|
Hey, sorry about that... obviously had a compete brain freeze and was editing an old version! Good job you spotted. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)I declined you proposed deletion of Outline of engineering, as outlines are often kept for navigational purposes. This would be better sorted out at AFD. For a recent deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Middle-earth. Hog Farm (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello NeedsGlasses, I have entered important information about the application of the Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) about the mechanical unfolding of proteins using AFM, which you have deleted accusing me in the citation spam. Later I entered the same information without citations and it has been removed by another user suggesting me to add it again with relevant citations which I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDeepLerner (talk • contribs) 18:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi NeedsGlasses, I reverted your good faith edit in the Stress intensity factor page, because I do not think you should be passing judgements about claims about test commonness which was backed up by a source from the original author. While I am sure you are knowledgeable in the field a fracture mechanics, I think factual disputes should be settled with sources rather than user opinion or personal knowledge. Regards Bob Clemintime (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Reply: It is very difficult to ensure distributed loading in a fracture toughness test. As a result, all of the coupons recommended by the ASTM on fracture toughness testing use point loaded coupons. ASTM E1820 says "The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]." Even WP on the Fracture toughness page says "The vast majority of the tests are carried out on either compact or SENB configuration." The distributed loading coupon is not even in the section on "Stress intensity factors for fracture toughness tests" in the stress intensity factor page itself. It was obviously wrong and should be deleted. NeedsGlasses (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Dr. Kurrer is an internationally recognized engineering historian of the building history who has written a compendium of around 1200 pages with his book The History of the Theory of Structures: Searching for Equilibrium (Construction History), which is recognized worldwide. I don't know what Spam Citation is supposed to mean when Wikipedia articles are quoted precisely with the corresponding chapters of his book. I am sure that many people will find these pointers helpful. In the German Wikipedia no one has complained about Kurrer's references so far. And I think that also applies to the English Wikipedia. (1 or 2) more here --Nixnubix (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The reversion was appropriate because the removal of properly cited material was undiscussed, and its reason not adequately stated. The issue may not require third party resolution, as your point seems arguable to me, but the point needs to be put in the talk page first. Cheers. Shtove (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear NeedsGlasses,
With my edits I did respond to an explicit request by wikipedia to add links to an article I created last year because it was considered an "orphan". I assume that this request has been generated automatically, yet I think it is totally reasonable to add links to pages where it is appropriate. You are certainly aware that SPM is a very densely interconnected field. To each of the (internal) links I added the respective (external) citation of a scientifc publication (APS) exactly following the style in which each of the internal links appeared in the articles you mentiond "Scanning probe microscopy" "Atomic force microscopy" "Quantum dot" Feel free to have a look. Of course the external link is no "to a personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product". Unless you consider an original scientific article a "product".
Best regards, TomSpade79 (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi NeedsGlasses. I wonder if you might take another look at Alpha-beta model, which you redirected to Crack growth equation last month. I know nothing about the topic, so can't quibble with your rationale, but the redirect has resulted in a situation where the article isn't mentioned at the page to which it now points. As such, if someone searches for "Alpha-beta model" they're left with no indication of its meaning. Do you think it's possible to add a mention to the target to rectify that, or alternatively if there's an alternative target that would resolve that issue (Paris' law was suggested at the 2019 AfD)? If not, I wonder if it'd be best to restore the article and send it back to AfD to see if there's now a consensus for deleting it outright. Either way, interested to know what you think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of those editors that makes people loathe to bother singing in or contributing to Wikipedia. It's always appreciated when rather than actually reading the edit/diff (ahem), or making adjustments to suit, wholly trashing others' work. The references were all copied from the table further down the page, and could have been removed/or trimmed if deemed necessary, but the description was absolutely correct. There were no substantive changes, only rearrangement for clarity. --174.168.158.48 (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I see you reverted three of my edits on force spectroscopy and another page. I do not understand why you did it. I am very familiar with the subject and the choice of wording and references were appropriate. Livingdroplet (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One World (TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.