' screw drive image
Hi, I noticed that you added an Opsit image to the List of screw drives page. From what I can find out, Opsit just means a tri-wing (or tri-point) that has an opposite thread (i.e., no difference in screw drive), so I'm not sure that it's named appropriately. But secondly, the image consists of a black background and white centre, and from all the other screw drive graphics, white denotes the higher part and black denotes the recessed part. Therefore, is the purpose of the image to show an alternate "raised" (external) form of tri-wing? As otherwise it seems redundant. C0nanPayne (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The two images are not redundant, since one shows a tri-wing and the other a tri-groove drive. I don't know why the second one is color-reversed, but it is all I could find in Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps you can get somebody in Wikipedia Graphics Lab to do a simple color reversal on the image. I tried to cleanup the confused text, and added a reference which shows and describes the Opsit more clearly. You're most welcome to improve this further if you can. Reify-tech (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but your reference for Opsit shows it with a Tri-Wing drive. From what I understand, this: Anti-theft Tri-groove Security Bolts is tri-groove; so even if that graphic was reversed it still wouldn't be right. I can create the SVG myself, but shouldn't it look more like this: 27: Tri-Groove® Tamper Resistant — C0nanPayne (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, my ref says the Opsit uses a tri-wing drive, so I tried to clean up the article's description to reflect this. i'm fairly sure that the configuration in the second picture exists, though I'm not sure what it is called. If you can reverse the colors on that image, it would be an improvement. As for the tri-groove, that image is missing entirely, and adding one like you propose would definitely help readers understand the difference between it and the other two configurations.
 * I'm going to copy this discussion to Talk: List of screw drives, so that other editors can see it and join the conversation. Reify-tech (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

GAR for Transformer
Transformer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Was the ceiling painted a millennium and a half before the building was built?
Regarding your reversion of my edit...

After your edit, the article says that the date of the painting on the ceiling is the year 169. That's quite a feat, considering that the church wasn't completed until 1650.

I'm not sure what "earlier versions" you're referring to, but the date was first added here, and it was the correct one,1690, as given on the image's information page. If that was changed to 169, it was either a mistake or vandalism. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My humble apologies, and thanks for catching the typo. I was having some difficulties with my laptop running very slowly, and somehow got the different versions mixed up. I thought I was restoring the original date of 1690, when actually I was restoring the erroneous 169. My computer was so bogged down that I didn't do my customary recheck after saving my edit. Thanks for taking the time to point out the problem! Reify-tech (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can certainly understand equipment-related difficulties. I'm doing this on an iPad, and just in my short note above, I had to fix two typos. Thanks for the self-revert. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  07:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"Editorial note"
This line -- "Editorial note: Template:Road redirects to here, and may also be used as a shortcut to invoke this template" -- appears on the bottom of Traffic barrier and I've now also seen it at the top of. I think it makes sense in the latter place but don't understand it at all in the former one. I can't see how it was added to Traffic barrier here (it wasn't there one edit-page back), by you maybe, and I can't see how to remove it if it should be removed. Any thoughts? Thanks. Swliv (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake on my part, which I have now fixed. The note was intended only to be seen by editors of the template file, but for some reason I didn't notice that it became visible on every invocation of the template. The template originally started out as focused only on "Road types", but was later expanded and generalized to its current coverage of multiple topics related to "Road". The editorial note simply pointed out the existence of a redirect from the more-descriptive and broader "Road", which is a less-confusing invocation than "Road types" (for example, in the article on Street running). Thank you for catching this and (politely) informing me about this. Reify-tech (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'm relieved, was not on familiar turf. You want to look at one that's really got me stumped? I wrote it up, heard nothing, deleted it: "Annoying or worse behavior by ...", down at the bottom. It's quite a load but hopefully reasonably well presented and a good, tough one -- where to go next? -- if you have some time and the inclination. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can clear up one minor mystery: the long usernames with the groups of characters separated by colons are IPv6 internet addresses, the modern 128-bit extension of the traditional 32-bit IPv4 addresses. In Wikipedia, they are treated as "anonymous IP editor" addresses, just longer ones. With the new extended IP addresses, there are enough bits to uniquely identify essentially every device one might care to, including every single piece of internet-connected hardware, now and in the conceivable future. The new IPv6 addresses that pop up on Wikipedia simply represent a newly-connected piece of hardware, typically a new cellphone, but possibly a desktop or any other internet-connected device. We can expect to see more and more of these 128-bit long addresses, until the traditional 32-bit IP addresses become rare old-fashioned exceptions. One benefit is that it eliminates the need for DHCP addresses, which are shared by multiple devices. I hope this helps. Reify-tech (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Niki de Saint Phalle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Mathews (Saint-Ph + hatnote)
darthbunk pakt dunf t 21:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Im sorry
I havent noticed that those were actually disambiguation pages, they doesnt look like that or may be is the new disambiguation template, i9 wouldnt have linked them if so.--Neurorebel (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a way to highlight in blue any disambiguation Wikilinks, which makes it much easier to identify them. Unfortunately, I can't find a pointer to the helpful more-experienced Wikipedia editor who pointed out this feature to me. By looking at my personal config, I was able to locate the following magic words:

/* visualisation of redirects and links disambiguation pages */ .mw-disambig { background-color:#AFEEEE; }

If you select "Preferences" in the upper right of a desktop browser Wikipedia page, and then the "Appearance" tab, you can add the magic words to the "Custom Css" under "Shared CSS/JavaScript for all wikis (more information):". The actual file to edit is "User:YOURNAME/global.css".

Sorry I can't give you better help regarding the blue highlight feature. At least you know it exists, and can search for it or ask at the Help Desk, if you are interested. If you ever do find better documentation on how to install it, I would appreciate your passing it back to me. Actually using the feature is trivially simple, which is why it's such a nice hack.

If the above process looks too intimidating to try, you can always do what I did for many years, which is to follow and verify each and every Wikilink I added to an article. This still is the most thorough way, since sometimes a plausible Wikilink will lead to an unexpected and irrelevant article. Reify-tech (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Not hyphenating the compound modifier "light[-]rail" (something), just because "we don't do that"?
Will you please see my proposal at talk:light rail?

Thanks if so, 97.117.19.208 (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC) for now.

NEMA connectors
Please take a look at this dicussion on terminology section deletion. FF-UK (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Meetups #87, #88, #89, #90
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April Events
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Complaints about Technetium (99mTc) sestamibi article
The deletions made from the Sestamibi redistribution comments were because they violated not only personal privacy but they are an ongoing attack which is biased, using wikipedia as a source of attack upon myself. The publications I posted yesterday were to two papers currently in press, which demonstrate that Sestamibi not only redistributes but that UCLA, Cedars, Harvard, Brigham Womans and multiple other University Hospitals have proven this as well. I don't believe Wikipedia is the site to be used for adhominem attacks which the submitter "Thats Regrettable" has been doing to multiple people publishing research he does not agree with. For that reason "Thats Regrettable" comments should be removed. This is not the applicable place. There really is not an applicable place. Respectfully, Prof. Fleming, PhD, MD, JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM Fleming, MD (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You are complaining and defending yourself before the wrong person and in the wrong place. I have not formed any strong opinion regarding the Sestamibi article or regarding your work, but am merely trying to point out standard Wikipedia policies on editing. I strongly urge you to discuss your grievances and positions at Talk:Technetium (99mTc) sestamibi, where your situation will be seen and discussed by all editors interested in the article. Reify-tech (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Further explanation of stranded to bundled diameter ratios in American Wire Gauge
Hello Reify-tech, Thank you for your note. The numbers that I gave in that line follow directly from the equations in the article. It's just a matter of punching in the numbers. Although I don't know of a specific source for these particular calculations, you can easily check the accuracy of these numbers by simply plugging into the equations in the article. Because diameter and area are exponential functions of AWG, differences in gauge translate directly into ratios of diameters or areas.

The reason for adding this paragraph to the article is because sometimes the gauge of an existing stranded wire needs to be measured, either because it has no label or to verify the marking. Since it's difficult to measure bundle diameter accurately, and measuring a single strand is much easier and can be done with a wire gauge go-no-go tool such as a Starrett 281 or Mitutoyo 950-202, the gauge of the bundle then needs to be figured. Knowing the diameter and count of the strands, simply subtracting from the strand gauge is quick and accurate. Here is a screenshot of a Mathcad worksheet showing the simple method of calculation:



Give this additional information, I hope you will reconsider your undo. Thanks again, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards, Yankeepapa13 --Yankeepapa13 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Your edits seem to be eminently reasonable in intent, and I have not formed a strong opinion about them one way or another. Somebody other than me removed your edits from the Wikipedia article, but I felt that you should get an explanation of what happened (WP:DBN). Wikipedia has non-obvious rules regarding references for claims made in an article. Please read WP:RS and WP:NOR if you haven't done so already. If you feel that you can justify the edits, you are welcome to put them back in, but you must be prepared to defend them. The place to discuss this and any other edits to the article is Talk:American wire gauge.


 * Either way, best wishes for your other further editing! You clearly have technical skills and are acting in good faith (WP:AGF), and Wikipedia needs your contributions. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Figurine
I've reverted your edits here, with the summary "rvt blatent WP:ERA violation, with dishonest edit summary". Please don't do either of these things again. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I had no idea somebody could become so upset about what I in good faith believed was a noncontroversial edit. Reify-tech (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset, but you are obviously very under-informed about many aspects of editing WP, & it is irritating having to follow your edits and correct them. That you may be acting in good faith is little consolation. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)\\

List of humorous units of measurement
Wanted to edit "List of humorous units of measurement"  but it seems to be locked. You made the last edit, a month or so ago, so perhaps you have privilege and will accept the task of posting this suggestion:
 * '''==Unit of Weight==
 * ===Fuck-Ton and Metric-Fuck-Ton === May need to be presented as F*ck-Ton and Metric-F*ck-ton -- I dunno the rules on invective
 * A quantity of challenging material, too large for one human being to lift and/or manage without power equipment, and/or overtime hours. Generally presented outside the normal scope of work. Generally an unwelcome surprise: "That was a Metric F*ck-Ton of new crap." In this example the prefix "Metric" suggests an international unit of the designated problem material or a stylistic addition of linguistic rhythm. May be used for physical problem material, as in "F*ck-ton of composted soil" but also commonly applied to intangible concepts: "She gave me a Metric-F*ck-Ton of new statistics to analyse."

rosebud (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It was probably locked because of repeated vandalism; I had nothing to do with the article's locked/unlocked status. The right place to propose your edit is the Talk page associated with the article. My guess is that your proposed edit more likely would fit in with the article on Profanity, but that is just my opinion. Bring it up on the Talk page, and see what other editors think of your proposal.
 * Also, it is much more likely for an edit to be accepted and to remain, if includes a reference to a WP:RS. There actually are academic books, papers, and websites which analyze profanity and humor; some of them are quite amusing in their own right. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Parentheticals in the lead
Hi. In 2017, you performed a cleanup of John N. Shive, and in the process, you changed the parenthetical punctuation from commas to round brackets (parentheses) in the lead section. I’m curious as to your reasoning behind this change. Although it’s been a while, and it would of course depend on the usage and context, I seem to recall that commas are preferred in the lead section when used to separate a parenthesis, mainly due to readability. In the body, however, one can choose either commas, dashes, or brackets. Any thoughts on this? Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It is mostly a matter of editorial judgement. I changed the commas to parentheses, because it improved the readability of the sentence. Parentheses are visually easier to match into pairs, whereas commas are harder to match. I'm not doctrinaire about one vs the other, but regard them as among the useful tools to support the ultimate goals of clarity and readability. Reify-tech (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add this article to Miguel Rosales page. Please advise.
https://www.acsp.org/news/471288/FALLS-PARK-AND-LIBERTY-BRIDGE-RECLAIMING-GREENVILLES-NATURAL-BEAUTY.htm?utm_source=Active+RBA+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=8f1fd08f70-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_09_07_04_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a47230794d-8f1fd08f70-140055013 ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbaragomperts (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As I noted on your Talk page, your edits have not generally been problematic, so I encourage you to continue editing the articles about Miguel Rosales, using your specialized knowledge. I posted the precautionary Welcome message on your Talk page to inform you about Wikipedia policies on WP:COI so you can avoid future possible problems, and not because of any particular complaint. Your special knowledge and interest in Rosale's work are an asset to Wikipedia.


 * As for the article you mention above, it appears to be both interesting and relevant to Rosales. It is written like a promotional press release (which it is), and its enthusiasm needs to be toned down for an encyclopedic work like Wikipedia. But I see no problem in using it as a reference for factual information about Rosales' contribution in the context of the overall project. In passing, I note with amusement that the entire article is so self-possessed that it never bothers to mention which Greenville it describes. A cursory search shows that there are at least six US states which have a Greenville, five of which are in the American South.


 * Please continue to edit on Wikipedia. If you inadvertently make a mistake, I or other editors will clean up your work, and politely chide you if appropriate. Good-faith errors are tolerated and fixed; only deliberate and repeated bad-faith editing or disruptive behavior in spite of warnings will result in a ban. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Post-conference greetings
It's always good to see you. I'll try to show up more often, so it's not another 4 years this time.

P.S. I love that you write exactly the same way you speak. I can read any message on your talk page and hear it in your voice. —Emufarmers(T/C) (Benjamin) 01:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)