User talk:ShadowRangerRIT: Difference between revisions
Undid revision 324340556 by 70.126.139.254 (talk) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
:Finally, constantly adding a removing material for no reason is generally disruptive; if the edit shouldn't be made, don't make it in the first place. I notice a *lot* of activity where you make multiple edits in a row with no net effect. --[[User:ShadowRangerRIT|ShadowRangerRIT]] ([[User talk:ShadowRangerRIT#top|talk]]) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC) |
:Finally, constantly adding a removing material for no reason is generally disruptive; if the edit shouldn't be made, don't make it in the first place. I notice a *lot* of activity where you make multiple edits in a row with no net effect. --[[User:ShadowRangerRIT|ShadowRangerRIT]] ([[User talk:ShadowRangerRIT#top|talk]]) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
::I actually did leave a note on his talk page. Template warnings are generally frowned upon for established editors, so I was writing it out by hand. Have some patience. And stop deleting talk page history please. --[[User:ShadowRangerRIT|ShadowRangerRIT]] ([[User talk:ShadowRangerRIT#top|talk]]) 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC) |
::I actually did leave a note on his talk page. Template warnings are generally frowned upon for established editors, so I was writing it out by hand. Have some patience. And stop deleting talk page history please. --[[User:ShadowRangerRIT|ShadowRangerRIT]] ([[User talk:ShadowRangerRIT#top|talk]]) 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Well thank you for warning him. That's all I asked. |
Revision as of 20:46, 6 November 2009
Welcome!
|
Lhasa Oxygen
Hi, this is Bruce responding to your question about Lhasa.
I don't recall the exact reference, but exact it was.
As for all gases being reduced and the percentage of oxygen being resultantly constant, let us think back to elementary chemistry. At standard temperature and pressure (STP), a mole of gas occupies 22.4 liters. Oh, geez, here I am shooting myself in the foot, as Lhasa is so high up that we aren't dealing with STANDARD temperature and pressure, so the pressure is lower and the volume is up. Recall that PV = nRT. So, the lungs have to take in that much more volume of air to obtain an equivalent amount of oxygen. Yes, you could be right. But the 14% figure still comes from somewhere, and I shall hunt it down for you. What you're saying is that there is just X% less gas overall in the atmosphere at that elevation--viz., that everything is sparser--but that the percentage composition shouldn't change. That's certainly a defensible thesis, but is it correct? Stand by.
- I found the reference for it, which confirms my suspicion. See altitude.org. I've already fixed the article. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering about your delete template on the article 70% (Yūgure no Uta).
- It's as much advertising as Glamorous, Wild/Dr. or Forever Love is. It's, well, a music single, therefore a product.
- It ranked on a national music charts, showing notability as per WP:MUS. --Prosperosity (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of the three songs you mentioned:
- Glamorous went double Platinum
- Wild/Dr. hit #1 on multiple charts
- Forever Love hit #1 on a secondary chart (though I'm a little skeptical of the notability in this case)
- By contrast 70% (Yūgure no Uta) never got higher than the 30s (and that was it's debut position, it dropped from there), and barely sold. It's a matter of degree. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Additional note: I'd take the criteria regarding ranking on a national music chart with a grain of salt. It doesn't just have to rank, it has to rank relatively high, in a relatively large country (though Japan meets the latter criteria). Many of these charts have rankings going over 100 songs; you have to draw the line somewhere, or we'd have well over a million individual songs documented. I'm not 100% sure this is a bad article, thus the Proposed Deletion instead of Speedy Deletion. If you can provide more information regarding the notability of this song, please do. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- How about that? Ranked on three different charts, one an airplay chart at #7. --Prosperosity (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seems acceptable by WP:MUS standards. Now whether I think even popular singles deserve their own article is a different matter, but that's a whole different discussion and not related to the deletion of this specific article. I won't readd the proposed deletion tag. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- How about that? Ranked on three different charts, one an airplay chart at #7. --Prosperosity (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Additional note: I'd take the criteria regarding ranking on a national music chart with a grain of salt. It doesn't just have to rank, it has to rank relatively high, in a relatively large country (though Japan meets the latter criteria). Many of these charts have rankings going over 100 songs; you have to draw the line somewhere, or we'd have well over a million individual songs documented. I'm not 100% sure this is a bad article, thus the Proposed Deletion instead of Speedy Deletion. If you can provide more information regarding the notability of this song, please do. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
what is going on here?
To Whom It May Concern,
You say I am promoting something that I should not? What about "Life in a Jar". What about the movie "Couragous Heart of Irena Sendler"? Are they not promoting their contributions to Irena Sendler? Why is "Sleeping With The Angles", not contributing to Irena Sendler? I thought this is devoted to the memory of Irena Sendler, and what her life represented? What good is the encyclopedia about a subject that excludes actual facts that pertain to the subject? Your explaination defies your reason for including other inclusions, and excluding my contribution. This is not fair at all, and obviously is suspect to the valididity of any inclusions you have for all subjects. Perhaps it should be known about your "bias" to include what you feel to be "worthy" according to your prejudice?
Paul Millar~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulMillar (talk • contribs) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
...for pointing this out. Dismas|(talk) 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Geoff B started
Why don't you warn him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.139.254 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at your edit histories, it looks like you fired the first salvo (even if not a personal attack, making edit comments like "i love reverting your edits" is not appropriate), and there has been slow but steady escalation. It doesn't excuse Geoff; both of you need to restrain yourselves before this escalates any further.
- On a side note, please sign your posts on talk pages; the SineBot doesn't always fix it up for you. Just type ~~~~ after your post and it will fill in the signature for you.
- Finally, constantly adding a removing material for no reason is generally disruptive; if the edit shouldn't be made, don't make it in the first place. I notice a *lot* of activity where you make multiple edits in a row with no net effect. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I actually did leave a note on his talk page. Template warnings are generally frowned upon for established editors, so I was writing it out by hand. Have some patience. And stop deleting talk page history please. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well thank you for warning him. That's all I asked.
- I actually did leave a note on his talk page. Template warnings are generally frowned upon for established editors, so I was writing it out by hand. Have some patience. And stop deleting talk page history please. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)