User talk:HumphreyW

Citrus3511

The first time I put boggy on wiki, i didn't put info, so it got deleted. The second time I put it on, I did put info about Venus. That also got deleted. The 3rd time, I got a message, it said that I needed to put info on it but, I did put info on the second time. --Citrus3511 (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 581 c

The IP who changed the distance of Gliese 581 c was a vandal, but when I went to correct it, I found the sources were saying was 20.5 light years, for example even the first source in the text body says so [1]. If 20.3 light years is truly accepted maybe we should explain the discrepancy to our source(s)? Fletcher (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used that value of 20.3 light years from all the other pages on wikipedia Gliese 581, Gliese 581 b and Gliese 581 d. I understand the value is calculated on the main star's page Gliese 581 from the parallax values (160.91 ± 2.62) here. If the value 160.91 is in error then ideally all the pages should be adjusted together. HumphreyW (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for explaining. Fletcher (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Centauri

You reverted my revert regarding Alpha Centauri being brighter than Arcturus. I'm sorry, but you were incorrect.

The point under discussion was the apparant magnitude of the combined light of α Cen A and α Cen B when compared to that of Arcturus. The Alpha Centauri system is, indeed, brighter than Arcturus.

The very next sentence in the article compares Arcturus to α Centuri A alone, where it already states that Arcturus is the brighter. You have conflated two different statements.

I have, once again, reverted to the original, which was correct. B00P (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read your explanation in the talk page of the article. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I thought it was just a simple mistake, but you have made it clear to me now. HumphreyW (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. B00P (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit was not spam

I did not understand how my edit classify as spam. GAIA is a bonafide manufactures of Lithium Polymer battery. How can putting a reference to a manufacturer be spam?

There are references to several other commercial companies in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.166.23 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a link to a company selling batteries. It does not add to the encyclopaedic content of the article. HumphreyW (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy's law deletion

Nature always sides with the hidden flaw. In general, I agree with deleting these (this article used to be far, far worse for this) but this one is specifically identified as Murphy's law on what appears to be an official West Point page that cadets are obliged to learn by heart. That at least makes it notable, even if it isn't historically accurate. SpinningSpark 07:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem, I will leave it there from now on. HumphreyW (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Kantimathi

Hello. I've had to remove your proposed deletion for Sam Kantimathi because it's been proposed for deletion in the past, and someone believed it should not be deleted. It's not possible to re-propose deletion, but necessary to go through a full articles for deletion process. If I hadn't done this, the closing admin would have done, and I make no comment on the article at all. CJPargeter (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update and advice. HumphreyW (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the AfD page is very confusing. So many "if this ..." and "if that ...", I'm not sure I know what is the proper thing to do. Rather than mess things up yet again I'll just leave it alone and try to keep myself out of trouble. HumphreyW (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adding evolving technology aspect

Hi Humphrey,

I do not understand why my contribution was taken out.

There is no link to any external web page in the content at all. The foot note points to a page of an ongoing physical experiment. The fact that many people are needed, to perform the experiment should not be a 'dubious' aspect. And if Wiki is not supporting science, what is it good for anyway...

On what grounds did you classify the page as dubious?

Regards Walter --Waltgith (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two major problems with your contribution. Firstly, you marked your edit as minor when it was not minor. Secondly, the website is not a quality reference suitable for an encyclopaedia. The site does not appear to have any notable people behind it, there is not any mention of scientific studies on the possible chance of success and I can not find any references to other places/site that might validate the experiment the site is describing. In short, it appears quite to be a user/fan page style of website asking for participants rather than expanding scientific knowledge. If this is incorrect then please feel free to show where/how it is of scientific significance.

Also note that Wikipedia is not a place for links to everywhere, it tries to be of high quality and high standards where possible. Things like users websites (with very few exceptions) are generally not acceptable for such purposes. HumphreyW (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, compared to the time travel entry my small paragraph seemed minor to me. But of course minor is surely a definable term and I may not know the Wiki definition. I apologise for this. When Einstein published his first work, he was not a notable person at all. Wouldn't you agree? But still his work was very valuable for the scientific community. And also I can not see the major difference between the Time Traveler Convention at MIT and the linked experiment. The experimental settings are very similar, only that the technology would have been evolved by 2012. --Waltgith (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, you can see the Wikipedia article about minor edits from my link. Also feel free to search for Wikipedia about acceptable links for references. HumphreyW (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metamaterial

Hi, Sorry. We were editing the same section at the same time. I was adding content and creating new sub sections and apparently I inadvertantly undid some of your spelling corrections. I apologize for that. I will go through your corrections, one by one, and restore your corrections. I don't want you to think your work is in vain. Thank you for the great job you are doing. And please continue. Ti-30X (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem, I'll let you do your thing for another few days (or so) and then I'll go though it again. HumphreyW (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battery charger

Hi HumphreyW, referencing this kind of info 'properly' is difficult, due to a lack of stable authoratative souce, but these two may help 1)http://www.instructables.com/id/Ipod_Touch_Charger_100_works/ and 2) http://www.usb.org/developers/usbfaq/#pow_dis 79.76.177.165 (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your second reference I can't find any mention of a charger. In the first reference (it appears to be a just a hobbyist website) it states 150kOhm, different from your submission of 10k-15kOhm. I also doubt the reliability of the source, a single hobbyist website is not generally considered an authoritative source. Plus your submission fails to mention on what (or what type of) device where this circuit would be useful and where its use would be harmful. For these reasons I will revert again. Please feel free to find a reliable source that has more complete information with some sort of testing methodology to back up claims, and also possibly provide details about how and where the modification can be used properly. HumphreyW (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find your actions unhelpful. revertion is a easy action on your part. I carefully selected my wording so as to aid and educate a viewer with information with which to further their understanding. An unknowledgable viewer (not yourself) attempting to implement accidental harmful use would have failed to harm due to ommision of a 'basic given fact', that any knowledgable user would have implemented. Regarding 10to15Kohm versus 150kohm, this is, you had researched the topic further is a matter of varied opinion. If my tone appears unfriendly or terse, it is not intended to, i only wish to convey accurate communication. I wish to use my time better to elucidate topics within this great work of ours. 79.76.177.165 (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, also Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F HumphreyW (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venus day

Good morning. I Realized the linked page states 1.92 days for venus year: so I changed the wikipedia venus page in other languages: everybody in that languagues pointed me it was wrong. From sunrise to sunrise is 243,0187. I do not understand why do you prefer having a wrong wikipedia English page, diferent than French, German, Spanish, etc. ....

It is Wikipedia policy to follow the sources, see WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If you have a better more reliable reference source then you are free to make edits to show the new source. However the original figure of 1.92 is actually correct. Perhaps you have mistakenly forgotten that Venus rotates in retrograde motion. This means the days are quicker than you might expect. HumphreyW (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon: I thought that information of wikipedia was source: if you look you can read that: "..Sidereal rotation period -243.018 5 .." Of course - means Venus (As Uranus) rotates in retrograde, but it takes 243,0187 days from sunrise to sunrise. I still do not understand why you do prefer having a wrong wikipedia English (taking wrong sources) page (specially if you have references like: Clabon Walter Allen and Arthur N. Cox (2000). Allen's Astrophysical Quantities. Springer. pp. 296. ISBN 0387987460), diferent than French, German, Spanish, etc. ....

Sidereal period is not the same as sunrise to sunrise. Retrograde rotation causes the "day" to be shorter. Try it with two coins. Rotate one coin retrograde while orbiting another fixed coin and count the number of "sunrises" it sees. HumphreyW (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you desire more proof then have a look at the NASA fact sheet. If shows the Length of Day (hours) = 2802 (116.75 days) and the Orbital Period (days) = 224.7 - giving a year of 1.92 days. HumphreyW (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are right, i'm not considering the retrograde rotation, sorry. i will correct in wiki spanish. greetings Hprmedina (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler-Noll-Vo hash function

In the spirit of compromise, I've edited down the article to a size that I think is reasonable, given the notability and reliable sources. I would appreciate your input. Phil Spectre (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary cell

While I am one of the more aggressive to use speedy close, there does not appear to be any pressing need to speedy close the move request of Primary cell. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]