Welcome!

• Awards
• Older discussions:

Archive 1: 5 July 2005 to 31 July 2006

Archive 2: Up to 20 April 2007

Archive 3: Up to 15 October 2008

I have responded to your concern; please take another look. Thank you! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 22:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks! I'd give you a prompt responder barnstar, but there isn't one just yet. So thanks. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 22:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll give myself a Prompt Responder asterisk: * — BillC ^talk 23:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 7 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cavallo's multiplier, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to implicate you or anything, I just wanted to credit you for being the observant one to notice the problem (rather than implying that I was the one who had caught it). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. I personally never wait for editors to clean up plagiarism themselves, as I think it gives Wikipedia a bad reputation and every second it is left sitting there is another opportunity for someone to see it. But I think I am a bit of a fanatic in that respect. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review. Have added the sentences, which are referred. If you want, can add more references. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 13 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arcing horns, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 15 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jadad scale, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent, interesting new article.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I came across the term in a book recently and was surprised that we didn't have an article on it, though we did have several links in articles. — BillC ^talk 12:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I also came across it recently, but I can't remember where - possibly it was in Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science.--A bit iffy (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't remember it being there, though I'll check my copy. I read about it in Ernst's and Singh's Trick or Treatment. It would have helped if I had had my copy while I was writing this... but I had lent it to someone... — BillC ^talk 13:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After having now checked, it is in fact mentioned in both. Still, we have our own little article now. — BillC ^talk 20:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notified, in Chinese & English. BTW I noticed your comment in User talk:Мэн-1. I also notice that this user added false info in Template:Chicago Bulls roster Russia national football team. ... and even earlier. I warned him in talk page. `'Míkka>t 19:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for the tip. Engineman (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am writing to you because you have listed yourself as a member of the Electronics WikiProject. Sadly, this project is pretty dead, but I propose to resuscitate it with a collaboration. The idea is to have a concerted effort on improving one article per month, hopefully to GA or FA status and nominate the very best of them for the front page. I have prepared a page to control this process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Collaboration (actually, I mostly shamelessly stole it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals where a collaboration of this sort was succesfully run). There you can make nominations for articles for collaboration or comment on the nominations of others.

If you want to take part you might like to place this template ((WikiProject Electronics Collaboration)) on your userpage which will give you a link to the current collaboration. If you are no longer interested in Wikiproject Electronics, please remove yourself from the members list, which is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Members

Thanks for listening, SpinningSpark 17:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to the constant disruption of List of alleged UFO-related entities , I have entered a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_user_ScienceApologist DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that it didn't work with the reward for the core contest and I'm willing to sponsor it by sending a package of quality lebkuchen. All I need is an adress. My email is kurt.scholz[at]gmx.de. In case you have reservations, sending me your adress User:Proteins has agreed to handle the distribution. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 26 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Réseau de Transport d'Électricité, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up - the link is now pointing in the right direction. Alekjds ^talk 23:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you drop me an email, I'll be able to send you a link to the ODNB article, which will be valid for 5 days. David Underdown (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anchored cross.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bill, Thanks for your suggestions on Kogan Creek and Carma. Gnangarra suggested some revised wording closer to my original wording so I have adopted that. Many thanks. Paul dinghy (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations. It's a strikingly good article. No suggestions. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 15 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Live-line working, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We'd seen that one before. We haven't seen any sign of him using other accounts, or otherwise behaving badly. We're kind of hoping that he'll keep his nose clean as long as no one draws attention to him. You can take it to another admin if you want, but I don't want to open the can of worms. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure if this is the right place to put the message. I put descriptions of each of the Internet links for the Gil Pinac article. I don't know what else to do.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 24 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christmas Common, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 24 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christmas Island National Park, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for helping me edit this page... I had noticed that there was some gaming of the page by a clinic promoting ineffective treatment. I had rearranged the treatment options from less invasive to most invasive (corneal transplant), I feel it reads better to the layman will read about getting an the more severe treatments before they learn they have other options. arpowers(talk) 26 December 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Bill, Ive enjoyed a number of your DYK articles and its good to see some articles with proper physics in. Nicve to see you have completed the set with a couple of xmas specials. Well done and thank you from me and the wiki. Victuallers (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! — BillC ^talk 22:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Schiehallion experiment at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 29 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Franciszek Karpiński, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My pleasure. It was close, and I like to DYK such work. Feel free to fill in more red links from my articles; in particular, Polish culture during World War II, an article close to A- and FA- classes, has quite a few of them that we need to stub before it can gain that recognition. Perhaps you could help? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BillC and thank you for the comments. I have replied on T:TDYK#Operation Pleshet. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. — BillC ^talk 01:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 3 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Schiehallion experiment, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent, interesting article.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, it's been interesting to research and write. The late eighteenth century was one of the most fascinating times in science history. — BillC ^talk 23:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, could you help a bit with the conversion the the section "Life on the barrier islands?" (I think that "1" should be spelled out, and don't know how to do it using a template.) Other than that, I think everything has been addressed in some sort of way.--Yohmom (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, that was what I was talking about. Thanks! Man, just when I thought I was catching onto the template thing and when finally insert one on my own, it turns out that it wasn't even necessary...--Yohmom (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huzzah! *does happy dance* Thanks for passing Banker horse to GA! I think that it made the AP Bio Wikiproject tie with this lot. Now we won't come in such a shameful second! Cheers, --Yohmom (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bill, noticed you are an electrical engineer as well, (I'm EE/BME)... any interesting articles you have been working on lately? I might be interested in a wikipedia project:) Arpowers (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's very interesting! My speciality is in high-voltage transmission; I haven't been working on too many electrical articles lately, though in the last year I produced dispatcher training simulator, conductor gallop, Stockbridge damper, Cavallo's multiplier, arcing horns, Réseau de Transport d'Électricité and live-line working. Physics is an interest, and I wrote Schiehallion experiment recently. I keep meaning to get back to James Clerk Maxwell, but it's hard to do the subject justice. —BillC ^talk 15:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wow, those are some great contributions.. no wonder you are into this. Andrew Powers (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for welcoming me so many months ago. I only noticed it now, but thanks anyway! :) Queenie ^Talk 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome! It took me a few seconds to realise who you were, with the change in username, but I'm very glad you decided to stay! —BillC ^talk 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just rolled back some of his edits on the KC page. I may be needing your moderation/support on this one. Andrew Powers (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bill, thank you for being the voice of reason. Scubadiver99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubadiver99 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The dust has started to settle and this article has finally gotten the face-lift it has needed. You have been recommended to me by several people as someone who can help me create some graphs. I have a Tunnel Diode manual by RCA that has a couple of good graphs in it, showing the IV characteristics of different tunnel diodes and how they are biased. If I scan them can you convert them into a vector format suitable for a Wikipedia article? If this sounds like too much work for you right now I can understand. I'm sure I can figure it out myself if I have to. Zen-in (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are the two files: GaAs_tunnel.jpg and Tunnel_Diode_Bias.jpg If you need the text that goes with it let me know. Zen-in (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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!)

-- Addbot (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		2008 Core Contest Winner Award
		Let it be known that BillC was awarded Fifth Place in the first Wikipedia Core Contest. This award is based on his outstanding work in improving Electricity. Thanks for your hard work in making Wikipedia's core articles better. Earthdirt (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot, much appreciated! And a fun image too! —BillC ^talk 09:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad you liked it, I thought it was a funny and oddly appropriate image for the contest. Peace Earthdirt (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't want a long winded "talk" on a way to send in an attachment, so can you give me an email (a throw away type would be just great) so I can send it in to you. Thanks. RH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.101 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly, you are free to e-mail me and I would be interested to read what you have to send. My e-mail address for this purpose is billc_wiki and the domain is @yahoo.co.uk. —BillC ^talk 19:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your e-mail. I have had a brief read-though of the paper and will give it a more thorough reading tonight. —BillC ^talk 00:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you think Bill ? RH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.70 (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please accept my apologies for having taken so long to reply. The paper and its ensuing correspondence make interesting reading and I thank you for sending it. I am not a medical person, and so, while I take an interest in reading papers such as the one you sent, am not in a position to comment authoritatively on its contents and merits. However (and it is an important however), it is necessary to understand that Wikipedia does not take a stand on disputes such as these. Its core principle is one of neutral point of view, hence, while it reports on disputes, it does not take a side in them. An article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. However, one important element of NPOV is that of weight: the amount of coverage of a particular viewpoint should be in proportion its prominence. If we are determined to have something about epithelium removal in this treatment modality, then I think the best course of action is to say that something like the majority of practitioners in the field remove the epithelium first, but an American outfit is reporting success in a modified procedure which does not, and that this is an area of active dispute within the field. Something like that. You will need the sources that back up every word of this though. (I myself I am still of the view I held earlier -- that there is no need for the article to go into this sort of depth.) —BillC ^talk 07:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Epi on gang are heavily marketing to profit only to those unaware and to get round the FDA regulations - the study I sent you completely contradicts what they say. That should be on the main article. You wanted proof, I send it, and still you would rather do nothing and so side with the very minute minority profiteering on the back of the original and proved method. I ask you for the main article to be more balanced. This is gross what is going on. RH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.58.107 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should have added that I do like these words you wrote:

"However, one important element of NPOV is that of weight: the amount of coverage of a particular viewpoint should be in proportion its prominence."

And due to that you wrote:

"...the majority of practitioners in the field remove the epithelium first, but an American outfit is reporting success in a modified procedure which does not, and that this is an area of active dispute within the field."

Both sounds good to me.

What I did not like so much was:

"If we are determined to have something about epithelium removal in this treatment modality"

I did not like this because you have been reading Dr BBW's site too much ! The truth is that he is over selling. Please don't go by what just DR BBW says. The very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very - vast majority are doing treatment the proven way. RH

Hello bill, I do think your a genius when it comes to what you said which I copied to the KC discussion page, can you respond at all on it please ? thanks buddy (one day I will get a log in !) RH

Thank you. I should say that the text you praise about weight and prominence are not really mine, but are a paraphrase of a section on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View, a central pillar of its content policy. BBW's site I have not read at all, let alone too much. You have said that the overwhelming majority of practitioners are removing the epithelium first: perhaps we can set some numbers to this. For example, how many besides BBW are doing the epi-on method, and how many worldwide are doing it by the epi-off way? This would definitely affect the way something gets described—or not mentioned at all—in a Wikipedia article. (cc to Talk:Keratoconus) —BillC ^talk 13:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey BillC, I recently noticed your powerstation2 schematic, which is a very nicely done. I was wondering whether you could make another schematic of a power plant, namely a material recovering waste fired power plant. See Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#List_of_images for the schematic. I was thinking about using the image in a new section on the Fossil_fuel_power_plant article. This would decribe how these plants can be converted to a material recovering waste fired power plant. This would be useful to make a switch to a emissionless economy (as the WFPP noted above would be foreseen with a carbon capture/sequestration tube).

Let me know whether you are intrested, KVDP (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More precisely, I would like to have drawn the following:

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/8475/scannen0001qv8.jpg Name should be Material recovering Waste Fired Power Plant the indicated items are 1: supply by ship, 2: dump hall, 3: waste bunker, 4: waste funnel, 5: ammonia injection against nitrogen oxides (NOx), 6: incineration kettle, 7: heat exchangers, 8: watercooled grids, 9: slag, 10: crane to switch heat exchangers, 11: electrostatic filter, 12: cloth filter, 13:reheater, 14: quench, 15: HCl-washer, 16: SO²-washer, 17: 100m high chimney, 18: fly-ash silo Note that a subterrainean Carbon capture and storage pipe at the end must be added aswell (vital component)

As stated before, it is up to you whether you'd like to make the image, I do not wish to pressurise this unto you. However, the image would be a very useful tool for environmental protection and will probably help allot.

KVDP (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey , i am in internships in a coal power plant (in France) but with a some differents in the process. How can i create a shematic for my report, like your powerstation2 schematic, which software can i use ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.44.230.197 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I used Inkscape for that picture. It can be downloaded for free from https://inkscape.org. Good luck! —BillC ^talk 15:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bill, I would appreciate if you could correspond to Delicious Carbuncle and RH about inappropriate deletion of published studies that give credibility to epi on crosslinking. They both are so bias to epi off that they support ignoring published studies that support a position that for some reason is not in their interest. I think we need a voice of reason. Thanks. Scubadiver99 (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have provided a succinct statement in article that there are two techniques for performing crosslinking. In reading through all the Discussions, I cannot understand the insistence of these two people at removing any mention of the other method of crosslinking with intact epithelium. It defies all logic quite frankly. We'll never know if there is some financial interest with those two people in the FDA clinical trial which does epi off. Given the 5+ year history of crosslinking with intact epithelium, published studies showing clinical results, and more and more ophthalmologists adopting this technique, it is medically accurate to state the other technique in article. Corneadoc (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Alex Jones (radio host), following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  09:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I am very confused at the sentence in Chimborazo's:

• Their expedition had left France for South America in 1735 to try to measure the length of a degree of the meridian near the equator, but they took advantage of the opportunity to attempt the deflection experiment.

Particularly, how do you mean with "length of a degree of the meridian"? Do not worry but I am very familiar with sciences.--Kurosuke88 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second query.

• Should the sentence "The vector sum of W and F result in a tension T in the pendulum string." (in mathematical section) be "The vector sum of W and F results in a tension T in the pendulum string. " ?
• I could not understand the sentence "though the then elderly Hutton vigorously defended the original value." in the repeat experiments section.
• What are the resources in the sentence "With the resources of the Ordnance Survey at his disposal, James extended his topographical survey to..." in the repeat experiments section, money, topographical survey, equipment, or...?

Thanks in advance. -- Kurosuke  09:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Your first question is correct: it should read "results". I'll change the article.

• John Playfair's calculations led to a different value for the density of the Earth. Hutton felt insulted by the suggestion that his original calculations could be wrong, and wrote a very angry paper to the Royal Society, defending the procedures and calculations they had made, and the result they had obtained. There's a bit more about it on this page (scroll down to the paragraph beginning "At this point we get into a rather detailed and technical area").

• "The resources of the Ordnance Survey" being referred to are everything you mention: money, good quality maps (unavailable in 1774), better quality equipment (such as theodolites), and people. The Ordnance Survey did not yet exist in 1774, but by 1856 was a large well-funded operation. —BillC ^talk 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. The translation task by me has been made almost the all with your kind help, however, some small doubtful issues remain. So next queries.

• Could you let me know the current value of one guinea at the Mason's era?
• Do you know the length of pendulum wire and the weight of its plumb-bob?
• What is zenith distance(s) in Astronomical Measurements section? Zenith is a direction and has not the length or distance...
• How did the knowledge of the lithography of Schiehallion (in Repeat experiments section) concern this experiment?
• What or who are "they" which indicated in Alexander Chalmers' note "THEY were now totally removed", medals, or...?? This might be my English abilitiy issue, ...uum...

-- Kurosuke  00:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A guinea is a former British coin which used to be worth £1.05
• This is a good question, and I don't know the answer at the moment. I will have a look, and if I find out how long the pendulum was, I will let you know and will put it in the article.
• The zenith distance of a star is its angle away from the zenith. So a certain star at a certain time might have a zenith distance of, say, 12.5954°. Alternatively, the zenith distance is 90°−the angle above the horizon.
• The lithography of Schiehallion affected the calculations because the mountain does not consist of only one type of rock. The rocks have different densities, a factor Hutton was not able to take into account.
• The 'they' being referred to by Chalmers are doubts, mentioned at the start of the sentence. That sentence means "There were no longer any doubts about Newton's theory of gravitation".

I hope this helps, but as before, feel free to ask any more questions. —BillC ^talk 07:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks... but...

• Yes, I know one guinea meant £1 plus an additional 5%. But I'd like to know the TODAY's value for the amount of £1.05 of his era, while the Gold Coin's value seems to become expensive.  :-)
• Thanks.
• Thanks. But the term distance confused me of that the the term is a length...
• Sorry, I could not understand. Isn't the lithography only a printing method?
• Thanks.

Additional query...

• After all, Maskelyne's contribution was only astronomical observation and calculation of the deflection angle of Zenith, and the mean density of Earth was calculated by Hutton based on the Maskelyne's result, is that right?

The right table is a gift for you. It is already attached to the Japanese version and it should help readers to understand the article. -- Kurosuke  08:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This site suggests that £1.05 is now worth £105.63 using the retail price index, £1427.26 using the average earnings index. That's quite a difference, and indicates the difficulty of comparing sums of money from two different eras.

I should have realised – the pendulum length was the same as that of the zenith sector: 10 feet (3 m). We could do with a zenith sector article with a diagram. I think I might make that my next target.

Lithography is a printing method, and that is what the Wikipedia article describes. It can however also mean the layout and nature of rocks, and this was the term at least one of my references used. This usage is however obscure, and I will change the article to say 'geology', which is clearer.

Yes, Hutton seems to have done most of the work, and Maskelyne ended up with most, if not all of the credit. The Schiehallion experiment is sometimes even called 'The Maskelyne experiment'. Perhaps this is because Maskelyne is the one who wrote the original proposal, and gathered the team, or because he wrote the first paper, or perhaps he was just better known and better acquainted with the scientific society of the day. Hutton was very unhappy about this, and indeed it was one of his first complaints in his paper of 1821. —BillC ^talk 17:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has officially been opened as ja:シェハリオンの実験. Thank you very much for your kind help. I would not have succeeded without your minute cooperation. The Japanese version has been nominated to DYK, and is expected to be selected for it out of one hundred new article a day in Japanese Wikipedia. -- Kurosuke  02:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for correcting the format of my "Faraday's Law Is False!" comment. I do not know how it got the way it was, and I did not know how to correct it. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contact lens has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did see that the Category:Edwardian era had been removed from some of the articles to which I had added it. I have no issue with this, and I won’t add the category to similar articles in the future. However, I do feel that Electricity, Electrical Engineering, British Petroleum, etc were very important to the early twentieth century (Edwardian) era. The cultural aspects of these technologies and corporations are not expressed within their articles; hence I understand why the original authors have removed the category I added.

Most of the categories I have viewed on Wikipedia are very sparsely populated, and are under-utilised. For instance, if a student needed an overview of the culture and technology of the early twentieth century, they could go to the Edwardian era Category, and from there go to the article on BP and see that “In May 1901, William Knox D’Arcy was granted a concession by the Shah of Iran to search for oil which he discovered in May 1908. This was the first commercially significant find in the Middle East. On 14 April 1909, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was incorporated to exploit this”. This is evidence of the rising importance of oil in the early years of the twentieth century. Mr Mulliner (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Moved from guestbook)
Mark Evans ex AC/DC has a website: markevansblues.com can you add it to his wiki page. Good job! Rosie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.89.37 (talk • contribs)

OK, done. —BillC ^talk 09:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, you can go ahead and nominate it for that day. Thanks for letting me know. I'd completely forgotten about it.UberCryxic (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can put it up on that day, I'd be very glad. Thanks.UberCryxic (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I've already had three articles that I substantially wrote make it on the main page: Military history of France, Battle of Austerlitz, and Tahirih Justice Center.UberCryxic (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. Thank you very much!UberCryxic (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've spotted what looked like a copyright problem on the Tina Brooks page. It looks as if around a year ago a whole lot of text from elsewhere was pasted in (probably from here). I've reverted back to the previous version, but inevitably others have made minor edits in the meantime. I think I've replaced all the subsequent edits that are still relevant (mainly added categories etc). Is there anything else I need to do/anyone I need to inform? All the best, Brunton (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Intacsonfinger2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What program did you use to make this scaled vector graphic? XCircuit? Something else? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transformer_equivalent_circuit.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.193.24.80 (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used Inkscape. Regards —BillC ^talk 05:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome to comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the ((Autopatrolled)) top icon and/or the ((User wikipedia/autopatrolled)) userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bill, please join the fun at Talk:Transformer#Another_Incorrect_image. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take note of a discussion ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. I'm not looking for more comments, as there have been many already, but you're welcome to add yours if you want to. Presto54 (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! :)

I am simulating Keratoconus and for the sake of correctness I ask you to invert the colors of image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kc_simulation.jpg#file

That effect will only appear is the A is white.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitorpamplona (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The effect is more pronounced and noticeable when the image is light on a dark background, but it does not only occur for that way round. To confirm this, I removed one of my own contact lenses and looked at the left-hand A. It showed a pattern like the right hand one. I did invert the image at one time myself, but I didn't think the effect looked so good on a white page, and I don't have the inverted image any more. You are of course very welcome to invert the image yourself and to upload it to Wikipedia. There are lots of software packages that will do this for you. --—BillC ^talk 22:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found it, an inverted form is now at: Kc simulation inverted.jpg. —BillC ^talk 23:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hubble first light.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating such kind of very useful article.

)--Abhijeet Safai 09:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

For creating the article like Jadad scale Abhijeet Safai 09:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

While I suspect you're coming from a 'correct' English standpoint, I would think that 'related to' and 'related from' and 'related with' are not incorrect and are distinguishably different.

If you're 'related to' something, that doesn't necessarily imply any important opposite relationship, whereas 'related with' implies a co-relation, and 'related from' implies that the relationship is towards rather than away.

Related to is likely to be the most common use, but I'm fairly sure that the others aren't wrong.

In this particular case there's an interrelationship, so I would defend the use of 'related with'.Planetscared (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'related with' is grammatically incorrect. The correct preposition is 'to'. src, src —BillC ^talk 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Research Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello BillC, Do you know if this article about an English ship should have "HMS" in its title? The other ships of that name do and it seems to be the first of many things needed in the article. I am not sure of the protocols re ships. Thanks. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for not replying sooner. Yes, it's generally the case that ship articles begin with HMS or an equivalent, for example, HMS Hood, RMS Titanic and so on. —BillC ^talk 14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bill,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:PowerStation2.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 22, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-08-22. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'd like to make some modifications to your picture (outlined above), because some languages use different symbolics to denote values (especially voltage and current). There's one symbol I'm not quite familiar with though: E (E_p and E_s respectively). Could you explain what do those mean please? -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

E stands for Electromotive force. E_p and E_s are the primary and secondary electromotive forces. —BillC ^talk 19:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. In that case can you please tell me what's the difference between V_p/V_s and E_p/E_s respectively (I thought that it's only "V" that denotes EMF in the drawing)? -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominated for review here [1]. Hope you join in the improvements required. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your input regarding the removed keratoconus sections at Talk:Keratoconus#Treatments, I might not be as experienced as you and @James on En-WP, but I have KC too and I know the value of those deleted information for KC patients. the article needs serious help! k18s (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hertfordshire puddingstone.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I obtained the permission of the owner for this file via an email exchange. However, this was over ten years ago, and I no longer have the email in question. —BillC ^talk 21:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Todhills Rest Area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A74. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

electricity

Thank you for contributions to quality artices such as HMS Royal Oak (08), electricity and Unsinkable Sam, for images with class, for memories of good interactions, - sceptic electrical engineer, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 1363 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo BillC. I am now entirely finished with the editing of the article Transits of Mercury. If you want to change this article you can do that. Nico.84.80.54.162 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BillC,

I've seen that you've edited Jamison family deaths article. I want to ask you opinion about this article: Murder of Dorothy Jane Scott. Do you think that the references are credible enough ? I know that these references aren't considered to be as reliable as completelty verifiable sources, such as foxnews and cnn.com, but what do you think? Would you be able to reply to my talk page?

Robert4565 (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for dropping by with your question. I checked out the two references in the article and the websites they lead to seem to be rather sensationalist. In particular, one states "The stories on Sword and Scale are solely meant for entertainment purposes and should not be assumed to be fact." This is a bit of a red flag. However, all is not lost: many missing person cases attract the attention of mainstream media organisations, with paid researchers and a commitment to fact-checking. I would start be searching the archives of such news organisations, and referencing them instead of the two private websites used here.

PS: In reality, I did little to research the Jamison family deaths article. Rather, when I came across it, it struck me that the sentence structure and paragraph order could do with some improvement, so I got to work on those.

Hope this helps! —BillC ^talk 18:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, BillC. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, BillC. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Britannicus (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonathan Kent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, BillC. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bill,

I think that having another look at File:PowerStation2.svg may be advantageous.  

The deaerator is currently presented as raised with just one flow in which enters as a drip.  Deaerators, as may be found in a typical power station, are pressurised with superheated water well above 100°C.  If anything the deaerator should be shown as lowered.  Deaerators operate with an inline flow of all liquid water which constitutes many litres per second.  The spray is spread across the chamber so as to catch all the steam rising up.  Another function of the deaerator is to add heat and the very significant addition of steam might also be noted.  You could move the label for the condenser to make room inline.  Deaerators can work at very low pressure but those conditions have already been provided in the condenser which I'd think would have a pump to remove gas.  

The feedwater heater is currently shown following the pump that directly feeds both the boiler and the high-pressure turbine.  The article on feedwater heaters indicates that they receive a feed of steam from the low-pressure side of turbines.  If this is the feed that is considered to be involved then the diagram currently provides no explanation as to how the heat can get to the heater.  I'd think that these heaters might go inline prior to the deaerator which can only function if the water has already been brought close to boiling point.

Within the boiler structure, the section of plumbing that comes down from the steam drum and which rises up on the inside of the boiler wall is not labelled.  These are the water tubes in which the boiler's boiling takes place and where the thrust of the power station is developed.

I'm not sure about the horizontal pipe above the high-pressure turbine.  The associated item is marked control valve.  It may be for lack of looking but I haven't seen reference to control valves being used to open up an alternate channel.  The intermediate turbine seems to be able to feed the low-pressure turbine without intermediary connection and don't currently understand why a link would be needed from the high-pressure line.  The force of flow going through this restrictive valve would be great with the result that a great amount of heat might become focussed at this point.  

This next bit may just be my subjective view but I was wondering whether it would be worth reconsidering the number system.  If numbers were given according to sequences of activities then I'd suggest following the routes followed by water and by reactive chemicals (air and fuel) and their resultant flue gases.  As the numbering starts with the cooling tower perhaps the sequence might continue through the condenser, through the pumps, the economiser and other boiler plumbing, through the turbines and through to the three-phase transmission lines.  Numbers could then switch over to the air intake and follow a path that chemicals take (also including fuel intake) right around to the stack.

Anyway, this is the best I've currently got.

GregKaye 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your commentary. I'm a little tight for time right now but will look at these issues as soon as I can. I may need to download a new SVG editor. —BillC ^talk 08:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Blue Eye 2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay blackout, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that HMS Royal Oak (08) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 17 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 17, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! —BillC ^talk 07:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marines' Hymn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Offenbach.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A number of "Municipalities of individual Neuchâtel districts" templates, which you created, have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Municipalities of individual Neuchâtel districts templates. Nigej (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [2] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Municipalities of the district of Prättigau/Davos has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joy to the World (House), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Virgin birth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Kenny Pickett (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

After move of Kenny Pickett (American football) to base title Kenny Pickett, this is an unnecessary WP:ONEOTHER DAB page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I proposed edits to fix numerous problems on the Devialet article on the Talk page: Talk:Devialet#Devialet Request Edits for July 2022. I’m an employee of the company and can’t edit the page due to WP:COI - are you able to review the requests? Thanks!Beautreillis6698 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know that Stienmetz, the engineer responsible for bringing complex numbers to circuit analysis, was a great admirer of Oliver Heaviside and his operational calculus?

The book, "The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside" really spells out the connection between Stienmetz and Heaviside. It really would be great if it could be done, to put Heaviside and his connection to Stienmetz and thus Heaviside's connection to reactance. Then and then could Heaviside be mentioned in the reactance article. Just for the heads up reactance is just a fancy word for describing complex numbers in circuit analysis. K00la1dx (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BillC, I've had another look at this, and I'm not convinced that there is anything actually called the Wester Pipe Railway. Google searches don't seem to bring up anything using this name that doesn't use Wikipedia as the source. The two remaining sources don't call it this (neither did the other two, which I removed because there was nothing in them that supported the text - they were a stock photo of the pipe and a Google maps location). It doesn't seem to exist other than as part of the larger pipe-making plant. Even one of the blogs it is now sourced to includes a comment that it "isn’t a railway in the normal sense". I'm not convinced that it's notable (interesting though it might be), and I'm not sure what it should be called if it is. The current article title seems to be an invention of the editor who created it. I noticed an edit summary of yours there saying that you "don't think there is any basis for saying the railway was not well documented until someone authored a webpage"; do you have any other info about it that isn't accessible via a Google search? Cheers, Brunton (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nothing about it other than I have found by Google. I might need to eat my words saying the railway was not well documented. It certainly exists (I have seen it), and is impressive, and interesting, and while those are not criteria in themselves for notability, I would think it tips the balance overall. I found the article because I went searching Wikipedia for some information on this subject, having passed the location. The owner of the facility is Subsea 7, and they call it the Pipeline Bundle Fabrication Site. A corporate brochure can be found here —BillC ^talk 14:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electricity has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Power Station with key.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned in mainspace and redundant that is redundant to File:PowerStation3.svg, which was created by the same person and thus this version is not needed for attribution.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HouseBlaster^talk 03:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Bill, do you have a citation for this info you added in 2006? Sorry, I know that's a long time ago, but Simon Harley recently tagged it with a cn. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was it possibly this? "About the Oak herself, the 'Mighty Oak' as the sailors called her ..." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no memory of this edit I made 17 years ago, but I have owned a copy of Gardiner's The Royal Oak Courts Martial since 2006, and used it to build the article, so it is quite possible it came from there. —BillC ^talk 10:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I added it as a ref. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Antivivisection has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 3 § Antivivisection until a consensus is reached. Hildeoc (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]