Jump to content

User talk:Ex nihil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Djathinkimacowboy (talk | contribs) at 10:51, 21 October 2012 (→Anorak is not the same as "parka": strk obsolete post). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I removed the template as the article is up to A+ standards. Good work on Wiki, your edits are really beneficial. Ksenon 14:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asphyxia through hypobaric, Altitude, conditions

Hello and thank you!. Very interesting suggestion. It will however take some research since i'm not familiar with the biological mechanism that causes unconsciousness under hypobaric conditions. It will have to classify as asphyxia (aka. an overall reduction in oxygen in the body) to be included in the article. Unconsciousness due to acceleration, does not for instance count as asphyxia if we use that definition. But i'll see what I can do! ---Marcus- 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page WAP (disambiguation) for speedy deletion with the reason "adds no value and is misleading". However, "adds no value and is misleading" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Therapeutic horseback riding and Great Strides Therapeutic Riding, Inc.

I saw your comments about Great Strides Therapeutic Riding, Inc. Could you please take a look at the articles Therapeutic horseback riding and North American Riding for the Handicapped Association and make any changes or additions that you think appropriate? TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Therapeutic Riding is just fine, I couldn't improve on it and don't know the subject. I think the comment you referred to was probably deleted after I read these. The problem is only with GSTR, if GSTR has additonmal information this should sit in THR. Ex nihil 06:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SWB3 temp.jpg

Hi. Nice pic. On Talk:Drowning the question came up if the image is staged (I assumed so). Could you please clarify, preferably also on the image page. Many thanks! -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation pages

hey, i randomly picked a user from the list of disambiguators, so i hope you don't mind answering my question. i've got a spot where i need to create a disamb. page, but in my searching i can only find out how to FIX disamb. pages, not create them. can you point me in the right direction? cheers! Murderbike 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to reply earlier, Murderbike. I am working in Dili, Timor Leste on an Australian capacity building project and getting reliable enough bandwidth on the internet to continue things like Wiki is very, very trying. There is a template for disambiguation but I can't get around the Wiki site fast enough to find it for you, just open a good example in edit mode and cut and paste the template with suitable changes. Ex nihil 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drowning

Hi. I have no problem with the image being staged, and it illustrates the situation very well. Also, the image has a proper license. What i am concerned with are the 4 other images with unsuitable free-use license added by another editor. Sorry for the misunderstanding --. Chris 73 | Talk 07:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ex Nihil, regarding those comments about "vandalism" about the reversed image, what's the difference. There has been a great deal of controversy over the image, and even if this doesn't totally help, this is meant to give a new angle to the drowning staging. It is not vandalism. Catherine Woods 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Catherine Woods. I took the picture to try to show people exactly what a victim of SWB looks like. Floating on the ceiling doesn't really convey the right image of what's happening. I appreciate your interest in the article but I would be really, really grateful if you could let it rest. Apart from anything else I am here in Dili, Timor Leste on an aid project and my internet bandwidth and access is extremely limited and unreliable. I am not able to cope with a lot of activity on my principal pages until I get back to Australia, it's about as much as I can do to download my watchlist and it's kind of stressful. I guess if the picture is going to get adjusted we'll just have to pull it but I think it's useful and it balances of the other one in deep water blackout. The picture is also there with the permission of the lady who helped me stage it, and I need to keep her happy that the image is being used as it was originally intended. Please help me to do that. Ex nihil 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new caption a lot better. Cheers! Jzerocsk 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste moves

I just noticed your edits to Wireless Application Protocol and WAP. It is very important that we keep the edit history for an article in one place and don't split it across multiple pages. When people contribute content to Wikipedia they retain copyright on their contributions so it is important that we can see who contributed what. By copying and pasting content from one place to another, you make the edit history less clear.

I've fixed the edit history on that article, but in future if you want to move an article either use the "Move this page" function or if that is not available please ask an Administrator.

Thank you. AlistairMcMillan 05:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystallization (love) AFD

Hey, this AFD was listed improperly, so I fixed it. However, when I went into the history, it says that you actually created the page with your keep vote, and added in the deletion reasoning later. However, it seems like you put someone else's name on it. Does User:JWSchmidt actually have anything to do with this? It's not really cool to put someone's name on an edit they didn't make. GlassCobra 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for fixing the AfD. JWSchmidt did actually AfD it but I don't think it was done correctly, it included a rather abrupt template that said it would be automatically up for deletion in five days if there was no response. I thought it needed some discussion and I changed the template, this also semed to delete the AfD. I was trying to acheive something I did not really know how to do properly, I still don't know how to do it properly but I know more than I did. My apologies. Ex nihil 08:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout

No, blackout is one of the stages before loss of consciousness.

The stages go, greyout, tunnel vision, black out, g-loc. You also have redout under negative g situations.

The use of the term blackout to mean g-loc or simple loss of consciousness is a misuse of the term, but it's commonly done and can doubtless be found in dictionaries.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Gastão Salsinha

A tag has been placed on Lieutenant Gastão Salsinha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Steve Crossin (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post to my talkpage. Do you have any independent, verifiable reliable sources to back up your claims? Without sources, this article doesn't stand a chance. Please ask if you need assistance in citing sources. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to Cabin Pressurization

I appreciate your corrections to the Cabin pressurization page. Cleaning up the unverified claims of "instantaneous decompression" and "supersonic squeals" was a service.

Mikepurves (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MythBusters

Please note that in order to cite where the show is produced, post-produced, and written (not just where Beyond is located), you should have an actual article or link showing (directly when you goto the link, not just somewhere on the site) that those processes of the show are done in that location. I know from videos that Beyond/MyBu have some staff in house at M5, including some production and research staff. Writing is almost certainly partly done there as well (in terms of Adam and Jamie - maybe not the narration - but without a specific source, it shouldn't even be in the article really. I'm just giving it some time to see if a good source actually does pop up. Cheers. TheHYPO (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There probably isn't a source, and there would not be. I have just been talking to the program manager in Artamon, NSW. Beyond create content with a view to selling into the international market and produce different version of Mythbusters for the USA, Australian, UK and European market. For a program of this type the Discovery Channel was an obvious client, but it is just a client. The Science Show episode mentioned above covered it in some deatil but one can't source that anymore. Ex nihil (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cabin pressurization table transclusion

Very elegant, well done. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of dab templates

Please (re)insert the {{disambig}} tags to Tao (disambiguation), Shot, Cap (disambiguation), and any other dabs you found or edited. When a page is tagged with {{disambig-cleanup}}, only the part where it says "-cleanup" is removed, not the full thing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I actually restored the one at the Tao dab earlier today, but I trust you can get to the others. Can I rely on that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, sorry about that. Learnt something. Ex nihil (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome!  --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Scouting in The Netherlands

What tag does it lack? I put a tag on the category itself, it says it was misplaced and should be on the talkpage. Thanks. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It lacks the Move proposal tag on the talk page of the article. You started the discussion just fine but did not put a tag. It's OK because I have put the tag in, have a look now Ex nihil (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it had been removed by another editor and I did not see that he had done so. Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faint

Personally I think that a disambig. for two items is a bit much and I believe a "See Also" link should be reserved for similar articles (in this case a condition similar to or including Syncope). I believe the way I went about it was the proper way to do it. Faint redirects there and the song has nothing to do with Syncope so a See Also page is inappropriate and I know the redirect at the top makes life easier for all of us who are actually looking for the song. Just my thoughts on it, though. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the See also use, that's not the right way. I still think that a hatnote redirect should be reserved for major items commonly be mistaken for each other, this isn't the case. I think a disambig at Faint might be useful even with 2 items but I think there would be more. It might be useful to also add Feint as well. A disambig may contain a number of songs of that title that may emerge. What think you? Ex nihil (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that does work, but I still believe that it should have the link to the song in that article for now (at least until more terms surface that include Faint in their names). From my experience on Wikipedia, it is usually best to put a link in the "{{redirect|redirected to this page|other use}}" format on top of the page if there is only one or two articles that have a similar title or could hold a given redirect I find a good example of that here. That's the way I see it happen most of the time, anyway. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 02:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, we cross edited. I made a disambig anyway. Have a look. I think it works quite nicely, RV if you hate it. Do what you want, I won't get upset. Got to leave this now. Bye Ex nihil (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Ireland

Having read over [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.--Domer48'fenian' 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

g-force

  • Ex nihil, the article is about g-force. That’s it’s title. If you want to edit an article on the unit g, then I suggest you create a new article on that subject. Greg L (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I do plan on adding a new section to the g-force article that specifically addresses and expands upon the subject of “force” as it applies to accelerations. This is a subject that seems to be central to what readers (and some editors) don’t understand about inertial and gravitational accelerations. Greg L (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that. But the article title is about g-force. So it 1) is much more natural to make the first words consistent with a discussion of g-force, and 2) to not begin a sentence with a lowercase g. There is nothing incorrect at all and it simply reads and looks better that way. What would be really helpful is if you could help me convince Wolfkeeper on an important point. He has been on a crusade that accelerometers don’t measure gravitational acceleration; only inertial accelerations. Greg L (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK I'll pick up the email. Re previous: That's good, I think it's the right approach but that opening para has got to go sometime or most people's reactions on reading are going to be "huh?". I note Wolfkeeper's efforts but I shall try to stay out of the technical debate I'll just concentrate on making it readable. Regarding little g at the beginning of the sentence I have no problem with that grammatically, or in the title, so long as it is a symbol. With the big G, well I note the references, frankly I think those guys in NASA were either just being sloppy that day or it was rewritten by their marketing staff. I remember my physics teacher drilling this into our minds so we did not confuse g with grams (g) or Gravity (G). I know Wiki just reports common usage but it is so widely referenced that it must also have some responsibility for actual truth. Right now we probably have 200,000 physics teachers tearing their hair out and telling their students Wiki ain't the gospel.

Just dumping some of my own text in here for the record:

    • g and g-force are synonymous, it doesn't need another article but this one does use very confused English. By comparison look at this children's encylopedia opening para for clarity. We need to get somewhere like this:

g (also gee, g-force or g-load) is a unit of acceleration defined as exactly 9.806 65 m/s2, approximately equal to the acceleration due to gravity on the Earth's surface. Gravity due to the earth is experienced the same as being accelerated upward with an acceleration of 1 g. The total g-force is found by vector addition of the opposite of the actual acceleration (in the sense of rate of change of velocity) and a vector of 1 g downward for the ordinary gravity (or in space, the gravity there). Weightlessness means a zero g-force, which is the result when acceleration due to movement is equal to that due to gravity. The symbol g is always written in lowercase, to distinguish it from the symbol G, the gravitational constant, which is always written in uppercase. Ex nihil (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~ 

Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tao Te Ching deletion

Oh, It is because I think "Tao" do not have the meaning of the Tao Te Ching. Matthew 百家姓之四 Discussion 討論 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decompression sickness

We got some help from Doctor's Mess, so I think Decompression sickness must be close to being a Good Article now. Once we've got a few more items in History, I think it will be time to list it at WP:GAN. As you've done a lot of the work in bringing it up to standard (as well as sorting out DCI), will you do the nomination when you think it's ready? I know Gene and I will be on hand to help field any suggestions that come out of the review, so it would be a nice collaboration. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I deserve much credit for this, it's mostly you and Gene. Anyway, I'm happy to nominate it in due course, a little way to go yet. Ex nihil (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don (Vilaine)

I just created this article Don (Vilaine). Markussep Talk 17:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groupers dangerous

If Anthony is going to insist on keeping groupers on the hazards list, perhaps we should include "getting scooped up by a firefighter's plane and dumped onto flames" as I could at least find a cite for that (in Urban Legends) :) {Seriously no, we'd be banned for WP:POINT). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Thank you for the correction. I would like to note that it would be correct for me to make the correction in American items such as a center in hockey; whereas I should probably keep a Canadian as centre. Either way, I appreciate your help.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on your revert on my edit

Please see [1] --Stefan talk 03:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swedes on Air France Flight 447

See this, which cites this 5 July 2009 story about the identification of the Swedish woman, resident in Brasil, travelling with her 5 year old son (his nationality is not stated). Her husband and daughter took a different flight.LeadSongDog come howl 04:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a problem with dual citizenship and the passport used when checking in with Air France. The current list matches the Air France official list with the exception of one pilot listed here as Argentinian wheras AF thinks he is French. If you add the Swede you need to: 1. reconcile this with AF's list, 2. recalculate the totals at the end of the row and 3. make sure the last column still adds up to the total number on board. As it was the numbers didn't add up, somebody needs to be removed elsewhere. The all up total nobody questions and cannot be changed. Ex nihil (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying an aircraft is certified to 6g's has absolutely nothing to do with g-force.

"It is valid and useful to say my airplane is certified to +6g/-3g, it's even got a g recorder to measure it. "

Saying an aircraft is certified to 6g's has absolutely nothing to do with g-force. RHB100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please explain. 6g means 6x the force of gravity, a g-force of 6 Ex nihil (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Aagaard NTLA Speaker.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Aagaard NTLA Speaker.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SWB diagrams

Thanks for your message.

Actually the reason I wanted to make changes to the diagram was that I found it very difficult to understand. The area behind the graph was divided into four regions: Normal breathing, dive, blackout zone and an unlabeled white region. The reason I found this very confusing was that the meaning of the background color varied: in the case of the "normal breathing" box, it signifies a temporal phase of the dive. The box labeled "dive" should, I thought, should signify a temporal phase of the dive too, though for some reason it is delimited to the top of the diagram. The "blackout zone" on the bottom, on the other hand, signifies a range of values for the O2 level and it has no significance in relation to the CO2 level, nor does it have anything to do with time, which took me a while to get. (The CO2 line, for example passes through the "normal breathing" box, then into the "blackout region" box, then the "dive" box, then the unlabeled region and finally comes back into the "blackout zone" box. An interpreter of the diagram has to realize to dismiss this as meaningless.)

Hence, I believed the following distinctions would help make the diagram more understandable:

  • Labeled (or colored) regions of the diagram signify temporal phases of the dive
  • Labeled dashed lines signify threshold values for the O2 or CO2 values (colored correspondingly)

The CO2 trigger threshold does not have a label because I thought it would have been very difficult to fit it into the diagram. I thought, though, that the color of the line associated it with CO2 and the point on the plot and the labeled arrow would avail the meaning to the reader.

The reason why I felt it was unnecessary to color the regions was perhaps my graphic design roots: Large labels and textured backgrounds tend to give an unprofessional touch. I do agree, though, that a blue color intuitively suggests "water" or "dive".

Tell me what you think in light of these comments and let's find a way to improve the diagram. – Acdx (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The diagram is hard to get right, I have wrestled with it myself. It started out because people seemed to struggle visualising what is actually going on and the diagram helped a lot, the supressed CO2 response is not particlarly intuitive. The original base article I wrote for the Australian Surf Life Saving Association following a number of SWB deaths in the Northern Territory and when they gave it to a newspaper the newspaper editors reduced it effectively to... if you hold your breath underwater too long you might black out, which entirely misses the point, either the editors didn't get it or, more likley, they shrewdly realised that their readership wasn't going to get it, so I did the diagram and people seem to respond well to it, I saw it stuck on the wall of my local swimming pool a while back after they had a near drowning.

    I agree with your points: the diagram needs to be as clean and simple as is possible, but notwithstanding this the temporal underwater phase would be helped if shaded blue if ever so subtlely and...; somehow the dashed lines need to show clearly that anything above ↑ the CO2 line induces breathing and anything below ↓ the O2 line means unconciousness (that was the purpose of the blackout box - the RSLSA version I did had a skull and crossbones in it but I know you wouldn't like that, gets attention 'though). I toyed with putting CO2 & O2 partial pressure gas scales to the left and right in matching colours and labelling the x axis TIME but I thought this would just lose everybody and actually when you go into detail the pps are really complex because the dive alters these scales in complex ways. Keep playing with diagrams, the idea they communicate have and will continue to save lives. Ex nihil (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with your suggestions… I'll play with the diagram and get back to you. – Acdx (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I now played around with the diagram:
Changes include:
  • Blackout zone is now a region. It is colored red and labeled "O2 blackout zone" to associate it with oxygen levels.
  • Dive region is colored blue.
  • The CO2 trigger threshold is labeled.
Comments appreciated. – Acdx (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, let's go with 1 & 2. I'll know who to come to if I need diagrams in future! Ex nihil (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bearing with my stubbornness. :) – Acdx (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for pointing the issue with Form (disambiguation) out rather than just reverting it. My edit was actually intentional. The intended link was to the dab page for 'form' not a specific page; by adding '(disambiguation)' the page can easily be dismissed in future searches for pages with disambiguation links. I should have, however, added a | so it will display as Form, it's now fixed. J04n(talk page) 02:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unibody

I saw your writeup about stressed skin and you seem quite knowledgable. I made a video about the latest (c6) Corvette ZO6 regarding its chassis as a ladder frame. or perimeter-ladder. It clearly meets the definition in wiki. I got a lot of wrath from fanboys stating that its a spaceframe. It does not meet wikis definition for spaceframe in any way even if you stretch the term. Although everyone seems to call it that maybe because its a cool sounding word. The guy who designed the car states its a backbone-spaceframe hybrid. But it looks like he's mistaken the torque tube for a load bearing member which are completely different things. But he designed the car so hes not stupid. Maybe he's just talking up his product. Further, the Corvette does not meet monocoque or unibody definitions. Nor is it claimed by anyone. Clearly, the Corvette has reinforcements But the way it channels loads to the wheels can best be described as a classic Ladder. Many corporations (GM, Dana, Alcoa) calling it a spaceframe have a dog in the race and the zealots see Ladder as a negative connotation so theres little consensus in the world. Do you have any scientific input on the ladder frame? Is there a test for it? thanks Scott espritzen@aol.com

p.s. Do you drive a Chevrolet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.144.102 (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably I do not drive a Chevrolet and I haven't had a chance to look under the skin. If I did I would be looking to see how the principal loads were carried and I might do this with an oxy torch. First, I'd cut the shell off and if the car didn't crumble into a heap I'd know it wasn't a monocoque. With the skin off I'd then torch through most of the smaller supporting struts and bits and pieces and if the thing could still be made to drive then it wasn't a spaceframe. Next, if I saw a very few major members still left that looked important and appeared to be acting as beams and if I then cut them and the car broke then it was a chassis all along, ladder or otherwise. One feature of the space frame is that the members act in concert and the loads in each member are often mathematically indeterminate; cutting the odd member out reroutes the loads and should still leave a viable structure, will your Chevy allow this? Having said that, I am but an architect, admittedly where space frames came from, but I don't presume to be a mechanical engineer. PS, if you feel moved to lend me your Corvette for further analysis I promise not to cut it up but I think it would enjoy a run on our Northern Territory roads where there is no speed limit. Ex nihil (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Added + rollbacker + confirmed user + autoreviewer for you. -- Samir 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Congrats on getting rollback. Hope it helps out.--Coldplay Expert 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Habibi Silsila

You are absolutely right we need some editing. I would appreciate you can guide me to edit.. the article.. Thank you indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.249.141 (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haamed, I will reply by email. Ex nihil (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering help us to straighten the article for this renowned sufi saint of India.

Please do the needful. You may send message

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.249.141 (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to you about this to your hotmail address, reply my email. Better that way. Ex nihil (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caudron G.3

Hello Ex nihil !

Have seen some of your contributions in the past and looked at your talk page.

It is kind of you to have improved the quality of the Caudron G.3 image I put in the Wikipedia article. Yes - my little camera's flash was not strong enough! Have since learned how to improve my images, but had not reworked that one.

If you would email it to me at xxx, I would try to replace the existing image with your improved version - but I also have problems sometimes with Wiki Commons!

RuthAS (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grassy Ass

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Userpage. :) Crafty (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, there are some strange people around Ex nihil (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sir.

I was just warned by you to stop making edits to Wikipedia. As the other two were unconstructive, this last one, to Ron Jeremy was not. That is FACTUAL information and I would appreciate it if you would watch what you "revert". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.114.156 (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be factual but your edits to Prison Break and Female Ejaculation, which were also reverted by others did not inspire confidence in any edits that you might make subsequently. If you want your edits to stick it would be good if you could build a reputation for making constructive edits. It would also help your credibility if you could make an account and edit under a username. Please feel free to continue editing but make your edits count for something, vandalism is too ordinary. Ex nihil (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Jeremy

Although my two previous posts were unconstructive ( I could sit here and type what happened, but it really would not matter ), previous posts should not have anything to do with current or future posts. You "reverting" something because you placed a judgment on me is discrimination. Does Wikipedia promote discrimination? I would appreciate it if you would kindly replace my edit to Ron Jeremy. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.114.156 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't replace it because there is still no citation and I feel the rv was legitimate but feel free to put it back yourself and see what others think of it, your edits are likely to be monitored by others because of your track record. I won't be monitoring it myself. Ex nihil (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just watch the show?

Have you seen this show? They have ruined a beloved franchise, and everyone knows it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.4.74 (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't watched the show. Maybe if I had I would agree with your assessment, unfortunately it would still be just an opinion and it would still have to be reverted. To make the edits stick you need to find a third party source that can be quited, which makes the claim. Ex nihil (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is a metacritic.com user score of less than 5.0 good enough? There are very few shows, with a good number of reviews, that do that poorly among the general public. Case in point, I couldn't find one current show with a lower user score.

Maybe, but you could only say, "It declined from x - 5.0" or "it had a score of 5.0" or "Magazine Y said...." Stick to verifiable facts, it's an encyclopedia not a chat session. Ex nihil (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curling "burning" issue

That section is still pretty bad. If you ask me the main problem is that the article mysteriously concentrates on the different passages in the rules of the different rules bodies instead of just explaining what the rules are trying to accomplish, which is to punish teams for burning rocks and minimize the impact on the outcome of the game otherwise. Those minor differences in rules don't really belong in that section or probably anywhere in wikipedia.Bollinger (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I totally agree. I have been trying to tighten up the whole article but I have stopped short of actually removing whole sections. The rulke details don't really belong in Wikipedia. Why don't you try to rewrite it once again? But you get "burned" by somewbody who likes it that way. Ex nihil (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Price A380

Hi, I've looked at your message that you've left on the Airbus page, and answered it. I hope it helps. Kind regards--DragonFly31 (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-777 ECS system

I note that you added a word to [this page], and your justification was that the B-777 didn't have the same kind of engine bleed air system, to supply cabin pressurization, as other aircraft. Unfortunately, that is incorrect. It does have the same kind of high/low pressure bleed air system, as other airliners. See this link: [2] EditorASC (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Retired B-777 Capt.)[reply]

  • Of course, you are right. I meant the 787, which has bleedless turbofans and electrical air compressors.
Thanks for the super-quick reply. Do you mind if I rephrase it to say something like: "With the exception of the new Boeing 787, the air in a jet or turboprop aircraft cabin is supplied by bleed air from the aircraft’s engines."  ? EditorASC (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:SWB1b.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:SWB1b.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 hangon 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. Tim1357 talk 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:SWB2b.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:SWB2b.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 hangon 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. Tim1357 talk 05:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Deletion due to Incubator Inactivity: Habibi Silsila

Hi. The Article Incubator Candidate Habibi Silsila has been tagged for deletion, due to inactivity. If you object, please add a message on the Talk page. Thanks.     Eclipsed   ¤     19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

move Black Out (music)?

Would you have any objection to me moving Black Out (music) to Black Out (The Good Life album)? This would follow the pattern used by other albums on the disambiguation page. Black Out (album) already redirects there. Nick Number (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Melbourne meetup this Saturday

Melbourne Meetup
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup at North Melbourne this Saturday (23 July). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 16 Hope to see you there! JVbot (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC) (this automated message was delivered to all users at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/Participants)[reply]

Countries vs Principalities

Your edit to American and British English today is inaccurate, unfortunately our corporate firewall is preventing me from reverting it, so I'll make do with an explanation here and ask you to review your change!

A principality is an area governed by a prince. Sovereign principalities such as Andorra are countries in their own right, just that historically the ruler has been a prince rather than a king. Non-sovereign principalities also exist from which either practically or purely notionally a prince takes his title.

A country is a geographical region, commonly associated with a sovereign state. Probably the most obvious exception to the common usage is the United Kingdom which as a sovereign state encompasses the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of these four only Wales is ever referred to as a principality, and that as a customary not constitutional usage.

May I recommend Principality and Country to you? They explain the position fairly clearly. Is you require additioinal help on this, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is a very American view. I know England is not a country because I am English but then I am 60 years old so just in case I have become out of touch with recent usage I asked the British High Commissioner for the Solomon islands (I am in Honiara at the moment) "Is England a country?" and he said of course not, the country is the UK. I doubt if anybody in the UK would see England Scotland and Wales as countries, very strange idea. Is Hawai'i a country? If it is, I shall concede the point. Ex nihil (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid the BHC is making the common mistake of confusing a sovereign state with a country. England has not been a sovereign state since the Act of Union, but is certainly still an identifiable country with a distinct legal system from Scotland. I'm not sure why you refer to "a very American view", the USA is a sovereign state consisting of a federation of non-sovereign states. You might well call the individual states "countries", but AFAIK it has never been US practice to do so. The case of Hawaii is interesting, it was a sovereign state until 1898 (monarchy until 1893, republic thereafter) when the USA annexed it as a territory. So is it a country? Perhaps, you'd need to ask a Hawaiian about their current preferred usage. I'm afraid that your assertion that "I doubt .. as countries" is just plain wrong. Whilst many Englishmen seem to be uncertain about country, I can assure you that the Welsh, and even more so, Scots definitely are not! Finally, do remember that country can be used in a looser context: The Black Country or the North Country for example. Oh, and in case it is relevant, I'm a Yorkshireman who has lived all his life in England, though with relatives in Scotland whom I visit regularly.

I'll concede the point, I suppose the meaning has drifted over my lifetime. I'll go with the flow, Wikiwise, but personally I think I'll stick to A country as a sovereign state and country as a piece of land, Kent is beautiful country but it certainly isn't a country. Safer that way, I work in developing countries, if I start referring to Irian Jaya as a country I might end up in an Indonesian jail! Ex nihil (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new medical resource

Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). I posted this message becasue of your interest in -baric disorders. [Here] are some altitude-related disorders. Presto54 (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How high could the piston airliners fly?

I have responded to your inquiry [here] 66.81.52.253 (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July WMAU Melbourne Meetup

Hi, At last month's June meetup we discussed the idea of setting up a Training Course at a University of the Third Age (U3A) to be held in 2013 and named Becoming a Wikipedia editor. In order to get this course up and running we are calling for volunteers to help develop the idea, and either tutor part of the course, or provide one on one help to students in the class. All local Wikipedians are welcome to discuss this at our 11am meetup to be held this Sunday on 22 July. Please add your name to the attending list at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 23. Food and beverages are provided. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of CIR (Citizens Initiated Referenda/Referendum)

Thanks for your explanation and suggestions. I will contribute a page on CIR (Citizens Initiated Referenda/Referendum) and link that to the disambiguation page in accord with the online style guidance. I'm puzzled and surprised by the alacrity with which you have taken it upon yourself to remove my contribution twice, especially when other entries on the same disambiguation page do not meet the style criteria you have invoked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.148.105.64 (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I agree some of the remaining ones are non-compliant but they are all much better than they were. We did a big cleanup of them all a long time ago but don't always correct everything; it was just that this one was a new entry and was worth sorting at inception. Sorry if you thought it harsh. Feel free to improve those other entries. Good luck with starting the new page, being a new page you will find it heavily scrutinised. Compose it offline, making sure it meets the MOS requirements has good citations before you post it or it will just get ripped down in about 20 minutes. If it lasts a week it will probably survive. It's hard to start a page and get it to stick. Ex nihil (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anorak is not the same as "parka"

Is this the way to go here? Over such a small change? Let me remind you that at least in England, "anorak" is basically offensive as an insult. Only third or fourth definition has it defined as a parka coat. You find and cite a source that people say "anorak" when they mean "parka"--go ahead, find some citations that state that. Certainly people may use a term in other parts of the world, and those particular Natives who invented it might still use that term--but in WP articles, we use the term that is most common in the West.~©Djathinkimacowboy 00:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to consider this quote from the article's lead: 'The words anorak and parka have possibly been used interchangeably, but they are somewhat different garments. Strictly speaking, an anorak is a waterproof, hooded, pull-over jacket without a front opening, and sometimes drawstrings at the waist and cuffs, and a parka is a knee-length cold-weather jacket or coat; typically stuffed with down or very warm synthetic fiber, and with a fur-lined hood.' There's your answer as to why this article should be called PARKA, with a section on the anorak. That article is one of the less than impressive things I've ever seen on WP. And when you reverted me, your edit summary simply proves further that there ought to be two articles, one for each garment.~©Djathinkimacowboy 05:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, why is that article apparently one and the same as Amauti? That is just wrong. Considering I tried editing and ended up at Amauti, in which I had practically no interest but why would I end there when I started editing at Anorak?~©Djathinkimacowboy 00:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)--striking obsolete post. Sorry. It is no longer a problem.~©Djathinkimacowboy 10:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ex_nihil&oldid=519000737"