User talk:Wizard191/Archive 5

Not so botched in fact
Hey Wizard, no sweat re "nominal" versus "nominal number"; your edit was not so botched, really, as it occurred to me later that in the UTS naming scheme, some of the nominal diameters are nominal values in the sense of archetypal (e.g., 1/4-20), whereas others are nominal in the sense of an arbitrary nominal number, e.g., #10, #8, #6. So really one could put either of the pipe targets (or ideally both somehow) in that sentence and not be wrong. Ideally the term "nominal number" to refer to something arbitrary should be called something like "arbitrary nominal number" to disambiguate the subclass of nominality being referred to. Alas, if people would speak precisely. Anyway, my regards. — ¾-10 02:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, it was the first time I looked at the nominal, nominal number, and real versus nominal number pages, and to be honest they are very unclear to me. I might have to look into cleaning up the articles. Wizard191 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Screw" page Deleted Link
http://www.hingedummy.info/screwinfopage2.htm

This link does not provide any additional information, but that is not the point. People do not want to sift through hours of information to receive the basics. There are many people who have used this link efficiently, which I know through 4Q survey information. This is a solid link that contributes to the wikipedia page by highlighting the most important information in a short span.

I will not put the link back up again myself, but I sincerely believe that the link should be reinstated due to the reasoning given above.

Thanks for you time,

12.170.211.135 (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Dane Lawless


 * If you strongly feel that it should be re-added to the article please bring it up at the screw talk page. Wizard191 (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Drill bushing
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Polyvinyl chloride may edit
i work for a company associated with the copyright owner ,with plate out in pVC, do what you please, you have removed important information that may help people looking for plate out issues in pvc manufacture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.134.88 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Metallurgical education
An article that you have been involved in editing, Metallurgical education, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

ASM International
Hi, My name is Rachel and yesterday I edited the ASM International page to include some information about our new website, links, etc. I noticed you reverted the changes back to the old page, and I just wanted to ask that you please allow them to remain! I work in the Marketing department of ASM and we're quite excited about the new site and opportunities it provides for members. If the changes were made because you noticed something that was incorrect or a link that does not go where it should, please let me know! Thank you, Rachel Rachelelizabethpeterson616 (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Rachel, unfortunately your edit cannot stand in the article because you are advertising for your employer, which is also a breech in the conflict of interest Wikipedia guideline. Please do not re-add your advertisement; instead consider contributing to other materials articles! Wizard191 (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Remaining flags on Loctite page
There are two flags on the Loctite entry that have been there since 2008 - the entry has now been rewritten in a way that (I believe) conforms to Wikipedia standards. As a journalist for 20 years I know the difference between objective and subjective copy, and I have gone through this entry to make certain it is entirely objective and factual, and not something that could be considered marketing. If you have the authority to remove these flags, I would appreciate if you would do so, if you believe they no longer apply. If you disagree, please let me know what we need to do to clean it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveHof (talk • contribs) 18:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the tags still apply for the following reasons:


 * Wikify: The references need to be converted to inline refs; the bullets need to be changed to prose.
 * Advert: Parts of the history section read like advert; for example: "In 1960, the company reached a profitable sales figure of $1 million.". This is unencyclopedic and just for marketing.


 * Hope that helps. If you clean the above up, then I'd say the tags can go. Wizard191 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Polyimides

 * User talk:Materialscientist (2nd instance)

As above. There must be a way to structure this so that we stop Wikipedia from being involved in this brand war. Deleting Meldin isn't the answer. It will just come back, in probably just as bad a form. The thing is documented in the world at large, after all. I turned up books covering it with the simplest of searches. What stops this sort of thing, I've found over the years, is good content pushing out the bad. This slow motion brand war has been going on since at least 2008. It's time to put and end to it by making the article(s) better, not pushing for yet another trip around the creation-deletion-recreation loop. Uncle G (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * These articles have bugged me for awhile now. While, I'm not against the proposal at talk:vespel, I'm not crazy about it. Usually I would support moving the brand-name stuff to the chemically correct name, but "Poly-(4,4'-biphenyl-(pyromellitic acid)-diimide)" is very unwieldy. Plus, I've always heard it called vespel, because the polymer name is so crazy. So that's why I marked it for deletion. If others (including yourself) feel that moving the vespel article to Poly-(4,4'-biphenyl-(pyromellitic acid)-diimide), will fix the brand name wars, I'm OK with that. Wizard191 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent message
You have recently posted the follwing message which concerns the edits such as Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk • contribs)
 * The edits are not vandalism. The reasons for the edits were noted twice in the edit summary. I would be grateful if you took note of these reasons before claiming 'vandalism.'
 * The spelling of aluminIum is the spelling used: internationally, by Wikipedia itself (see Aluminium), and by IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry).
 * Changing from aluminIum to aluminum is a hypercorrection, as was noted inthe second of my edit summaries.

Was this edit a good idea? The point seems well made to me. See also Aluminium. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. The reason I keep reverting the change in spelling of aluminium/aluminum is because the article is written in American English, which is noted on the talk page. The relevant policy for the spelling of aluminium/aluminum is WP:ALUM, which states: "These international standard spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article." This is not a chemistry article, therefore the American spelling should be used. Wizard191 (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Roller hearth kiln
This edit of yours has been reverted. The reason is according to literature sources a capital letter is common, including: Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Monitoring Product Temperatures In Roller Hearth Kilns.' Ceramic Industries International 109, No.1133, 1999. Quote: "Datapaq's Kiln Tracker systems for monitoring temperatures in Roller hearth kilns are briefly looked at."
 * 'Rollers For Roller-hearth Furnaces.' Erlangen, 1991. Pg.2. Quote: "Cesiwid's SiC-based rollers for Roller-hearth furnaces are shown."


 * It's not uncommon to see Unnecessary Capitalization in sources. It doesn't mean that the word requires capitalization in well-edited orthography; it simply means that not all published materials are professionally edited. Which is fine; professional editing has its place but is expensive. So we're lucky, economically, that people let the little stuff slide sometimes. However, that said, there's nothing wrong with Wikipedians applying normative orthography on Wikipedia when they notice Unnecessary Capitalization (in fact, it's preferable for WP's quality level). Happy editing. — ¾-10 02:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Three-quarter-ten. Thank you for the message. I struggle to follow your reasoning. If it's not uncommon to see Unnecessary Capitalization in sources how does that indicate whether a capital is appropriate in this case? From my personal experience of these kilns a capital 'R' is the norm and, because such experience is not relevant to a Wikipedia article, two published sources using capitalisation have been provided. I really am not fussed about the use of 'r' or 'R', but I am bothered that references can be dismissed AND with no supportinmg references to the counter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , , . These are all examples of non-capitalized spelling, just from the first page of the a google book search. Generally, processes/equipment start off as a registered name by the company that developed it, but if the process/equipment become common place and sold by multiple companies, it loses the registration and the capitalization. Wizard191 (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi 238.178. Wizard's answer gives good examples. In a search you may find n examples of one styling and 5n examples of another styling. Usually it's because the people who wrote the n cases were capitalizing unnecessarily. I'll give another example just to show you what I mean and that it's not just some BS that I made up! We all know that sealed bearings are bearings that are sealed, and that the term "sealed bearing" is a common noun (as opposed to a proper noun). Well, if a roller hearth kiln is a kiln involving rollers, then it is a common noun for the same reason. There's a norm in English orthography that common nouns are lowercased. It's not always followed out there in the wild of everyday language use. Now, there could be several reasons why people would cap unnecessarily, such as (1) If They Are Writing All of Their Figure Captions and Headings in Title Case; (2) If they have seen a term in title case so many times that their brain just says "it looks right when it's capped"; (3) If the first company who ever built a brown roller widget decided to give it a brand name of "Brown Roller Widget" (this is the type that Wizard mentioned above—it's a poor choice because of the confusion later about common vs proper or brand name vs generic name, but people choose it without thinking any better of it); (4) Lawyers capitalize in a way that doesn't match general orthographic norms, for example, "Furthermore, You hereby agree that We will not be held liable for any misuse of said Widget including on Holidays" (long backstory on legalistic capping). I, too, am not overly hung up on chasing every last instance of 'R' vs 'r'; I just wanted to explain the reasoning for why you would see edits like mine. Adieu! — ¾-10 22:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted "Hinge" page link
Wizard191, I ask only that you comment upon and do what you believe is just in this issue. I accepted your decision on the screw page deletion because you provided a reasonable explanation. Since I am considered a "sockpuppet," no one will listen to me objectively. Do what you believe is right. You have been the only professional person in this ongoing debate, and seem to not take a personal interest in the issue, as Wtshymanski and probably his friends have.

Thanks for your time, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Wizard. I must inform you though that there is not a better site about hinges than hingedummy. This is just a simple statement of fact, no hyperbole. I believe you have been crippled by your peers, but I understand your reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Polymer Trade Names
Hi Wizard191, curious as to why listing trade names for polypropylene and PVC would be considered unencyclopedic while similar content can be found on a number of other plastic material pages. Is there something missing? Thanks in advance!

Examples found: Polyoxymethylene_plastic, Poly(methyl_methacrylate), Polycarbonate, Polyethylene_terephthalate, Polystyrene, Fiberglass, Ultra-high-molecular-weight_polyethylene

Jpt262 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In all of those articles, there are select brand names that have reliable sources that display each of those brand names as notable. The link you give does not display each of the brand names you are adding as notable. Also see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Wizard191 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you've taken the above as motivation for a scrubdown on some(?) of these articles. Unfortunately the improtant intermediate step of looking for an RS seems to have been overlooked. Please consider either doing this yourself or applying the cn or vn tags for this purpose to avoid unnecessary disputes. Cheers, LeadSongDog  come howl!  17:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't do fiberglass, because I don't know anything fiberglass, however, I didn't remove every instance of a tradename; for instance, I left lexan on the polycarb page and styrofoam on the XPS page. I know for a fact a lot of the ones I removed are nothing more than trade names that are not in use as a genericized sense. I'm sure there are a few that are, but the weight of find the RS should be left to those who want it included; otherwise it's just advertising to me. Wizard191 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I initially noticed your edit at Ultra-high-molecular-weight_polyethylene, which I still had on my watchlist. It seemed to me to be a bit draconian, but I understand the frustration that can arise, having previously trimmed a bunch of it myself. The existance of that "Trade names" section was a deliberate choice to cut down on ELSPAM that had plagued the article. Deleting the whole section will likely lead to the return of the spam. That said, the section attempted to distinguish between licensed makers of branded products and the brands they license. If you don't want to spend your time on finding the RS that's completely your choice, but tagging rather than deleting is a less confrontational way of getting it fixed. It assumes good faith, and that is why those tags exist. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

don't merge or merge with caution
Those wishing to source IGA know it as such. Although two terms for the same condition, renaming would obscure the common term, IGA, from those most likely to source it by this media. Cross-reference but don't merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.30.13 (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? What are you talking about? Wizard191 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nichrome
Hey there Wizard -

I am a bit new to Wikipedia contributions, so maybe you can help me with what I am doing wrong?

I see that your twinkle had removed my posting under nichrome a few times.

My website is not a commercial website, and it is personally run by myself and only myself.

I have a plethora of data regarding NiChrome wire resistance, and heating charts, etc etc. More than I thought was worth while to add to the Wikipedia main page.

Is there some reason just putting a link to my website under the external links section is wrong? If it is, why?

Thank you for your time, and I hope this message finds you in good health, Pastaboila (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)carlo


 * Yeah, I'm removing them per WP:ELNO points 2 and 5. Wizard191 (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Images
Let's talk images. This was prompted by the Highlight question but it is really broader. I support putting more packaging machinery articles and images in WK. Imput from Signode is also welcome. We do not, however want to have commercialism going on. Most pictures of packaging machinery by any manufacturer do have the company name on it. That is OK but it can go too far. What are your thoughts? Rlsheehan (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well first off, let me say that I'm not a representative for Signode (specifically Signode Engineered Products) to Wikipedia. All of my editing is done for personal pleasure. I personally fend off images that are just PR attempts that violate copyvio. However, if a company/person supplies the OTRS for it, then usually I leave it be. However, in the past I have contemplated whitewashing commercial images to remove their logos and prevent advertising, seeing how they do release most of the images to the public domain. If others were up for that, I would be up for doing some of the grunt work. Wizard191 (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost all machinery has name tags. I would not want to expunge the 'Ford" name plate from all pictures of Fords. There is a picture of a salt spray chamber in environmental chamber that seems to be reasonable.   Of course, some machinery images have excessive names splashed all over them.  How do we allow reasonable pictures with brands or names on them and eliminate the excessive advertising?  It almost comes to intent: pictures produced by company marketers seem to focus on the name.
 * Certainly you do not represent Signode; editors only represent themselves. If you have access to pictures that would show packaging machinery, they would be welcome.  Reasonable images would not be a COI.
 * Rlsheehan (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Graphalloy page
you removed my edit of this page....why? my additons are factually correct Ebenwalker (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because you are advertising for the company and Wikipedia doesn't used registered markings; see WP:MOS. I don't have a problem if you add to the article that says it's a registered to a company, but do it in a non-advertising manner. Wizard191 (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much copied the style of the Vespel entry in wikipedia. ID as a registered mark and id of company owner. Not sure I understand what else to do? Ebenwalker (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Bowden Cable, 'popular culture'
Hi there. I see you rolled back my addition of 'In popular culture' from the Bowden cable article. I don't understand; I thought it was accepted practice to mention pop culture references on Wikipedia pages? As for references, how would I go about providing a citation? Simply by mentioning the book in the References section? I see there's a disambiguation link at the top of the article; is that why you removed the reference further down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdaoust (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed it is because it's already in the hatnote. Wizard191 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Industrial Injury
Let me clarify a little here. I am glad that you are working on this industrial injury definition.

An accident or incident at work may lead to an injury that may be fatal,traumatic or minor. Asbestosis or silicosis are not injuries rather diseases caused by chronic exposures to asbestos and silica dust respectively at work. I also sugegst you add a synonymn - occupational injury.

I think you are mixing disease which are result of chronic exposures and injuries as result of accidents / incidents at work. Youmay also want to add that most if not all industrial injuries are unintentional although some like a robbery at work or being subjected to violence at work classifies as intentional injury.

I am hoping to make this scientifically sound and hope that you consider this constructive feedback.

Feel free to contact me. I am physician by training, epidemiologist by choice and claim to be technocrat working in the field of occupational health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfolkefiende (talk • contribs) 14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like you are wanting to change the content based off the title. Is there a way that we can change the title to be all inclusive? Wizard191 (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, the term industrial injury is good enough but for some reason is little used in academia and contemporary occupational health. Its probably much better to have the title occupational injury.--Enfolkefiende (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Revert of edit to ref 9 on Caliper
I changed ref 9 to point to the ORIGINAL information (which happens to be my site)

There is nothing commercial about the content of the linked page, or most of my site.

If you read the first few lines of the page at the original ref 9 (and what you changed it back to) you will see that the author ACKNOWLEDGES that his content is lifted directly from my content. The difference is the removal of some links and a minor formatting change.

The content is mine. The research is mine. The original publication is mine. (in a usenet news group) The text layout is mine. The original publishing it as a web page is his. He did it with my permission.

I think that should mean that the link is to my page, since I am the author.

But hey, I'm new to making a contribution to Wikipedia, you decide.

Philip Freidin 76.203.174.44 (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Philip, while I understand that you changed the link to your website, because you wrote the content, here at Wikipedia we always like to use less commercial links when possible, especially when the links have the same content, as is true in this case. This is because a lot of people come through here and so a lot of companies like to get their name put up here to better themselves. In this case, I don't see why it is such an issue to use the non-commercial link at www.davehylands.com, when you did give permission to be published there and it still credits you. On the other hand www.fliptronics.com is definitely commercial, because it states on the front page: " Fliptronics offers a consulting service that...". Hope this doesn't turn you off from editing here in the future, because we can definitely use some more editors for the metalworking/engineering articles. Cheers! Wizard191 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Loctite - 'Advert' objection
Can we remove the flag regarding the Loctite entry reading like an advert? The copy has been changed to what I believe would meet Wikipedia standards.

I am still working on inline sourcing for the references so that this flag can eventually be removed as well. Thank you very much for your continued help.

≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.185.149 (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Wizard191,

This is my first outgoing message. Please bear with me as I'm still a little confused as to the topology and methods in the Wiki system, including the proper way to read, monitor, send and reply to messages.

Over the past couple of years, I've had occasion to edit and expand several articles on a diverse array of subjects. This is the first time I've heard directly from anyone at Wiki. I welcome your guidance and feedback.

I have a background in information systems & analysis, journalism and technical writing, and thereby have accquired a bit of personal conversance on varied subjects from art to technology. There have been a few articles that seem to bear less expertise than my own. I understand that it is still best to rely on the knowledge of recognized and attributed authorities when they can be found.

More frequently, I find articles that appear authoritative and fairly well attributed, but are not well composed, have confusing phrases or badly chosen words. I've learned to tread very carefully when it comes to editing the work of another person, so I weigh and re-weigh every change to ensure that it faithfully reflects the intent of the original author.

I've considered creating new articles, but the primary strengths I expect to contribute here (and to sharpen) are stylistic: grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and most of all, an eye for readability, organization, clarity and conciseness.

I am far from mastering the Wikipedia tools and guidelines for style, formatting, attribution, etc., so your guidance and remarks are appreciated.

I appreciate that Wikipedia is working hard on improving authority and credibility, and I hope that I can learn how to make a contribution in that area. I read slowly, but I have bookmarked all the links you sent. I have committed to internalizing their material as time permits.

Sources said (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Eutectic system
OK, I give up. What did you find objectionable in this edit? --Rich Janis (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well there isn't anything inherently wrong with that edit. However, I know that the harvard/citation combo should work without it, so I looked at the citation template and saw I had listed the year as a date, so I fixed it. Wizard191 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Not only was there nothing wrong with it, but it provided a missing functionality. Since you have no objection to my edit, please restore the functionality that you removed when you reverted it. --Rich Janis (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no need to restore your edit; if you look at my edit, you'll see that I changed the date field to a year field, so I didn't revert you. And since I changed the field the functionality is working properly now. Wizard191 (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your persistence paid off for me. My problem wasn't ignorance of your edit, but somehow--maybe a browser cache issue, I don't know--when I started this thread the linking didn't work for me after your edit even though it did work when I went back to the page with my edit. Anyway, my problem is gone and I apologize for imposing it on you. Thanks for hangin' in there. --Rich Janis (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, glad that its working for you now. Cheers! Wizard191 (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wear
I understand now that my contribution to the mentioned article was not suitable. My picture, though, is now an orphan. Where (no pun intended) do you think is an appropriate in which to place it? There are no articles on nature reclaiming things or decay of materials. I know I could always make an article, but I was hoping you had any ideas. schyler (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What about Wood-decay fungus or dry rot? Wizard191 (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. schyler (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ISO 965
I removed the prod tag you placed on ISO 965, as the article creator placed a message on the talk page indicating objection to deletion. Please take to AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ultimate tensile strength
Your edit here which changed among other things "failure" to "necking" seems to have changed plain language to jargon. We are an encyclopedia for everyone, and the most technically precise term may not be relevant or useful in explaining the failure process, particularly in the introductory paragraph. Necking is a step in the failure, yes, but what fundamentally happens is that the material breaks.

I wanted to discuss this a bit rather than just stomp on in and change it back...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's tricky, because I/you want to concisely explain the concept without getting into all of the nitty gritty in the introduction/lead. However, the way the article was previously written, it was trying to discuss three topics: yield strength, UTS, and fracture strength. This was done by using the word "failure" to allude to any three of the failure modes, which is why I changed it to necking. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Wizard191 (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unified Thread Standard
Wikipedia is information exchange and there are lot of people who does not know or not familiar with the number sizes of the drill and imperial system. The unf threads are made in those coutries also for american orders and special purpose. So please understand wikipedia is not to show the pride of imperial system or metric system. So if you want to revert again (UNF threads) please post it before talk page. If you are so proud about imperial systme and does not want mm sizes to apear there I am realy pitty you

Prasad (Toolroom Engineer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.123.162 (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fay automatic lathe
Dear Wizrd191, I note that you deleted the info box, "types of tools," from Fay automatic lathe. I had included that to be consistent with other machine tool articles, but perhaps I was at variance with some protocol. Since you didn't explain the deletion, I though I'd ask you here. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Usually a template of that sort is only included in articles in which its link is in the template. For example, geometric lathe and micro lathe don't have the template, because they aren't included in the types of tools template. Hope that helps. Wizard191 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. Wizard. I'll use that more wisely in the future. I had used the value, "metal working lathe," of which this is an example, but I infer that would only be appropriate for the general article on that topic. User:HopsonRoad 19:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you follow the links?
The last 2 links you deleted for plasma cutting give a better view about plasma cutting technology and other cutting technologies. This company even doesn't sell laser cutting, water jet cutting or oxyfuel cutting devices. But the comparison gives you a better clue about the diverences. So how you can declare this information as spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.38.186.150 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They are a manufacturer; see http://www2.kjellberg.de/Plasma-Cutting/Products.html. Therefore they sell things and it's spam. Wizard191 (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Calvin Blignault
Thank you for your vigilance regarding copyright infringements. However, in the case of my contribution on Calvin Blignault the page that has been quoted has been copied from my contribution on Calvin and not vice versa. Could you please check the date of the other web site please for confirmation and then consider reinstating my original work.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The page has now been re-installed. Thanks to Ronhjones.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry about that. Wizard191 (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not Simmons-Boardman
Wizard191, please see File talk:Journal box journal stops 1.png Peter Horn User talk 21:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 21:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got the wrong one. Peter Horn User talk 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Horn User talk 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Durabak Page
I am not sure why "specifically" this page is being considered for deletion. Am I able to make any contributions to wiki or is every new page up for deletion upon entry. Yes this is a new product to wiki and yes it has been around for years. I would like to add the company page for the parent or trademark owner to further validate this page. Would this be considered for deletion as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 320i (talk • contribs) 23:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It all comes down to notability. If you can't supply third-party reliable references to support its notability then it will be deleted. Each article must stand on its own, so supplying incoming links for a page does not assert notability. Please read the Wikipedia policies for full detail. To make you feel better the company I work for has been around for over 80 years and doesn't have a page, and probably never will. Wizard191 (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction...
I appreciate the help in finding the most appropriate page to add info about v groove guide wheel technology. GortGetsGoing (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Wizard191 (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

cupola furnace and my post being deleted
Greetings My Name is Josh Dow -JoshrdowATgmail.com i have been posting information to the Cupola furnace page. my posts have been removed. as i am the author of my post and i know quite a lot about cupolas i feel the additions should stay.

how do i resolve this problem? please help.

please feel free to contact me ! joshrdowATgmail.com or find me on the web at Ironguild.net thank you Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guss Bort (talk • contribs) 04:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it looks like you copy and pasted the information from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Explain_the_production_of_cast_iron_using_the_cupola_furnance to the cupola furnace article, which is a copyright violation. Your information is welcome here, but it must be posted in your own words. Hope that helps. Wizard191 (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

i Josh Dow am the author of the "Wiki.answers.com" post. i own and operate "Green Foundry" located in Eliot Maine. i build and use coke fired cupolas for teaching and casting. i also collected all the images in the cupola catalog, http://picasaweb.google.com/ironguild/CupolaCatalog# i would like to add my information to the Cupola furnace wiki as a teaching guide and good place for someone to start leaning about large and small cupolas.

if this declaration of authorship is not sufficient. please help me learn how to provide you with proper proof. thank you Josh Dow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.217.100 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hrm, this poses an interesting situation, because I don't know how easy it is for you to confirm your the copyright owner of that posting. You are better off rewriting the information because the format in which you original posted doesn't mesh with the Wikipedia format, so that's probably your best bet. Wizard191 (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

I would like to ask you, please, let me post my information on the cupola wiki as it is. The reason I wrote it in the first place was to help others get ahead. When I was learning about iron casting there was very little information to go on. And even less information about smaller cupolas. I did not sign or copyright the wiki-answers post because I want others to use it freely.

Please, please, please allow me to add my original content to the cupola furnace wiki. Yours Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guss Bort (talk • contribs) 02:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can add the content, but you just need to reword and reformat it. Per WP:MOS, the tone you used is not allowed, so it has to be rewritten anyways. Wizard191 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Washers etc
I've reverted your revert. Explanation on the talk page. A little more detail rather than text juggling is probably the better answer .. cheers.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Stub categories
Hi, I've reverted, because the has Mechanical engineering, which automatically places Category:Mechanical engineering stubs into Category:Mechanical engineering sorted as "µMechanical engineering stubs", see here. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok. I was unaware of that. Thanks for the note! Wizard191 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not be a pain in the ass
We are from a parts manufacturing company situated in India. Every time we have to make a unf thread we people check for the drill size in wikipedia. We follow metric standards. Then look the equvalent sizes of number drills in metric size. That is why we decided to add metric equal to the un series taps so that it will save the time of 1000 of people.Because of you all these people are wasting their manufacturing time. Contibute with logic. just adding metric size the sky is not falling down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.190.24 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please reference the article you are talking about because I can't remember anymore. Secondly, if you really a large manufacturing company, then you ought to have posters with the metric equivalent plastered all over the place...I know I get lots of free posters from my vendors with inch and metric conversions. Third, the needs of a company do not define the outcome of Wikipedia. Finally, drilling a hole to a metric size and then tapping with an inch size is a good way to make a crappy thread if the drill bit is oversized or a quick way to dull your taps if its oversized...and you wonder why things made in India get a bad rap... Wizard191 (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not worry about what is making in India. Do not oversee the fact that a coniderable number of engineers and scientists are working in the US (including NASA) is Indians and educated in india. Then The drills are available in 0.1mm steps (.004 inch). If you think that accuracy is bad for a tapping I think you have go and study grades of tolerence, and requirements again. This is normally happens with the engineers who is not having practical expereince. They will sit in design office or vendor develepment or administraion and just talk all craps like if the drill is 0.1mm bigger the thread will be dull etc etc etc. Anyway the damage article by you is this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unified_Thread_Standard&diff=354518149&oldid=354468217


 * I actually added your request to the article in this edit back on 8-30. Just click on the note link at the top of the table, which provides a link to drill bit sizes, which has your conversions. Wizard191 (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That is good. Let people use wikipedia more easily. As the numbering of drill realy confusing for the people who is used with metric system. The same way you people having problem with metric system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.190.24 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as a side note, I design everything in metric at my day job, and I know much of the industrial industry in the US now uses metric. Much of the English unit usage is due to legacy designs. I want the whole world to go to metric just as much as you do. Wizard191 (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook
See your tensile testing hook, has an issue.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

List of preserved historic blast furnaces
Hello, why did you revert my edit at List of preserved historic blast furnaces? I added the link to the oficiall site of organization, which is responsible for preservation, sight-seeing etc. of the former blast furnaces at Vítkovice, Czech Republic. --Cmelak770 (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Because its in Czech, which doesn't help anyone here in the English Wikipedia. Wizard191 (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks
thank you for the welcome. :) Michael E. White (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusation
Hello Wizard, you accused me falsely of vandalism in article Intermediate good. I was sorting out the faulty interwiki-links. By your unthoughtfull revert half the interwiki-links in the English article are now once more linking to investment good in stead of intermediate good. Conclusion: you were reverting automatically without checking you were right. Please be more careful when accusing other people in the future. 198.184.231.254 (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually did click on the links to see if they were dead or alive and the were all alive so I assumed it was vandalism because: 1. I can't read those other languages and have to assume the previous editor was correct in linking them; 2. you didn't leave notes in your edit summary explaining why you are deleting things, which smacks of vandalism, especially from an IP. In the future just put an edit summary and then this whole thing can be avoided. Wizard191 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tensile testing
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphans?
I think these pages belong in the Metalworking project Cemented carbide, Boring bar. Alister 77 (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Found another! Thermal spraying Alister 77 (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nickel Plating Page
I was poking around to see what the Metalworking project had on electroplating nickel. Wiki redirected me to the Electroplating page. That’s when I found just a mention of its existence and a link that sent me right back to the same page. I removed the link. If it was the wrong thing to do I'm sure you will correct me. Anyway, poking around some more I find mention of electroplating nickel on the Plating page. It's a rather small, and very incompleate, entry. Chrome plating, Galvanization, and Tinning (to name a few) all have their own page. I think it would be nice if we had at least a stub on nickel. I'm familiar with sulfamate nickel and I can research the other variants such as chlorine based, bright, soft, hard, etc. Alister 77 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We definitely could use an article on electroless nickel. I would recommend splitting of the existing stuff from plating and electroplating, so that you can start with what already exists. Wizard191 (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a page on Electroless nickel plating. Perhaps there should be a page on "Nickel Plating" with electro and electroless sub catigories?Alister 77 (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I mis-read your comment. Yeah, an article on nickel plating would be great! Wizard191 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I put together and published a stub Nickel electroplating. I know it needs lots of work, but I hope it is atleast a good start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alister 77 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

New references brazing
I am PhD in metallurgy and extensive experience in subjects like amorphous materials, nanocrystalline materials, brazing, thermal spray, intermetallics, wear mechanisms, etc I have made comments on the brazing article, but not sure how to get these validated and updated on the page. For reference, my masters was on creep of rapidly-solidifed alloys. My PhD was on dislocation motion in intermetallic phases. I work in welding, brazing, thermal spray industry for wear protection solutions.

I do not have time to create articles and submit content. But I could be useful as a sounding board or critically read many subjects on metallurgy to ensure basic integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.133.52 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever help you can supply is greatly appreciated. If you find something that needs to be addressed in one of the articles, please note it on the talk page. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Gas laser
Hello Wizard191,

I'm a neophyte in this Wikipedia editing business. With help from my grand-daughter, I'm learning, but making a lot of goofs in the process. I do know the red 632.8 nm HeNe gas laser well, being the co-inventor. As such, I thought I could clarify some long held misconceptions about the origins of this laser, which in the literature is often confused with the original infrared HeNe laser, invented some 18 months earlier. Thanks for the suggestions. I'll try to follow them with my grand-daughter's help. Withead (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you are very knowledgeable on the topic. I recommend that you use some references when adding contributions to an article, that way others know its legit. The edit of yours I reverted was because it didn't seem to make any sense. If there was a reference there I could have checked the addition and then know it was completely legit. Let me know if you have any questions. Wizard191 (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You might also want to see Helium-neon laser. Wizard191 (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Die casting
The article Die casting you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Die casting/GA1 for things which need to be addressed.
 * I've put the article On Hold part way through the review, because I think that the existing material in the article would make more sense if the sections were modified/reorganised. In particular, there seems to be a "missing" section on mould design; with the material that could go in there inserted in the Process and Equipment sections.
 * P.S. I'm going to be away, so the "fix" time is not a week (that comes from the template), its more like the rest of this month.

Pyrotec (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear that I have some time to work on it because I'm in the process of moving right now, so my time to work on Wikipedia is quite slim right now. Wizard191 (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope the move goes well. If the article is "fixed" by or before Tuesday (UK time), I pass it; if not, you basically have most of the rest of the month to fix it. Pyrotec (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good. Wizard191 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Review request
One article that could use some additional editorial review is Tape Wrangler. Discussion for possible deletion is at Articles for deletion/Tape Wrangler. thank you  Pkgx (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Dref Friction Spinning
You point out that the page is an ad. In fact it is not. It is a factual page that desribes the invention of Friction spinning and those companies involved with the fiction spinning timeline and processes. Friction spinning has had a great impact on the development of highly techinical fibers, and it deserves a wiki page. It is also a unique process that not many people know about. I would like to request that your request for deletion be removed from the page. I have updated the page significantly, and tried to make it as factual as possible. I am very green to wiki, so any help to make the write up more approprate to Wiki would be appreciated. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermori (talk • contribs) 05:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears that the article has already been restored and the prod template removed. Wizard191 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Loctite page
When you have a moment could you please review the changes made to the Loctite page and let me know if it is now acceptable? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveHof (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What changes? The last one I see from you is back in July. Wizard191 (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I never received a response to the changes made in July- since then, an associate of mine added external links to the entry. I would hope that, at the very least, we have eliminated any copy that sounds too much like promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.186.134 (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The following sounds promotional:
 * "Krieble’s company, American Sealants, founded the Loctite brand, which was promoted as ushering in a new era of mechanical reliability by eliminating the vibrational loosening of mechanical fasteners, a frequent cause of machine failure."
 * "flagship"
 * "Since 1997, Loctite has remained a primary Henkel brand and a supplier of household adhesives, epoxies, spray adhesives, construction adhesives and home repair, sealants and fillers. In recent years, the company has increased its focus on green and sustainable technologies."
 * Wizard191 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense - with all due respect, of course. These are objective statements of fact. In the first case, it clearly states that the brand was 'promoted as ushering in a new era of mechanical reliability' - not that it, in fact, did so. To state that the product eliminated the vibrational loosening of mechanical fasteners would be a far more blatant subjective statement. What we were trying to achieve is to let readers know the purpose of the product originally created under the Loctite name. You are splitting hairs.

Second - 'flagship' is a commonly used term to denote the largest part of a whole. It is meant to convey the concept of size and not quality.

Finally- this is a list of the products now supplied under the Loctite name- I would be happy to bullet point the list if that would make it less objectionable - but again, it is a simple statement of fact about what types of products are produced by the Loctite brand, information that would be essential to any company entry, and information that now exists on countless other Wikipedia company entries without being flagged. The increase in green technologies is likewise a statement of fact, and one that reflects the evolution of the brand in the current marketplace.

I've worked in journalism for more than 20 years, so I know the difference between objective and subjective copy. I think we're being unfairly singled out here. I have tried my best to work within your standards and make changes as requested, but if we're not going to be given the same consideration as other companies, we'll just let the piece stand as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.179.135 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - here's a line that currently appears in the Wikipedia entry for Panasonic: "The company debuted a hi-fidelity audio speaker in Japan in 1965 with the brand Technics. This line of high quality stereo components became worldwide favorites. The most famous product still made today is the SL-1200 record player, known for its high performance, precision, and durability."

So let's be consistent with our standards, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.179.135 (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comprise
Hi. I need to tell you that this edit, which you identified as a vandalism reversion, wasn't, and I reverted it. The word "comprise" is one of the most-often misused words in English. To "comprise" is to "envelope" (as a verb) or "include". It's not a fancy synonym for "consists" or "composed", and the ubiquitous phrase "comprised of" is erroneous, as is "comprising of". The IP has been a rampant vandal in the past, along with making many very constructive edits, but he shouldn't be faulted for this one: He was correct to remove the "of" from "comprising of", so I removed the vandalism warning you posted to his talk. Thanks for your anti-vandalism work; I doubt I'd have the patience for it, myself, but I know it's critically important. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the note. I'm not an English major, so I'll probably make the same mistake in the future, but thanks for the note. Wizard191 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Wizard191
You're familiar with sacrificial anodes, right? Good. You seem like you would be. There is a sentence in the article that doesn't look right to me, where it says: ''' As zinc is more costly than iron, this method of protecting iron, or steel, would not be cost effective were it not for secondary chemical reactions that form coatings on the iron surface, thus reducing the electrochemical reaction to a trickle and greatly prolonging the life of the zinc anode. '''

The article claims that the method is not cost effective. But that claim really can't be made, right? Surely, even if the anode were platinum, there would be some application that would prove cost effective, right? I am sorry if I have bothered you with this. One of my family members used to run a signode. PET strapping is one of the coolest things in the world. Cheers, Efcmagnew (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It has to be cost effective, because its being used in commercial applications. I've always been under the impression that they are used in situations where the metal surface is under constant attack and any method used to stop the corrosion (coatings, alloyants, etc.) will wear out over time, therefore the sacrificial anode system is used because its easy to check and replace, plus its cheaper to replace then say re-coat the whole thing, especially with large items like oil rigs and boats. I don't have a ref for this, but I'm sure you could find something along the same lines in a book if you tried. Hope that helps. Wizard191 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I second the idea above ("It has to be cost effective, because its being used in commercial applications") and I would add that it's cheaper to replace the zinc blocks below a ship's waterline than it is to refabricate the ship's hull because of early failure. I'm no marine engineer, but that seems to make sense to me. The original claim about cost is looking at metal prices alone and ignoring the cost of fabrication services. — ¾-10 00:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Using sacrificial anodes is cost effective, but the original statement about "secondary chemical reactions that form coatings on the iron surface, thus reducing the electrochemical reaction to a trickle and greatly prolonging the life of the zinc anode" is dubious. In seawater, electrochemical deposits can reduce the circuit resistance this reducing current flow, but in most applications, an external coating would be used rather than relying on electrochemical deposits. Generally speaking, the more bare metal surface area there is, the more anodes you need, so coatings are usually the first line of defence, with cathodic protection as supplementary protection. I've edited that section of the article so it makes more sense. Apau98 (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Stewart platform
Hexapod has a limited orienting workspace, the site www.crossrobot.com presents important improvement to hexapod / stewart platform architecture. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and his role is to share new information about a subject too, and not only about old information of prior art. So please, let the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.129.24.248 (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The link is complete original research and an advertisement to your services, as such it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you have a link to a journal article about the topic, that would be perfectly acceptable. Wizard191 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice
nominated Welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Young Modulus
My correction was a genuine one, it is called the young modulus, not young's modulus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.71.77 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * See the first ref at Young's modulus. The IUPAC defines it as "Young's modulus". Wizard191 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

air hammer
Dear Sir,

I have never before posted on Wikipedia, however I do use it for occasional research and this being the case, I hope it is helpful for me to offer some additional information that may be of some benefit to those who search for "air hammer," and then find this page.

I am not finding the entire field of "air hammers" as originating from "small hand-held devices." It may be more clear to define more by application, and using accepted nomenclature. For instance, under "tooling," there is reference to "tapered punch" and this particular item has been listed in decades of air-tool catalogues as "moil point." Additionally, traditional air tools known as: rivet chisel, rod-end separator, pickle fork, sheet metal shear, and hammer head are just some of what used to be commonly available. "Old Forge" used to be the U.S.' largest maker and supplier of those items.

Forging hammers and drop hammers are also air-powered, and are also known as "air hammers," despite weighing hundreds of pounds and delivering tons of force. I only offer this input to help define an old manufacturing device that is largely being forgotten as America flutters off in a "white collar" whirlwind, leaving her tremendous manufacturing progress flung across 3rd world countries, while producing much fewer of those things vital for her own populace' survival.

I have dedicated my life to craftsmanship - and the past 20 years to promoting it - in a time when it seems to be purposely forgotten. If you would like my help, wizard191, then I will give it.

Two (of several) examples of "air hammers" that are not descended from small hand-held devices - though neither is of Dorothy Stiegler doing her beautiful forged bronze spiral staircases on her blue "air power hammer" - are:


 * http://www.supdie.com/products/forging.html - Superior Forging Products Division also supplies components for air, pneumatic, power drop, steam and board hammers as well as impacters, impellers, die forger, single & double frame hammers.


 * http://www.hwilliams.co.uk/forgings.asp?pageid=33 - Our hammers include: a range from 1 to 3 tonne drop hammers; a 2 tonne hydraulically powered hammer; plus a recently installed 4 tonne air powered hammer.

Sincerely,

whitemetal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemetal (talk • contribs) 04:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for the note. I know there are air powered forging hammers, but the section that was recently added was in reference to the type discussed at air hammer. Seeing how you seem know know a lot about the forging type, please feel free to add info the power hammer article. I need to do some work at cleaning up the links so that readers can more easily get to the proper article (see my response to the comment below). Wizard191 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving Air Hammer info from Power Hammer to separate page
Hey Wizard 191,

I saw that you moved the information I posted on Air Hammers off the Power Hammers page onto a separate page. This change has created some misleading/inaccurate information. The way the page was organized before you changed it (showing "types" of Air Hammers - steam, mechanical, air-powered) was actually more accurate. (I didn't create those categories, someone before me did, I was just expanding on the air-powered because it was really short on info.)

There is an area of overlap between "power hammers" and "air hammers." Many air-hammers are power hammers (they get their power from "air" making them, technically, an "air powered hammer.") That said, yes -- there are a number of smaller hand-held devices that are called "air hammers" that in no way, shape, or form, resemble an air power hammer. But to move all "free-standing" air hammers onto an "air hammer" page, and then imply that the free-standing machines are an "adaptation" of the hand-held device, is just inaccurate.

This would be akin to saying that there are "mac computers" and "iphones" and that an "ipad" is an adaptation of an iphone. It's not. It's an overlap between some of the features of an iphone and some of the features of the larger mac book. It's a hybrid. the same is true of "air power hammers." There are small hand-held air hammers, as well as medium sized freestanding air-power hammers -- but there are also Power Hammers that are run on air (also called air power hammers) that are enormous machines. To ignore this on the "power hammers" page is to leave out an entire section of metalshaping machines.

I'd like to see the information be accurate. I'm sure your intention in moving the information was to help clarify or prevent confusion between the small hand-held air hammers and the large air-power hammers. It would be more clear if the content was put back the way it was on the power hammers page, and we simply fleshed-out the air hammer page with additional information to enhance clarity.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RPMetal (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow...this edit seems to have elicited a lot of attention (see above). I ran out of time yesterday, but I'm going to convert the air hammer page to a disambig page that will then link to all of the article already listed at the top of air hammer and then create air hammer (forging) and air hammer (fabrication). The former will discuss air powered forging hammers and the latter will discuss the hand tools and planishing type. I'll split up the text you wrote accordingly between the two, which can serve as a foundation to build upon. Wizard191 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resin casting
Okay, I give. Why are resins and polymers (and for that matter, plastics) inappropriate categories for resin casting, which is done with polymers and synthetic resins that make them? Note that "casting resin" redirects to this page, so it has no page of its own. This page is about the verb AND the noun. We can fix this if you want to do a casting resin article, but I think it's easier this way. S B Harris 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was unaware that casting resin redirects to that article. However, the article states: "Resin casting is a method of plastic casting where a mold is filled with a liquid synthetic resin, which then hardens." As such, "casting resins" are actually synthetic resins, therefore that redirect should point there and not resin casting. Wizard191 (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, but synthetic resins is a new and still-short stub-article, which I resently split out of resin, which is (properly) about natural resins only. Eventually synthetic resin will be a decent article about thermosetting plastics and their precursors, but that time is not yet. For now, most of the information is in in the resin casting article. And in any case, you didn't address my question at all. All this stuff is about polymerization of thermosetting plastics. Why are you removing my resin and polymer cat tags for it? Are you trying now to argue that the resin cat should apply only to natural resins (I suppose since yesterday, when I split these articles?). If so, where is the synthetic resin cat tag? I really don't know what you're trying to do here. I started by assuming that you know more than I do about this subject and were simply trying to put me right. Now, I'm thinking that this may not be the case. So, I suggest taking on the role of the student here (which we all must do frequently in life), and leave me alone on this. S  B Harris 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on this subject, that doesn't automatically make me an idiot. My point here is that resin casting, the article, should be about the process not the materials. The cats you applied are about the materials, therefore I believe the cats do not apply. Seeing how there is information in the resin casting article about the materials, that you say should be in synthetic resin, I'll merge that over and the cats are already in that article. Finally, I'll change casting resin to redirect to synthetic resin. The size of the article should have zero affect on whether a redirect points at an article; it either points at the right article or the wrong one. Wizard191 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What? The "right one" is the article where most of the information actually is, not where it logically should be, or will be in the future (at which time we'll fix it) We do this for the benefit of today's reader, not for immediate idealistic librarian impulses to obscessively put things in their "proper" places, come hell or high water and damn the user. This is purist design engineers vs. beta testers and end-users. I've played that argument out many times in real life. Choose your side. S  B Harris 21:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you not read what I wrote? Let me highlight it again for you: "I'll merge that over and the cats are already in that article. Finally, I'll change casting resin to redirect to synthetic resin." Wizard191 (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I read it. As I said, I was concerned that there was still information on materials in resin casting that hadn't yet been extracted or duplicated for the new article on synthetic resins, which did not exist until yesterday, and is still a stub. I've now looked it over and decided I can live with just putting a ==See also== to resin casting in the synthetic resin stub and leave it for now. I did the redirect. It's difficult to separate materials from technique here, and I'm just waiting for somebody to suggest that synthetic resin and resin casting might profitably be combined into one article. If so, I'll direct them to you for the cat tags. Cheers. (Feel free to move this section to the TALK page of one of these articles). S  B Harris 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not crazy about combining material and process topics, because usually the material can also be used in other processes. However, seeing how this is outside my technical expertise, if you know that synthetic resins are ONLY used in casting applications, then I would be OK with that. Wizard191 (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Adhesive Transfer Gun
Hello Wizard191. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Adhesive Transfer Gun, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. Courcelles 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Vitreous enamel
Please stop this - the point is settled in the MOS: ALUM. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The only time that WP:ALUM applies is "For articles about chemistry-related topics". Vitreous enamel is about a ceramic manufacturing process, not a chemistry article, therefore WP:ALUM doesn't apply. Wizard191 (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the Air Hammer page?
Hi Wizard,

Was going to work on the Air Hammer page a bit today, but couldn't find it. I notice Air Hammer is back up on the Power Hammers page. Where do you want me to post info on this topic?

thanks.

```` RPMetal —Preceding unsigned comment added by RPMetal (talk • contribs) 22:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is now Air hammer (fabrication) and Air hammer (forging). I think what you are looking for is at Air hammer (fabrication). Wizard191 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thread locker
Why did you restore the reference to Loctite as a "genericized trademark"? This is inaccurate and unfair to the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.179.135 (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Because everyone uses the term "loctite" in the plate of "thread locker". Wizard191 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wizard - "Genericized" is a legal determination, and no court has made such a determination for Loctite. As Wikipedia's own entry for "Genericized Trademarks" reads, "Other trademarks have come close to genericization, but have been rescued by aggressive corrective campaigns. Such is the case with Xerox  for photocopiers, Plexiglass  for shatter-resistant polymer glass, Kleenex  for facial tissues, and others. "

Loctite feels very strongly that this is unfair and would like the genericized reference removed. Is there a way we can settle this dispute through a mediation or third party, as recommended on the 'resolving disputes' page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.179.135 (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Reformatting
Hello Wizard, My relatively small monitor screen (16 in diag.) seems to cause the aricles narrower and/or vertically shorter than they would appear on a larger screen. On my monitor the mm consistently falls on the second line. This could be fixed by incorporating the invisible dash between the numeric value and the unit symbol in the template:convert I would like your opinion if what I did in User:Peter Horn/Sandbox is actually necessary. Peter Horn User talk 16:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What article are we talking about here? Also, is there anyway you can highlight the changes you made in your sandbox, so I know what I'm looking at there? Wizard191 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) We are talking about Screw thread, Your revision. 2) The one that I reformatted in my sandbox is taken from Nominal Pipe Size. In my sandbox I split the table at SCH 40/STD and SCH 80, effectively creating two tables out of one. Peter Horn User talk 17:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, OK, now I know what we are talking about. What I would do is change the table to that it doesn't display the units and put [in (mm)] in the top cell of each column to define the units for the column. This can be done in the convert temp by using the argument "abbr=values". Wizard191 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Example:


 * [in/mm] might be more elegant e.g. 0.318 in which does not yet work or 0.318 in which does not work either. Peter Horn User talk 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite, but as you noted, it doesn't yet exist so I think the above is the best we are going to get. Wizard191 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll post a request on template talk:convert, It is easy enough to insert "|disp=/" at a later date. Im the interim I copied and pasted your solution into the article, wiping out the previous table. When I have some time I'll replace "=on" with "=values" in the conversions in the other two tables along with the column headers. Not difficult, just time consuming. Peter Horn User talk 18:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a find and replace tool on the far right side of the blue toolbar that makes these changes real easy. HTHs Wizard191 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For User:Peter Horn/Sandbox 100 - 150 ksi instead of 100 ksi - 150 ksi Peter Horn User talk 03:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like you already made the modification to screw, which looks good to me. Wizard191 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the interim solution. Peter Horn User talk 22:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cladding (metalworking)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Cladding (metalworking), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Cladding. 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.

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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cladding (fiber optics)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Cladding (fiber optics), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Cladding. 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.

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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cladding (construction)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cladding (construction), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Cladding.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

what's up
Thanks for the welcome. I've got a lot of pictures from around where i live that i hope to upload soon, which are relevant to my contributions and others. Feddacheenee (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, get rid of these three inaccurate information banners or at least specify the problem =)
Hi, What´s up dude??

Why is the galling page changed and include three different types of uninformed and out of date information? The three information banners can bee seen below: Copyedit COI wikify

I discussed the problem whit the three shown banners whit the Wikipedia live-chat service and they told me to just delete them. I now noticed that you included them again in the article, so I now humbly request to the supremacy of Wizard191 to get rid of these three inaccurate information banners or at least specify the problem in the galling discussion page, as everybody else. If you haven´t read the galling article, how do you know it´s something wrong whit it? I can assure you that everything I put the Wikipedia galling article it is extensively peer-viewed and approved at Karlstad University, Sweden.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ASTM International and User:128.151.24.62
Wizard - the edits which User:128.151.24.62 made to ASTM International weren't vandalism, and it shouldn't have been warned with a vandalism template. Looking at the two edits, it added some information about an officer of the organization with a ref, then removed it (which is fine, because the ref didn't check out). The net total effect was to add a stray period. That's a uw-test1 edit, not vandalism.

On the other hand, it's probably a dynamic IP and will never see your warning template. Argyriou (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't actually look at the edit in between, when I see a self-reverted edit that leaves small errors like that, I assume it was vandalism, because they didn't cleanup after themselves. In the future I'll use the test template. Wizard191 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

More reformatting
In User:Peter Horn/Sandbox I tried repeatedly to move the 2 columns side by side but I have not succeeded to do so without having the following column User:Peter Horn/Sandbox move up and in between the two. May be I'm asking for the impossible. Peter Horn User talk 23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "In User:Peter Horn/Sandbox I tried repeatedly to move the 2 columns side by side but I have not succeeded to do so without having the following column User:Peter Horn/Sandbox move up and in between the two." Can you explain the problem in more detail? Wizard191 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now the User:Peter Horn/Sandbox two columns are one above the other. I attempted to move the bottom one to the right of the top one. Each time I did so User:Peter Horn/Sandbox got to be between the two. You'd be able to see the phenomenon by checking the history of User:Peter Horn/Sandbox. It shows lots of attempts and failures. Peter Horn User talk 02:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you mean that you want the tables across from each other not the columns, correct? If so, I think I achieved that in your sandbox. Wizard191 (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Forging
Looking at the style of the edits, and the Belgian ISP, I suspect that &  are one and the same. If you've not encountered them before, they're keen but totally clueless on engineering. Bulk reversion is the likely outcome, because if they ever do write anything that isn't grossly wrong, I'm still waiting to see it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This one too (Forging, few days ago). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, yes, I've dealt with KVDP over at the Commons. Needless to say, I'm working on cleaning up this mess he/she's made. Wizard191 (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like you allready made up your mind on me even before I started correcting the articles. It doesn't mean that because I don't have a degree on engineering that I can't improve/add anything to the articles (which are at present very incomplete and inconsistent), and if you look ie at the oven article, it's allready allot better now. This weird behavior (ie I can only imagine how much time it should would cost to check up on IP's; ie in the same time one spends doing this one could have improved allot of articles) is exactly the reason why I sometimes not log in. Regardless, now that we formally made acquantance again, I was wondering whether we could split up the furnace article; based on a book I'm reading I want to add some new images/info; however given the unsightly appearance and structure of the furnace article, it's pretty much unworkable/unnavigatable. If we split up the article and divide the info into the appropriate articles, the info will be


 * easier to find (ie info of oil burners are now at "furnace", non-British people won't search here for this info, so they attain zero information
 * much more easy to read and understand


 * "in the same time one spends doing this one could have improved allot of articles"
 * I'll thank you not to lecture me on my throughput or my workload, as I could be a _lot_ more effective at doing useful things if I wasn't forever having to clear up the mess from ignorant fools like you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that dictionary-wise, "furnace" may have different meanings, but splitting up the article will much improve the quality of the article (now it's more like a disambiguation page with all article info on a same page). Also, we can still leave the remarks that furnace has several meanings and/or add templates at the top of the article. 91.182.217.92 (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you also revert the Cupola furnace article ? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cupola_furnace 91.182.217.92 (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You have a massive track record of cluelessness, abuse of copyright in others' images, repeated claims of "jam tomorrow" through OTRS (which almost never appears), an utter disregard for accuracy and a simplistic view of source reliability that means you'll take a half-understood magazine piece as gospel over a real reference. You persist in re-writing major aspects to reflect your own fabricated viewpoint, without the understanding on which to base this. More than that though, your persistence has exhausted my, and probably others', patience. I am not going to nursemaid your contributions any longer: if they're not right, I'm just going to revert them, same as any other vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I didn't revert the cupola furnace article, and I'm not going undo the revert, because I agree with it. Honestly, I don't have as much experience with you as Andy does, however I highly regard his opinion from past experience and right now his opinion of you is jiving with what I've experience thus far. So my question to you is why do you keep trying to "improve" articles in which you have no idea what you are talking about and then get really upset when others revert you because you degraded the article? Why don't you go improve articles you do know something about? Wizard191 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that it was Whytshamanski, and not you and I thus didn't state that you reverted it, I was just adressing to you to look into the revert and see about maintaining the useful parts. As for getting upset, I haven't, I just try to keep my edits (on which I spend time) not getting removed unless they are completely incorrect (and if they are incorrect I try to correct them). Finally, I don't randomly choose to improve articles. I choose them because it are articles that in some way are important to appropriate technology, and so whether or not I like it, I sometimes need to get started on them if I feel that after reading the wikipedia article, I still don't get it. I then pick up some library books, ... to get the basic understanding and see on how I can make the article more understandable to others like me.

91.182.74.122 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The cupola furnace change looked like a thumping big edit which may or may not have been an improvement in places. But it was reverted by a fourth party (Whytshamanski?) and when I saw that KVDP had written that cupolas were used for smelting, I was happy to see it reverted. Life is too short to go through KVDP's crap line-by-line and fix it. If you don't know what smelting is, and why it doesn't happen in a cupola, then just get the hell out.
 * Also I'm apparently wasting my editing time and not meeting my deadlines, so I have to start efficienticizing somewhere. Capische? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I always appears that I work something like a red patch on a bull. Since I rather avoid these conflicts, I placed my views on how the articles can be improved at two article talk pages:

I'll finish the 2 images and you can then decide where to put them in the article. I may be not too accustumed to steam engineering, or as Andy puts it "engineering as a whole (where "engineering" appearantly composes any discipline from metalworking to engine design), but I guess that a basic reading, writing and making fancy scribbles are still part of my area of expertise (and proud of it). Revert atleast the useful large parts for the cupola article (the improvements ie differentiation between cupola furnaces with and without heat recovery; ie trough the air vents) has a major impact and should be mentioned in the article) 91.182.74.122 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Casting
 * Talk:Sand_casting


 * The approach of throwing random guesses at the wall and seeing what sticks is not the way to build Wikipedia. Saying that "casting is a form of forging" (as one of these edits said if I recall correctly) shows that editor to be someone who needs to finish reading the library books before editing the Wikipedia article. No one's saying "stay away from Wikipedia unless you have a university engineering degree". All we're saying is "don't edit until after you've gotten an initial clue". Your approach seems like you are throwing wild random wrong answers onto Wikipedia just to force other people to spend time teaching you what the correct answer is. It's very disrespectful of everyone else's time, and it shows zero regard for the readers (as opposed to editors) who come here hoping to obtain non-clueless content. I get the impression that you're acting in good faith (not sure if you're only pretending to be, but giving the benefit of doubt). If so, your takeaway lesson here is "read the library books—several of them, completely—before editing here." If you do that, I think you'll be OK. — ¾-10 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don´t blame me for something that clearly isn´t true, ok????
Hi dude, Wazz up Wizard191, why didn´t you include my entire massege? It looks very miserable and whining, as it reads in the discussion in the galling article =)

Are you kidding me?, so you don´t have a "Wikipedia live-chat service", strange because I used it, and if that isn´t possible must sombody be realy evil. No suprise to me when the whole world is bullying and abusing people who have no means of fighting back, with the exeption of trying to make it so clear how horrific the discussion, realy can be. And it is to be hoped that somewhone in the crowd of onlookers finally realize the unreasonable and unjust in the many´s bullying against an unknowing victim or potential plaintiff.

Regarding your, Wizard191, complaints quotation: "you have pretty much taken ownership of the article 3." end quotation, I can only reply that there are several others who make contributions to the galling article and I only make sure it´s scientificly correct with regards to syntax and source. Some parts have I watched extra carefully, for example the pictures because I made them and it´s therefore easy for me to correct the content and syntax of the description. Other peaople are free to write any knew exiting findings and I will not change anything as long it´s has warranty. A lot of the text have been changed by others over the years and is still present in the article so don´t blame me for something that clearly isn´t true. --Haraldwallin (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talk • contribs)


 * Harald, I recommend that you reply on the article talk page, and not here, because that is where the conversation is occurring. Do you want me to copy it over there for you? Wizard191 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Vickers hardness test
Hello, in the article "Vickers hardness test" image "Vickers-path-2.svg" is wrong in the sense that the face angle is 136°, not the angle between edges according to the ASTM E384 standard. It means either one has to change the image to the original image "Vickers-path.svg" or to change the angle 22° in the "Vickers-path-2.svg", because its wrong than. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomeckij (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, ok. I'll get that other image deleted, because its incorrect so that the problem doesn't propagate. Wizard191 (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I found that it was correct and then someone uploaded a bad version over the good version, so I reverted to the good old image. Wizard191 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference for mold constant
The text I acquired the equation from is in a series of PDF's that do not state their creators, publish date or anything else about their creation. Sorry. I too spent a couple hours trying to find the blasted thing online but to no avail so I gave up trying to find it online and pulled up the PDF so that I could put it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.67.160 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright...thanks for the equation! Wizard191 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand
Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!!
I would like to take this chance to thank you for your informative guides :)

Clarajohnson (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't revert red links
Red links are good for the wiki. Leave it in. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with red links in general, but I do for hatnotes. If you are working on an article, just add the link once the article exists. That seems pretty easy to me, so I don't get why this is a big deal. Wizard191 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Exactly, it's not such a big deal, so why did you risk me blocking you for the 3RR you just committed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You might want to read WP:3RR, because I didn't commit it. Wizard191 (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

flow drilling > friction drilling
I agree to your comments on Flow drilling. So I moved (copy-paste) the whole page to 'friction drilling', replaced every word 'flow drill' by 'friction drill' and then I replaced the original 'flow drilling' page by a 'redirect' to the new lemma. But now I see that that move is just reverted. Did I do something wrong? I just wanted to remove the regd. trade mark term as you suggested, but I seem to have done it the wrong way. ? In my talk, I am referred to the sandbox, but (having done more than 200 modifications in the Dutch Wikipedia) I think I have grown too old now for the sand box. --Erik Wannee (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't do anything terribly wrong, but when a page needs to move, it must be done the right way (at WP:Requested moves) not via copy and pasting. This is because of licensing issues that must retain the edit history. I already listed it at WP:Requested moves, so the ball is rolling in the right direction now. Wizard191 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind advice. I learned a lot. (But I think I can better sometimes make a mistake than doing nothing at all.) I will keep my hands off this item now for a while and see the ball rolling. --Erik Wannee (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The move was completed yesterday, and I just went through and cleaned it up a little. Feel free to work on it now, if you have anything more to add. Wizard191 (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Casting (metalworking)/Terminology
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Casting (metalworking)/Terminology, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.me.unlv.edu/Undergraduate/coursenotes/wang/meg426/web/wk7/class1.htm.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Casting (metalworking)/Terminology


A tag has been placed on Casting (metalworking)/Terminology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 16:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Casting terminology


A tag has been placed on Template:Casting terminology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 16:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Cathodic Protection
Hi, I realise I was a bit premature in removing the references tag from the Cathodic protection article, which you reverted the other day. I've since revised the article and added more references and I'm planning to remove the tag again. There are a still a few unreferenced sections, but nothing too controversial that's likely to be challenged, I think. However, I am still researching sources and will add more as I find them. In the meantime, before I remove the tag again, I'd be grateful for your opinion, if you have time. Apau98 (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, its looking good. I'd be OK with removing it now. Wizard191 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Drill
Hi, I noticed you reverted my changes when I removed the following text from a comment:


 * "IF YOU CAME HERE EITHER TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DOWN SYNDROME OR TO PATRONIZE OR SEQUESTER THEM, SIMPLY CLICK "CANCEL" ON YOUR EDIT TOOLBAR."

I felt there were a number of issues, in particular it did not actually provide much information to editors about what the problem was. I have replaced it with the following:


 * "Current consensus is that the previous image should not be removed. Please do not remove without discussing this on the talk page"

This comment indicates what the isue is and will be more helpful to editors. If you are unhappy with this comment, please discuss before reverting as this will be more constructive than simply going through the whole edit/revert/edit/revert loop. Thx 87.114.2.26 (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me; just as long as there's a notice there informing editors that there is consensus to leave the image alone. Wizard191 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool, looks like that's resolved. I'll keep an eye on the article for a while to see if any other editor has an issue with the rephrase 87.114.2.26 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Advertising
Wizard191,

There is incomplete information on Biodegradable Plastic as well as BioPlastics.

Most of the information is advertising BPI( A 3rd party Certification entity, not even a testing lab, they charge $4500 for the certification and require a membership fee) PLA, PHA etc..these are resins which comply with BPI's standards. You can also convert Petroleum plastics into biodegradable plastics as seen on websites across the internet. Please review the intended links so you are aware of the changes.

Please take into consideration if you are going to allow them to have their advertising, the flip side should allow for information to be supplied to the public as well.

Information is key and I do believe the public should be entitled to both sides rather then a biased opinion.

Thank You, Callsign — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callsign (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Callsign (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to remove the other advert. in the article; however, its existence doesn't give you (nor anyone else) good reason to add more advertising. Wizard191 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a problem will do, My next question is why did you delete the EPA's information on methane capturing? There is no reference to "MOST" landfills let off methane gas and aren't captured. I am simply stating this information as incorrect. I sit on Methane to Markets ran by the EPA, after 1999 and the clean air act all landfills that take over 20 MT of garbage must be schedule D landfills. Please don't delete the information on Methane to Markets as this is ran by the EPA and I would site them as a source of knowledge since they regulate landfills.Callsign (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Methane to Markets no longer exists to http://www.globalmethane.org/, which does say that's its a global entity (and it looks so according to the big map on the home page). As such, I'm sure the EPA doesn't run it. Therefore its no different than BPI, which I saw you recently deleted. Wizard191 (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Diamond Turning
Hello,

Thanks for correcting the error I made on the citation about electroless nickel and plated aluminum. It was actually just my own expansion to broaden the material list so that it contains more accurate descriptions, but I have to make sure it's cited (or not). I'll change it at some point in the future to include additional materials from other sources.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Casale (talk • contribs) 17:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, sounds good. Wizard191 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ductile iron pipe#Europe
User:Peter Horn/Sandbox & Ductile iron pipe. That was precisely what I wanted and needed, we are in the clear now. As you can see I have implemented this in the article. Thanks a million. Peter Horn User talk 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of service. Wizard191 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Mushet
I know you've written about Mushet and Mushet Steel onWikipedia in the past, so I thougt you might be interested to know that I've begun an article on Darkhill Ironworks, where he worked. Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice, however, that's getting quite outside my realm of expertise. Keep up the good work nonetheless! Wizard191 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Caption links
I noticed that you removed links from a caption in brass, citing overlinking. While I appreciate the concern about a sea of blue and such, I think it's important to have links from captions as one's attention is often independently drawn to images, and linking below them seems a natural, important, and non-redundant utility in learning. Would you offer other thoughts, or perhaps point to relevant guidelines? ENeville (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The relevant guideline is WP:OVERLINK; if you still strongly feel that the links should stand after reading the guideline, then revert me. Wizard191 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Linchpin
I guess I don't understand if the additional use of the word belongs in the Wiktionary why the original word is in the Wikipedia? It was a valid reference to the use of this word for a thing that is NOT a thing. Pabobfin (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC) regards


 * Please review WP:NOTDICT. If you think the topic still doesn't violated WP:NOTDICT and it is notable enough for Wikipedia, then the topic deserves it's own article; perhaps linchpin (politics)? Wizard191 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thermal conductivity
I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, but I'm interested to know why you say that Thermal conductivity uses American English? Looking back over the history of the article it seems to have been using metres rather than meters (apart from one relatively recent introduction of meters when there were already a number of instances of metres). The only sign I can see of long-standing Americanese is a sulfur, but there is also an aluminium. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The second edit to the article includes the American spelling of "meter"; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermal_conductivity&diff=154401&oldid=154397. Wizard191 (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Steel alloys
As it seems, you are good at answering questions about Chemistry. Well, you see, i am struggling on the topic of steel alloys and i would love some help? Reply if you can please? :D Kimberly K. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.18.100 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, where or what's the question? Wizard191 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Loctite entry status
Hi,

Where do we stand on the flag of the Loctite entry for allegedly sounding like an advertisement? Your last post in the talk page said you would listen to other thoughts on the matter. This was back in November, and only one has been posted since - last month (just noticed this myself), agreeing that the piece meets Wikipedia's objectivity standards. I understand one more opinion does not constitute overwhelming evidence, but I would like to have this resolved one way or another soon. Perhaps asking for a third opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.244.240 (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Per the third opinion I'll remove the tag. Wizard191 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Loctite is very commonly used and referred to among technicians and engineers. The page seems OK to me, but I've heard that my eyes don't see commercialism as well as some. Perhaps I'm exposed to so much that I automatically disregard large portions of it.

Anyhow, it's fine with me if you want the Loctite page revsied, but I think that it would be good to at least retain some shred of the reference. As a new professor of engineering, after having been in industry for 14 years, I often send my students to Wikipedia to begin to get a handle on anything that is unfamiliar to them. It is a wonderful starting point for a person who has no idea of the universe of things awaiting them in a topic area! Last week, for example, I noticed that nearly all of the presentations in my Design class started with Wikipedia and followed the paths laid down here to other references that they might otherwise never have found.

Thank you!

Crystal

CHeshmat (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks for the barnstar! Although I don't know how deserving I am right now, because I've been pretty inactive over the last few weeks. Wizard191 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Links to Catalogs
Hey Wiz, before we continue with the deletion/addition game, I thought I'd chat with you a little. In the Wiki guidelines on links to avoid there is no prohibition of catalogs per se, even though catalogs are explicitly commercial. As long as the links provide an additional resource containing information useful to someone seeking more information on a topic, they have merit. The links I provided in the roller screw article go into a level of detail and specificity on the topic that the article does not. Thus the links have merit. If you disagree, then perhaps we should open the discussion up in a broader forum. I await your response. In the meantime, I'll leave the article as it stands after your last deletion. Cheers, Catsquisher (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the long delay, but I don't have much time for Wikipedia these days. Please outline what in the catalogs you feel is important to the article, on the article talk page, so that we can discuss this more. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No prob on the delay; we're all busy. The catalogs I linked to have images, details and specific information including sizes, configurations, loading (e.g. dynamic and static), lubrication, mounting, efficiency, applications, lifetime, mechanical equations (e.g. speed, buckling and deflection), etc.  The catalogs happen to be some of the most informative and readily available resources on the subject.  As I stated previously, I believe they are likely useful to many seeking more information than the article provides.  But there's no need for me to tell you.  When you have a moment why don't you take a look?  Per your request I'm also posting a related comment on the article's talk page presently.  Cheers, Catsquisher (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Jigsaw
Lol, thanks for poking me. No, ofc it's not a hoax, I meant to delete Jigsaw Squirting and mistakenly deleted that page instead, thought I had restored it but apparently I hadn't. Thanks so much for poking me :)  Snowolf How can I help? 21:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahh, OK, that makes sense. Wizard191 (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review
There is an article about a strap or tape: Polyester coord-bandage Tape. I can't make any sense of it. This is an area you have background in. Am I missing something or should this wierd article just be deleted? thanks. Rlsheehan (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it ought to be deleted, because I can't even figure out what its trying to talk about. I think it's supposed to be about strap, but it keeps talking about tape, so I'm not sure. Wizard191 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted as a hoax. Feezo (Talk) 22:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rlsheehan (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Lessons from working on Kitchen cabinet
When I tried doing a revamp of kitchen cabinet, I found there were hardly any good references, mostly a lot of links to advertising, cabinet makers, and such. And my sense is the same kind of thing will happen to Drill -- it's such a basic thing that any kind of reference search will push away from the basics of this tool -- that is there may be articles on new types of drills, innovative uses of drills, that sort of thing -- but what I'm saying is that will push away from the essence of the tool itself. Do you see what I mean? But perhaps you are right and there is good secondary search information; still that the tag has been there for two years, and not much has been added -- there might be a reason for that in the sense that there isn't a lot of published material about this. See, the article right now is pretty good as it is. Tell u what -- why not try to do a secondary search and see what you get?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Funny you say that. I had a very similar discussion at Talk:File_(tool). If you must see that good secondary references exist for common topics, I'll give you a list. Wizard191 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh. I think you're going to win this argument, unfortunately for my ego. Wondering how you search to only get Google Books to come up. I'll try to get to this when I get time. I'm also thinking that the electricians right-angle drill should be in the article; I have one; good for drilling in tight spaces. Perhaps I'll take a picture.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are some refs: Wizard191 (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=ZcxKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP1
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=kAEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA117
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=FqO1vhKji6YC&pg=PA46
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=TtcDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA147


 * Cool. Will paste to talk page of Drill and add stuff at a later time. Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

actuator
I will appreciate your help, when controlling illumination of a room is the actuator a mechanical device?...may be!...i think is a light source, the world is not only mechanics!...regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponchobonjo (talk • contribs) 04:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh? What do you mean by "when controlling illumination of a room"? And what is this with respect to? Wizard191 (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * what i mean mr wizard is simply we need to define clearly and widely, an actuator execute an act, an action and the actuations are not limited to mechanical.......does a heater actuates on a thermal process?....does a light source actuate on illumintaion?....i think your deletion on my contribution is not proper.
 * best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponchobonjo (talk • contribs) 04:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you are referring to this contribution? I believe you are referring to a different definition of actuation, see the wiktionary article actuator. See Wikipedia has different articles for each topic, so if a word has two meanings then those two meanings will have different articles (if both are notable). In this case the article is about the mechanical aspect of "actuation", whereas you are referring to a much broader definition that doesn't fit the article. For the Wikipedia policy about these concepts see WP:NOT. Wizard191 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Load cell
Dear Sir / Madam,

We added an external link to the wiki load cell. The link is http://www.zemic.nl/load-cell-trouble-shooting.html is 100% informational.

We are aware of the nofollow tags so this is not the reason of adding it. We only want to give users of loadcells a tool to check there loadcell by doing a few easy tests.

Please answer me why you deleted this link.

Kind regards,

Maarten Kleemans Zemic Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.64.181.42 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hope no one minds me tossing in my two cents here:


 * Maarten, you might want to review Wikipedia's Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest essay. Since you work for Zemic Europe, you have a conflict of interest regarding this link and other Zemic-related topics.  This itself isn't a bad thing.  However, other editors should decide whether to include the link.


 * If you think other editors would disagree with Wizard191's removal, a better place to discuss it is the article's talk page. In that discussion, Wikipedia's policy on external links might come up.  It can be found here.  (I'd be leaning toward not including the link myself. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a source for how-to information.)  Please be aware that Wikipedia has few external links.  BitterGrey (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Maarten, Bittergrey's response cover's my points exactly. So if you feel strongly that the link ought to be included, please comment on the article's talk page. Wizard191 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Material for shear form roller !!!
Dear sir,

My name is Pc Lee. If found that your analysis about spinning is really interesting. I would like to try it out in our production. Until now, I still face a big problem, it is regarding the type of material for the roller of the shear forming. Could you pls tell me which kind of material will be more useful or last longer?

Please reply.

Thank you.

Best regards, P.C.LEE camsbpcl@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.231.42 (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi PC Lee, honestly I haven't written much for the metal spinning article, and I don't work with any of the tooling for it in my profession, so I can't answer that question. You might try asking at the reference desk. Wizard191 (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Pentalobe screws
I'm unsure what to say. The specifications for Tamper-resistant Torx Plus screws are available only to authorized OEMs, as are the drivers. I know for a fact that Apple refers to the drivers of these batteries as "Torx Plus Tamper 6", but I am unable to provide an externally accessible link to Apple's internal reference. The only thing I could say to convince you is that Apple does not hold the patent for pentalobular screw drives, Acument does, and this is verifiable online, and that Apple is an authorized licensee of Acument products. Hope that helps clearing things up, that article is frustratingly inaccurate, just thought I could help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.192.122 (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say that Apple holds the patent; it just states that Apple is implementing it. Unfortunately, it usually is very hard to find references for things like this, however here at Wikipedia we can only accept verifiable information; see WP:V. Wizard191 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Torx Plus, and tamper-resistant Torx Plus, are widely used by Apple, but these aren't the Pentalobe security screws that are used in ones and twos per device. Their geometry is quite different - Pentalobe is a classic security screw, it's designed to fail and round-off if abused with an ad hoc tool. I don't know about Pentalobe, but the specifications for the Torx series are quite easily available (and licensed) - Acument do after all have a vested interest in examples of their tech being competent, accurate and well-fitting examples! This is especially true for Torx Plus, compared to Torx. A poorly fitting Torx is weak and sloppy, but a Torx Plus simply won't fit. Unless Apple are themselves making their own screws & tools though, I'd be surprised if they had a Torx licence from Acument.
 * If you're going to throw rocks at List of screw drives, it would be more helpful if you'd be more specific. Even better, expand Torx and clear up the whole Torx / Torx Plus issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As an Apple Technician, I can tell you that whoever wrote the article for Pentalobe screws didn't verify if the screws inside the MacBook Pros, iPhone 4s and MacBook Air were actually the Pentalobe screws to which you are referring, because they aren't. They are, Torx Plus Tamper Resistant Size 5 and 6, and they fit the elliptical notches that the six-branch Torx Plus design use and are fairly different from the drawing that is shown on the Pentalobe screw listing. I personally have not seen another pentalobular designed screw but I can tell you that the specific screws that are referred to in the article are not classic pentalobular security screw.


 * The specifications for Torx, Torx Plus and Torx Tamper Resistant are easily available, although the Torx Tamper resistant version has been available since Acument (or Textron, back then) didn't renew the patent for the Torx/Torx Tamper Resistant screws, which is also part of the reason why they developped the tighter-fitting Torx Plus screws. However, they did not disclose the specifics of the Torx Plus Tamper Resistant design, of which only a few licensees exist, among the likes of Unisteel and Wiha. Licensees hold the right to build the screws and tools but they'll only sell them to authorized OEMs, and Apple is one of those, sorry about the confusion on my part.


 * I'd also like to apologize because I did not mean to throw rocks at the whole List of screw drives article, which is often very useful in my line of work, only specifically at the Pentalobular screw listing. I suppose an additional reference to the pentalobular design of the Torx Plus Tamper Resistant proof would be more appropriate in this case, but the reference to the screws Apple uses should be removed from the classic pentalobular design and put in that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.192.122 (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As an Apple technician, I guess we can't expect you to count up to five and six but don't worry, there will be an app for that.
 * Apples are held together with six-lobed Torx and Torx Plus screws. Computers have used these widely since Compaq adopted them back in the '80s. Now even IBM are using them. Unusually, Apple have recently started using the Pentalobe (that's five lobes, not six) as a one-off security feature on a few of their recent models. AFAIK, these are all on portables, for the express purpose of stopping people replacing Li-ion batteries for themselves. No desktops (AFAIK) are using them. The rest of the laptop / iPhone is still held together with six-lobed Torx Plus.
 * I have no idea if Apple also use / have ever used the five-lobed Torx Plus tamper-resistant (five lobes, centre pin, elliptical generator, same as the Torx Plus) but wouldn't be at all surprised. If you compare it to the new Pentalobe, there's no centre pin and it has sharp arrises (edges) in the screwhead rather than the spline-like head of the Torx Plus. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.acument.com/northamerica/torxplus_trds.asp, http://apple-parts.com/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=2950 , http://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/339/Where+can+I+find+a+star-point+screwdriver , http://www.ifixit.com/Tools/Torx-Plus-5-Point-T6--IP6-MacBook-Pro-Battery-Removal-Tool/IF145-070 , 'Nuff said.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.192.122 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so they're (as we all expected) using Torx Plus, they're using five-lobe tamper resistant Torx Plus, and a bunch of unreliable websites are making the usual wittering noises.
 * So if ifixit is (Bob forbid) considered to be reliable for this purpose, then take a look: here
 * 20:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hi Wizard191,

I think I have all of the basic information in the heat treating article now. It may still need some word-smithing or tweeking, but I'll have to give my eyes a break from it for a week or two. It should now be easy enough to explain the specialized techniques for most alloys with a single paragraph each, much like is done on the carbon steel page.

My question is about transferring the content from that page over to heat treating. I'm not too familiar with anything beyond a simple copy/cut/paste method. Would this be a good way to do it, or is there some other way, (perhaps to preserve the history)? Zaereth (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Industrial Robot reverted edit by Furkanbuet06
Hi, Thanks for reverting that edit. It was a huge addition, badly organised (rambling almost) most of which did not belong in Industrial robot, all of which should have been discussed on the talk page etc etc as you surely know. Yet the guy did a lot of work and clearly knows a fair bit. It's a shame it wasn't suitable. I saw the same text on his talk page. I've never seen anything like it before. How did you discern the difference between a valid contribution and the knowledgable rambling? What rules were applied to remove it? (I totally agree with its removal - I just want to understand the system better). Robotics1 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative to nautilus cam
I see your point about the name recognition, but one thing that does stand out as unique (even if others have done it) is the combination of cams with a pulley system. Passing a chain over a rotating cam seems to alter the amount of force it's used. I would like to find data about this to link from the page on pulleys. I could have sworn I read a page on this on wikipedia but can't seem to find it. I remember there were illustrations of it being 2:1, 1:1 and 1:2 and the like at different angles. DB (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh, the relative change in contact location is pretty much negligible with the chain, therefore it's essentially like using a fixed cam follower. Now if the pivot point of the pulley were changing in relation to the cam as it rotates, now we are talking about a unique system. BTW, I design custom cams/camshafts/profiles regularly, so I've seen/designed some pretty crazy stuff. Wizard191 (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edits
(cur | prev) 19:55, 13 January 2010 Wizard191 (talk | contribs) m (23,027 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by Canadiansteve identified as vandalism to last revision by 62.154.254.182. using TW) (undo)

Robotics Design Inc. manufactures industrial robots. How can this be considered as vandilism?


 * Dude, that edit is over a year old. Have you even noticed that that section is no longer in the article? Wizard191 (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Page change
Mr. Wizard, Kindly advise why you removed the links that I posted on the Drilling page of Wikipedia. I have seen there is little information on this topic, and even the information posted was vague and incorrect. I am trying to add to the knowledge and accuracy of Wikipedia, which I believe is many people's go-to source for information, definitions, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainAmerca (talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it's a commercial link, which are not welcome at Wikipedia. Why don't you use a more reliable source like a book? Wizard191 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cryogenic Deflashing
It's kind of hard to reference the advantages of cryogenic deflashing from an encyclopedia when their is no encyclopedia article on them other than Wikipedia. What do you suggest? Unfortunately, it seems that this particular page will lack inline citations for a very long time. I was particular surprised that you deleted the inline citation that references a page that shows the process step by step. Nowhere else on the web is that info available.

Ryan Rt cine (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bullshit, you are just pushing your own website/services. This search literally took 10 seconds: http://books.google.com/books?id=6usaXXV0W68C&lpg=PA549&dq=CRYOGENIC%20DEFLASHING&pg=PA549#v=onepage&q=CRYOGENIC%20DEFLASHING&f=false, http://books.google.com/books?id=gdq6qajigqoC&lpg=PA196&dq=CRYOGENIC%20DEFLASHING&pg=PA196#v=onepage&q=CRYOGENIC%20DEFLASHING&f=false , http://books.google.com/books?id=93SPB4v1Lk8C&lpg=PA76&dq=CRYOGENIC%20DEFLASHING&pg=PA76#v=onepage&q=CRYOGENIC%20DEFLASHING&f=false , http://books.google.com/books?id=rvf6uryFwukC&pg=PA348&dq=CRYOGENIC+DEFLASHING&hl=en&ei=vwzLTfTCDIKutweJm-3wBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CGoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=CRYOGENIC%20DEFLASHING&f=false . Please stop pushing your wares here. Wizard191 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI - If you processed the parts at -320F they would be destroyed as this is lower than the glass transition point of all the materials. Almost every article explained there shows that temperature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rt cine (talk • contribs) 16:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Our criteria for inclusion is verifiability not truth. All of those links are to reliable sources, but if you can find a more reliable source that has the correct info, then that is welcome. Wizard191 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop this harassments of my reference in the galling article
Why do you always give me a hard time???? It´s not fun!! You have you deleted a reference to my master thesis report from Karlstad university about the galling phenomenon. The reference and pictures where examined and approved by mail to the Karlstad university and I´m the author and legal owner of the pictures and the text in the report as the mail and Telephone conversation between me, Kau and Wikipedia concluded back in 2009-2010.

I know there are some people who try to steel my report and my examination executive have used my pictures whiteout my approval and correct citation in his Dr exam. But I have the original pictures, the steel plates, proof of me being in the lab making all the tests and all other authorities such as Karlstad University’s library have approved me as the owner of my work. So please stop helping these harassments

If there’s a problem, please tell me what to do. I can make all necessary arrangements, phone calls and mail once again, but it’s ridicules if I have to all this every year. Isn’t Wikipedia alleged to follow legal standards?

Sincerely, Harald W


 * It's not that what you are doing is illegal. It's that you are pushing your own wares here, which is highly discouraged per WP:COI. Wizard191 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the reference was putt there by another user. So please stop harassing me.


 * And Why did you delete Adhesive_wear_(material) in the wear article????? Was it because I opened it??? Is it really the Wikipedia spirit to bully some of it’s users???? Stop this and change back all the strange deleted sections and behave normal, it’s actually not fun anymore. --Haraldwallin (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But you want it restored, therefore you are pushing your own wares. As for the red links, they are fine in the see also section, but not as "main" links. Wizard191 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I ask you again. Why do you approve to these harassments of me?
Ok, Firstly I didn’t put in the reference to “my own” master thesis about galling in the first place. But I wanted to make a notation and change the layout of the reference and make it more compatible with other references found on Wikipedia. However, I couldn’t change the original layout of the reference, probably because the reference where approved and protected by someone working on Wikipedia.

Clearly, some other user made the original reference link in the galling article found here in Wikipedia. Probably because I did as you asked previously and used the discussion page and discussed the issue and galling mechanism with other users and someone must have liked my report and included it as a reference.

I also included the pictures found in the Wikipedia galling article and they were approved as my property to give away to Wikipedia commons by the library in Karlstad University, the conclusion was made via mail and other conversations and included people working for Wikipedias fine network.

The text is totally my own and the conformation and style can bee traced back by the numerous updates I have made here on Wikipedia and also my Master Thesis report from 2008.

I ask you again. Why do you approve to these harassments of me? And Why do you threaten me with exclusion from Wikipedia when I have done nothing wrong.

I also want to correct the spelling and other language issues in the previous message, there is no point in gloating in my desperation and the bulling of me made me lose the ability to do a correct editing.--Haraldwallin (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are such a liar, you added your own reference right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galling&diff=next&oldid=249721664 on November 5th 2008. Stop pushing your wares here! Wizard191 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC

--- You are such a bully, Wizard 191. I put in the reference because I didn´t know how to do it properly, than you forced me to ask someone on the galling discussion page to include my reference and I did, after some months somebody liked my report and did so.

I also discussed my edit to the whole article in the discussion page because you deleted it to, even though my text is scientifically OK and "peer viewed".

The reference in the galling article was put in by another user and was protected by someone on Wikipedia because not even I, the writer of the report in the reference, could change it.

This you know perfectly well and you are the liar and bully. You have been after me ever sense I started including material such as pictures and text to the galling article. I ask you again, why do you forget what happened and always accuse me with false statements. This is not the first time you wrongly accuse me. Previously you wrongly accused me of taking control over the galling article and you Wizard 191 apologized on making that remark, the discussion between me and you can be found on the galling discussion page.

Please remember what happens and don´t be evil. --89.160.24.134 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC) --Haraldwallin (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC) -- Hi, please do not keep adding your "reference" to the galling article, as there is a conflict of interest. Thanks. --Wizard191 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not discrediting the reference. I fully believe that it is legitimate reference, however the conflict of interest is that you are one of the authors of the work, and you are adding it. This does not completely eliminate the work from the realm of being added as a reference, but someone other than yourself must review it and deem it worthy as a reference. My recommendation is that you add a note to the talk page of the article stating that you think it would be a good reference, but that you want others to review it first because you are a bias entity, in that you contributed to the work. Wizard191 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is taken from my Talk page and prove that you(Wizard191) and me have had the discussion about the use of my report as a reference to the galling article and as a context to the pictures found in the galling article.

My report explains the test conditions and used materials and other circumstances regarding the pictures, the reference is therefore valid.

I also followed your advice and made a pledge on the discussion page to someone other than myself to review and deem my work worthy as a reference.

And someone did like it and my text and pictures are still present in the galling article but you deleted the reference to my report that previously was write protected against vandalism by someone on the Wikipedia network.

However, some aspects of the references was not compatible to other references found on Wikipedia but due to the write protection I couldn’t change the present disposition and my intention was to create a proper disposition and the person responsible for adding my report as a reference could correct it.

I understand that you may be wrongly informed about me and my work, but please read my editing in Wikipedia articles and discussions pages and you will find that I’m a scientifically correct, serous, intelligent and nice person who wants to spread relatively important information to a wider range of people.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, in the hope that the problem is just in translation, I've enlisted some help at the Swedish Wikipedia to try to resolve Harald's angst. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help in this dispute! Wizard191 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Todd, before re-adding the contentious content to ABS, please find supporting references for it. At present this content is highly dubious and is quite unreferenced. Re-adding it continuously is quite rightly seen as vandalism and Wizard191 is quite right to remove it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pacific Bearing Corp (2nd nomination)
You commented in AFD1 and may well have an opinion on the new sourced provided. Spartaz Humbug! 12:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)