User talk:Wizard191/Archive 3

Plastopedia.com
Hi,

Can you please suggest why we are getting our reference deleted for www.plastopedia.com. Just to mention that IDES.com has a link in the reference list. IDES provide a directory of resins and their manufacturers. We are just trying to provide link to Plastic Material News section and traders of Plastics raw materials.

Please suggest, this is not meant for spam or advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apalgoel (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your link links to a webpage that is meant to advertise for companies, which is against our rules (see WP:ELNO). Moreover, external links are meant to compliment the information and knowledge of the article. A list of manufacturers doesn't not qualify for that. The IDES link links to a list of plastic materials, not manufacturers. Wizard191 (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Steel
Steel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik_ Zero 12:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Metalworking Template Reorg
I'd like to get your feedback on my proposed changes. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Metalworking/Template_list Bryancpark (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cgi_source_screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cgi_source_screenshot.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please delete. Wizard191 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ball (bearing)

 * So I visit the main page, as I often do, just to see what's going on...I'm scanning down the DYK, as I often do, to see if anything interesting has popped up...and I see Ball (bearing). "I bet that's the handiwork of Wizard191!" thinks I. And so the history tab reveals it to be. Nice work! — ¾-10 00:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I appreciate it! There's a lot more articles that need to be made though, between the WP:METALS list and the list on my user page of general engineering topics. Wizard191 (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead edit
Thanks for the heads up. I've been careful with ndash's, but clearly not enough. I'll have to remove it. - RoyBoy 23:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

removing links?
Wizard191, I saw you helped clean up an article I wrote on Direct Metal Laser Sintering, thanks! I am new to Wikipedia, so can you help me with the rules for links? I realize the entire contents needs to be neutral...can I put the links back if I add some others as well, from different countries? Perhaps they should be classified as "external links" versus "references"?

Thanks! Skippy84 (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)skippy84


 * No problem...the guidelines for external links are listed at WP:EL. The problem is not where the websites are from (or who they cater to), but in that they are promoting a company. Wikipedia is not here to promote other companies. A good rule of thumb for external links is if they link directly to useful information that is directly pertinent to the article, it's probably a good link. Wizard191 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

reply
Hello Dustin, Thank you for the welcome. I'm new to Wikipedia and not yet familiar with all the protocols, but I am learning. Did you create the Mushet Steel page? I'm not an engineer, but Robert Mushet is a hero of mine; I live just a few miles from where he lived and worked.

I had already visited the Mushet Steel page, and adding some history to it is on my list of things to do.

Regards, Alan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscurasky (talk • contribs) 10:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I recently created the Mushet steel page because it was missing. However, I'm no expert on the topic and just wanted there to be at least some basic info on it for Wikipedia. If you have anything to contribute we'd love to see it.
 * If you have any questions about policies, protocols, or how to do something feel free to ask. Wizard191 (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hadn't realised I was posting to a public board - just thought I was sending you a personal message - live and learn. Thank you for the above, and the offer of assistance. Obscurasky (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Recrystallization (chemistry)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Recrystallization (chemistry), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Recrystallization. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Iron
Just a note to avoid misunderstanding on iron: That I couldn't see the lead link was my mistake (wrong PC settings, mishandling web doc files). That I didn't know iron was started in British English was my mistake. That those "web-refs in the lead" must be gone is inevitable because (i) there are hundreds of books on hardness of steel freely available on Google books (ii) lead should rarely contain (such) references. (iii) those values were simply not representative (incorrect) - hardness of irons varies 1000 times depending on composition and structure. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that the links shouldn't be in the lead or that its not the best reference. Your latest modifications are quite an improvement. Wizard191 (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Blacksmith/profession
I was probably being overpedantic on the term "profession". It is a trade and an occupation, but in UK profession was traditionally associated with occupations such as lawyer, clergyman, doctor and military officer, where an oath was formerly required. By extension accountants, surveyors, etc are also professions, but artisan trades are not. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed
I removed the tag from User talk:Cacycle/wikEdDiff []. It didn't seem to apply to that page.&mdash;C45207 &#124; Talk 03:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't? What template should I use then to get the modification made? Wizard191 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried User talk:Cacycle?&mdash;C45207 &#124; Talk 04:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Prony brake
The contributor who suggested that the articles "Prony Brake" and "Brake Band" be merged does not appear to be: 1) Very familiar with the English language, and 2) Familiar with the function of either a band brake or a brake dynamometer. It makes no more sense to merge the two than to merge "disc brake" with "canebrake," just because the two are descriptive nouns that include the word "brake."

It might be reasonable to ask that the title for the article "Prony Brake" might be expanded to, say, "Prony Brake Dynamometer," so that the unwary aren't misled. It is true that some Prony brakes use band brakes to apply resistance to rotation. They can also use a drum brake, a disc brake, or three turns of cord around a rotating shaft. These are all "brakes," because they create a braking effect on a rotating shaft. A Prony Brake Dynamometer is different from other brakes because it measures the resistant force in a way that allows the field engineer to measure power output at various shaft speeds and power settings.

To prohibit or deter the use of the term "Prony Brake" goes against traditional practice for no good reason. I think that anyone who understands what a Prony Brake is knows that it's not a brake in the common use of the word, anymore than a canebrake is. SEO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.211.248 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually added the merge template, but this wouldn't be a typical merge. The majority of the content on the De Prony brake article actually should be in the band brake article. The articles are not the same and I perfectly understand that. I'll try and straighten this out. Wizard191 (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cam follower
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

John Crane Inc.
You flagged John Crane Inc. Could you please help me to understand how I can fix it. Maybe give me some suggestions or tips, sections that you would recommend fixing. That would be very helpful. Thanks in advance!

Smbrown123 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replied on the article's talk page. Wizard191 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mechanical plating
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

ASTM
Hi thanks for your concern about my edits regarding the various ASTM standards listed on wikipedia. I respectfully and very strongly disagree with your characterization of that as any sort of "spam". I stumbled upon " ASTM A354", ASTM A53" and similar such articles and had no idea who set the standards or why these standards might be important.  I spent a fair amont of time looking it up to understand. Without the context explaining (a mere handful of sentences) these articles are far less understandable, and frankly less encyclopedic.  Capitalismojo (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PS I have no connection to ASTM, or any engineering or standards organization.  I do, however, think it is important that if an article is about an engineering standard we should give a few lines about who set the standard. Please contact me on my talk page if you disagree.  Thanks again. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, having read your thoughts, I see your point. I will slim the description of ASTM to one brief sentence and a link. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing eras
It seems there's no consensus and I'm not sure if you're within your rights to ask me to stop, see Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Catergory Technical
That sounds fine Chendy (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

polystyrene
why did you say my edits were vandalism? I looked at your comments, read the wikipedia rules, agreed with what you wrote, and then went back and only changed the name from acorn to ecocradle to match what is on there website. How is that vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.5.95 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference on that sentence states the materials name is "Acorn" not "Ecocradle", so that qualifies as vandalism to me. If it truely is the same product you are going to have to supply a reference to support that, otherwise it just looks like you are trying to push a competitive product. Wizard191 (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * oh, I get it. If you read the article, its appears to be the same company, www.ecovativedesign.com, but they call it EcoCradle on the website. Ill just leave it unless I see another article on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.5.95 (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unclear on why you removed link
Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia but I've read the guidelines and do not understand why the link I added has been considered Spam. It was added to show an actual application of the resin type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzallc (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The link you added links to a commercial website that is promoting PET packers. While your purpose may have been to just supply a link that shows what a PET packer is it appears to the unknowing eye to be link spam. If your goal is to supply a picture please upload a free version to The Commons. Wizard191 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Request
We've spoken before, and you seem quite a productive guy. I've just created this page ; David Mushet, which is my first major contribution to Wikipedia. I'm pretty pleased with it, and confident in its factual content, but I'd like you to take a look at it for me, if you have time, and make any changes you feel necessary. I know you share an interest in this subject.

The lack of a photo is not good. Photos of him exist on the net, but how do I tell if it's ok to use them?

Also, I can't understand why the 'm' in Mushet is in lower case, in the title. Could you tell me how to change this please?

Also, Also, links to him (like the one above) don't work. I can find my page using 'David Mushet' in the search box fine; do the links take a while to activate?

Many thanks Obscurasky (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone else has already moved the page for you, which fixed the above link. As for photos, most that you will find on the internet are not under a free license so those cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia or the Commons, unless you can prove the image or photo is older than 80 years old, then it is no longer copyrightable. And finally, yes it takes a little while before new pages show up in the search box. Wizard191 (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

metalworking?
Just curious why you added knifemakers to the project and then removed them?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a mistake. I started adding them because there only appeared to be a few in Category:Knife makers, but then found that there were a lot more in the sub-cats, and it's really outside of the realm of the project to cover each individual person, so now I'm cleaning up my mess. Wizard191 (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Latin or Italian-Lost-wax casting
Dear Wizard, 'Cera perduta' is Italian. Could be Latin as well, I don't know, but it is Italian for sure. Any reason for changing it?? Greetings, --Satrughna (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It appeared to be vandalism. I don't know Latin or Italian, but it was an IP editor that gave no edit history and no reference, so I thought it was vandalism. If you have a reference for it then go ahead and change it, but to be honest, I'm not sure why it is in the article because I've never heard of the process called that in English. Wizard191 (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you say so, neither have I, but as English is not my native language (nor is Italian, by the way) that doesn't say too much. Alas, no references. I seem to have been wrong anyway; the article on the Italian Wikipedia is called cera persa! So, let's just cut this statement. Greetings, --Satrughna (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed that while you were commenting out the not so common 'Cera perduta' you also got the fairly common 'cire perdue', often used in art books, and which is used about 7 times in the body of the article and 4 times in the references section (also Cire perdue redirects to Lost-wax casting). Of course since it is used elswhere in the article, the usage you comented out might be considered redundant, but on the other hand, if someone who didn't know what lost-wax casting is had looked up Cire perdue, having it in the first paragraph would let them know why they were redirected there. (though if they had started at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cire_perdue it would not be a mystery) BTW, while you have probably not seen it, I think this http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cera_perduta (note the 'en' prefix) probably falls into the etc. catagory. "I have never heard the process called that in any English books, conversations, etc".  Another IP editor (a dynamic IP at that, edits without a summary are not mine) 69.84.246.195 (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

New Symbols chart for the GD&T article
Oleg_Alexandrov, Lothartklein, Wizard191, Gzyeah, Zz9fy4, Legobot, Mdd, Alansohn, Seddon, Charles Matthews , Mike Martin:

You are some of the people, recent and old, who have edited or provided comments for the GD&T article. Please take a look at this new version of the Symbols chart, and provide any input you deem relevant: LP-mn (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Geometric_dimensioning_and_tolerancing

Keyring (cryptography)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Keyring (cryptography), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Keyring. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Metalworking Cleanup
Should i just go ahead and edit out articles i have finished cleaning up from the Cleanup list? --Pocketpencil (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Usually I strike it out and put a note below it stating whether it is done or if anything else needs to be done. Wizard191 (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

physical properties
hi wizard i left the reasons on the discussion you can check it out later.

and good work keeping the vandalism out of the article :)Physics4every1 (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Transmission site reference
Wizard191:

I don't understand how you could remove a perfectly legitimate citation to a site that deals with the generalities and common troubleshootings of transmissions on the Wikipedia page that discusses transmissions.

In addition to including a link to the U.S. Dept. of Energy: Model Year 2008 Fuel Economy Guide, I also included, as an external site link, a link to an informative handy site, similar to wikihow, on such fitting generalities and common problems of the transmission system: http://yourhandymanzone.com/Your_Handyman_Zone_How_To_Pages_Vehicle_Car_Zone_Cars_Trucks_Vans_Transmission_System.htm

With some generic, automated reasoning, you whimsically removed it, which is wrong, with all due respect. It has its place there. I did not include it as part of the reference section, but as part of the external site section, where I believe it belongs. I will again put it there, and let someone else come to determine if it shouldn't be there; I do not know of what prejudices you have with that handy site, but I have found it to be useful, and I think, as an external-link source, others may find it to be informative as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoproonline (talk • contribs) 06:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:ELYES and WP:NOTHOWTO. Specifically, WP:NOTHOWTO states that Wikipedia is not a how-to manual; in summary, WP:ELYES states that a link to information that advances the article is a good link. Because Wikipedia is not a how-to your link is not advancing the transmission article and your link amounts to link spam. Wizard191 (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Spam? What an arbitrary and literal (false) excuse you have given the link; I'm a wikipedia user and I submitted the link because it seems fitting, and nothing else. Do what you want in censoring the info that is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoproonline (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, one more thing to add as to your hypocrisy: You said, "Because Wikipedia is not a how-to [sic] your link is not advancing the transmission article and your link amounts to link spam." However, you fail to acknowledge that the how-to link of How Manual Transmissions Work is found as a link on the very same transmission page. Einstein, way to go in showing your true red colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoproonline (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You obviously didn't read WP:SPAM, specifically WP:Spam. Wizard191 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Spam? How is a link to wikihow (something I didn't post) a spam link on wikipedia? Inherently they complement each other--they are owned by the same organization....Do you not think before you write? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoproonline (talk • contribs) 08:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiHow is not owned by Wikimedia. See http://wikimedia.org for which projects are owned by Wikimedia. And please do not personally attack me again. Wizard191 (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cloud Gate projects
Why isn't Cloud Gate a metalworking article with all the intricate buffing that was involved?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If we included every article that pertained to an object or item that had a metalworking processes run on it it would include thousands of articles. The Metalworking WikiProject is for articles that are directly about metalworking processes and the tools and other associated items. Wizard191 (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Acme
Hello. I am not a native English speaker and I would like to ask you for little help. Could you please tell me, what is the correct pronunciation of the word Acme (e.g. Acme thread)? Thanks very much. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hope it's OK that I jumped in to answer. I added the pronunciation to Acme thread form. — ¾-10 22:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's more than OK, thanks for helping me out. Wizard191 (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for help. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Leakage (economics)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Leakage (economics), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081204093125AA6WyvN. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

epoxy
The health reference in this section to a GreenPeace article is not scientific fact, it should be removed. GreenPeace articles are not peer reviewed scientific literature. Also bisphenol A is only a suspected endocrine disruptor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.148.0.65 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct about the greenpeace ref, so I have removed it, however for peer reviewed refs see the bisphenol A article. Wizard191 (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

flash back arrester
I am new to the format here so please bare with me. I was attempting to work with current text and find references to it. I see that you did not approve of the changes. The patent references were accurate for the devices the article mentioned. It is difficult to find exact text reference. I am an engineer with 20 years in R&D with Flame arresters and related devices, that being said I think it would be easier to revise the entire "flash back arrester" topic. It is only directed at Oxy/acetylene applications which is not totally accurate. The term flash back arrester can also be used to refer to a device that is mounted on the intake of a marine engine and is also referred to as a "Spark Arrester". It can also be a device used to prevent flame propagation in some applications where a "Flame Arrester" is used. So I would like to revise the entire article and also add reference to "Marine Spark Arrester" and "Spark Arresters" What do you think? (Dwight E Brooker 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themasterblaster123 (talk • contribs)


 * I briefly looked over two the refs you added and couldn't see the correlation, but I might have missed it. I'm also not very knowledgable on the topic so I don't know if the other related topics would fit well in the article or not, but be bold and rework it. If it needs to be split I can take care of that. As for references all you have to do is wrap the reference text in tags. Wizard191 (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nanoindentation
It seems that having a list of nanoindentation manufacturers (Agilent, Hysitron, Micromaterials, CSM, etc...) would be useful. I had included this list and it was deleted immediately. I might reconsider having this information available as it could be useful for people interested in this subject mater. [talk:coope247|coop247] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coope247 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:ELNO point 14. Wizard191 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm still new and learning. Thanks for the info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coope247 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Please feel free to contribute in other manners, we need lots of help. Wizard191 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Balancing Machine Edit
Dear Wizard,

I fail to see where you found the contribution non-constructive. The link was similar in nature to others appearing in the same category. Kindly elaborate or offer some guidance.

Much appreciated Keratwiki (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See my reply in the section above. Wizard191 (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Vernier calipers java applet
can i add this? wiki says u revert to an earlier version

Ejs open source Vernier calipers java applet with objects and zero error logic is 2nd top search by google when searching "vernier caliper java applet".

it is a scientific simulation of a vernier caliper, definitely one of the best in the free and open source world today.

can i add it back to the wiki page? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookang (talk • contribs) 03:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how this helpful to the article. If you can prove that its helpful to the article then you can add it back, but right now it just seems to me to be a link to something someone wants to show off. Wizard191 (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

White metal bearings for marine engines
Can you please tell me how can the bonding of the white metal to the shell be checked in case of thin shell bearings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.151.139 (talk) 11:37 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)


 * I haven't the slightest idea. Wizard191 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandpaper
some of sandpaper article content are taken from this Paper Talk website. Pls don't remove the reference link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.193.246 (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding your link to the external links (EL) section does not make it a reference, please see WP:EL for what the EL section is for. Wizard191 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edits
Can you explain why you reverted my changes?

Some popular search terms often have "other uses" at the top, such as the Rolling Stone page.

An average user will search for "Tool" and desire to be guided in the right direction to locate the article regarding the band. They may find it confusing to navigate the disambig page.

Are ALL pages being changed to suit this policy, or just some?

Thanks in advance.

Nidht (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In the example you gave Rolling stone the magazine and the Rolling Stones the band are directly related. One was spurred from the other. In this case the band (Tool) is not directly related to the devices, in anything other than name, therefore they do not deserve a special hatnote. The way the tool article is currently laid out is by far the most common, with respect to hatnotes. Wizard191 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the band I meant to use in my point, but it had slipped my mind at first: the Muse page has this exact example. Nidht (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed that article, because there is no reason for the band to be singled out among many other articles. Wizard191 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I still find it misleading and confusing, which is why I made the change to the tool page to begin with. How can we make this more clear for users? Nidht (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, disambiguation pages are policy around here. If you have a problem with them, please comment at WP:DISAMBIG. Wizard191 (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tinning
I certainly approveof your action in merging the articles. I will try to sort it out. I think the sections on terning and galvanising might both go at the end, perhaps as a section on "alternatives to tinning". It may be some days before I am able to get down to this. I would like to be able to improve the article at the same time by providing better references. I think that some of my earlier work on these may have come from the period when references were relatively rare in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK thanks for the help. Wizard191 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Guide me !
I have updated my submitted article, Please guide me if you have suggestions. (Fenesta)


 * You have supplied a few links that assert notability so I am happy. Wizard191 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How to improve the article Fenesta. As per your suggestions I have added sources or references that appear in third-party publications. and I have updated article from a neutral point of view.


 * What should I do to cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards? Amardeep (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a lot of sections with only a few or one sentence in it which need to be combined. Articles should not include an "overview" section. Inline references are required. Bullets should be of the Wikipedia style (*). If you take care of those things that should get you well on your way. Wizard191 (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Brazing Article
Have mostly finished re-doing brazing article, would welcome any comments or criticism, thanks! --Pocketpencil (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How does taking the information that you re-added to the article and moving it under the correct heading sound to you? That way most of the info can be saved but the redundancies can be removed? --Pocketpencil (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that works for me. Wizard191 (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ok, i will get on that. --Pocketpencil (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ferritic nitrocarburizing
Hello! Your submission of Ferritic nitrocarburizing at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DMLS - Direct Metal Laser Sintering
Sir,

We provided some information that I found online regarding DMLS. I found it on this website http://www.gpiprototype.com which could give people more information. What do I need to do as I am new to this, I just want people to learn more about the technology at that website. Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) timr@gpiprototype.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.39.74 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, your edits appeared to be spam. If you would like to add references to the article please review our policies WP:EL and WP:RS. The "reference" you added spanks of spam when the first line of the page reads "GPI is a premiere service provider of Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS)...". I recommend finding better references. Wizard191 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
I am curious of why you reverted my edits on Power tools, could you please enlighten me of why you reverted my edits?? South Bay (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, its simple, my research found sabre saw is a real article, therefore it belongs on the list. Wizard191 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well! its really strange when you have reciprocating saw and sabre saw in the same list. South Bay (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the the definition of a sabre saw is quite vast. Here's a google image search, and I see three different types of saws throughout: http://images.google.com/images?q=sabre+saw&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=6ODNSpboKong8Qa-78H-Aw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4. Wizard191 (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Heli-Coil Marks
Can you please explain why you reverted my edits?

You state that the previous statement ("helical inserts, more commonly known by the tradename Heli-coil...") is correct.

It is not. HELI-COIL is a trademark, not a tradename. And it is owned by Emhart Teknologies: See U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 2987760, 0514560, 0759898, 0707397, 0419109, 0419476, and 0399390.

Also, there is no citation for the proposition that all helical inserts are "commonly known" as HELI-COIL inserts. It is not that the inserts are commonly known as HELI-COIL inserts, it is that a well-known brand of helical inserts is the HELI-COIL brand.

Please explain.

Thank you, BdcSJ (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the tradename/trademark issue. I've also added a ref to support the current text. Wizard191 (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Casting defect
Hello! Your submission of Casting defect at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Harvnb (again)
Hi Wizard191! You recently fixed references in List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures). Now I am having the same problem with hyperlinking between Harvnb templates and the reference in List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings). "Ohishi 1990" does not link to the reference in the bibliography. What am I doing wrong? (Ohishi is the "designer", Tokyo National Museum the "compiler" of the book. No author is known.) bamse (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently the citation template doesn't like it when you use "author-first"/"author-last" when an editor is also used, so I just changed them to "first"/"last" and that did the trick. Wizard191 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot once more! bamse (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Solder
Thanks for your good catch. It did occur to me, since saving, that i had just bought into the soldering info in the flux-core secn being in the solder article, w/o stopping to think abt the other article whose lk i'd noted. I'll take a look at Soldering and see whether my text (inherently satisfying, fortunately!) covers anything that's missing. (I'll watch here for any further comment.) --Jerzy•t 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. To be honest, I didn't read through it all, so some of your text may definitely be of use in the soldering article. Wizard191 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You were already being honest: you said "probably"! --Jerzy•t 05:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles regarding Sescoi, Workplan and WorkNC
Hi wizard191. My name is Jordi Ferrer, and I am a mechanical engineer based in Barcelona. I have been working and using Sescoi software products for more than 7 years, and my current goal is to create wikipedia pages for the company Sescoi, and for the main 2 software products developed by Sescoi, which are WorkNC, a CAD CAM software, and WorkPLAN, an ERP.

My aim is to provide useful information to the big community of worknc and workplan users worldwide, with more than 4000 users, and not to promote these 2 products because that is already done at the official product websites.

I am new to Wikipedia so I would appreciate to get help from you

The following are pieces of info that have not been posted at the official website and that can be interesting for the wikipedia articles. Let me know which ones are interesting, and what else could be interesting:


 * 1) History of the company and history of the product versions
 * 2) Older product names not in use today
 * 3) Number of users
 * 4) Type of programming language that was used in development

Can you suggest any Wikipedia articles that I can use as a model?

I found one article of a company which also works in cad cam: Delcam. And I also found an article of a product: Navision.

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordiferrer (talk • contribs) 11:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, my first recommendation is that you review WP:COI, which is our conflict of interest policy. If you work for Sescoi then the community highly recommends you don't write an article about the company. Second, Navision is a decent article to model after. Most of the other CAD/CAM software article are pretty advertisey, so I wouldn't look at them for advice. All of the points you listed above would work fine in an article about the topic, as long as you can find reliable sources for them. Wizard191 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for the recommendations. I will use the navision article as a model, and I will ask several persons, that have no conflict of interest, to help us write a neutral and not advertisey article, including the points mentioned above. Lets keep in touch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordiferrer (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mutiaxis machining
At the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiaxis_machining you have removed a link to worknc auto5, the first software that was able to convert a 3 axis toolpath into a 5 axis one.

But, you keep the link to powermill, which is another product?

What would you think about using the following article, instead of the one I posted, that explains a practical case of 5 axis machining?

http://www10.mcadcafe.com/nbc/articles/view_article.php?articleid=612505&interstitial_displayed=Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordiferrer (talk • contribs) 16:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't see that other link spam. I have removed it now. As for your new source, that looks like a reliable source, so feel free to use it. Wizard191 (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordiferrer (talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WorkPLAN
We just finished the WorkPLAN new page, which has been revised by 2 persons who are not Sescoi employees, to avoid conflicts of interest. We have tried to keep it as neutral and informative as possible. Please tell me if you have any comments or suggestions. Thanks!

OK, I will add more links tomorrow!


 * You should be all set after that. Wizard191 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wizard a Stocker?
Are you stocking me? It seems you are on my heels after I made several edits in machining on different pages. I would appericate it if you would stop it. Advocate4you (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not stalking you. You are just editing pages on my watchlist, of which I have all of the machining ones on there, and I periodically review all of the edits made on my watchlist. Wizard191 (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose a stalker might say the same thing. You peridoically check? No, you are on my heels, and again I'd appericate it if you would stop it rather then defend your actions. If you continue to do this, I will continue to ask you to stop. Advocate4you (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just in honest defense of Wizard191, it can in fact seem like someone is "on your heels" when in reality it is just that all of the pages being edited are on their watchlist. It is not as sinister as it may seem to someone who is not used to how effective the watchlist system is. It is actually just SOP! Cheers, — ¾-10 19:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are suggesting that my perception of reality is impaired. There is nothing wrong with my perception of reality. He edited on my heels. If he wants to edit a page that I have already edited, there is plenty of other editing he can do on that same page, plenty, but again, the fact is, he targeted my edits and on my heels. This isn't the first time I've had problems with Wizard. And why are you jumping into this? Advocate4you (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)  PS: I see now that according to Wizard on your talk page that he thanked you for standing up for him, "If you ever need something I owe you one."  This sort of alliance building in disputes isn’t helping matters at all and it creates an "us vs them."  Advocate4you (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You realize that you are creating something out of nothing. This is not "us" vs. "you". As you can see I didn't canvass 3/4-10, I just thanked him for his kind words and support, of which he volunteered. Wizard191 (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don’t suppose what “I realize.” It comes across as condescending and arrogant.  Advocate4you (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings!
Greetings Wizard191 - I see that you have recently contributed to the Carbon steel article and from what your user page says, you know summat about the subject. A user with a long history of unhelpful edits has made a series of changes to some of the figures and as I have no idea whatsoever, would be grateful if you could take a look - and revert if necessary. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! It appears that he undid all of his edits, so it's a moot point, but that page gets vandalized often. Thanks for the heads up. Wizard191 (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CAM software providers today
Hi Wizard191 at the article Computer-aided_manufacturing we have today a section named "software providers today" that clearly needs to be updated and improved. The companies are listed according to 2005 data, but today we can already use 2008 data that you can see for example here: http://www.deskeng.com/articles/aaarmw.htm

There are several methods that can be used to rank companies. In my opinion the best one is "total end-user payments". This way we take into account all payments made by customers, be it to the local reseller or to the software developer. This way we avoid penalizing developers who have more resellers and less direct sales offices.

There are other small improvements that can be done, such as removing advertising sentences such as " the first CAM package with Automatic Feature Recognition " which is clearly an ad. All developers have features which are unique, and this is not the place to post that.

Do you want me to update the page, and you revise it?

Or you prefer I send you my proposed text, and you edit and publish it?

--Jordiferrer (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can do any modifications you see fit. My only recommendation is that you list the software and not the companies, because we care about the software used in CAM, not who makes it. Also, to be least controversial I would put the list in alphabetical order so that it doesn't seem arbitrary what is listed where, even though you and I know you did it based on end user payments. Wizard191 (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK done. I have listed the top 10 products, in alphabetical order as you suggested, and then also all the additional products we had listed in the previous version of this page. I also added a reference because this page needs more references. Please have a look.--Jordiferrer (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Wizard191 (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I just finished the WorkNC page. I tried to post all possible relevant info, and I had a couple of neutral persons revising it, to avoid using an "advertisey" approach. Please revise it and tell me if anything can be improved. There are some paragraphs that would need more links to wiki pages. Do you have any tool to automate creating links to wiki pages? --Jordiferrer (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the tool is: http://can-we-link-it.nickj.org/ (User:Nickj/Can We Link It). Wizard191 (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_CAM
Hi again wizard191. We have an important problem with the page Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_CAM On that page, none of the products is a CAM software. All of them are ECAD (electronic computer-aided design) softwares, specialized in Electronic design automation

I suggest we rename the page to either to Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_EDA or to Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_ECAD or to Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_Electronic design or we merge it with Comparison_of_Free_EDA_software and Comparison of EDA Software   --Jordiferrer (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And there should be no redirection. I mean, if someone clicks on Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_CAM he should be sent to "this page does not yet exist, you can create it now"

Can you do all this? --Jordiferrer (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have merged the table into Comparison of EDA Software. I left the introduction for whoever wants to recreate the article; it won't hurt anything. Wizard191 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ok thanks. I just edited the header of Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_CAM. If I find some time during Christmas I will create a comparison table !--Jordiferrer (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Casting defect

 * Symbol thumbs up.svg


 * Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

pictures
Hi,

I'm Hollstein, and i wanted to know if you know how to put pictures up on Wikipedia?Hollstein (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Question for you


Hey, I am a new user, and I am trying an experiment. Did you create this cookie? CitizenofEarth (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For fixing my typo here. --John (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Keep up the good work. Wizard191 (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about the galling page and my pictures
Hi. I donated three pictures from my own work and research to the wikipedia commons. I have full owner ship and copy right of the pictures and I want to make them public and free and also to be used in the article galling found in the wikipedia archive. Please help me get my pictures back and if not, please guide me through the authorization and download process. Notably, the pictures where downloaded and authorized by me and already in the wikipedia commons for over 1 year white out any problems. --Haraldwallin (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that they are published elsewhere on the internet that claims copyright, specifically . If you want to donate them you have to go trough the proper channels, as outlined here: OTRS. Wizard191 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don´t think diva-portal.org claims copyright to the three pictures because the diva-portal.org is not the owner and publisher of my original. I published my examination report including the three pictures using the library at Karlstaduniversity (kau.se).


 * The conditions I publisch my work under was clear, I have full owner ship over my work and if somebody claims copyright I waqnt to know who they are. I don´t beleve that diva-portal.org are claiming becouse they are only a website that provide acces to reoports and not a publisher. --Haraldwallin (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a copyright logo on the page therefore one can only assume it applies to everything on the site unless otherwise noted on the page. Wizard191 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Harald, the chances are good that you can get this sorted out, you probably will just need to e-mail DIVA or your university administration. They will know more about the copyright of self-archived content in institutional repositories in general as well as in regard to them in particular. I suspect that you own copyright to your thesis, but it could be that your university owns it. — ¾-10 19:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have spoken to both the library at Karlstad University and Diva.org. The message was clear, I have full owner ship over my work and the published pictures according to the contract between myself and the two publishers(see § 5 bellow). Even if I give the pictures away to some one and let them use them I still have the the main copyright, den ideala upphovsrätten(Swedish), which never can be lost. In other words, I can give them away to an infinite amount of people. I can also make new pictures on the steel plates because I have the original material.

§ 5 Transfer of the Author?s Rights Any transfer by the Author of the copyright to the Work shall not affect the rights of the University under the Agreement. This agreement regarding electronic publishing shall not impose any limitations of the Author?s right to make use of the Work.

I can give you the whole contract if you want or the diva.org contact but I hope it´s not necessary,

I would be very happy if my pictures are reinstate in the article and also are made accessible on the wikipedia commons as they where before this problem appeared, thank you in advance.

Diva.org and my self would also like to know who claims owner ship over my work in their (Diva.org) name. They said it´s very unfortunate if somebody act on their behalf without authority and the representative for Diva.org would like to know, who is this person (or organisation)?, and if Diva.org needs to take actions to prevent unsuitable behaviour. --Haraldwallin (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You would have to talk to an administrator at the Commons to get them undeleted and then file an OTRS as I had stated above. It will probably be easier for you to just re-upload them and then file the OTRS. Wizard191 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Harald, regarding your last question, it is nothing personal or unusual. It is standard procedure on Wikipedia for anyone who happens to be watching to steer things away from what looks like copyvio (copyright violation). Because Wikipedia can be (mal)edited by anyone, this type of procedure is necessary. It's kind of like going through security at the airport—it's not personal against you, and the guards are not acting strangely, they're just watching out for bad guys. In your case, you are a good-faith user, and you can in fact share your photos—you just have to send in an e-mail explaining the above via OTRS. Happy editing! — ¾-10 01:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have done as you proposed. I have sent an e-mail explaining the above via OTRS at four different occasions to both info-commons@wikimedia.org and permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and nothing have happened.

The first mail where sent 2009-11-11 and the last one today. The one who deleted my pictures must be authorized to retrieve them, perhaps you can send a message to the right person?

The pictures are as follows:

File:MildAdh Web.jpg File:Abrassiv Web.jpg File:SevereAdh Web.jpg

--Haraldwallin (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The admin that deleted the images can be reached at commons:User talk:Zirland. On a side note, please do not delete things from my talk page. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Added a link on integrated simulation of composite materials
Dear Wizard 191:

In my opinion the future of composite materials, especially the nano reinforced composite materials will have to rely on more advanced simulation & analysis. The behaviour of interfaces of different materials, related to mechanical stress, corrosion mechanisms and diffusion phenomena is currently still not fully understood - and therefore limits the application of composite materials. By placing a link to to the free forum, I wanted to contribute to better understading. Hope you respect the previous. Wishing you a good day,

Kind Regards,

Physchem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physchem (talk • contribs) 07:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia specifically has a guideline against linking to forums. Please read up on this at WP:ELNO. Wizard191 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

gleason corp, spiral bevels and hypoids
Wizard, I hope you don't take this poorly but this kind of thing is exactly why people despise Wikipedia.Let's examine the chain of events here :

I was looking for a current phone number for Gleason, thought wikipedia might have something useful for a change. Alas, no. The history of Gleason is long, involved, and interesting. All Wikipedia had was a bit of fluff. Worse, several sentences in the entry were total crap. So I removed them. Yes, that is not as constructive as writing an entirely new entry but I happen to work. I don't have hours to spend on this at the moment but I *can* remove untruths.

What happened next ? Did you examine the sentences for relevance or just assume that anything already in Wikipoopdia must be wonderful and correct ?

"Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Gleason Corporation, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted"

You come in on your high horse, mark the removal as "vandalism" and smugly trot off to your less-than-accurate cave. If you were European I might understand the jingoism inherent in the sentences I removed, but as a product of Milwaukee you should be more intelligent.

Observe what I removed :

"However, more productive and less expensive manufacturing process for manufacturing of spiral bevel gears has been used in Germany. In the result of the World War II, Gleason received an advantage versus German competitor and established its gear influence in Europe. While Gleason spiral bevel gears are offered in Europe, the native for European market Klingelnberg and Oerlikon gears are more popular and offer better benefits in mass production for European automotive industry."

This is total crap.

First, Gleason has been involved in bevel gears for over a century. Spiral bevel manufacturing is only a part of their business. To reduce their entire range of expertise to one product line is ridiculous.

Second, the statement is totally untrue. The two most common methods of producing spiral bevels are the Oerlikon method and the Gleason method. They each have strengths and weaknesses. Gleason method is more economical for large quantities and more suitable for tooth modification.Oerlikon method is more suitable for small batches and is probably more convenient. Describing the pluses and minuses of each method would take many paragraphs *from someone who knows what they are talking about*, not some dimwitted jingoist.

Besides that, Gleason also made machines which utilize the "Oerlikon method," such as some models in the G-plete range. Intelligent people don't choose which system to use based on ignorant bias such as this article contained.They choose which method to use based on requirements and circumstances.

"It is not a secret that fuel economy of European cars is better compare the cars produced in the US, partially thanks to use of spiral bevel gears on drive axles as an alternative to lower efficiency hypoid gears that are commonly used on US cars and trucks"

Uhh, yeah. Now go out and find me a car with a hypoid or spiral bevel rear end. I believe there may be one or two low-volume rear-drive models produced in the US.What are the figures for market sector for rear-wheel drive cars ? 5% maybe ? Front wheel drive cars *have neither spiral bevel nor hypoid gearsets in their drive train*.

The change from rear-wheel drive to front wheel drive, what, thirty years ago ? was what motivated gleason to get into the parallel axis gear business.That could have been a reasonable addition to this article, rather than the nonsense crap you are standing up for.

So wtf does fuel economy have to do with anything ? (Where are the *facts* showing that "european cars get better fuel economy, btw ?) Compare european cars to american cars by displacement and what are the figures ? My red wagon gets better fuel economy than any european car, wtf difference does that make ? Europe is not the US, transportation patterns are totally different and fuel efficiency has absolutely nothing to do with the efficiencies of gearsets *that aren't even used in 95% of modern automobiles*.

More than that, the last sentence which I removed (and which removal you marked as "vandalism") is just a bunch more kaka. *Like all things in gearing*, spiral bevel gear sets have some advantages and some disadvantages over hypoids. Spiral bevels generally do have lower rolling friction.And they are easier to manufacture. But they have crossed axes, which means you can't have shafts that extend much beyond the gears themselves. Before electronic sewing machines this was very important. Mechanical sewing machines were a snakebed of hypoid gearsets. Another advantage to hypoids is that the drive line is offset from the center of the ring gear. In an automobile this drops the floor pan and improves the aerodynamics of the car. So what one might lose to friction in the gear train, one would get back ten times over in aerodynamic efficiency. In the case of trucks, buses and motorhomes hypoids can increase cargo space,improve packaging constraints, give designers more options in the overall mechanical layout of the vehicle. Claiming that hypoids and Gleason are inferior to the godlike German technology and only achieved success because of World War II is symptomatic of someone with Down's Syndrome. Besides, the US won World War II using Gleason-built spiral bevels and hypoids, so perhaps the Gleason technology was demonstrably superior :)

Oh yeah, one more interesting fact - several european trucks (and cars in the past, don't know about now) actually use *wormgears* in their rear ends. Would we like to discuss frictional losses, Mr Idiot Jingoist European Wikipedia writer ?

Yes, I do dispute your removal of the lies and distortions present in that article as "vandalism." The sentences I removed are crap. Untrue, unfactual, jingoist political garbage.It would be nice if someone familiar with the true history of Gleason with even a third-grade understanding of engineering would expand that article. But for now, you should go back and remove the garbage that I already removed once. It's an insult to any intelligent person, much less any engineer who might wander through there.

Edit : I gotta do something about this keyboard. Or maybe put my fat fingers on a diet :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have undone my edit. Wizard191 (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of O-ring article
You reverted an edit I made to the O-Ring article citing "Vandalism". However, the edit I made was to correct a mistake in the article - Megapascals are millions of Pascals, not thousands as the article claimed. That would be Kilopascals. This mistake would be obvious to anyone with a basic secondary level scientific education.

Please get your facts right before accusing people of vandalism. If you are going to spend your days watching every single edit to spot mistakes, you might as well check out their validity before making such outlandish claims. You might even learn something! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.18.56 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Before you go accusing me of not having a "basic secondary level scientific education", please get your facts straight. The sentence is "They can seal tens of megapascals (thousands of psi) pressure." psi...enough said. Wizard191 (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Then are you saying that the article should say kilopascals instead of megapascals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.18.56 (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See: and . Wizard191 (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

AlNiCo Magnet prices
"As of 2008, Alnico magnets cost about $10/kg ($20/pound) or $4.30/BHmax.[8]"

You have reverted my edit regarding the price conversions. The cited page given only shows $20/lb. If 1 kg is 2.2 lbs then you would be paying closer to $44/kg, not $10/kg. Thanks. 74.99.6.82 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right; I've restored your revision. Wizard191 (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wizard Continues to be a Stocker
I see of all the editors in Wiki, it is only you that continues to stock me. You are on my heels editing my work and you don't even use the discussion first. There is pleany of editing you can do with out targeting me repeately. You need to stop. Also, after reading your talk page, I see that you are ticking off some other editors by making mistakes. Advocate4you (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizard, I think it would be helpful if you changed your style of editing. I felt the same tone as the editor above when he wrote this: "You come in on your high horse, mark the removal as "vandalism" and smugly trot off to your less-than-accurate cave." (Reference -“gleason corp, spiral bevels and hypoids - above”) In this case as in others, you were wrong. You never apologized to that editor even though what you were defending was "crap" as put by the above editor. And you’ve done this in the past in my case. You’ve stated that editors should start discussion first before making changes, but you yourself seem to be above this standard you set for others. And as that editor stated to you, based on your style of editing, “this kind of thing is exactly why people despise Wikipedia.” And that’s about how I’m feeling too. Advocate4you (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I've never stated that a discussion should be started before an edit, that's just not how Wikipedia is run; see WP:BOLD. Second, I make mistakes because I am human, as does everyone else, including yourself, therefore do not come around here bashing me or other for such things as we all do it. Third, I have worked with hundreds of other editors in a peaceful and synergistic manner while only having a problem with a handful, including yourself. Your uncompromising and attacking attitude is quite uncivil, therefore if you harass me one more time I will report you. Wizard191 (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please report because it would save me the trouble, and please note that it is you that always engages with me and not the other way around. I wish someone would tell you to back off from me. As for being human, it is your tone can be viewed as nasty as noted by other editors and it does not encourage workability. I think the advice you would get is to stay away from me. As for a discussion before reverting an edit (which you continue to do to me), you stated this on YOUR talk page: “As a side note, I would recommend in the future that you don't just revert someones edit before discussing it with them.” So when I make a change, and you revert it without discussion, this is your double standard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate4you (talk • contribs) 17:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have opened a complaint here. Wizard191 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And I've responded to it. Advocate4you (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ecopure - biodegradable plastic edit
hello Wizard191. Can you tell me why you removed my edit on Ecopure? The three companies I mentioned are all legit and taking a lead in this new technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.7.103 (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits are promoting various companies, which is against Wikipedia policy. For more information please reference Spam. Wizard191 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

page micrometer @ http://www.stefanelli.eng.br

 * Simulator to practice reading and interpreting one-hundredth of a millimetre outside micrometer

In this page have a simulator of micrometer on-line made in flash. Scroll to the footers and use is intuitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.20.246 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrm...the last time I opened it nothing showed up. Wizard191 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Velmex (Linear-motion bearing)
hello,

I am confused about your standards. As a manufacturer of dovetail slides we have a very extensive and educational website. I don't understand why you deleted my listing but allow all of the other companies. What does one have to do to be listed as an external link? Richard Yurick Velmex Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.196.42 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, in actuality none of those ads should have been there and I've now removed them. For more information on what can and cannot be linked see WP:EL. Wizard191 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. Richard yurick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.196.42 (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Review
You might want to take a look at Load Securing. I have made a couple of edits but it seems to need some more serious work. Rlsheehan (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right...it does need a lot of work. I'll see what I can do, but my personal life is getting quite busy so it may take some time before I get around to it. Wizard191 (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am the person who wrote the article load securing, and totally new to the game. I welcome your comments and critics so I can improve this article and learn from my mistakes. I apologize for making mistakes, it is definitly not my intent to do so. I sincerely hope you will help me with this. I am reading as much about Wiki as I can, but some things are just too difficult to understand for a newcomer (and dummy) like me. I will use your comments/suggestions to improve the article and hopefully to some day help someone else who will be new to the game. Thanks very much, Astrid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrid Groeneveld (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

pictures Cordstrap (dunnage bags, polyester strap, polyester lashing)
Hi Wizard191, I recently uploaded the pictures mentioned above. Today I saw that you pointed them out as copyright violations, and that they are up for speedy deletion. However, I work for this company, called Cordstrap, that has these pictures also on their website (www.cordstrap.net). What can I do so the pictures will remain on Wiki Commons? Is there any other way of licensing I should use? This is the first time I am doing this and that I am exploring the possibities within Wiki and everything is brand new. I am reading as much about it as I can, but feel pretty stupid sometimes stil.... So any comments or help are greatly appreciated. I apologize for doing this wrong. It is never my intent to do this on purpose. I am looking forward to hear from you. Best regards, Astrid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrid Groeneveld (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Working for the company does not give you permission to use them. You'd have to get permission from the company to give them to Wikipedia. Once you have the permission from you company you would then follow the steps at WP:OTRS. Wizard191 (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the spoken permission to use these pictures on Wikipedia. Do I need anything else? Thanks, Astrid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrid Groeneveld (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You need written permission because you have to forward that written permission to Wikipedia through the OTRS. Wizard191 (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Written in an e-mail or letter? Who within the company needs to sign? Sorry I am bugging you with all these questions.--Astrid Groeneveld (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * An email & whoever owns the pictures and has the rights to release them. Wizard191 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wizard, I will get it in e-mail tomorrow. Where should I send it to? And is there a way the pictures will not be deleted till than? Thanks, Astrid --Astrid Groeneveld (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The instructions are at WP:OTRS. Most likely the images will be deleted until the OTRS is filed. Wizard191 (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

load securing
Hi Wizard, Thanks for your comments on the load securing article. I will shorten the dunnage bags part - and add some of the text to the dunnage bags article. I will talk to strapping/lashing experts that I know how to combine the strapping and lashing article. I really appreciate your comments. This is all so new to me, and I want to do it right. I will start making changes today. Best regards, --Astrid Groeneveld (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Keep up the good work! Wizard191 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wizard, I re-wrote the article load securing. I did not merge the strapping and lashing together, but made changes to really state the differences between the 2 applications. I also took out a big part of the text of Dunnage Bags. I also created external links. I appreciate your comments if you have a moment to take a look at the article. Thanks, --Astrid Groeneveld (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the dunnage bag section, it's much better. I've removed the external links (ELs) because none of them are directly applicable to the topic; please see WP:EL for our guidelines on ELs. While you've attempted to fix the lashing section, I've done a bit of research on lashing and found that your description is not the same as published descriptions, which leads me to my next point. I feel that your employment with cordstrap has bias your views badly. You only refer to polyester strap, because that's what you work on but you've completely ignored polypropylene, nylon, and steel. You also linked your companies website, which is a big no-no. As such, I recommend that you read WP:COI, and especially note "COI editing is strongly discouraged." Also note that I work for a strapping company and I usually steer away from article about such topics as I don't want a perceived COI. Wizard191 (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wizard, Thanks for you advise. I just read the COI article, and am sorry if I made mistakes. I thought by not mentioning the name of a company it would not be considered COI. From now on I will stay away from writing articles that might suggest COI. Again, I apologize. Thank you for editing and mentioning more products in the article. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. --Astrid Groeneveld (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. There's tons of other articles around here that need help if you are willing to help out. Wizard191 (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Power hammer
Thanks for picking up on the link i neglected on Power hammer, even tho it would have been temporary. When i went and put it in, in the edit pane, there was so much else wrong that i've been working on it (and explaining on the talk page) on and off for several hours without saving. (I should have learned by now to anticipate edit conflicts in such edits!) --Jerzy•t 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep up the good work...I know that article needs it! Wizard191 (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Welding defect

 * Great job on this article, especially the very useful illustrations! Nyttend (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Loctite Shield SuperGlue logo.jpg
Probably I am being dim, but I don't see what part of WP:NFCC this doesn't meet. Logos are pretty much always OK so long as they are used somewhere. Help! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The image is not a low res image at 1,156 × 1,021 pixels. Wizard191 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That was too obvious. The usual thing, so I understand, is to add reduce and wait for someone to rescale it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was unaware of that template, thanks for the info. I do have one question though...if I rescale it and re-upload it the original large scale version is available through previous revisions, which still violates fair-use copyright, therefore doesn't this version have to be deleted to eliminate the issue? Wizard191 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Loctite introduction
Dear Wizard191, My intention is to update the Loctite wiki page. I would like to remove certain informarion, which are not relevant to the brand (eg.that its name comes from te daughter-in-law of Dr.Krieble). Moreover, the previous text refers to the US market and not to Loctite worldwide, as Loctite worldwide offers mainly superglues (and some putties in certain european countries). Please let me know how to edit the first part of the page according to the wiki rules.

thank you in advance for your time, Elizabeth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth44 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wizard191, I would like to add to my previous message that I have updated the Loctite page with an Infobox and the material that is now included does give a very good picture of the brand, its history and products, all with references. Therefore, its quality standards should be changed. It should not be stub-class any more and there has been given attention to the text before editing. Please let me know what you think about the quality of the text. Thank you, ElizabethElizabeth44 (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but Loctite is well known for threadlocking fluid in the US so it shouldn't be eliminated. Wizard191 (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

page micrometer @ http://www.stefanelli.eng.br (ii)
hi.

I put the page micrometer other three links to other simulators


 * Simulator to practice reading and interpreting one-thousandth of a millimetre outside micrometer
 * Simulator to practice reading and interpreting one-thousandth of an inch outside micrometer
 * Simulator to practice reading and interpreting ten-thousandth of an inch outside micrometer

I finished them recently.

[]´s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edustefa (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Wizard191 (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Knut
Knut is a sometimes used spelling of nut, not just in K-Nut (which i didn't know about). I did not know that it was dubious. It is common in the UK. Whilst not really counting as reliable, here are some sites that do use it


 * http://www.buywyze.com/shop/shop.php?c=85
 * http://oxford.gumtree.com/oxford/42/49319942.html
 * http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Caster-Racing-ZX1.5R-Nitro-Buggy-&-HPI-Pull-Bag_W0QQitemZ200416279477QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxq20091210?IMSfp=TL091210195001r28789

After finding out it is actually an incorrect spelling of it (not diff between Brit Eng and US Eng). Simply south (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's definitely a mis-spelling and not noteworthy. Wizard191 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)