User talk:Wsloand

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not link the same year twice in the same section on day articles. --mav 18:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Society of Construction Arbitrators
Thanks for your interest and contribution, and for adding in the web-site. But I'm not so sure that this article has much to do with the stub you mention (not that I know what a stub is in any case!). So I've torn that bit out and hope that's ok. Better stubs, if there are such things, would be construction law, building industry and professional services. If you can fix that - perfect. Salisian 15:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

syntax for day articles
I reverted the syntax changes you made to January 21 and August 12. There are specific syntax rules we keep for all 366 of the day articles. Here's an example of what such an article should look like: WikiProject Days of the year. If you come across day articles with the incorrect syntax, feel free to fix it.

You are definitely welcome to join our discussions about issues concerning day articles. go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year. cheers! Kingturtle 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Platelets & stuff
Hey Wsloand, welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to have some good knowledge about coagulation & things. What is your background? Could you fact-check all those coagulation articles for glaring mistakes? Being a lowly clinician my knowledge of biochemistry is strictly utilitarian. JFW | T@lk  08:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are of course correct that prothrombin is II, but I'm concerned about the stylistic consequences. I'll make a change - see what you think.
 * Please enjoy Wikipedia. It's massive fun. JFW | T@lk  01:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you removing parent categories?
I am curious as to why you are removing the "parent categories" from a number of articles. Regardless of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, I thought one of the prime purposes of Wikipedia was to help unkowledgeable readers and/or newcomers to Wikipedia find what they are looking for as easily as possible. I would point out that the Wikipedia Manual of Style is not written in stone and is not meant to be completely inflexible. It is meant to be guidance. Please explain your thinking on this subject. Thanks, - mbeychok 00:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum to my above posting here is a quote from the Manual of style:

"This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making the encyclopedia easy to read by following a consistent format — it is a style guide. The following rules do not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style. One way is often as good as any other, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit. In this regard, the following quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice:


 * Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity." - mbeychok 00:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to offend. I generally agree that rules need flexibility, and if the distillation articles fell into the parent categories as well as they fell into distillation, then I would have left them, but all of the articles that I moved were specific to distillation and none of them that I saw were also specific to the other categories.  To me, following the style guide is a better because a user would go to the distillation category and see other options and where distillation generally fits into the scheme of operations instead of possibly going to a less related category.  Again, sorry if I offended you.  Wsloand 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No offense taken. Just wanted to straghten this out. From what you have just said above, it is clear to me that you have no understanding of the Chemical Engineering discipline at all. Distillation is more than just the chemist's glassware distillation in a laboratory. Distillation is one of the most important unit operations in chemical engineering. 95% or more of the hundreds of distillation towers in a petroleum refinery, or petrochemical plant or raw natural gas processing plant or many other industrial facilities are designed by chemical engineers. You must understand that not all Wikipedia readers interested in distillation are chemists. Many are engineers and other technical or industrial people. Probably just as many them as chemists, if not more. In their opinion, distillation falls into the chemical engineering category just as well it does in the chemistry or other categories.


 * It is entirely appropriate that the various distillation articles be listed in the chemical engineering category as well as the other categories. We chemical engineers know what a chemist is and we know what laboratory distillations are because we also used them during our academic years, but sadly few chemists know anything about chemical engineering and have probably never even seen industrial distillation towers. But 'nough said. I am going to re-include the chemical engineering category in all those distillation articles. Regards and no hard feelings, - mbeychok 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I'm currently getting my PhD in Chemical Engineering. You're welcome to include the category again-- like I said before, I disagree with that style.  But, you have contributed more than I have to wikipedia, so I won't try to re-modify it. Wsloand 00:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)