User talk:Roisterer/2004 Archive

Hello Roisterer, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Help desk or (if you want a broader audience) the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the Community Portal.
 * You can sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.
 * The Tutorial is a great way to learn the basics in a more perspicuous fashion.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 01:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Melanesia
Thanks much for update on the Melanesia page; if you have time your input be most welcome peer review of West Papua contents and name.Daeron 21:20, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

BTW: you might be interested to know that there's two people who seem to be trying to purge the name West Papua from the encyclopedia; seem to want to down-play anything negative about the Indonesian government rule; resulting in edit/reverting war over Papua_(Indonesian_province), Papua_(disambiguation) , Template:Australasia , Template:Melanesia , West Papuan Genocide which they keep replacing with a REDIRECT to Human rights violations in western New Guinea where they removed the name West Papua from a much eariler version of the page I had been working on when they renamed it to their silly name; if you read the intro of the West Papuan Genocide and look at front over of the Yale Report then you can see that West Papuan Genocide is the only possible name for the article.Daeron 23:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Cricket
I've made the appropriate edit to the First-class cricket section. I hope it suffices; feel free to add more information or otherwise clarify the matter. -- Emsworth 14:31, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Jim Stynes
There should be no problem with your new article on Jim Stynes. The deleted blank article on Mr. Stynes has no effect on your article. Looks good. Keep up the good work. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  03:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mark Oliphant
Belatedly (and I hope in the right place - I haven't really used talk pages before) I thought I ought to get back to you about this. The snip might have been marginally out of order - that is to say I really should be certain of my ground before I go around deleting things and it's not as if I have a history of Radar lying around. However I think the Pugwash site, which you certainly haven't misinterpreted, has got things a bit muddled. Britain in 1940 already had a system of radar which allowed it to detect incoming aircraft. Robert Watson-Watt's 'chain home' system of radar masts was the most advanced radar system in the world. However it was still patchy and unreliable. In 1940 Boot and Randall, at Birmingham, invented the vastly superior cavity magnetron which Oliphant took to America because it was far in advance of anything the Americans had and therefore a good sweetener, later he would also be responsible (as the Pugwash site mentions) for handing over nuclear technology, again for the sake of the Allied war effort. The magnetron (as its wiki page makes clear) was not of help to pilots during the Battle of Britain. This took place in 1940, the same year the device was invented and pilots therefore had to make do with the old system in the interim. What Oliphant did was to bring radar to the top of the agenda and to assist in the American development of the technology, such as helping found the RadLab. It would be much later in the war before pilots would see the benefit of the new technology.

Anyway I've gone on very tediously and I'll now stop. I'm going to have another crack at the article at some point because I want to put more detail in about Oliphant's nuclear work in Britain. I hope I've been vaguely coherent and I'll certainly think twice before casually deleting stuff again!

--Mr impossible 15:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Playford
I moved the article, per naming conventions, as titles such as "Sir" aren't included in article titles themselves. :) Ambi 06:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You could do that - you could also name the articles according to the profession they're notable for (if have seperate ones) or you could add their middle name as well. Ambi 23:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Enclave
Hi. Yes, I'm aware that it is neither desirable nor practical to list every embassy on earth as an enclave. SMOM's unique situation, as an instance of a recongised sovereign entity whose only territory consists of an embassy, does however need to be listed - and I agree that an appropriate qualifying statement needs to accompany it. In the first instance I was more concerned about Gzornenplatz simply unilaterally deleting it altogether. --Gene_poole 01:12, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy email.
It's not her personal email address. It's a work email address and she deals with the general public on a day-to-day basis. It should be fine to have this on the web. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Forgot to note that I've obfuscated the address! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CT Scanners
Yes, the dollar amount is US 2004

No one knows how to accurately compare CT (externally applied) ver PET (internally generated) radiation. The type of radiation and frequency spectra are very different. Biologic effects are due to radiation absorption producing ions and chemical reactions which otherwise would not have occurred. Even then, the resulting biologic effects are heavily modified by cellular repair mechanisms. Most "comparisons" are heavily biased by poorly defined assumptions and various promotional biases. -- User:MAlvis 05:58 9 October 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination
Hey, thanks for the kind words and vote of support! I appreciate it :) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clémentine of Orléans
Nice article. Deb 12:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Roslyn Dundas
Thanks! I intend to get articles on all the past and present ACT MLAs eventually, but she seemed to be one of the more interesting members, and one of the only ones I'd heard of that didn't already have an article. Shame she didn't get re-elected. :/

By the way, if she's doing anything of note now, would you be able to add that in? I don't like ending articles with a discussion of how someone was defeated in an election. Ambi 05:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)