User talk:Wizard191/Archive 4

inconel
having created processes for maching and roll threading fully aged 718 inconel, i posted an edit to add the process of induction heating 718 to 1300 F which was very succesful in roll threading. The aplication being used in a fission reactor that also had no halogen contamination. Also, used by NASA to hold the space shuttle down at launch. Worked on the above and developed my own process because of the terms used to describe the process as " impossible". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.168.21 (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that our policy for inclusion is verifiability and not truth. As such, what you are saying might be true, but if you can't cite a secondary source, then we can't include it on Wikipedia. Wizard191 (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Powertrain
Hi Wizard,can you please let me know why you removed the Gearing Commander link twice ?

Regards, Jean 82.171.136.205 (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, because it doesn't qualify per our external link policy, which is found at WP:ELNO; specifically points 1 & 8. Wizard191 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand point 8 as the site does requires JavaScript to function properly. But it is point 1 that I do not understand as English is not my native language; what does "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain" mean ?

Regards, Jean 82.171.136.205 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Essentially was point 1 means is the link would provide more direct information about the topic than could feasibly be included. The problem with your link is that it's far too application specific to be about powertrains in general. Your link is only about bike sprockets, which is far too specific for an article like powertrain. Wizard191 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Question for an expert
Hi, you seem well-qualified to answer a question - so can you kindly head over to Talk:Compacted graphite iron and give it your expert opinion. Kind regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the crop!
Now that I look at it... Looks a lot better :) Tim1337 (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Wizard191 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You may know
I've asked a couple different questions recently on the Science Reference Desk, and it occurred to me that you may know the answers. Do you? 99.55.163.191 (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I threw a response on the first question, but I'm not sure about the second. Good luck. Wizard191 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! You helped me understand what I really want to know. I hope the implications for wind power are as profound as I think they may be. 76.254.70.144 (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of assistance. Good luck with your research, etc. Wizard191 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My contributions were not spam. (Thermodynamics); I will be undoing your undo.
My changes to Thermoplastic were not spam. You indicated the reference pages did not contain the information; however, you did not look hard enough (I converted °F to °C). I'm in the process of adding more Tg data to the table, as I can gather it from "less commercial" sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushinut (talk • contribs) 20:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've undone your edits again because neither of your "references" state what the glass transition temperature is. The only temperatures given are for forming and max working temp. Please use other references. Wizard191 (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Harvard no brackets references
Can you help me with a problem relating to these, at House Sparrow and some other sparrow articles? I've read all the templates and old template talk and made a large number of experiments in my sandboxes, but I cannot tell what the problem is. It will be a lot of trouble to remove the citations and it is not advised to remove an already existing reference style. Most of the references work, but not all. One of these references, "Anderson, 2006", is a main reference for the article and the one I've tested. The article uses the cite book and cite journal references for those at the bottom, but with "ref=harv" parameters. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You were close. Harvard references always reference the year field, so I just converted all the date fields to year fields and they all work now. Wizard191 (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! This is quite important to me, as I am trying to get the sparrow articles into a good topic with a uniform reference style. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem! Wizard191 (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just gone and fixed the references at Charles Darwin, thanks to your little correction. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

dovetail slides @ Linear-motion bearing
Hello,

I have worked at Velmex Inc. for 25 years. We sell dovetail slides exclusively. I would like to improve the paragraph on dovetail slides. I apologize for posting in the wrong section of the page. I understand that it has to be written from a neutral perspective. It will take some time for me to do this and I don't want to put a lot of time into it if it's not going to be used. I'm willing to send you my draft you want to edit it. Best regards, Eureka125 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Rick Yurick


 * You wrote:


 * "Dovetail bearings or dovetail way slides are typically constructed from cast iron, but can also be constructed from aluminum alloy. A dovetail slide is composed of a stationary linear base and a moving carriage or saddle. The moving saddle rides on a lubricant or other bearing material designed to reduce friction."


 * which is an awful lot like the opening paragraph of the dovetail slides section. This is why I thought it was a test edit. If you have a draft I would love to review it to let you know if it's neutral and clear. Wizard191 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I also am very interested in the input of a long-time employee of Velmex, such as Rick, for the reasons mentioned here. Rick, whatever you care to contribute, I encourage you to take the time to write it, because to whatever extent it adds substantive info to Wikipedia that wasn't already there, you can be sure that it will be put to good use in one article or another. Thanks, — ¾-10 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

New to wikipedia,
Hi Wizard,

I have 20+ years of experience working in the publications field of manufacturing engineering and management. That includes editing handbook data, compiling taxonomies and dictionaries, and working with manufacturing experts. I'm pretty conversant with the literature, and copyright rules. I think I could help out with the metalworking project, but may make mistakes with the wiki conventions for awhile. Patience appreciated!

Is there some corner of the project you'd like someone to start working on so I get an idea of how it all works?

Karen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhkar (talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

organization and structure
I've been navigating around the articles and notice one of the issues we had in editing manufacturing handbooks and taxonomies. There is a basic difference between processes and equipment, though they are inseparable. That means you have to decide which is primary, the process or the equipment, and whether to combine both on one page, and if so, how to be consistent in how the article elements are arranged.

As an example of confusion, in the article on "machining" the various processes, turning, milling, drilling, and so on are listed and hyperlinked. The Milling (process) link goes to "Milling machine" when I really want to see more on milling processes, of which there are so many that you don't want them in the higher-level "machining" article.

I think the processes should be separate categories from the equipment, but the ability to link from one to the other gives you much more freedom than you have in a print product.

"Processes" can start with "Fundamentals" then variations of the process.

Especially in "Equipment" I would like to see section called "Innovations" and cover the time period 1941 (because so much happened during WWII to the present). That way the basic explanation of the equipment can be very simple, but then complexities added as they evolved in the industry. That also sets the articles up for additional updating as technology advances.

There actually wouldn't be any harm in following the organization of a manufacturing handbook or textbook, since that is not subject to copyright and similar from one to another.

Wilhkar (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Wilhkar


 * Regarding linking to equipment when ideally one would link to the process, one thing that emerges in developing Wikipedia is that if, at the time you're making the link, the process article doesn't exist yet, then you link to the equipment article rather than to nothing. It works out pretty well. It's better to have a blue link than a red link, because many users and editors have an aversion to seeing red links and will simply delete whole chunks of information rather than suffer a red link to exist harmlessly. Of course you could see this happening on your watchlist and go undo it, but it's more satisfying to avoid inviting it than to argue with people about reversion. Another pattern that I have seen in WP content development is that the coverage of a topic (process & equipment) starts with a stub or start-class article on the equipment, and the process coverage starts out as a section of that article. Then, months or years later, the process may get spun off into its own article. The pace of this development just depends on how much time the various volunteers can donate to growing the coverage (as opposed to traditional book development, where people have financial incentive to work all day, every day on it, whether an editor earning a paycheck or an author working toward a publication deadline). Once that splitting (spinoff) happens, then someone can go around changing the targets of pipe links from equipment to process.


 * Hope this is useful. Just had to kick in 2¢ on WP content development observations. See y'all around. — ¾-10 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are definitely right that the structure of the metalworking articles can improve. As far as the equipment vs. process goes, the unwritten rule is if the machine can be used for multiple processes then it deserves its own article; if it is only used for one process then the equipment should be discussed in the process article. For example, the hobbing machine is discussed at hobbing, but the milling machine has its own page. As for your example of milling (process), this is a desperately needed article that no ones gotten around to yet. Finally, history sections generally work better when large facets are combined, because there usually isn't enough info for the individual processes or equipment; note that there are exceptions. Wizard191 (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree regarding how the history info will in some instances be specific to a process or class of equipment and in other instances will need to form an umbrella over a set of those. For example, the "history" section of "milling machine" weaves fluidly between milling-specific history and the broader history of machine tools. I suspect that eventually I will recombine the pieces of this content, with some staying at "milling machine" and others flowing into a new article to be called "history of machine tools". Actually I would ideally like to call it "history of toolpath control" because if you build an object model of the relevant objects (jigs, machine tools, machine tool control [manual and CNC]) you realize that toolpath control is the underlying common goal of them all. But many reader's heads would explode if I used that title, so "history of machine tools" will do nicely enough. Anyway, more fuel for thought. Later, — ¾-10 15:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that an article titled history of machine tools would easily contain your ponderings on toolpath control. The only thing it might do is step on the toes of the history of NC. But its definitely a start, and a bridge we can cross down the road. Wizard191 (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm getting used to finding related content and will just put in links and "see" references for now. That should make it easier to find the fragments when reorganizing. I see the evolutionary wisdom in deciding how to use process/equipment articles for now. When I get my sources organized, I hope to tackle Milling. I'd vote for placing history after describing the contemporary process, even perhaps in reverse chronological order like a vertical timeline. I have a great source for innovations from 1932 to 1982--Mfg Eng mag did a history for SME's 50th anniversary. Thanks for all the thoughtful comments!

fixing refs
Thanks for fixing refs. will download a program once I get used to this. Is there one you'd recommend for Mac? Wilhkar (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar


 * A program? What do you mean? Wizard191 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I found a note that made me think there was a downloadable interface or tool to format the references to change them to the a,b,c,d etc. I'm just easily confused.


 * Ah...AutoWikiBrowser. You have to have a minimum number of edits to qualify to use it. It's a nice tool for modifying large quantities of articles, however the web interfaces is plenty good for modifying single articles at a time. As far as references go, typical practice is to list them as and then any subsequent refs listed as.


 * I'm having problems with the interface accepting references in the <ref name= syntax. Then when I enclose the reference in it shows all the original citations as cite errors. Wilhkar (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar


 * Right now I don't see any errors on the bending (metalworking) article. As long as you format the refs as they currently look you should be alright. Wizard191 (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

copyright vio
Yes, I am using the cited source as the basis for the text I am adding. I have reworded it much better than the bit you picked out - didn't do a very good job with that. Choices at this point - I can revisit what I've done and make sure it's better reworded but that makes it a judgment call. You can undo what I've done if you are holding the standard that the writer mostly work from his/her own knowledge, which I can't claim to do. Then I can confine my contribution to adding sources to bibliographies and linking articles that are related. I agree that high standards are important. Strictly speaking, from what the copyright office has told me, nearly all of what I'm doing is OK, but you are right--two words in a sentence are not enough. How would you like me to proceed? Wilhkar (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar

I reworded the coining paragraph. If It's OK, I'll inspect my previous additions and make sure they are better done. Wilhkar (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar


 * As long as you resolved the issue all is good. I haven't checked any of your other additions, but I'm assuming good faith. Wizard191 (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. Wilhkar (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar

NDT link
hi, the link to the tutorial in non-destructive testing is not advertising. it's a tutorial on how to gauge thickness using ultrasonics. it's not promoting a product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.226.130 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not advertising, however it does not qualify for inclusion per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:ELNO point 1. Wizard191 (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

is there a way for us to get a second opinion on this issue, because it seems like there are many such links on wikipedia. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.226.130 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, see WP:THIRD. Wizard191 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

my issue is that the WP:NOTHOWTO does not apply in this case because it refers to an article, and what i tried to post was an external link. in regards to WP:ELNO point 1, i don't understand what this means. what i was trying to post was just an external resource for people who want to gain a better understanding of ultrasonic thickness gauging, which is a common ndt method and seems very apt for people looking for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.226.130 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT applies to Wikipedia as a whole, not just the text part of the article, but to all aspects of the article, therefore links to how-to information is not welcome. Wizard191 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

it states the following "Wikipedia articles should not read like: 1. Instruction manuals."

this implies that tutorials and such are not allowed to be re-posted, and should not refer to a simple informational link at the bottom, as this would not cause the article to read like an instruction manual, how to guide, recipe, or tutorial. there are many such instances of this throughout wikipedia, such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installation_%28computer_programs%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D90 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod

these all have external links to manuals, tutorials, or how to guides.

--208.48.226.130 (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you can find many more references to articles that have content against policy, however that doesn't make it right. If you disagree please open up a case at WP:THIRD. Wizard191 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: I am going to copy this discussion to Talk:Nondestructive_testing and respond to it there. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 18:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

K-factor (sheet metal)
Did you try the formula you reverted to about the K-factor?

This formula is FALSE. Make me the demonstration it is true. There were a problem with brackets. The coherence of conversion from degree to radians with 360 is not appropriate, I found better to conserve 180. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.153.211 (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it. Wizard191 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you need ref for the formulas. Just a little trigonometry from the graph should be enough.--86.66.153.211 (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be interesting to precise that the unit for angles in formulas is degrees.--86.66.153.211 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking most equations need a reference. Also, the article does state that the angle is in degrees. Wizard191 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: A Metallurgical History of Ancient Sword Making
Hello Wizard191. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of A Metallurgical History of Ancient Sword Making, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Needs to be nominated for WP:RfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam Image ?
"21:29, 24 February 2010 Wizard191 (talk | contribs) m (17,143 bytes) (→End mill: stop spamming your image everywhere)"

Why you are so rude. I think my image is useful to the articles. If you don't like it just delete it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.243.83 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your image is useful for certain articles. However, its not right to spam your image to every article that mentions an endmill. My edit summary was just there to inform you of this. Wizard191 (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wire British English
A while back you added a British English tag to wire. But in the version as of that date I see a bunch of American spellings. What is your basis for claiming that it was in British English? It has since been changed to British English, but it seems to me that it was not at the point that the banner was added, which doesn't make sense to me. Thanks. Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The first version of wire uses "fibre" (see ). That's what I based it on. Wizard191 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I get credit for adding content?
Hi! I am updating the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welder_certification page and don't mind sharing some content and pictures from one of my web pages http://gowelding.org/Welding_Certification.html and want to know how do I get credit for being the source of this type of information. I am basically providing information that books don't cover and at the same time trying to get my site known for it's unique content.

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldingisFun (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your website. Please see WP:NOTADVERTISING for more info. Wizard191 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source question?
I am adding information to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welder_certification I took some of my content "quoted it" and am in the process of uploading some of my photos. I have spent hundreds of hours of hours writing and rewriting this content and got extremely lucky to get the pictures I did. I weld for a living and am American Welding Society Certified welder. Hint, my AWS certs are posted from start to finish on the site I referenced... I have passed the hardest welding certifications (6G restricted in a NAVY shipyard with %100 x-ray) out there and have documented many of these tests that are not in the text books or welding schools! My issue is I am taking information from my site and want credit for it!!! If what I link to is not a reliable source on the subject of welding. Can some review the site I quoted that is either a welding engineer or at least has 5 years of experience in the welding field. I know I am new here but I am sick of seeing information about welding that is nothing more then a somewhat accurate rewrite of books written in the 1950's. If that can be done great! In that case I will keep adding way more info that is Extremely Accurate, non bias, and Unique! If not I need to remove anything I added because it is copy written.

I don't think it is a big deal to ask for that. I have nothing to sell or any products to promote. The only thing I am doing is trying to fix all of the misinformation written about welding because the people writing it can't actually weld and have no hands-on experience! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldingisFun (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously you didn't review WP:RS. Also, if the information you have provided is copy-written, the you MUST remove it because only free sources are allowed on Wikipedia. Finally, please review our conflict of interest policy; based on that I would recommend you find another welding article to contribute to. Wizard191 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear WeldingisFun, I understand where you are coming from. There are just inherent challenges, as discussed at Conflict of interest ("Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged.") (emphasis added). You may be able to cite your site using reference citations to a limited extent. But if so it would need to tread very lightly. — ¾-10 00:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Benrunge
Wizard, I copied the below from User talk:Benrunge, where it was placed with a   Chzz  ►  19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Wizard191, thanks for the welcoming. I was wondering what direction you intended on taking the Butt Welding page? I picked a low importance topic to begin, and after researching I didn't see any other direction to take the page then geometry based with a few paragraphs in common uses, which were much harder to find. Benrunge (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice! Wizard191 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for rules regarding Nitinol Article
Thank you for your direction given regarding copyright rules. After review, I have decided to discuss the issue with my customer. Our meeting will be next week, and any images will need to wait until after our discussion. I have not dealt with copy' rules in the past, and do not want to upset any customer today. Pictures of the micro-structure would not exist if not for the material belonging to the supplier. A+++++ help. Would it be 'Wiki' appropriate for me to remove my section from the Nitinol Talk page? Bikeric (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's usually against etiquette to remove anything from the talk page unless its vandalism. Wizard191 (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks so much, I will leave it in.Bikeric (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Package testing
You might be interested in a new article on Package testing. Pkgx (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool...I know in some industries strapping systems require certification to show that they can hold X amount of load, perhaps I can find a ref and incorporate it at some point. Wizard191 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hardening (metallurgy)
Wizard191,

I noticed that you recently edited my work on the Hardening article, and thought I could talk to you about the changes before I do anything else to the article.


 * 1) I think that the mechanisms and theory section that you merged into hardness might be better suited for the hardening article than the hardness article. Hardening is a process that makes a material hard.  In the mechanisms and theory section, I explain the process of a material becoming harder.
 * 2) I think that it would be beneficial to include some applications of hardening. This will explain to the readers why hardening is an important metallurgic process.
 * 3) Should the section that I prepared on different test methods be included in the hardness article? I saw that you just deleted that.

I would appreciate any feedback on these ideas.

Thanks,

tonsfeldt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonsfeldt (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The theory relating to what makes a material hard should be in hardness not hardening. Hardening is about processes, not the theory behind what makes it hard.
 * Applications are a good thing, but I felt you were going too in depth about hardening with respect to tools. There's LOTS of other applications. A short list of prominent applications would suffice.
 * I deleted your section because the tests you wrote about are much better summarized in the hardness article, and that's where that discussion belongs.
 * Now one thing we might consider is merging hardening (metallurgy) into hardness because they are closely related. A good example of this is cold working. Wizard191 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I started a small applications list on the hardening (metallurgy) page. Add any apps you think are worth noting or let me know if you have any thoughts on it Tonsfeldt (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Polymer edit
Hi. I noticed that you added to the title of the Polymer architecture section of the Polymer article, and your edit summary says Fixed dead link. I am wondering what change you were trying to make in the article. In fact I see no effect (at least with Internet Explorer 7.0), and also there was no link in that title. It's a good idea to preview your changes before saving them - sometimes the system doesn't do what you expect. Dirac66 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Anchor doesn't make any visible change to the article. There is a link in the polystyrene article that links to information about intermolecular forces in polymers, but the link was dead because the section was renamed to something else. So the anchor template creates an html "anchor" that subsection links can link to. This is especially useful when the section title is different than what your trying to link to, as is the case here. As per my edit summary, the anchor fixed a dead link in the polystyrene article. Wizard191 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. It didn't occur to me that the change was in another article. Dirac66 (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's all good. Wizard191 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, after two errors, I figured out how to make a redirect page
I created a page called "Patinas" which redirects to "Patina" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texjer (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool! Wizard191 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbaric welding
Thanks for catching the link spam at Hyperbaric welding. I had noticed the EL earlier, but didn't think to check the IP's contributions, as oddly enough the actual paper that was linked looked like a half-decent source for future article expansion. Do you think it would be worth mentioning the paper on the talk page of the article? Or would that be too much reward for the spammer? --RexxS (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've considered that it might be a decent source, seeing how it seems a professor wrote the reference, but the article is it currently stands is very well sourced by reliable sources, so I don't feel the source will actually contribute anything to the article, as it seems like an entry level reference. Wizard191 (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How are carbon steel and alloy steel not varieties of steel produced using crucible methods?
You reverted some edits I made trying to clarify the Template:Steels, while I was still doing edits. The existing order seems rather clunky, and if it is to include Crucible Steels, it should include the other methods of production, such as blister steels. At the very least, can we agree that Crucible Steel belongs above the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knife Knut (talk • contribs) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about reverting mid edit, but you probably could have made all of your modifications in one edit, seeing how they are pretty simple changes. Feel free to add blister steel and move carbon steel down. As for categorizing them, blister steel and crucible steel are somewhat different than tool steel and plain-carbon steel because the former has to do with the production method, while the latter has to do with the production technique, so making one a subset of the other is like trying to categorize an apple under an orange. Wizard191 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite joining long ago, I am not very active, so am still learning the ins and outs of editing.

I was going to add, unindented: Blister steel (obsolete). Other production methods can be added later. --Knife Knut (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Wizard191 (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

EDM and turbine blades
Hello Wizard191,

Hope everything is fine. I saw that you deleted the picture and the text about the small holes in turbine blades contributed by Fiducial.

In my humble opinion, I think that they should be restored in the article. Producing small holes or cavities in turbine blades is not just very informative about the characteristics of the process, but it is also what is often mentioned in manufacturing courses when they talk about EDM. It in fact demonstrates all the EDM advantages: the production of small cavities, with extremely high aspect ratios and even with complex shapes, on parts with complex shapes, in material extremely difficult to machine otherwise (impossible?). Not to mention the mono-crystal structure of the part, which apparently the EDM operation does not alter sufficiently to compromise the functionality of the part itself. Also, the mono-crystal structure of the  turbine blades represents what is often cited in manufacturing courses as one of the few applications of single crystal metallic structures. Fiducial posted such a nice picture, perhaps even not easy to obtain, so pertinent to EDM that it seems a shame to me that it was deleted. Many people would enjoy to find a match between what they were taught and the Fiducial's contribution and picture. Lastly, just in case, I do not know Fiducial at all.

This is just my opinion, that of course you can ignore if you like.

With Best regards,Cemaf (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, if you think it ought to be re-added, go for it. Wizard191 (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

/* Inertia Friction Welding */ correct cite ref error
How do I correct a series of cite ref errors? I've followed the format of previous references but gotten the 'cite ref error' message.Kennfrank (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So, the edits were removed anyway as being 'spam' or whatever - but, to answer your question:


 * You had a &lt;ref> with no corresponding &lt;/ref> (in this edit).


 * References look like this;

Chzz is 98 years old.


 * In other words, the information that appears in the reference must be enclosed by the two 'tags'.


 * For an example, and more, see user:chzz/help/ref.


 * Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pitch Diameter and Module Definitions
Wizard191

It is obvious that you take a great deal of pride in what you wrote in the gearing section. The simple fact however, is that your perception of some of the items you show is simply misleading to readers. Using the Machinerys Handbook as an expert citation on gearing is akin to citing a manual on the Commodore 64 to describe modern computers.

There are many things I would correct in the write up section. I suspected that someone took a great deal of pride in what was written so I thought I would first test the waters on the definitions of Pitch Diameter and Module.

Pitch Diameter You seem preocupied to define pitch diameter by saying its the diameter of the pitch circle. This is an extremely vague way of defining something. The significance of the pitch diameter is exactly what I wrote. It is nothing more than a diameter that is predefined based on the nomral module, number of teeth and helix angle. At this diameter, we difine the tooth thickness, the pressure angle and the helix angle. Thats it! there is nothing more mysterious about it. People have the misconception is that there is something "magic" about the pitch diameter. Or that it can be measured as GD&T textbooks would have you believe when they show examples of another misconception called pitch diameter runout. (You cant believe everything in books is correct!)

What I wrote is accurate, explanatory and useful. If you want to publish incomplete and inaccurate details, you should write you own book.

Defining pitch diameter as a nominal gear size is not accurate enough as well. Take for example the case where the pitch diameter of an external spur gear is larger than the outside diameter. What do you call the nominal size?

The only problem with what I previously wrote that you undid is in the equation for imperial units where i couldn not get the subscript to accept Normal Diameteral Pitch instead of just Diameteral Pitch.

Module

You removed the term - with units in millimeters - is this inacurate? It is true, and is something that most people do not know. Is there a reason not to include this relevant information?

What you wrote about as module increases - tooth thickness increases is FALSE. Tooth thickness is independent of module. Your perception of tooth thickness is identical to the Machery's handbook in that the tooth thickness must be equal to the space width at the standard pitch diameter - UTTER RUBBISH. For any module, the tooth thickness can be independantly controlled.

Finally - unlike what the Machinerys handbook says - module is not usually calculated. 999 out of 1000 gear designers use this as an input to the calculation. You pick the module and the number of teeth and helix angle which defines the standard pitch diamter. The ONLY time someone may attempt to calculate a module is if they have a gear that is designed but does not have the module information available and so a reverse calculation is done. No one designs gears by setting a number of teeth and a pitch diameter and then saying - Gee what module can that be! People need to think of this as one of the fundametal definitions on a gear - similar to pressure angle where we define it but usually dont calculate it.

So i am undoing your inaccuarate changes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gear (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dr. Gear, I see that you are pretty new around here so let me introduce you to some of our policies and guidelines: verifiability is greater than truth, reliable sources are required for statements of dispute, and no personal attacks.
 * While you may think that MH isn't a good source, it is better than your non-existent one. If you can cite a better source that states the above, please cite it.
 * As for the module calculation, it is best to leave it for those who do have a gear with an unknown module and would like to calculate it. We can't assume all of our readers are designers.
 * As for the rest, please add sources to the article to the changes you've made and if you or I or anyone disagrees it should be discussed on the talk page. Wizard191 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nichrome
I responded over a week ago to you sir, I believe I took to long to respond, because I haven't heard from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by File077 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied on your talk page. Wizard191 (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rebar
Hi Wizard. Just letting you know, the only reason I put that hatnote there was because of the editor's comments at Talk:Deformed_bar. I don't think it's necessary, myself, I just wanted to CMA in case the redirect was challenged. :) Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added "deformed bar" to the introduction of the article to clarify. Wizard191 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Polytetrafluoroethylene
Hi there Wizard191 Not sure, but were you 'involved' in this edit (diff) to Polytetrafluoroethylene? No problem, except, part of the edit 'broke' the first reference in the article! (re Teflon patent) Changing "Citation" to "Cite journal" seemed to be the problem. I was re-linking/reformatting some of the article references, so I changed it back to "Citation" and it seems ok now. See diff I was wondering what was happening as the change came from an IP that traced back to the Wikimedia Foundation in the Netherlands, but the edit summary had your username. I hadn't seen this before, hence my query. Just FYI, and comment. :-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I ran the "reference formatting" bot, which usually shows up as "citation bot" as the user, but for whatever reason was an IP. I think I'm going to stop running that thing, because it usually breaks more stuff than it fixes. Wizard191 (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thought it may have been a bot. Confusing at the time though. Happy Editing! ;-)--220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of HEG
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as HEG, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ol Yeller Talktome 17:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

welding
My main issue is the unreferenced material on joints. The material in the geometry section that I reverted back to covered the basics and was referenced. Dropping a couple pages of unreferenced material into a featured article doesn't make sense to me. --Spangineerws (háblame)  17:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "The material in the geometry section that I reverted back to covered the basics" - that's why I restored the info, because it covered more than the basics. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is this information discussed, therefore it doesn't deserve to be deleted. I understand that it's not referenced, but it doesn't deserve to be deleted. We might consider splitting it to a new article about welding joints, if there's enough content to warrant it. Wizard191 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Splitting it out to welding joints is a great idea, except that welding joints was deleted largely because the material wasn't referenced. --Spangineerws (háblame)  17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think? I've moved the material in question to welding joints and cleaned it up a bit.  There's definitely more there than most stubs, and it gets welding back down to around 40k.  Oh, and the wiktionary link in the lead was a good idea. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  17:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you've split it out, I definitely thing that was a good idea because there's lots of info there. There are refs there too, so that should keep it from getting deleted. Good work! Wizard191 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Compressed air
I saw you removed the Underwater-diving-stub from Compressed air. The talk page shows the article assessed as stub-class and in the scope of WP:WikiProject SCUBA, and that stub template would seem appropriate. Rather than revert you, I thought I'd ask here first, in case you had a good reason that I had missed. --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed because I feel like it's bigger than a stub; if you disagree you can revert the edit. Wizard191 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it was on the borderline between stub and start class. I'm always grateful for someone else's opinion, so I'll change the article's assessment to start-class. Thanks, by the way, for spotting my mistake when I undid Agreeall's edit. I don't know how I managed to misread the diff, but it's good that you spotted it. I've apologised to Agreeall and hope he won't be put off. --RexxS (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I know how easy it is to get your diffs reversed after looking through a ton of them. Happy editing! Wizard191 (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Metal leaf
Hi I am --Fabiano Masserini (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I am an Italian Metal Leaf producer... I don't know if you want take me as source but I can try to write the articol about Metal Leaf more clear about the content, but I am italian so my english is not good to be wrote in wikipedia can we work together ?


 * Any help you can provide would be great, because the metal leaf article is very weak right now. Feel free to write in the article and then I'll come back through and copyedit it. Wizard191 (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am also working on the italian and english version of my company voice... you will find some news about this products if you are interested in. sandbox --Fabiano Masserini (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Be careful when writing articles or editting articles about the company you work for. See WP:COI. Wizard191 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I know... I try to be more neutral as possible... but it is an old factory and the last one who produce Imitation gold leaf, no one else ca write about it... also I will ask to some administrator (or some one who have to check this matters) to check it before try to publish it. Tell me if it is not on the wikipedia rules please. --Fabiano Masserini (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't read Italian, so I can't help much. The Italian Wikipedia should be able to help more. Wizard191 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am working with an italian administrator for this reason, the one you saw is the beginning translation of the italian one --Fabiano Masserini (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote the link just for your personal interest about these materuial due I wrote about all different kind Metal leaf you can find.... also there are other product not proper called metal leaf but made with the same material and similar thin --Fabiano Masserini (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

machining vibrations references
Hello Wizard191,

about the «machining vibrations» article :

I thouth that it was relevant, in addition to book references, to give references also about the companies and softwares related to machining vibrations.

But, you immediately deleted it... could you tell me what should I do, I have tried to be as neutral as possible ?

Thanks

--Lionel.arnaud1


 * Commercial links are explicitly restricted, unless the article is about the company, per WP:ELNO. Wizard191 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the WP:ELNO page is perfect. --Lionel.arnaud1  —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC).

3RR
Please do not start edit wars and then accuse otehrs of the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.32.190 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

arc eye
The entire section is a "how to". All you did with your edit is convert it once again into a wrong and dangerous "how to." Pick some other solution, but not this one. Delete the section entirely, or else make it safe for readers. S B Harris 17:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your fix is cute. Are you going to do that on every medical article on Wikipedia? I think you had better have a little talk with project medicine. It's at WT:MED. I'll introduce you as the new kid on the block with the new idea. S  B Harris 00:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please read WT:MED and tell us what your thinking is? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey there, a good rule of thumb is that diagnosis and treatment sections should describe what doctors do and what treatments are used, but not give step-by-step instructions so that people might be tempted to use them to diagnose or treat themselves. To see some reasonable examples of how they should be written take a look at Tuberculosis and Tuberculosis. If you have any questions please drop me a note on my talkpage. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have replied at WT:MED and would like to continue all further discussion there. Wizard191 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Plain bearing
Wizard, Please see Talk:Plain bearing/Archives/2013. It seems that some journal bearing info got lost at the time of the merger. What is in my post is "copy and paste" the last revision of journal bearing prior to the merger. Among the things that got lost was the image of the bettendorf truck. Peter Horn User talk 20:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied on the plain bearing talk page. Wizard191 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

MTConnect Discussion with Wizard191
I am Dave Edstrom and the person who initially started MTConnect. I brought in Dave Patterson of Berkeley to work on this together. If you google Dave Edstrom MTConnect you will get over 1,000 hits. What do I need to do in order to prove that I am not a "dupious" character?

Thanks,

--Dave


 * Hi Dave. In order for you to add yourself as an initial contributor to the project we (that is Wikipedia's guidelines) need a reliable source to verify that your additions. If you can do that then everything is good. Wizard191 (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Wizard191, Thanks. I will get the CTO for AMT (who paid for MTConnect and led the effort for AMT) to backup what I have done. I will also come up with a list of backing documents. Thanks, Dave.

Wizard191: I see you zapped the edit for MTConnect referencing the AMT conference that started the initiative, since it did not mention MTConnect. You're right ... it didn't have a name yet! Before I edit again, does the following news piece satisfy? http://us.generation-nt.com/sun-microsystems-champions-open-standards-usher-new-era-press-1001701.html (read down further, past the "read all") SCH56 (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a good ref. Feel free to re-add the content with that ref. Wizard191 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What reason do you have for deleting my edits?
What is the reasoning behind deleting the links I added, and the modern day lost wax casting paragraph I added? The links I added were to the pictures and information on the process of modern day lost wax casting. This adds value to the page, or am I wrong to assume that a diagram of lost wax casting is not relevant and helpful to a page on lost wax casting?

--Cayden Ryan (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please respond! --Cayden Ryan (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the slow response, but I'm actually busy in real life today. I removed your paragraph because it's redundant with the investment casting article. Right now there's a lot of redundacy between the two, and it needs to be worked out. I think there's consensus on the talk page to rename the lost wax article into the history of lost wax casting, and then everything else would be merged into investment casting. Wizard191 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! This clarifies so much, I did not know of the existence of an investment casting page, sorry about the mix up, I will look into that page now. --Cayden Ryan (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting of RP7
I must say, if articles are never given a chance to be expanded, how can anyone expect they are to reach appropriate quality to survive the exclusionist deletion processes? It is an obstacle to real contributions made on WP and I can only relate that real contributions are far more effective than taking the lazy option of deleting articles. The article RP7 is notable and as such must be reinstated and efforts made to expand it rather than delete it. Nick carson (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please assume some good faith here. I'm not trying to knock on any work you have done, but this article has been around for almost 4 years and over that time no one has added any refs to assert it's notability. Instead of complaining to me that I'm a horrible person for marking it for deletion, just give it a reliable source that asserts it's notability and we can all move along. Wizard191 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Robustness (economics)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Robustness (economics), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Robustness. 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 trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot 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) 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Simple Machines Template
Not a fan of expanding the machines navbox to include other machines? Is there some sort of MOS reference to defend your undo? Just looking at Atomic Clock, for example, I see other navboxes with more than one row: Template:Time_measurement_and_standards, Template:Time_Topics. Are those invalid as well?

--Hutcher (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm moving this discussion to the templates talk page. Wizard191 (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding image replacement on the Servomechanism page
I'm posting a message here because I don't want to get into an edit war this early in my Wikipedia career. :p

You reverted my edit because the PNG image compression protocol produces better quality images than the JPG image compression protocol. While this is true, the image in question is a photographic image. The JPG format was designed to compress photographic images very efficiently with only small losses of image quality. In general, the policy in Wikipedia (and Commons) is that photographic images should be stored in the JPG format in order to minimize unnecessary loading time. Wikipedia has an entire category of photographic images that are stored in the PNG format but should be stored in the JPG format.

So, I think the jpg version is better than the png version of the image in all respects. The png image is about 168 KB, while the jpg image is only about 25 KB. Although this is not usually the case, the jpg image is actually better quality too: the png image actually has jpg compression artifacts if you look closely. I denoised the png image before saving it as a jpg, so that there are actually less compression artifacts.

I won't revert your edit until we reach a consensus on this, but hopefully this way we avoid an edit war. :) Aiyizo (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, OK. I was trying to find what preference Wikipedia had for file formats on photographs and wasn't sure. I'll revert myself. Wizard191 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks! :) Aiyizo (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Links on Friction Welding page.
Thanks for your message and you drawing my attention to your external links policy. Can therefore ask on what grounds you allow the link to MTI's website. (Inertia friction welding video and schematic diagram)?

Thanks for your time and advice.

Best regards

--Lemon63 (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Lemon63

Packaging and labeling article
Hello. My intention in putting the SPF link in the Packaging and labeling article wasn't "link spam" which isn't my proclivity having been on WP for over five years. I thought it was an industrial example of note. I wasn't sure whether to include it. One shouldn't presume "linkspam" but good faith edits. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It sure looks like link spam to me. And I don't think labeling it link spam is being uncivil. If I had templated you I, that would have been not AGF. However, I like to explain why I revert a given edit so that others, including yourself, understand why I did it; in this instance it was because I feel the link was spam. Please do not read into it, as I have no hard feelings. If you feel that it should be restored I recommend that you start a discussion on the articles talk page. Wizard191 (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't "link spam". It was an attempt to include an example of an established package engineering company and their methods and standards that they subscribe to, all for informational and educational purposes. I was conflicted as to whether to add it but thought it was useful.


 * "Link spam" seems to be defined as, quoting from the WP article on it: "Types of Link Spam: Link spam is defined as links between pages that are present for reasons other than merit."[8] Link spam takes advantage of link-based ranking algorithms, which gives websites higher rankings the more other highly ranked websites link to it. These techniques also aim at influencing other link-based ranking techniques such as the HITS algorithm."


 * Obviously, none of this was my intention, so it isn't "link spam". In some sense, I think the methods and standards of an established packaging design company would be a useful touchstone even if as a link.


 * Fine. Bests. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said before, if you feel that it should be included start a conversation on the talk page of the article. Wizard191 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I remember fully well what you wrote before. One will have to put one's head to the task and decide on a higher-level strategy for such unilateralism. Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Monkey metal
I have nominated Monkey metal, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Monkey metal. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fæ (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I realise that the current version has little to do with the previously existing re-direct and so probably has no interest for you. However simple blanking or a PROD is now insufficient as at least 2 accounts have contested deleting the current version which appears to be a nonsense gamer's neologism. Fæ (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Steel square edit
Hi Wizard,

This is in regards to the Square Tool page.

I added Calculated Industries to the "Using calculators in roof framing" of the Steel Square article because the article gave reference to construction calculators. I felt that while this article introduced the construction calculator as a viable alternative to the square tool, it fell short by not following through with information regarding what a “construction calculator” is. I thought Calculated Industries was worth mentioning since they were the pioneer (and only one of two that currently make such calculators that I could find) for this field. The other construction calculator is the Jobber by Jobber Instruments, but that was originally produced by Calculator Industries as well.

The information provided also made it sound like a programmed calculator can only calculate a roof that requires a 45 degree angle for all rafter pitches, which is not the case.

Maybe it did sound too much like an advertisement, I appologize for that. But, again, I felt it would be helpful for the reader to get a better understanding of what is meant by "construction calculator". There are a few iPhone apps with these calculations along with several websites with roofing calculations which can be possibly mentioned as well. However, I still think that Calculated Industries should be given credit for creating the first hand-held pre-programmed calculator for this field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucyRuan (talk • contribs) 17:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * After reverting your edits, I did restore some of the good copyediting you did. The problem with most of your edit was the reference to Calculator Industries, because that's just an advertisement. Feel free to correct the text more, but please do not advertise for Calculator Industries. Wizard191 (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Scan is reay
See at the end of talk:plain bearing Peter Horn User talk 04:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

electroless nickel plating
Hi Wizard191,

I saw your comments on my recent changes to the en plating page. I looked back and realized I mistyped the site address (i missed the "s" in tawas, that's what I get for not using copy and paste. I think the information about high phos EN being highly resistant to acids is highly relevant. Thanks for catching my mistake.

Thanks, Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsho (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've restored the link with the corrected link. Thanks for the note. Wizard191 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Welding goggles
Why did you remove cat "Arc welding?" Welding goggles are standard equipment for arc welding, and serious eye injury results if they (or other eye protection) are not worn. The references included and other books on arc welding, as well as government standards require proper goggles or welding mask when arc welding to avoid "arc eye" due to the intense UV radiation. Edison (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the cat because it's a sub cat of "welding" and seeing how welding goggles are used in more than just arc welding I feel like using the all encompassing "welding" cat is sufficient. Wizard191 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On copyright violations
I work at the Idaho National laboratory www.inl.gov. We're working on adding tons of exciting and useful items pertaining to science, nuclear technology, enery and homeland security to Wikipedia. Our writers have written fact sheets detailing never before seen information. My job has been to copy the fact sheets to Wikipedia and therefor expose these exciting new technologies to the world.

So when it says I'm violating copy agreements, I actually am not. How can we resolve this? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm1003 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Tape
Would you have another look at your edit to Tape, please? As it's a dab page, it seems rather strange to use the Main template, which is used "to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised". I know it's a rather odd dab page, but I don't think the remainder of that section actually summarises the Adhesive tape article. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah you are right it's odd to use the main temp, but without redoing the whole page it was the easiest way for me to add adhesive tape, which is sort of the parent of that section. What should really be done is to convert the level to headings to bullets so that the "tape" heading can be converted to a link to adhesive tape. Wizard191 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. The whole dab page is problematical, not least because it's got over 100 incoming links! I've just changed the capitalisation of the section headings to sentence case, and I'll have another look at the page tomorrow. Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review
I don't want to appear awkward, but please don't strike my review comments. The strike indicates that the reviewer who made the comment accepts it is now closed. By all means report that you have completed the item below the reviewers comment, but leave it to the reviewer to strike out.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh...my bad. This is my first GA, so when I say you strike them I thought that meant I was supposed to do that. I'll just make notes from here on out. Wizard191 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, striking is anyway more a habit of FA reviewers, many at GAR do not bother. How come an editor with 138 articles to his name has only just found his way to GAR?  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  10:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I usually feel like there's more that could be contributed to the article, so I hold off from "throwing it into the frying pan". I also usually spend a lot of my time cleaning up smaller metalworking articles, because I find them fascinating, since they are unknown to me. I've got a few other articles that are GAR worthy that I might try. Wizard191 (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Correction, by the way, I'm throwing the wrong acronym around; I should have said GAN. GAR is something different.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  15:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh...a minor mistake. Thanks for the GA promotion! Wizard191 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome message
Hi, Thank you for your message. WikiOcean (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I thank you for mine as well. I am not new to wikipedia by any means as I do much work on two other wikis I administrate/oversee, but I will take your words to heart. Thanks again! Jmanfffreak (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Material Properties vs. Structural Properties
I noticed you reversed the Structural Properties to Extensive Material Properties. Here are my reasons to replace the "Extensive Materials Properties" with "Structural Properties":

1. Extensive Properties (vs. Intensive Properties) is a term generally more used in Thermodynamics, rather than solid mechanics. For most mechanical engineers, the concept of Extensive Properties are not well known.

2. Material properties are those generally refer to the properties of the constituent materials (think of molecules arranged in certain fashion such as grains...). Stiffness is a property of a structure. It is depends on not only the constituent materials, but also its shape and form, as well as how it is connected to ground etc. As such, it is a structural property.

Therefore, I prefer to use the term Structural Property for Stiffness.

May be it is necessary to restrict the Stiffness as dsicussed in this context as Stiffness (Mechanical).

WikiOcean (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your above reasoning makes sense. The one problem is that "structural property" isn't defined anywhere on Wikipedia, and I have found any definition for it on the web in a quick search. So if this is your definition Wikipedia can't use it because it's original research; however, if you have reliable sources to support your above claims, then please add them to the article. Wizard191 (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify the concepts between Intensive, Extensive, and Structural properties.

Intensive Properties refer to those which do not depend on the amount of materials (e.g. density or heat capacity) or size of the constituent (e.g. pressure, stress, temperature etc.). While Extensive properties are those which are also function of the amount of materials or size (e.g. weight, force, amount of heat etc.). For examples, density vs. mass, specific gravity vs. weight, presure vs. force, heat capacity vs. heat, flux vs. mass flow etc are pairs of intensive vs. extensive properties. Please note here that even though Extensive Properties is a function of amount or size etc, they do not depend on shape and/or form and/or connectivity. For example, mass is an extensive property of a body. For the same amount of mass, it can be shaped as a ball, a cube, a tube etc. they still have the same mass.

However, there are properties not only dependent on the amount of materials or size, but also on shape/form/connectivity. These properties are Structural Properties since a Structure refers to the shape/form/connectivity of certain thing(s). For example, take 50 lbs of steel. If it is shape as a tube with certain diameters and length vs. into a I beam with the same length, they will have different stiffnesses even if they are fixed the same way (let's say fixed as a cantilever beam). Now, with the same shape (tube), if it is with smaller diameters with longer length vs. bigger diameter with smaller length (but same weight), the stiffness will be different. For the same shape/form/length, it is fixed on one end only (as a cantilever beam) vs. if it is fixed on both ends. The two beams will have different stiffnesses (note, other than the way they are fixed, it is the same tube). Carrying this further, for the same tube, even if they are fixed the same way (let's say fixed on one end), if you apply a transverse load (force perpendicular to the tube's axis) vs. an axial load (load along the the tube axis), the stiffness will be different. Similarly, if you have multiple tubes and use them to make a frame. Obviously, depending on how you connect them together (triangular truss vs. quaudrillateral truss for example), their stiffness will be very different. The word Structure (especially in Engineering or Science) connotates a shape/form/connectivity. Therefore, stiffness is a type of Structural Properties. WikiOcean (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Structural Properties is not a new phrase. It is widely used in engineering and science literature. For example, if you google "Structural Properties", you will find a slieu of entries.

By the way, if we can invent the term "Intensive Structural Properties" vs. "Extensive Structural Properties", stiffness would be an Instensive Structural Property while Displacement would be an Extensive Structural Property since the former does not depend on the magnitude of loads applied (even though dependent on where and how loads are applied) while the latter depends on the magnitude of the applied loads.

Hope the above clarifies the concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiOcean (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need for you to clarify the concept, I understood it the first time. And if you are right that there are a lot of reliable sources then cite them in the article. Wizard191 (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If so, why use "Extensive Material Properties" to characterize Stiffness? It is neither an intensive nor an extensive material property because it is not a material property. You need to differentiate between Materials and Structures and have a certain understanding into the basic Scientific/Engineering concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiOcean (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC) WikiOcean (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm saying I understood it the first time you described it on my talk page. Instead of stirring the pot with me why don't you find the references and fix/improve the article? Wizard191 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. I actually plan to update it into a useful reference article by discussing every relevant aspects. I need to find some time to do this. One of my challenges is how to input the mathematical equations/symbols on Wikipedia (such as partial differentiation, matrix etc.). Any suggestions to make this a simpler endeavor would be highly welcome. By the way, what is the best way to follow up with the talk. Currently I use edit feature. There may be a better way? WikiOcean 23:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiOcean (talk • contribs)


 * Using the  tags is the easiest. For full info on it see WP:MATH. As for replying to a discussion using the edit button is the best way. Wizard191 (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of something I haven´t done
Why do you send me a note about some changes in the galling page when I haven´t done anything, somebody else have changed the text.

I have know changed it back to the original and correct text:

"Galling usually refers to adhesive wear and transfer of material between metallic surfaces during sheet metal forming and other industrial applications."

It´s a good and perfectly defined text written in coordination whit all known knowledge about the phenomenon.

Please try to check before you accuse me of tempering whit the original text.

If somebody find anything wrong whit this text, please let them know that in accordance whit the Wikipedia culture they can send questions and discuss the matter in the Galling discussion page. I will answer there questions and check if they understand the meaning of the word in a technical aspect, before they take something away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't left anything on your talk page in a long time. It wasn't me. Wizard191 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn´t see the date until now. Just delete my massage =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talk • contribs) 22:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion CheFEM page
Dear Wizard 191, CheFEM is a FEM based simulation program for chemical interaction driven FEM simulation of polymer based nano, micro and macro materials. It is a similar program like Abaqus, NASTRAN and Ansys, a program you may be more familiar with. It is quite new (an end-user version has just been released) so this might also be reason why it is not known very well. Hence, I would like to invite you to undelete the delete action for the CheFEM page. On the short term, several scientists will add more information on CheFEM to enhance the quality of the page. Please contact me if you need more information. Kind Regards, Dr. Kate Stuart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate P Stuart (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Undeleting is highly unlikely because it was deleted for a lack of notability. You would be better off recreating the article and making sure you supply a reliable source that asserts notability per our policies. Wizard191 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wizard 191, I do not agree with your suggested reliance on lack of notability. This merely represents your lack of rigorous knowledge on predictive software for polymer based composite materials. This is not wiki. Secondly, if we would follow your rules for notability, nothing new would/will appear on Wikipedia. Hence, for the second time we would kindly request to undelete the page on CheFEM. Kind Regards, Dr Kate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate P Stuart (talk • contribs) 22:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I didn't write the policies; they are what the whole Wikipedia community has come to a consensus on. If you disagree with them please bring it up on the talk page for the policy. Second, I can't restore your page if I wanted to, because I'm not an administrator. I simply nominated it for deletion. If you would like to try and get it undeleted see Deletion review. Wizard191 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wizard 191, It should by crystal clear that we do not question the policies of Wiki. We question the way you have applied this policy, without undertaking much / any effort to understand the matter. You are causing me a lot of time / trouble getting the CheFEM page back. Kate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate P Stuart (talk • contribs) 23:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not "crystal clear" when you state "Secondly, if we would follow your rules for notability, nothing new would/will appear on Wikipedia." You are saying you don't agree with them right there. And they are definitely aren't my rules, seeing how many other people agree with the deletion; see Articles for deletion/CheFEM. Wizard191 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article "StingRay Manufacturing"
Is there a way to recover the deleted StingRay Manufacturing article for my own use. I do not wish to repost it but only want my work for my own benefit. If possible can you just email me the article content? Thank you for your help.Grupler (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an administrator, so I can't do that. Instead you might want to post something at WP:Deletion review. Wizard191 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Loctite
Thank you for your welcome to Wikipedia.

I am attempting to revise the 'Loctite' entry so that it conforms to Wikipedia standards. However, I am running into a problem. Twice I have added material to the entry and clicked 'Save', only to have the material disappear the next time I check the entry. The material in question includes additional links at the bottom and a listing of the product's international availability. No one else is removing this material to my knowledge, so why is it not being saved?

≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveHof (talk • contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I reverted your revisions because they didn't comply with Wikipedia policies. You can find the changes to an article by clicking on the "view history" tab at the top right of any page. For this article this is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loctite&action=history. I removed the links because they don't comply with WP:EL and the sections you added about the organization and markets because that is encyclopedic and advertise-ish. If you have any other questions let me know. Wizard191 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation - I understand. I hope that the text of the entry is now acceptable - I know the sources listed in the notes must be properly formatted and am currently working to achieve that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveHof (talk • contribs) 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Flick grinder
Regarding the deletion of Flick grinder

I'm a bit puzzled by the statement that it was a copyright violation. The only reference I'm aware of is (was) to the name, or at least that is how I recall it. I admit it's been a while since I looked at it! If I created the page it would have had an image that I had taken of what we know in the trade as a "Flick Grinder". I've probably still got the original photo here. I wouldn't have quite described it as per the google book link but that description is probably a fair representation of one, but as I said, not as I would have described it. They are not a high precision tool but they certainly are several steps up from an angle or bench grinder. One things for sure, I didn't put the text that you hint at on the article and a quick review of the articles history should have identified the culprit, so that removal of the copyrighted text would have squared it away. Speedy deletion seems like a bit of overkill.

As an aside, I believe they are called a Flick grinder because of the way the table is moved. The capstan handles in the referenced photo lend themselves to that action. The table often only moves a small amount and the quick reversals on the capstan handles are very much 'flick' like.

Unfortunately I have no way of knowing what was amiss as it's gone. One things for sure, none of my work was or is a copyright violation as that is not my style - credit where it's due and all that. I believe I created the article so it would have been an honest representation at the time, if anything it would have been on the 'stub' side of being an article and waiting on the input of others. I don't think google books was even around at the time. To say I'm surprised at the deletion, if only for that reason, is to state the obvious. &mdash; Graibeard(talk) 10:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Replying to myself here. I notice that the linked google book has a reference [WP] at the bottom of that extract. Looking at the "About this book" link  there is a short statement (click on more) that " The resulting entries are used under license or with permission, used under fair use conditions, used in agreement with the original authors, or are in the public domain." With that hint I looked further into the book and if you scroll to page 252 there is a statement that references Wikipedia. It seems they have borrowed material from Wikipedia and if the [WP] does indeed refer to Wikipedia as I suspect is the case, then they took it from us, as the text concerning headwords (in this case Flick Grinder) indicates.  &mdash; Graibeard(talk) 10:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! That's the first time I've ever seen a book on Google Books reference WP. I always assumed, up until now, that any source I find on Google Books was free of any WP materials, but I see I'm wrong. I'll contact the WP:Deletion review people and get the article restored.
 * On a side note, when I did a Google Book search for "flick grinder" it was the only article that came up. Is there a more technical name for this type of grinder? Wizard191 (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, very good. Thank you. Circular references can be confusing, and with Wikipedia's strength it's going to be a continuing issue, but that's the price of success in this case. I'm pleased to have the copyright question laid to rest, even though the question of my memory recall may remain. :)
 * An alternative name would appear to be just Manual Surface Grinder That name is rather generic though and can cover a fairly wide range of machines, that don't have the luxury of power feed. I notice that the model I've linked has lost it's capstan hand wheel and uses a standard type from the other models, thereby losing some of it's original naming relevance but that happens to many things. Given the standardization of parts these days it's not surprising either, the melting pot claims another scalp. If you want to merge it with another article, or expand on it as appropriate then that's entirely up to you but it was the trade name for these machines and they were a poor man's surface grinder, suitable for quick work on small jobs where high accuracy was not demanded (unlike the sales blurb). That's not to say they aren't accurate, but that was a secondary consideration. They were often set up to quickly grind the cutting edge of punches or with a cut-off wheel, to trim to length anything that was hardened and needed a rigid setup. That's about all I can offer, I hope it helps.
 * Keep up the good work too. It's good to see someone is interested in the Metalworking side of Wikipedia, it's come a long way, and deservedly so. &mdash; Graibeard(talk) 09:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest I haven't ever heard of flick grinder and I can't find much in searches, so that's why I asked about another name. Without a good source to expound from I think I'm going to merge it into the surface grinder article.

I have restored the article. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Forging
You may well have had enough of the recent discussion at Talk:Forging, but I thought I would mention that, in response to a request for comments there from Andy Dingley, I have added a fairly detailed comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for such a thorough comment at talk:forging. I'm glad that Andy requested an RFC, because I knew there wasn't anything I could do or say that would sway Commator. Wizard191 (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Roll forming
Evidence that a company by that name indeed exists:   

If you'd like, I can change it to a redirect called Roll Forming Corporation and we can do away with the hatnote. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hrm...I must have just missed it when I read the article. It would probably be a good idea to put the sectional redirect in Roll Forming Corporation. Wizard191 (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I still think the hatnote would be useful considering people might try to find the company with just "Roll Forming". Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, makes perfect sense now. Wizard191 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)