User talk:Pinkbeast

Re: "level-headed and balanced assessment of the situation"

No problem. This is a very delicate situation where groups have dug in trenches long before this specific issue came up. Emotions can run high, and with all the mounting ridiculousness on Twitter and FB, it's a relief to check the Talk page and find someone like you there. Please, keep it up. clicketyclick 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above

I have left the above on my talk page not as indicative of my level-headedness, of which I possess almost none, but because in the over five years I have been editing, no-one has ever suggested before that I might be the calm voice of reason. I look forward to it happening again in 2020 or so.

A cynic would observe that, on this occasion, some of the other editors involved may have been associated with the "ethics in internet misogyny" crowd, and that even I look good next to them. Particularly if that cynic was me getting back to my usual unreasonable self. :-) Pinkbeast (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2015

Injector Page Edit

Hi, I'm the person who made the change to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injector page that you recently undid. Can you tell me what your issue is with my edit? Also, I have no idea how to communicate on wikipedia here so please feel free to tell me I'm doing something wrong - literally just made an account to respond to your undo. Honestly, there are a lot of problems with the Venturi/Bernoulli pages as well as the related pages that I'd like to help fix SteveSmith98 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncited, and there are cites to say it works as the page currently describes it. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited? It was a quote from an existing citation (#10), and I clearly cited the quote. So...how is that uncited?

The citations that, as you put it, "say it works as the page currently describes" don't actually do that. If you read citation #3, which I have, it matches my edit and not the existing text.

I can't say how accurate it aligns with #4 since that's not accessible online, but my guess is not very well since the existing explanation is factually incorrect. Nevertheless, using the existing citations on the page, I have 2 of them that agree with my change, zero that agree with the existing text, and 1 that we can't evaluate because it is inaccessible.

So...do you still believe the revert is an improvement? If it makes you happier I can replace the Operation section with an exact copy/paste from existing citation #3 (instead of the copy paste from citation #10 with you rejected). Does that work?SteveSmith98 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added cite #4, which does mention the Venturi effect, which is important; if the input steam remained above atmospheric pressure the water would never get into the combining cone at all. Much of the page is confused because it can't quite decide if it's about boiler injectors or other devices. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you directly quote cite #4 to me then?

The article says "reducing its pressure to below atmospheric which enables it to entrain a fluid" implying (perhaps unintentionally?) that low-pressure is necessary to entrain the fluid. Low pressure might be required to get the fluid up into the combining cone, but per cite 3 and cite 10 it has nothing to do with the entrainment - they clearly state that's momentum exchange via friction/viscosity.

Also, in your statement, "which does mention the Venturi effect, which is important; if the input steam remained above atmospheric pressure" - low pressure is only required in a lifting injector. It's not required in a non-lifting injector. Furthermore, what support do you have for your assertion that the low-pressure (in lifting injects) is a result of the Venturi effect rather than simple viscosity?SteveSmith98 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Talas

Hello. See the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Sasanian_War_of_602%E2%80%93628 There that parameter is using not just standart terms Victory or Inconclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah5 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to suggest fixing that on the talk page of that article, but don't commit the error elsewhere just because you found it committed somewhere. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Revert

You made mention of some discussion, but a discussion involves two or more people. A discussion never happened. Just because you feel something isn't notable doesn't make it so. There are lots of notable people, events, etc. without an article. I don't want to get into a revert war. So don't revert. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who failed to discuss it, so unless you do, I see no reason your inclusion of apparently non-notable entries should stand. If need be I'll launch an RFC which will, of course, agree with me that the article should be organised in common with the overwhelming majority of list articles. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False flag

I don't understand why you think the Rhine confederation flag Is a "fictional flag" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900B:112:9C00:DCF1:FC33:79EE:4029 (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually pinkbeast and Drmies there is a reason I did all those edits. its because of the flags like the second Saudi state, Hungary, and confederation of the Rhine I didn't want the flags to be removed just like how Yemen's 1923 flag was removed. I hope you two understand.

I have no idea what you're alluding to with "how Yemen's 1923 flag was removed", but as Drmies says, Talk:Confederation of the Rhine explains very clearly how that flag is fictional. It might be better to discuss it there if you have any reason to suppose it's not. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't it says that" the discussion is closed please do not modify it" plus I am new in the editing stuff, that is probably why you think I am socking. even though I understand why you think that it is a fictional flag. but according to me that's not the case. Me saying that the Yemen flag from 1923-1927 was removed just search flags of Yemen and you will see

Talk:Confederation of the Rhine does not say anything of the kind, so please explain yourself there (I think you may be seeing that text on an entirely different discussion on User_talk:Drmies). It seems unlikely to me now you are a sock since the other person restoring the fictitious flag has never used a talk page at all, although it does also seem unlikely you are an expert on Napoleonic-era flags. If you want to refer me to something pertaining to the flag of Yemen, please provide a link. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked, if you mean this removal, then the image was removed from Commons because there was no information about its source. Obviously when the image didn't exist anymore, there was no point in the page referring to it, but also this is an entirely different case to this one where I have removed the flag from Wikipedia pages because there is no reason to suppose it is authentic. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Marys Page

Hi, I noticed you keep disputing the headteacher section that I'm trying to upload to the St Mary's School, Gerrards Cross. All headteachers up to 1960 are in the book I originally referenced, the rest are archived in writing in the school itself. I don't see the problem. Elderpoptarts (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book you referenced for headteachers up to the 1970s, you mean? I can only go by the cites actually provided, and the cites actually provided were a book published in 1960 for events in the 1970s (so I know you're willing to list a cite that doesn't actually support the material in the article) and some cites that didn't actually list the dates in question.

To boot, the list of headteachers doesn't really seem to merit inclusion. None of them are notable in the Wikipedia sense. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CV

Hi, I only changed the wording in the St Mary's School, Gerrards Cross article because according to Earwig's copyright detector, that whole section about Gwyneth Bebb is copied from Attain News. I've rewritten it, if you don't like it fix it but don't revert it back. Thank you. JC7V (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Had I known it was a copyvio I would not have reverted it the first time. I presume you have checked the rest of the page. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, it would help if you had read my edit summary. Bebb v Law Society _did not_ open the legal profession to women. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bani j

Please stop put a useless picture of her the 2010 picture is better then the 2017 one. You need to stop doing vandalism and we are not all going to go by ur wish all the time. If you do this again I will report you to a admin to block you.