User talk:SQMeaner

Welcome!

Hello, SQMeaner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring

Your recent editing history at Dog shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Hi, please see the discussion at Talk:Electromagnetic_induction#Also, which I opened because you had asked me to. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology - Transformer

Hi, I'd just like to apologise for briefly reverting this edit of yours at Transformer. I misread the before-and-after sequence. I have now restored your version. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Per this, you're more right than wrong to question things in Wikipedia and please don't take my or anyone else's comments as gate keeping or requiring you to get permission to edit something. When in doubt, be bold. Further edits along the lines of what you pointed out should be made by whoever gets around to them first (admitting laziness on my part;)). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Clerk Maxwell - 1864? 1865? 1873?

Per this edit and some others, there is a History of Maxwell's equations covering this somewhat. That and this source points out that James Clerk Maxwell's equations that showed mathematically that electromagnetic waves could propagate through free space were published in 1873. May need a little more refinement. He had some other equations and predictions from 1865 (I see 1865 cited more than 1864). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the page on this website covering James Clerk Maxwell's equations and the page on this website covering James Clerk Maxwell himself say he predicted radio/electromagnetic waves in the 1860s, though like you I'm confused as to whether it was 1864 or 1865 when he predicted them. To add to the confusion, Thomas A. White (who you're already familiar with) says Maxwell predicted radio waves in 1867 (http://earlyradiohistory.us/1963hwa.htm). The wiki says he published 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' in 1865, so maybe the history of radio page should be changed to reflect that. Furthermore, I freely admit I'm no scientist, but most of what I've read concerning Maxwell's 1873 paper say that this was simply a collection of his previous writings, which seems to me to imply that he did most of his theorizing in his previous papers. I'm also not sure how reliable that source you linked to is since it states that Nikola Tesla and Nathan Stubblefield have claims to being 'the inventor of radio', something which is blatantly untrue to anyone with even the most basic understanding of the history of radio.SQMeaner (talk)

Some facts as I can find them:

Maxwell read his paper "A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field" on December 8, 1864 to the Royal Society
It seems Maxwell published "A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field" in 1865
Maxwell theory was just that, a theory, so it had no validity over other theories of its day
Per The Early History of Radio from Faraday to Marconi, page 27 "The theory had not been widely acclaimed and Maxwell had retired to his estate at Glenlair, but in 1871 he returned to Cambridge as Professor of Experimental Physics and, two years later, he published his Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism."
Maxwell publishes Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism in 1873 showed mathematically the existence of these waves.

So there needs to be some rewording, this statement is incorrect, this one is a little soft - Hertz would be working from Maxwell s 1873 mathematical proof. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. Maxwell predicted electromagnetic waves and gave a mathematical proof of them in the 1860s in his paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field'. You have provided nothing so far which contradicts this and almost every source I can find on the topic, including the one you linked to here, agrees with me, from Encyclopedia Britannica to inventors.about.com. I don't see any flaws with either of the edits you point out here and feel the only changes which need to be made are whether to say Maxwell predicted radio waves in 1864 or 1865.SQMeaner (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mathematical prediction came in 1873, not 1864, so I have made those corrections. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Maxwell provided the mathematical proof for electromagnetic waves in his 1864 paper, to the point where he was even able to figure out the speed of the waves. Look at the paper yourself if you don't believe me. http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/155/459.full.pdf+html http://www.sparkmuseum.com/BOOK_HERTZ.HTM SQMeaner (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded it. We do not derive content from primary sources and there is probably not a conflict on the dates, it just depends how a historian words it. According to History of Wireless Maxwell did not make a "free space" predictions early on because he worked in the form of waves propagating in a medium (page 221). Depending how you word this Maxwell started the ball rolling in 1864 or 1873 was the start date because that was the published theory that Hertz worked from to prove waves in free space. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the source you provided indicates that Maxwell predicted electromagnetic waves in 1873 since it says on page 260 that he predicted them in 1864, but I'm OK with the current state of the pages you've edited to do with radio so I won't make any changes.SQMeaner (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I take it back. As I have repeatedly shown throughout this debate James Clerk Maxwell predicted electromagnetic waves in 1864, full stop. Whether he made 'free space' predictions (whatever that means) is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is he explicitly refers to electromagnetic waves in his 1864 paper and every source I have seen so far supports this conclusion. I would also appreciate it if you stopped trying to turn this into an edit war and engaged in constructive dialogue on this page instead.SQMeaner (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Magazine (firearms)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did on the Magazine (firearms) page. Your addition of trivial, obscure and factually incorrect information is not helpful. Thank you.--RAF910 (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Competency is required on Wikipedia. Please stop adding factually incorrect information to the Magazine (firearms) page. If you continue to do so you may be blocked for disruptive editing and/or vandalize.--RAF910 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to explain what was factually incorrect about the edits I made instead of making passive-aggressive threats like these? SQMeaner (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of historic inventions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Parsons. 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) 09:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

raw links dont cut it

Hi, please use author and date of publication, when referencing, as you did on 2,4D, not just a raw link- or insert archived links if you dont. lastly, if you cite a source that's more than say 2 or 3 pages long, you should really indicate the page of your claim by adding the page or page range with this bracket to the ref {{rp|22}}. this is obviously important with books, but sadly not everybody does it. Okay? --Wuerzele (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Inventions

Some of the additions to this article are really good. Some, less so. The myriad of minor improvements to gun cartridges would need to have some support that they are each truly historic, rather than part of a gradual evolution. MP3 isn't historic, its a bit of code amongst thousands of other bits of code, and which was outdated within a decade. In terms of computing it may be important, but in terms of world history, much less so. Again, I think you'd need to explain why its historic.Mdw0 (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of their impact on firearms, I believe the invention of new and better cartridges are truly revolutionary inventions. They are often considered quite important by gun historians but I appreciate the fact that they may not be viewed in quite the same light by people less familiar with them. Due to this, I will provide an explanation here which you can feel free to add to the 'historic inventions' page. The reason why self-contained cartridges are important is because they enabled the development of reliable repeating and rapid-fire weapons. Metallic cartridges are important because they enabled the user to fire in any kind of weather, as before then paper cartridges would often become unusable in rain, as well as being easier to store. Furthermore, according to the cartridge page on this site, 'Probably no invention connected with firearms has wrought such changes in the principle of gun construction as those effected by the “expansive cartridge case.” This invention has completely revolutionized the art of gun making, has been successfully applied to all descriptions of firearms, and has produced a new and important industry: that of cartridge manufacture.' The expansive cartridge case came with the pinfire cartridge, and that sounds pretty revolutionary to me. As for the MP3 file I didn't know that, thanks for pointing that out.SQMeaner (talk)

Then pick the ONE cartridge invention which is truly historic, and get rid of the others. They can't all be historic. Some of them even say they are only improvements, not even inventions at all. I'd keep the original 1808 invention and scrap the others.Mdw0 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of historic inventions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Hunt. 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) 11:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Please do not insert inappropriate comments into edit summaries as you did here. It is considered un-civil behavior and also leaves people like me clueless as to what you are even going on about. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you added the fact tag...

...You might be interested in this and following edits. It's hard to argue with know-it-alls when they already know it all! But perhaps he addressed your issue. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Contrib S&W

I completed a bit, please look for a correct english, my mother-language is german. Yours, -- hmaag (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Per this comment, I would recommend following WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of historic inventions, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Grove and Plasma. 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) 09:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sayers and Heenan

Yes, I should have used your talk page for my last comment, rather than the article talk page. My apologies.

I'm afraid I can't agree with your edits. I've read every report of the fight (bar one in French that I was unable to locate), and all the post-match exchanges. I'm satisfied that Heenan was close to victory when the ring was broken.

Yes, many English sources say that a draw was fair, or even that Sayers was on top. But no American source agrees, and there were English commentators who went on record to say that Heenan had not had fair play.

I believe that both articles should revert to what they were before you made your edits. Iain07 (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it seems to you that Heenan was close to victory when the ring was broken, but this is just one interpretation. As far as I can tell, the general consensus among historians is that the match between Heenan and Sayers was a draw.

As for why some English commentators said that Heenan had not had fair play, there could be any number of explanations for why this was so, from cultural differences to unreliable reporting. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find an American who believed Heenan lost, simply due to the fact that no large group of people numbering more than 100 are likely to all share the exact same opinion. It hardly seems like a convincing reason to declare categorically that Heenan won or was close to winning to me.

I also think it should be specifically pointed out that what Heenan did to end the match (strangling Sayers) was illegal, as otherwise it makes it look like the English crowd broke into the ring just because Sayers was on the verge of losing.

To sum up, I won't revert any edits that include your opinion, but I will revert edits that imply that yours is the only opinion. SQMeaner 16:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to deal with specifics than to argue generally about who was on top when the fight ended prematurely.

You say that if I looked hard enough, I would find an American who believed that Heenan was losing. No. I have read the post-fight controversy in its entirety. No American ever said he thought that Heenan was losing. A comprehensive study of the controversy persuades me that Heenan was on the point of victory.

Heenan's use of the ropes was not illegal. A rule was subsequently introduced to make it so, presumably in response to what happened in the Sayers-Heenan contest. The regulations at the time of the fight, however, gave the referee discretion: he was empowered to end the round if he thought a fighter's life was in danger, but the decision was his to make.

There may be other matters, but I'd be grateful if you could address these points for now. Iain07 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain07 (talk • contribs)

Really? You can say with 100% confidence that of all the Americans who attended or heard about the fight, not a single one of them got the impression that Sayers had the advantage? How big was this crowd? Also, just because no American ever said he thought Sayers was winning still doesn't seem like a good reason to argue that that proves that Heenan was winning. As I said, there are multiple reasons for why that may be so.

As for your claim that Heenan's use of the ropes was not technically illegal, that seems like pedantry to me. According to the London Prize Ring Rules page, section 28 says 'That where a man shall have his antagonist across the ropes in such a position as to be helpless, and to endanger his life by strangulation or apoplexy, it shall be in the power of the referee to direct the seconds to take their man away, and thus conclude the round, and that the man or his seconds refusing to obey the direction of the referee, shall be deemed the loser.' That seems pretty much the same as declaring strangulation with the ropes to be illegal to me.

Finally, it's my impression that the general consensus amongst historians is that the fight between Sayers and Heenan was a draw. If you think this isn't so, perhaps you could direct me to an account other than yours which states that Heenan was winning?17:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This is getting us nowhere. Yes, I am sure of my facts. My bibliography in The Lion and the Eagle runs to hundreds of books and scores of newspapers and magazines.

With regard to the use of the ropes by a fighter, I would refer you to my previous comment. The rule that you quote was introduced after Sayers-Heenan. It was different at the time of the fight. The rule as it then stood, I quote in my book.

But I repeat, this is not going anywhere. I'm going to apply for protected status for the article, as I regard your edits as inadequately informed, and biased. Iain07 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my failure to read your previous comment carefully enough. You do in fact quote the rule in question correctly. But I can't agree that it's pedantry to say that Heenan's use of the ropes was not illegal. As far as I can recall, no one at the time suggested it was. And the rule was subsequently changed, which seems to bear out my point. Our differences remain, and will have to be resolved by arbitration. Iain07 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your recent reversion, I did wait for arbitration, but the response was that there was no evidence of an edit war, so the pages would not be protected.

I stand by my opinion, but am not prepared to go on fighting about it. It's beginning to seem childish. I will therefore leave the pages as they presently are, but will add a note to the Talk section of each. Iain07 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patent

Link throws me a 404, but it sounds like someone was trying to make a gas-operated version of the Dreyse needle gun from the description. It's basically trying to make a gas piston rifle where the same structure is both the piston and the firing pin, and the cartridge case is also the piston shroud. Given the Dreyse had enough problems buggering up its pin when it didn't do that, it doesn't sound particularly practical. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, here's the correct link:http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US45105. Bear in mind this is for a different firearm than the one talked about here and thanks for weighing in on the topic.

Priestley

In response to your recent talk page post, greetings, and congratulations on having a common interest in the history of electrical technology. Priestley around the 1770's charged a Leyden jar with an electrostatic generator and in its discharge made a fine wire glow incandescent. It is no surprise that a brief high current from a capacitor can heat up a fine wire. A Leyden jar in the mid 1700's could, for a very brief period, do whatever a battery could do sustainedly in the early 1800's. I will go back to Google books and try to find the exact reference. Regards, Edison (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the archives of the article Incandescent light. See [1], particularly page 251 of Priestley [2]. "Upon discharging a battery (bank of capacitors) of fifty-one square feet through an iron wire nine inches long, the whole of it was glowing hot and continued so for some seconds, the middle part growing cool first, while both the extremities were sensibly red." Edison (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've done a bit of 'research' (read: Googling) on this and I'm pretty certain Priestley wasn't the first to use electricity to achieve incandescence or, more importantly, realise electricity produces heat. He is definitely predated by the work of Ebenezer Kinnersley (he's easy enough to find so I won't bother linking to anything on him here) and might have been predated by the work of a 'Dr. Watson' (who I think might be William Watson) who demonstrated a blasting cap in 1745 and the work of William Watson, linked to below. The part that really stands out to me is the part where he says 'if the instrument has no point you generally perceive a pure bright flame like what is vulgarly called the blue ball which gives the appearance of stars to fired rockets.' I admit the wording on that is a bit ambiguous but it could be the earliest example of electric incandescent lighting.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=04tbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq="William+Watson"+"Electrical+Fire+Along+A+Sword"&source=bl&ots=B0RR1U-pUS&sig=72csDIYT-aNMyYfnZAPkAHb_LSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWj-SHhcjOAhXJLcAKHdIoBToQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22William%20Watson%22%20%22Electrical%20Fire%20Along%20A%20Sword%22&f=falseSQMeaner (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Leyden jar or capacitor can store up the electricity from any electric geneartor, whether its a battery, a DC dynamo or a glass tube rubbed with a piece of silk. The relevant article says "It was invented independently by German cleric Ewald Georg von Kleist on 11 October 1745 and by Dutch scientist Pieter van Musschenbroek of Leiden (Leyden) in 1745–1746." I didn't find mention of it in Watson's 1746 book, so he seems to be using the static electricity from a glass tube or sphere directly without building up a large charge in a Leyden jar. An electrostatic generator can produce an impressive spark, and there is some slight capacitance in the insulated conductor, the person standing on an insulating cake of wax, etc, but orders of magnitude more charge is stored in a Leyden jar, and then even more when a number of Leyden jars are connected in parallel as Priestley and others were doing a few years later. Ironically, they called a box full of interconnected Leyden jars a "battery" long before Voltaic cells. Priestley was able to collect enough charge to pass it from the hot side of the bank of Leyden jars through a wire to the ground side, so it was a diminishing current electricity of several amperes, which made the wire heat up, glow, and melt. Watson in 1746 spoke of "a pure bright flame" from .a piece of metal emitting the electric discharge. He was seeing the effect of the static electric field being high enough to ionize the air itself. I doubt that it was a high current of electricity causing the metal to glow.It would likely be like the corona discharge we get now from high voltage transmission lines, and it is something like the glow in a neon sign or those glass jars with electric discharge inside Other 18th century experimenters actually used the term "the electric light" to refer to such sparks or glowing discharges. Someone also used an evacuated glass tube with some mercury vapor in it. When electrified by rubbing with a silk cloth, the inside of the tube would glow due to the ionization of the mercury vapor. Many areas of technology crawl before they walk before they run. As for electricity producing heat, Franklin and others showed the electrical nature of lightning, and everyone knew lightning set things on fire. One writer described lightning striking a house in the 18th century which had a system of bell wires which could be pulled from some room to summon a servant. The lightning ran through the wire, and the writer noted that in melting the wire scorched nearby wood. He also noted differences in the melting of a section of brass wire and a section of iron wire to which it was connected. I don't know to what extent 19th century researchers read these old papers and got ideas from them. Regards. Edison (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK someone should probably add that bit about Ebenezer Kinnersley being the first to cause a piece of wire to go incandescent to the incandescent light bulb page. Surprised it wasn't added sooner given how well-documented it is. Perhaps there's a reason most histories of electric illumination omit this piece information?SQMeaner (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be original research for us to find this by Kinnersley in 1761 and assert he was the first. We need a reliable source saying he was the first. Maybe someone else did the experiment earlier and we just haven't found his writing. Kinnersley had a 30 square foot total area bank of Leyden jars, and Priestley had 50 square feet. It's easier to study wires lighting up with more stored electricity. The wire has to be pretty fine to light up from a brief current of electricity from the early capacitors. The first observation of a thin wire made red hotor white hot could have happened any time after the Leyden jar was discovered circa 1746, and still more likely when they were combined into a "battery" of Leyden jars to get more surface area and more stored charge. If they had used fine platinum wire hey would have got the best result, since it does not melt or oxidize as easily as most metals. I have experimented with a Leyden jar made from plastic pill bottle about one inch by three inches, with an area of perhaps 9 square inches, and it gave a painful shock. I would be very afraid of getting a shock from thirty square feet charged to tens of thousands of volts, although per square inch the pill bottle would have higher capacitance due to the thinner wall. I found a Kinnersley writing: New experiments in electricity; In a letter from Mr. Ebenezer Kinnersley to Benjamin Franklin LL.D. F.R.S by Ebenezer Kinnersley (March 12, 1761), Philadelphia. Expt 11, page 92: He passed the charge from a battery of Leyden jars through a small brass wire with a weight hanging from it. It got red hot and was drawn out longer. He also showed that the wire got red hot, when the discharge was inside his air thermometer, and he used it to ignite gunpowder. Page 94 he literally says that though a charged object is not innately hot, it is the "resistance it meets with, producing heat in other bodies, when it passes through them" and "A large quantity will pass thro' a large wire without producing any sensible heat; when the same quantity passing thro' a very small one, being there confined to a narrower passage, the particles crowding closer together, and meeting with greater resistance, will make it red hot and even melt it." Good stuff. Edison (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How's this for a reliable source? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xMvY_v4kMMQC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=Beccaria+Wire+Hot&source=bl&ots=yLNd_R_4xH&sig=TNaYMY1IZe5Rswe3IV7VBnItSeQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOnoXw8srOAhWLLMAKHcS1AnIQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Beccaria%20Wire%20Hot&f=false

Diesel engine

Hello. Apart from the claim that George Brayton developed the first “constant pressure” engine, do you have any other objection to these changes to the article?. Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I don't object to the claim that Brayton invented the first constant pressure engine. However, based on various sources I get the impression that this engine wasn't as influential on the Diesel engine as lmotorhead would like us to believe. As I'm not a technical person I can't really verify this suspicion, hence why I would like to get some people involved who really do know what they're talking about. I also object to the claim that Brayton was the first to use fuel injection, as it was probably first invented by Nicephore Niepce. At the very least I think Niepce ought to be mentioned.SQMeaner (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for answering. I have added more comments in that article talk page. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Oliver Evans

According to Bennet (1979) Oliver Evans did in fact use a centrifugal governor.Phmoreno (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SQMeaner. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 17 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Machine gun page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad Battery

Hi - first, you should never restore text deleted because it lacks a source. Yes, I know you thought you'd found one but that fails WP:RS. A shame as parts of it are good, but he's really not an expert in any case. If you disagree you can ask at WP:RSN. Secondly, my edit summary answered your question. However, I misread the section which isn't actually discussing long term storage but long or I guess medium term use. So that reason was wrong, but restoring material deleted for being unsourced or having an unreliable source is rarely a good idea in an encyclopedia which is meant to be based on reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I may be misunderstanding you but can you quote for me the part in the Baghdad Battery article that claims that the bitumen seal does not make for good long term storage?SQMeaner (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was wrong about that. I'm not wrong about saying don't restore unsourced material. First find a better source, then restore it. I haven't reverted you because I'd prefer you to simply remove it as unsourced or find a better source. The article is frustrating at times because of sourcing problems. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'll get rid of that particular section.SQMeaner (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your cooperation.

Doug Weller talk 15:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions to "List of best selling books" article

Hello, I noticed that you recently removed my inclusion of Green Eggs and Ham from the List of best selling books page, claiming that they were based on poor sources. However, the sources I cited were Huffington Post and ABC News. ABC News is specifically cited as a reliable source which editors are encouraged to use at Wikipedia:Suggested sources, and they are both cited in dozens of articles of varying topics across Wikipedia, including featured articles. I understand that 200 is a high figure, however these are both sources which have repeatedly been deemed to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Vorpal76 (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page on suggested sources you linked to here, ABC News is considered a reliable source for news items. Also, I couldn't find Huffington Post mentioned on that page. The fact that both of these sources are used in other articles doesn't necessarily mean they're reliable, it just means those articles might need to replace those sources with more reliable ones and for one reason or another no one's gotten around to doing that yet. Besides, I'm pretty sure that 200 million sales figure is an error. I can't find any other reliable sources indicating that Green Eggs and Ham sold 200 million copies but I have been able to find sources that state that, in total, Dr Seuss has sold around 200 million copies of his books. It seems likely to me that the claim that Green Eggs and Ham sold 200 million copies is being confused with this other statistic.SQMeaner (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that page states that ABC News is specifically reliable for American news items, the link I provided is for a new article and the information in it therefore should be reliable. I suppose that the argument could even be made that the current sales figures of a book constitutes news. However, even if you want to argue that it's not news-related, both ABC and Huffington Post are cited in any GA's and FA's as reliable sources -- not just articles directly related to current event news. I've provided two reliable sources, if you want to doubt their validity that's your prerogative, but for you to remove them because "I'm pretty sure that 200 million sales figure is an error" constitutes original research on your part. I've provided two reliable sources to back up these statements, if you feel they should be removed you need to likewise provide reliable sources to prove that they are inaccurate . Until then, the information is verifiable by Wikipedia's standards (I understand that you might personally doubt the information, and you are certainly entitled to, but we can't remove information from Wikipedia simply because we personally disagree with it) and not including verifiable information in a list that aims for inclusiveness violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.Vorpal76 (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by GA's and FA's? Again, the fact that they've been used in General Articles and Featured Articles (is that what you mean?) doesn't make them reliable, it could just mean no one's gotten around to providing a better source. Also, no way was that Huffington Post source reliable. That was a blog for crying out loud! As for the ABC News source, which is the closest thing you have provided to a reliable source, you're going to need more than an off-hand reference in one news agency if you want to make an extraordinary claim like Green Eggs and Ham has sold 200 million copies. The biggest problem with the sources you have provided, aside from issues of reliability, is the fact that their claims are directly contradicted by a number of other sources, a few examples of which I have provided below, which claim that Dr Seuss actually only sold around 8-20 million copies of that book.

Examples: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/theater-arts/dr-seuss-new-book-pet-tuesday-article-1.2303693, http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/childrens/childrens-industry-news/article/67548-the-enterprise-behind-dr-seuss.html, https://web.archive.org/web/20051225125934/http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA186995.html, http://courseweb.ischool.illinois.edu/~hkim214/lis514/production.html SQMeaner (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA and FA are Wikipedia parlance for Good article and Featured Article respectively, both of which require an extensive review process in order to earn such such a distinction. The process includes reviewing the verifiability of the articles' citations, so if ABC News or Huffington Post were deemed to be unfit sources, they would have been replaced before the articles passed their reviews. In regards to the HP source being a blog, a statement from the main web site is always preferable, but officially published blogs of major news organizations have been deemed to constitute reliable sources as well, so long as it's reporting in an official capacity, which this one is (i.e. not an op-ed piece, etc.). Out of the links you supplied, one of them is for the curriculum page of a school, which is generally not considered a reliable source and the figure it cites is from 1975 According to a Washington Post display advertisement in 1980, by 1975, the book sold almost 6 million copies - making it the best-selling children's book in the 20th century, so I'm not exactly sure why you chose to include that one. One of the Publishers Weekly articles is from 2001, over 15 years old, and it specifically states that's only for hardcover copies anyway. The second PW article states that a group of books has sold over 75 million copies (the total for the same books in the 2001 article is 31 million, showing you right there that it's significantly out of date). Even then a ballpark figure saying that a group of books has sold "over" a certain amount, does not inherently contradict the claim of another source that one of those books has a sold a higher number. That leaves the New York Daily News article. I actually did come across that one, and initially was going to list the book accordingly, but then I found the ABC News and Huffington Post articles which corroborated each other and Wikipedia generally considers nation-wide news networks to be verifiable than local ones. When all is said and done though, I don't have any particular agenda when it comes to Green Eggs and Ham, I'm simply trying to improve the List of Best Selling books article. Which, I think is ultimately both of our goals. The list is a worthwhile undertaking, but it's very incomplete and I'm trying to help do my part to correct that. Green Eggs and Ham has clearly sold enough that it needs to be included in there somewhere, and ABC News and Huffington Post were the two most verifiable figures I could find. Since New York Daily News cites a lower figure, it's possible that even though it's a newer article, it's citing an older source than the ABC/HP ones. However, if you can find a higher number of current, reliable sources that support its number than the ABC/HP one than that's the figure we should go with, until then the 200 figure is the most verifiable one we have.Vorpal76 (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide examples of Good Articles and/or Featured Articles that use Huffington Post blogs as reliable sources? Besides, according to Wikipedia's article on verifiability, for a claim like 'Green Eggs and Ham has sold 200 million copies', multiple high-quality sources are required. Now, I may not know as much about Wikipedia's rules as you do, but I'm pretty sure whoever wrote that article meant for more than just two sources to be provided when he mentioned multiple sources. On Wikipedia's reliable sources article they also point out that news blogs should be used with caution, even if they're posted in an offical capacity, and I'm pretty sure a situation like this calls for much caution indeed. I'd also like to point out that neither of the sources you've provided provide sources themselves for where they came up with those numbers, which makes it hard to verify their claims, which calls for even more caution in my eyes, especially as sales figures for Green Eggs and Ham seem to be quite scarce on the internet. As for why I posted those examples, I did that because, although I thought it hardly needed to be pointed out, when an article says something has sold 'over x copies' it usually means that the number of copies sold is just a little higher than x, which seems like pretty good evidence to me that Green Eggs and Ham' has probably not sold anywhere near as much as 200 million copies. It's also strange that you attack the lack of sourcing for the New York Daily Times article despite the fact that neither of the articles you've provided themselves provide sources for their claims, as I've already mentioned. Lastly, I've found an article by the Washington Post which, even though it's a powerpoint, does provide a source for its claims, that being Random House, the publisher of Green Eggs and Ham. You can find the article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-top-five-best-selling-dr-seuss-books-of-all-time/2015/07/22/129a5ec4-3091-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_gallery.html%7CSQMeaner]] (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I said anything about a "lack of sourcing" in New York Daily's article, rather I said that I almost cited that one but then opted to cite the other figure since I came across two reliable sources to back it up. So I actually am agreeing with you that the New York Daily article is a totally valid source, just that two reliable sources are better than one (although I'm not quite sure why, if you feel ABC News and Huffington Post don't count as reliable sources why you'd feel that a smaller localized newspaper would be, but that's more or less rhetorical, point being that, yes, the NY Daily one is a good source). This might sound weird, but in all honesty, my posting the ABC News and HP figure doesn't even mean that I personally believe them. It's just that there's enough evidence that the book should be on the list somewhere, and that was the most verifiable figure I could find, because even though it might sound counter-intuitive, what gets published on Wikipedia is determined by verifiability, not truth. Which goes back to the original reason I posted on your page -- I understand you were trying to do your part to improve the article, but as policy states, "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." Of course Wikipedia values truth and accuracy, but as per policy, Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. I would go a step further and say, that truth and accuracy are the ultimate goal of Wikipedia (but that is my own humble opinion and not policy). If you disagree with properly sourced material then that's fine. And if you disagree with them enough to want to do something about, that's fine too, that's even good, and you really should do something about it. However, there are proper channels to go through, such as the article's talk page, or the editor's. That's why those resources exist. Some people on Wikipedia choose to treat other people like jerks for no apparent reason, I don't think you are one of those, and I'm not one either. Even though I felt your edit was a mistaken one, I realized (or at least I had no reason to to think otherwise) that it was made in good faith (which is why I contacted you), but please understand that mine was too, and that most edits are. So if an edit is obviously intended as vandalism, then by all means swiftly removed it, but if it looks like someone is making an attempt to contribute -- even if you disagree, or if it seems weird, or it feels outright fishy -- please go through the proper channels. That's all. Otherwise that's how edit wars start, and nothing good ever comes of those.

The Washington Post reference is a very good one, in fact since it cites the publisher it's about as verifiable a reference as one could hope for (and more verifiable than the sources I cited). What's even better, it provides verifiable content for other books too. In a perfect world, multiple citations are almost always desirable. However, for a list of this size clutter can be a real concern, and (partially because of that reason) most featured articles stick with a single verifiable source for most entries. I believe that the Washington Post source, since it states a figure directly from the publisher, should be sufficiently verifiable to include the book according to that figure, no? Finally, you asked for examples of good articles and featured articles that cite ABC News and Huffington Post. Initially, I was going to tell you that you could look up examples yourself (it's really not very hard), but that wouldn't have been very civil, and since I'm asking you to assume good faith, I should do likewise. I have no idea what your degree of experience or familiarity is with Wikipedia, so it's entirely possible that you don't know how to look something up like this. So, here you are:

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SQMeaner. 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]

Brownrigg did not invent carbonated water

And neither did Cavendish. The method of combining water with carbon dioxide was discovered by Priestley. It’s that that is referred to in the history section. He mentions Brownrigg in his 1772 paper, Dr. Brownrigg farther discovered that Pyrmont, and other mineral waters, which have the same acidulous taste, contain a considerable proportion of this very kind of air, and that upon this their peculiar spirit and virtues depend; and I think myself fortunate in having hit upon a very easy method of communicating this air (and in a much larger proportion than mineral waters contain it) to any kind of water, or, indeed, to almost any fluid substance. CS Sutton (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brownrigg did invent carbonated water sometime around 1740, when he first wrote his article on it which was eventually published in 1765 and for which he got a Copley medal. Cavendish was aware of Brownrigg's experiments and the apparatus he used for carbonating water was almost identical to the one used by Priestley 5 years later. Here are some references for you. Please read them.

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15733823-00214p02

https://idus.us.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11441/39652/109.pdf?sequence=1 SQMeaner (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accenture

Hey saying accenture Irish is wrong it was founded in america in Chicago it just went to ireland to save some money. So it should have flagicon of both countries. Raj vijay shah.

Saving money means like tax money and it was founded in america and listed in NYSE and owned by majority of american investment firms like blackrock,Vanguard,capital group etc.So calling it irish is wrong.If thats the case then Bermuda and Cayman islands should be first which is not ,So accenture should have both flag icons ireland and usa. Raj vijay shah.

Raj vijay shah (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SQMeaner. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Invention of radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Adams (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) 07:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong BLUE

Oops, I was thinking of WP:SEAOFBLUE, not WP:SKYISBLUE which is why the removal of the tag made no sense to me. Nevertheless, such claims are prone to nationalistic peeing contests, so having a reliable source is useful to editors who have to revert such nonsense without making them hunt down the source. Also, even common firearm knowledge probably isn't common to the general public. As such, I'm going to restore the tag. BilCat (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking every editor to do research to verify what you say should be obvious. That's not a blue-sky fact if one has to do research. Please stop removing the tag, and add a source. Since it's that well known it should be easy for you to find one. And consider this your 3RR warning. BilCat (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:BilCat I'm sorry I don't accept that as a valid argument. Not all claims that fall under WP:BLUE are known by everyone before they've even looked into the topic a little. If you disagree with the assertion that the Chauchat was the first automatic rifle to be fielded by any country's army then it should be easy enough to come up with an example that predates the Chauchat. This shouldn't need a citation since it's blindingly obvious to anyone who has even so much as a passing interest in the history of firearms. But anyway, it's obvious that you and I fundamentally disagree on this point and rather than start an argument that will probably go on for days without reaching an agreement I would like to involve a third party as I doubt anything I say will change your mind at this point.SQMeaner (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have already disagreed with you, so you actually want a fourth opinion. It'd be easier to just cite a source, and be done with it. BilCat (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:BilCat Two editors who clearly weren't aware of WP:BLUE. Again, disproving the assertion that the Chauchat was the first automatic rifle to be adopted by a military is as simple as finding an earlier example. If no one can do this then it should be pretty obvious that the Chauchat came first. I am unable to find any article or section from a book online claiming that the Chauchat was the first automatic rifle to be adopted by a military because there simply aren't any books or articles on the history of firearms that bother to answer that question, hence why we should use common sense to determine whether the Chauchat was the first automatic rifle to be adopted by a military rather than get me to look for the needle in the haystack which is the direct answer to the question of which army was the first to field an automatic rifle. For what it's worth, I am willing to compromise on this. Perhaps it could say that the Chauchat 'was one of' the first automatic rifles to be fielded by a military instead of what it currently says on the automatic rifle page?SQMeaner (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a claim of fact needing a source, even if it's watered down. Look, the compromise is leaving the tag, as the alternative is to remove the claim as unsourced per WP:CITE. But as you said, we'll just go round and round on this forever, so I'll stop posting more now. If you want to seek someone else's opinion, that's fine, but really, all this to avoid a citation? I don't get it. BilCat (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: WP:BLUE is just an essay. You might want to read Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue for a dissenting opinion. It lays out there my view in this discussion quite nicely. (And, I didn't write it!) BilCat (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:BilCat, WP:BLUE is Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue is not. Also, I have submitted my request for a third party to intervene.

No, it is mostly definitely NOT policy. WP:BLUE redirects to Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, which clearly states it is an essay right there at the top. Nothing at all about it being policy. BilCat (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, misread the opening of WP:BLUE.SQMeaner (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I opened this post admitting I made a mistake, no problem. :) BilCat (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: (Also notifying BilCat) So far as "blue sky" claims, they are "blue sky" only until and unless challenged. If someone does challenge them, they aren't as "blue sky" as you thought, and regardless, if it is genuinely a well-known fact, finding a confirming reference should be trivial. Any statement which is unreferenced and challenged requires a reference as per verifiability, which unlike "blue sky" is a policy. It's also generally better to have these discussions on the article talk page where other editors can weigh in if they wish to do so. (And I have no idea whether that claim is true or not either, so I don't think it's really "blue sky" to begin with.) Also, "No one has said any differently" is not a valid source; a reference must affirmatively confirm the claim. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrocellulose

The reference I gave specifically talks about how the manufacture of gun cotton was an unsafe process and that these early variations were highly unstable. That's what that sentence describes, ("These substances were highly unstable and were not practical explosives"), isn't it? Pretty vague original sentence but that reference hits it bang-on, unless I'm missing something. The sentence that you said needed a citation doesn't even mention inventors, so why would its reference need a mention of inventors (In your revert, you wrote "None of the precious inventors of guncotton (prior to Schonbein) are even mentioned in this reference" fyi). Just thinking logically, my friend. Knightoften (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence I requested a citation for is referring explicitly to the inventors in the same paragraph it’s in’s inventions when it refers to them as unstable and impractical, hence why the next sentence after that claims that Schonbein’s method was more practical than the forms of nitrocellulose produced by the inventors who came before Schonbein. I suppose it’s that sentence I really take issue with and which appears unsupported by references so perhaps that’s the one that needs to be modified. Or perhaps the part about early guncotton being unstable and impractical as an explosive should be moved so that it’s clear that it’s referring to Schonbein’s invention too. Also, when providing a reference from a book it would help if you provided a page number for the part in the book you believe serves as the citation.SQMeaner (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so you wanted it to help with the prior and following text. I didn't put a page number? That's my bad, I could've sworn I did; it was on page 132 of the text I cited. I put the citation because all forms of gun cotton before Schonbein were impractical, unstable, etc. But on second thought, even Schonbein's creation and the one after it was/were pretty unstable as well. So honestly, maybe this unclear sentence could just be deleted, since refined forms of gun cotton are mentioned two paragraphs later anyway. It's up to you. For clarity purposes, that sentence can be rewritten so it's much easier to see exactly what it means. Or even moved like you said. I'll have a chance to look at this page properly again later this week, or feel free to move/rewrite it before then, if you want to. If you leave it up to me, I'll try to rewrite it when I get the chance later. Knightoften (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I will leave the modifications to the article in your hands.SQMeaner (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Magazine (firearms), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Savage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]