Welcome to Wikipedia, DOwenWilliams! I am EWikist and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
EWikist Talk 14:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the
external links you added do not comply with our
guidelines for external links and have been removed.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for
advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
69.181.249.92 (
talk)
20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you please add a citation to Equation of time to explain what reliable source you obtained the QBasic program from? Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(Reply copied to more appropriate place)
Actually, I wasn't suggesting that every user should check the program himself. I was suggesting that if an editor, e.g. yourself, has doubts about its reliability, he could check it by running ETIMSDEC, and then decide whether or not the routine should be in Wikipedia.
I have no idea what they'll tell you about Green Life Innovators. But I am quite certain that the code I posted is good.
Delete it if you want. I have plenty of other copies to use myself! Other people won't know what they've missed.
I'm not sure what you mean by referring to "comments about other users". I just replied to the note you sent me, which didn't refer to anyone else. I thought I put my reply on your User talk page, but I may have made a mistake. If so, sorry.
While I have you, let me ask you an unrelated question. Does anyone ever compare articles that are written in different languages? I can read several languages reasonably well, and have sometimes looked at articles in English, and also the corresponding articles in Spanish, French, Italian, and (with some effort) German. Often, they are nowhere near alike. It's like Spanish-speaking people live in a whole different universe...
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC) David Williams
The following subroutine, here written in QBasic but easily translatable to other languages, calculates the Equation of Time and the Solar Declination on any day of the year. It is quite accurate. Its Root-Mean-Square error for the Equation of Time is only 3.7 seconds. The Declination is calculated with errors that are always small compared with the angular radius of the sun as seen from the earth (about 0.25 degrees).
I originally posted this on the main pages entitled "Equation of time" and "Declination", here on Wikipedia. However, it was removed by editors because I could not provide a citation to a previous publication, other than to ones I had written myself. I could, and did, refer to a computer program including this routine, which demonstrates its accuracy. But apparently direct observation does not satisfy the rules.
Anyone who wants further information should follow the following link: [ Link] The program that includes the routine is ETIMSDEC. There are instructions how to run it. The article titled "The Latitude and Longitude of the Sun", which I wrote several years ago, describes the astronomical logic behind the routine.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC) David Williams
FUNCTION ET.Dec (D, F%) STATIC ' Calculates equation of time, in minutes, or solar declination, ' in degrees, on day number D of year. (D = 0 on January 1.) ' F% selects function: True (non-zero) for Equation of Time, ' False (zero) for Declination. ' STATIC means variables are preserved between calls of function IF PI = 0 THEN ' first call, initialize constants PI = 4 * ATN(1) W = 2 * PI / 365 ' earth's mean orbital angular speed in radians/day DR = 180 / PI ' degree/radian factor C = -23.45 / DR ' reverse angle of earth's axial tilt in radians ST = SIN(C) ' sine of reverse tilt CT = COS(C) ' cosine of reverse tilt E2 = 2 * .0167 ' twice earth's orbital eccentricity SP = 12 * W ' 12 days from December solstice to perihelion D1 = -1 ' holds last D. Saves time if D repeated for both functions END IF IF D <> D1 THEN ' new value of D A = W * (D + 10) ' Solstice 10 days before Jan 1 B = A + E2 * SIN(A - SP) D1 = D END IF IF F% THEN ' equation of time calculation C = (A - ATN(TAN(B) / CT)) / PI ET.Dec = 720 * (C - INT(C + .5)) ' this is value of equation of time ' in 720 minutes, earth rotates PI radians relative to sun ELSE ' declination calculation C = ST * COS(B) ET.Dec = ATN(C / SQR(1 - C * C)) * DR ' this is value of declination ' arcsine of C in degrees. ASN not directly available in QBasic END IF END FUNCTION
Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an
edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to
Marlborough College. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for
vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.
Trafford09 (
talk)
18:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi David. Thanks for the reply (it's fine for you to just reply here - I leave people's talk pages on my wp:watchlist, if I've added to them). It was good of you to correct the misspelling, as you did. It's just that we are supposed to supply an edit summary with each edit - even if it's just (in this case) 'sp' which people will assume means spelling correction. And another tool we registered users have at our disposal, of course, is being able to set the ' wp:minor' flag. Both these actions mean that any edit-patrollers don't need to go into our edits to examine them for vandalism. Hope that makes sense.
Anyway, happy continued editing. Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
What edit did I make to the heliostat article are you calling erroneous? Ywaz ( talk) 16:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The example you cited from the Concise Oxford Dictionary is an example of the correct use of "due to." In the strict grammar that I was taught and taught my writing students "due to" is only properly used in a linking verb construction such as the phrase you provided: "the difficulty is due to our ignorance." "Due to" should not be used to introduce a clause; for example, "Due to the bad weather, I won't be able to work outside."
You are right, however, in that the use of "due to" as a synonym for "because" has become common usage. I always told my writing students that if they couldn't understand the grammar rule for the use of "due to" to avoid it and use "because."
My apologies, by the way, for not providing an authoritative source, as you did for your comment. I moved on to another career decades ago and gave away almost all my stylebooks and grammar guides. 49oxen ( talk) 02:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello DOwenWilliams, I am writing to you to explain why I am reverting this undo.
I think what you meant by "Links should link to something" is that you wanted to get rid of the red links. While red links are of course not perfect, they do have a function at Wikipedia. As the nutshell at Wikipedia:Red link explains, "They serve as a clear indication of what articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." The way I see it is that the Wikipedia editing process is like diffusion; each editing step may go in a random direction and end up in an intermediate strange place, but there is an overall gradient that we're trying to follow. So, while I agree it's desirable to get rid of red links, the preferred direction is towards resolving them, rather than simply removing them. In this case, I agree with the IP editor that an explanation of the technical terms would be much more in order than links to the family of birds that happen to decorate the device.
So, what to do? There are several ways to resolve red links (these are described in the section Dealing with existing red links, but I find that section quite confusing, so here's my understanding): If there is an article that explains at least part of the "red" topic, then one can either change the link or create a redirect to that article or section.
For carriage pole, I was first thinking of making it a redirect to some appropriate section of carriage or chariot, but I wasn't able to find any such section, either. Those articles, while relying on the term don't even explain it. Encarta World English Dictionary defines it as "Shaft on a horse-drawn vehicle", so one might think a link to shaft might be in order, but that doesn't contain the correct item either, which is, as Encarta goes on to explain, "a single shaft projecting forward from the front of a vehicle between the animals that draw it and to which those animals are hitched". After I wrote this, I found that there also exists an article horse-drawn vehicle, which has at least a short explanation of the term. Maybe that could be clarified and expanded. (BTW, I just realized that the article seems to link to none of the articles, carriage, chariot or horse-drawn vehicle, which also makes it harder to find the explanation for such technical terms.)
The case of trip-mechanism is a bit more involved, as well. A google search yields a number of articles that might be relevant, but it seems they use the term in different meanings. Maybe instead of a redirect, a disambiguation page would be more appropriate here. I To decide which of these is meant here, I would have to spend more time understanding the mechanics here than I have right now. What do you think? You seem to be interested in and good at technical issues, so maybe you understand right away which one is meant here. If you have a solution, please don't hesitate to implement it as you see fit. Thanks, — Sebastian 01:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Rotating furnace, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Segment and Concave ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Braincricket ( talk) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
touche Braincricket ( talk) 00:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Equation clock, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Crank and Mean time ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Solar cooker, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cone and Cylinder ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
In Declination, you combined 360°/π × 0.0167 to the value 1.914, but given 360°=2π, this instead yields 2π/π × 0.0167 = 0.052 ≠ 1.914. Which one is correct? j.eng ( talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
360°/π × 0.0167 is correct. The eccentricity has to be multiplied by 2. But that 2 cancelled out with the one in the denominator. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 01:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that between 18 November 2011 and 28 November 2011 you contributed (together with a user named Ywaz) to the item Declination (the content of which was then moved to the item Position of the Sun). I've been trying to figure out how to best use Cooper's formula (the simplified formula with the sine function) for several days. In particular, I would like to ask you, N = 0 what instant does it represent? In the various versions of the pages it is sometimes written that it is midnight UTC between December 31st and January 1st, other times the UTC noon on December 31st (which I consider correct). I also downloaded various scientific literature (for example, Cooper's article) but found no answer. Are there scientific articles that I can consult?
Another thing: don't you think that under item Position of the Sun (in the paragraph "Calculations") instead of "overetimates", "underestimates" should go?
Thanks a lot
Sam X ( talk) 12:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the external links to appropedia.org fail to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria listed at WP:ELNO, specifically #12 "Links normally to be avoided .... Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." This is the same issue and for the same external site that I see an earlier warning (above) from 2010. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 15:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi DOwenWilliams - thanks for adding to the sunrise page. I had a question for you about the analemma / equation of time / sunrise dates issue. My understanding is that the earliest sunrise and the summer solstice do not correspond because there is an "east-west" component of the analemma (really a left-right component of the figure-8 shape, I think). The equation of time article says that the east-west component of the analemma is caused by the obliquity of the ecliptic and the eccentricity of Earth's orbit. Your revision said that "Only the orbital eccentricity causes the earliest/latest sunrises/sunsets to be shifted from the solstices." Can you clarify this a bit more? Thanks. TWCarlson ( talk) 12:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Compare these two revisions, and you'll see it:
Maybe that omission, which dates from long ago, misled me into making that stupid edit summary. Oh well.. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
If you could add some info regarding the length of an arc of an ellipse considering the central angle, please do so. It would be appreciated-- 82.137.9.72 ( talk) 12:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi David.
Looked at Long Branch today (moreso lately because of the recent vandalism) and saw your change.
I think that the section should go after the paragraph about Sam Smith and before the paragraph on incorporation (followed by the street naming paragraphs).
That keeps the chronological development of Long Branch in place early on the page.
Historical sites should refer to more specific sites in Long Branch. I kind of understand moving the paragraph where you did, but the page will read better if its moved above the street sections.
Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Chomik ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi David.
Have restored order to the chronological history under "HISTORY", so that there is continuity between Col. Smith's family and the Eastwoods.
The vandalism (the edit you refer to) is posted by Teksavvy Solutions Inc., under the names; Fwagent (currently blocked by Wikipedia), IP 206.248.139.134 (currently blocked), HarrisArsenault, 206.248.138.236, and currently, Jason Steeven Peck.
Whoever that is is deliberately posting false content that does not apply to Long Branch.
The more people who monitor this page and reverse the vandalism, the better.
This guy is seriously compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.52.246 ( talk) 17:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello DOwen,
Your friend.... Pocketthis ( talk) 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm here in reply to the question you presented to me on my talk page. I had to sit and think about it a bit, and in theory it sounds like something worthy of further thought. My only concern is the Oxygen factor. I don't know how much oxygen there is at 30,000 feet where Commercial Aircraft fly, however, I fly small single engine craft; and never above 10,000'. I can promise you there is still plenty of oxygen at 10,000'. Even with no gravity, logic would dictate that fire would not extinguish with just the lack of gravity with oxygen present. To discover if your idea holds water, you should contact NASA and ask them if someone in the space station has ever tried to light a match. Those guys float around in zero gravity with almost pure oxygen surrounding them. Of course that's why we see them on TV with no spacesuits on. Interesting subject I'll admit. I would tend to think that the match would light with oxygen present in zero gravity; however, I sold my Spaceship last week, and can't test it for you. :) Pocketthis ( talk) 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't appreciate the "Yanks dictating comment", and will never trust a Limey again. I am appalled at your reply there. You should be ashamed of yourself David. Won't be going to bat for you again anytime soon. Pocketthis ( talk) 03:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I am, actually, a graduate of Oxford University, in England. That's a pretty good ticket to social acceptability, at least, over there! DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)o
It certainly wasn't yours. Didn't you promise not to come back here? DOwenWilliams ( talk) 16:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Almost everything is seen through the prism of local culture. In England, the criteria for social acceptability are different in many ways than in the States. Members of royalty, or the artistocracy, are accepted pretty well anywhere, regardless of attained personality. Members of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are similarly accepted by default, although to become a member one has to succeed in a fearsomely difficult exam, which in itself is an attainment. I'm not saying that this is a good sytem, but it's the way it is.
Later...
Cheers.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 01:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a look at it. I agree with the "new fellow" and with you. I suggested that he should just cut and paste his revised wording into the article. Better that he should do it, and get whatever credit may be due, than that you or I should. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 20:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes! I didn't notice teh "protected" thing. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
David, I answered your question on 'my' talk page. Thanks Pocketthis ( talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
What text is it opposite? Also, in reply to your comments about the page views in articles: That's how I determine what photos to keep in the galleries and articles; as you can also use that system to get the stats of any particular photo, and see how many folks clicked on it in any language, on any Wiki. That's why you might notice me changing photos in the galleries so often. Thanks Pocketthis ( talk) 15:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. It's in the section called Parabola#Conic section and quadratic form. There's only one diagram there, and that's it. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 16:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I've done that sort of thing, and have lifted diagrams from other Wikipedias and put them in this English one. For example, the diagram in Parabola#Proof of the reflective property came from German Wikipedia, via Commons, of course.
As far as I've seen, the English Parabola article is better than those in all other languages (that I can understand), though the Spanish one is also pretty good. I imagine that, eventually, quite a lot of it will be copied into other languages.
Fun stuff.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Festivus for the rest of us! | |
Frank Costanza: "Many Christmases ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way." Cosmo Kramer: "What happened to the doll?" Frank Costanza: "It was destroyed. But out of that a new holiday was born: a Festivus for the rest of us!" Kramer: "That must have been some kind of doll." Frank Costanza: "She was." This holiday season, have a fantastic Festivus! —
Theo
polisme
16:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coasting ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
82.153.114.248. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Alpha-Methyltryptamine, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
82.153.114.248 (
talk)
14:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mercury (planet), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Morning star and Evening star ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parabolic reflector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vertex ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 23:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You are right about north-facing sundials in the tropics. It is a special case. I was actually about to add a footnote to that effect, when my connection crapped out (I am in Kuwait). When I got back online, I found your message! Waugh does say "No vertical dial can ever catch the sun's rays for more than 12 of the 24 hours in a day", Chapter 10, page 83 in my book, and that's the citation I gave. I'd say that his statement is generally true, and true even for north facers at latitudes greater than about 25º. I believe the maximum amount of sunlight possible for any vertical dial is about 13.5 hours, on a north-facing dial on midsummer's day right at the Tropic of Cancer. I don't think Waugh understands north-facing dials too well, actually, because he also says on page 86 that hour lines "below the horizon" need not be shown on north facing dials, which only shows that he never made one! I am actually just below latitude 29N at present, constructing a northeast dial that declines about 12º east, and even now, just a week before the solstice, with the dial declining to the east, the wall loses the sun around 10AM (and it doesn't really pick it up again till after 4PM). I'm not used to using the talk pages, so I hope I've done this the right way! Tyger27 ( talk) 21:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
From what I've read about Mr Waugh, sundials were his passion: he had quite a collection of old dialing books and kept voluminous notebooks on his own investigations, which I believe he bequeathed to the University of Connecticut, his employer. Even his wife found it a bit odd: "What a strange obsession for a grown man who owns a watch!" (Sundials, p. viii) But anyone can make a mistake, I guess, especially when one is only considering the majority of cases (or those closest to home), and not the exceptional ones. One thing that sort of threw me for a loop when I first started reading his book was his reliance on logarithmic arithmetic, but then I realized he was working in the days before cheap electronic calculation, when slide rules and trig tables were the order of the day. Needless to say we can "simplify" much of it these days: e.g. (p 79) his formula, log tan SD = log sin D + log cot ϕ, can more "easily" be expressed as tan(SD)=sin(D)/tan(ϕ). We no longer prefer addition to division now that we don't need to do the division by hand! Tyger27 ( talk) 16:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC
You placed a rather specific paragraph in the lead to that article, which I moved to a more appropriate section. However, it is still unsourced and I would appreciate it if you added citations as soon as possible; Moon is a featured article and doing this is akin to placing it on probation for de-listing. Serendi pod ous 05:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
About six weeks ago, you left a message on my talk page in response to a comment I had made on the Talk:Parabola page reporting a problem with some of the images. Please forgive me for not getting back to you sooner; I don't often log into Wikipedia, so I didn't see the message until this evening. I have taken another look at the page, and it does appear that you have fixed it. Thank you very much! LBourne ( talk) 23:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source that indicated how much the sun will expand over the next 1.4 million years to back up what you just inserted in the article? Thanks. — TimL • talk 03:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
I needed information about Parabolic Curves, and when I go to the page, it was filled with high quality work that I know you must have verified several times based on the stories on your page. I may have edited a lot less than you, but I think you deserve a medal. Keep up the good work! Coolastheothersideofthepillow ( talk) 02:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks very much. I used to be a high-school math teacher, so I am very familiar with this kind of stuff. I think many of the readers of the Parabola page are high-school students, so I've tried to include lots of things that they would find useful. I hope you find it useful too. Regards. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 16:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Your tale of J.E. is tantalizing! I'm wondering how a criminal case can turn on "if a certain discovery had been made". Alas, I understand why you didn't make the story more explicit. — Tamfang ( talk) 22:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biarc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bisector ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. You're right about the cuff of a shirt not meeting the definition of a bracelet (the former definition could have been interpreted as such), but when you reverted me, you brought back the mis-punctuated version (should be a comma instead of a period). I'm assuming you didn't catch that. Don't get me wrong here; I have an eagle eye for typos, and I was little disconcerted to see one that I had corrected getting reverted right back.
Cheers! -- Seven of Nine ( talk) 01:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've removed some of what you added to Watch for two reasons;
I see you removed the speculation, but the original research remains. If you have a reliable source this, then please re-add. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Until the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board#Talk:Isis is closed you shouldn't be removing the link to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - and we haven't made a decision there, the main article, as to whether or not to call it Islamic State. There's a move request open on that issue and it doesn't look so far that the name will be changed. Dougweller ( talk) 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ping Dougweller - your initial reaction looks right to me. DOwenWilliams removed it here [2] and here [3] (as well as on the primary topic here [4]) Irrespective of the article name, this is an alternative title detailed in the article, so can be listed on the dab (see WP:MOSDAB / WP:DABACRO). The fact that this is one of the most read articles means this should be listed, arguably at both locations. Removing both in this context may be quite disruptive. Even if the article is renamed, these are valid historical titles and the disambiguation should stay. As the primary topic discussion is underway, this should be the status quo. For more opinions feel free to ping the dab project. Widefox; talk 01:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit to the
disambiguation page
Isis (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the
disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:
please could you read MOSDAB before editing dab pages again, especially DABACRO. We prefer the ambiguous term, and links at the start which was all OK. WP:NOTBROKEN also handy to explain. Cheers Widefox; talk 01:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
As you note at Planetimer, the article is problematic promotion. I put it up for AFD, but no one else weighed in. If you'd like to see it removed, I encourage you to take it to AFD. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! As part of a class assignment Victoria ( talk), Andrew ( talk), Kieran ( talk), and I ( Jordan ( talk)) will be working on expanding the article about lunar eclipses ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Lunar_eclipse). We noticed that you have been writing on the talk page on the article, and we were hoping you might be able to help us out with getting started. For each of us, this is our first time seriously editing Wikipedia, but we wanted to add citations in the Lunar Eclipse in Mythology, Blood Moon, and Occurrence sections. We also wanted to add material to the Lunar Eclipse in Mythology section, Lunar versus Solar Eclipse section, and the Multimedia section.
In case you were wondering, the talk page for our class website is /info/en/?search=Education_Program:Cornell_University/Online_Communities_(Fall_2014)
Thank you,
Vmdavid ( talk) 00:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Please give me one example of such a change. [5] -- JorisvS ( talk) 18:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I took a look, today, at several dictionaries, some British, some American. They all say that both "that" and "which" are correct in the contexts we are discussing. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary also mentions a third possibility, to omit the pronoun altogether - "The book I bought today was expensive.") I was taught in my youth that in this kind of situation good style is to reduce repetition by using both (or all) available options, mixed together. Certainly, there is no justification for replacing all instances of "which" by "that". DOwenWilliams ( talk) 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the derivations can skip some steps, mostly in Angle \theta required to hit coordinate (x,y), to make it Wikipedia quality. I aggressively trimmed the article in an edit; What do you think? Timetraveler3.14 ( talk) 23:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
We have both started a discussion on net+ at Talk:Differential (mechanical device) within a few minutes of each other; we should probably consolidate. I'd refactor mine into yours, but the one I started has a reply, and I don't want to refactor someone else's comments without permission. Would it be alright if you folded yours into that one? Or do you have another suggestion? -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 22:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear DOwenWilliams,
Thank you very much for your many improvements to Wikipedia.
When words from some foreign language are crammed into an article in the English-language Wikipedia, the vast majority of the time, simply undoing that edit is the right thing to do.
Please forgive for re-instating just such an edit that you recently undid. [6]
In this case, User: Yoshi Canopus did the right thing. Yoshi added the appropriate link in the correct way to show up in the "languages" sidebar to the left of the English-language "Reflecting telescope" article. Yoshi was apparently using the "local links ... are required in order to link to sections of articles" exception described in Help:Interlanguage links. When I look at the English-language "Reflecting telescope" article and then click on the link Yoshi added to the sidebar, I go to the "reflecting telescope" section of the "optical telescope" article in the Japanese-language Wikipedia.
That's the way the "languages sidebar" is supposed to work, right?
Again, thank you for your many improvements to Wikipedia, and forgive me for nit-picking this one well-intended but counter-productive edit. -- DavidCary ( talk) 03:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I should have said Hello a couple of years back--I always regard your edits as safe and reliable. I see that today you have started on unravelling the spiders nest of references on the sundial page. Can I point you to User:ClemRutter/Citations#Citations where I have attempted to make sense of linkages when the paper has no author. Yes I have got it to work! I am a bit busy at the moment looking at Manuals of Style and setting Maths using <math> tags- prior to an edit-a-thon (where we will also be addressing sfnref! I hope that link is useful.-- Clem Rutter ( talk) 10:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
|author=Sunshine in your pocket!
? I simply changed it from the slightly more incorrect |last=Sunshine in your pocket!
|first=
. Fixing it any more is beyond my code (and normally beyond my interest level) and up to the next good editor :) However, upon closer inspection, the author appears to be
Michelle B. Larson. I scanned your sandbox text. Obviously, it's a work in progress. There's a curious truncation at the end of the "sundials in the southern hemisphere" section. I guess that's a mistake. Also, I noticed you deleted the bit about sundials being less used in the southern hemisphere than the northern. I had written that, long ago. I couldn't find any good citations, but I'm sure it's true. In Chilean-Spanish dictionaries, there isn't even a word for "sundial". In Spain, it's well-known. There's a sundial in Argentina which was made by a Spanish immigrant. He said he wanted to show the people of his new country one of these devices, which can be found on every street-corner in Spain. I built a sundial in the back yard of a friend of mine in Santiago, Chile. It caused a minor sensation, being described on the radio. I had tried to buy a sundial there, but nobody knew what I was talking about. Unfortunately, mine didn't last long. An earthquake shook it down. There are a few sundials in Australia, but I'm told not many.
Waugh describes the empirical method of marking hour-lines, but doesn't mention the need to allow for the equation of time. Obviously, it's essential. I've put it in the article, but I'll probably be burned at a stake. Do you know of any citable texts that describe it?
Later...
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
For relaxation- I found Giovanni Francesco Zarbula. while he was not known on enwiki- there were some lovely references on frwiki- and following those led to two ppt presentations on the left bar of Walking shadows. Then there are rest of his links... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I have got London dial up to a reasonable standard. Would you care to have a look, and make some comments.-- Clem Rutter ( talk) 13:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
In the US, it is usual to follow e.g. or i.e. with a comma. It is less common in the UK. There is leniency in all conventions. The golden rule is: be consistent. JoeSperrazza ( talk) 22:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi DOwenWilliams, I recently reverted two edits you made to parabola, and you've re-added them without any real comment. I mentioned 3 reasons for removing it in my edit comment: it is unsourced, it was (in part) misstated, and it gives undue weight (in that I don't think this random fact is significant enough to merit its own section). I would appreciate if you would address these comments on the article talk page. Thanks, JBL ( talk) 00:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
We can't have an article with no references about a (possibly) living person. Please don't restore this material. -- John ( talk) 19:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There never was a TTC route 507 Lake Shore, the correct name for that number was 507 Long Branch which was discontinued and amalgamated with route 501. The reference you give in your creation is for a temporay split of 501 Queen. There was a 508 Lake Shore which, until recently, split on to King Street at Roncesvalles Avenue and short turned via Church Street in downtown. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 18:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
How do you mean that the edit you undid is wrong? - How is it as incomprehensible image? -- Simeondahl ( talk) 08:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay. It's a incomprehensible picture. We will just leave it off, I kinda don't wanna use too much time talking about if a picture should be on an article or not. -- Simeondahl ( talk) 00:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
That's the first time you got my back in a talk page, and don't think I don't appreciate it. However, I promised (over at the admin's page), that I was done ranting over this subject. I also stated that if no one comes to my aid, then "it is what it is, and there's nothing more I can do about it". Thanks again.....- Pocketthis ( talk) 20:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, DOwenWilliams. 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)
Mwidunn ( talk) 04:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)mwidunn If you check the etymology, you'll see that the word derives from: "to inflame." So, something that is "inflammable" is: "something that is capable of becoming inflamed" (i. e., catching fire). It may cause confusion to many, but: So, what? The fact that the word has entered into some contemporary dictionaries only indicates how either ignorant or lazy those books' editors have become.
The redirect
Trymene 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 September 18 § Trymene until a consensus is reached.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
22:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, DOwenWilliams! I am EWikist and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
EWikist Talk 14:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the
external links you added do not comply with our
guidelines for external links and have been removed.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for
advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
69.181.249.92 (
talk)
20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you please add a citation to Equation of time to explain what reliable source you obtained the QBasic program from? Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(Reply copied to more appropriate place)
Actually, I wasn't suggesting that every user should check the program himself. I was suggesting that if an editor, e.g. yourself, has doubts about its reliability, he could check it by running ETIMSDEC, and then decide whether or not the routine should be in Wikipedia.
I have no idea what they'll tell you about Green Life Innovators. But I am quite certain that the code I posted is good.
Delete it if you want. I have plenty of other copies to use myself! Other people won't know what they've missed.
I'm not sure what you mean by referring to "comments about other users". I just replied to the note you sent me, which didn't refer to anyone else. I thought I put my reply on your User talk page, but I may have made a mistake. If so, sorry.
While I have you, let me ask you an unrelated question. Does anyone ever compare articles that are written in different languages? I can read several languages reasonably well, and have sometimes looked at articles in English, and also the corresponding articles in Spanish, French, Italian, and (with some effort) German. Often, they are nowhere near alike. It's like Spanish-speaking people live in a whole different universe...
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC) David Williams
The following subroutine, here written in QBasic but easily translatable to other languages, calculates the Equation of Time and the Solar Declination on any day of the year. It is quite accurate. Its Root-Mean-Square error for the Equation of Time is only 3.7 seconds. The Declination is calculated with errors that are always small compared with the angular radius of the sun as seen from the earth (about 0.25 degrees).
I originally posted this on the main pages entitled "Equation of time" and "Declination", here on Wikipedia. However, it was removed by editors because I could not provide a citation to a previous publication, other than to ones I had written myself. I could, and did, refer to a computer program including this routine, which demonstrates its accuracy. But apparently direct observation does not satisfy the rules.
Anyone who wants further information should follow the following link: [ Link] The program that includes the routine is ETIMSDEC. There are instructions how to run it. The article titled "The Latitude and Longitude of the Sun", which I wrote several years ago, describes the astronomical logic behind the routine.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC) David Williams
FUNCTION ET.Dec (D, F%) STATIC ' Calculates equation of time, in minutes, or solar declination, ' in degrees, on day number D of year. (D = 0 on January 1.) ' F% selects function: True (non-zero) for Equation of Time, ' False (zero) for Declination. ' STATIC means variables are preserved between calls of function IF PI = 0 THEN ' first call, initialize constants PI = 4 * ATN(1) W = 2 * PI / 365 ' earth's mean orbital angular speed in radians/day DR = 180 / PI ' degree/radian factor C = -23.45 / DR ' reverse angle of earth's axial tilt in radians ST = SIN(C) ' sine of reverse tilt CT = COS(C) ' cosine of reverse tilt E2 = 2 * .0167 ' twice earth's orbital eccentricity SP = 12 * W ' 12 days from December solstice to perihelion D1 = -1 ' holds last D. Saves time if D repeated for both functions END IF IF D <> D1 THEN ' new value of D A = W * (D + 10) ' Solstice 10 days before Jan 1 B = A + E2 * SIN(A - SP) D1 = D END IF IF F% THEN ' equation of time calculation C = (A - ATN(TAN(B) / CT)) / PI ET.Dec = 720 * (C - INT(C + .5)) ' this is value of equation of time ' in 720 minutes, earth rotates PI radians relative to sun ELSE ' declination calculation C = ST * COS(B) ET.Dec = ATN(C / SQR(1 - C * C)) * DR ' this is value of declination ' arcsine of C in degrees. ASN not directly available in QBasic END IF END FUNCTION
Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an
edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to
Marlborough College. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for
vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.
Trafford09 (
talk)
18:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi David. Thanks for the reply (it's fine for you to just reply here - I leave people's talk pages on my wp:watchlist, if I've added to them). It was good of you to correct the misspelling, as you did. It's just that we are supposed to supply an edit summary with each edit - even if it's just (in this case) 'sp' which people will assume means spelling correction. And another tool we registered users have at our disposal, of course, is being able to set the ' wp:minor' flag. Both these actions mean that any edit-patrollers don't need to go into our edits to examine them for vandalism. Hope that makes sense.
Anyway, happy continued editing. Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
What edit did I make to the heliostat article are you calling erroneous? Ywaz ( talk) 16:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The example you cited from the Concise Oxford Dictionary is an example of the correct use of "due to." In the strict grammar that I was taught and taught my writing students "due to" is only properly used in a linking verb construction such as the phrase you provided: "the difficulty is due to our ignorance." "Due to" should not be used to introduce a clause; for example, "Due to the bad weather, I won't be able to work outside."
You are right, however, in that the use of "due to" as a synonym for "because" has become common usage. I always told my writing students that if they couldn't understand the grammar rule for the use of "due to" to avoid it and use "because."
My apologies, by the way, for not providing an authoritative source, as you did for your comment. I moved on to another career decades ago and gave away almost all my stylebooks and grammar guides. 49oxen ( talk) 02:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello DOwenWilliams, I am writing to you to explain why I am reverting this undo.
I think what you meant by "Links should link to something" is that you wanted to get rid of the red links. While red links are of course not perfect, they do have a function at Wikipedia. As the nutshell at Wikipedia:Red link explains, "They serve as a clear indication of what articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." The way I see it is that the Wikipedia editing process is like diffusion; each editing step may go in a random direction and end up in an intermediate strange place, but there is an overall gradient that we're trying to follow. So, while I agree it's desirable to get rid of red links, the preferred direction is towards resolving them, rather than simply removing them. In this case, I agree with the IP editor that an explanation of the technical terms would be much more in order than links to the family of birds that happen to decorate the device.
So, what to do? There are several ways to resolve red links (these are described in the section Dealing with existing red links, but I find that section quite confusing, so here's my understanding): If there is an article that explains at least part of the "red" topic, then one can either change the link or create a redirect to that article or section.
For carriage pole, I was first thinking of making it a redirect to some appropriate section of carriage or chariot, but I wasn't able to find any such section, either. Those articles, while relying on the term don't even explain it. Encarta World English Dictionary defines it as "Shaft on a horse-drawn vehicle", so one might think a link to shaft might be in order, but that doesn't contain the correct item either, which is, as Encarta goes on to explain, "a single shaft projecting forward from the front of a vehicle between the animals that draw it and to which those animals are hitched". After I wrote this, I found that there also exists an article horse-drawn vehicle, which has at least a short explanation of the term. Maybe that could be clarified and expanded. (BTW, I just realized that the article seems to link to none of the articles, carriage, chariot or horse-drawn vehicle, which also makes it harder to find the explanation for such technical terms.)
The case of trip-mechanism is a bit more involved, as well. A google search yields a number of articles that might be relevant, but it seems they use the term in different meanings. Maybe instead of a redirect, a disambiguation page would be more appropriate here. I To decide which of these is meant here, I would have to spend more time understanding the mechanics here than I have right now. What do you think? You seem to be interested in and good at technical issues, so maybe you understand right away which one is meant here. If you have a solution, please don't hesitate to implement it as you see fit. Thanks, — Sebastian 01:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Rotating furnace, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Segment and Concave ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Braincricket ( talk) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
touche Braincricket ( talk) 00:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Equation clock, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Crank and Mean time ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Solar cooker, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cone and Cylinder ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
In Declination, you combined 360°/π × 0.0167 to the value 1.914, but given 360°=2π, this instead yields 2π/π × 0.0167 = 0.052 ≠ 1.914. Which one is correct? j.eng ( talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
360°/π × 0.0167 is correct. The eccentricity has to be multiplied by 2. But that 2 cancelled out with the one in the denominator. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 01:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that between 18 November 2011 and 28 November 2011 you contributed (together with a user named Ywaz) to the item Declination (the content of which was then moved to the item Position of the Sun). I've been trying to figure out how to best use Cooper's formula (the simplified formula with the sine function) for several days. In particular, I would like to ask you, N = 0 what instant does it represent? In the various versions of the pages it is sometimes written that it is midnight UTC between December 31st and January 1st, other times the UTC noon on December 31st (which I consider correct). I also downloaded various scientific literature (for example, Cooper's article) but found no answer. Are there scientific articles that I can consult?
Another thing: don't you think that under item Position of the Sun (in the paragraph "Calculations") instead of "overetimates", "underestimates" should go?
Thanks a lot
Sam X ( talk) 12:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the external links to appropedia.org fail to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria listed at WP:ELNO, specifically #12 "Links normally to be avoided .... Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." This is the same issue and for the same external site that I see an earlier warning (above) from 2010. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 15:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi DOwenWilliams - thanks for adding to the sunrise page. I had a question for you about the analemma / equation of time / sunrise dates issue. My understanding is that the earliest sunrise and the summer solstice do not correspond because there is an "east-west" component of the analemma (really a left-right component of the figure-8 shape, I think). The equation of time article says that the east-west component of the analemma is caused by the obliquity of the ecliptic and the eccentricity of Earth's orbit. Your revision said that "Only the orbital eccentricity causes the earliest/latest sunrises/sunsets to be shifted from the solstices." Can you clarify this a bit more? Thanks. TWCarlson ( talk) 12:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Compare these two revisions, and you'll see it:
Maybe that omission, which dates from long ago, misled me into making that stupid edit summary. Oh well.. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
If you could add some info regarding the length of an arc of an ellipse considering the central angle, please do so. It would be appreciated-- 82.137.9.72 ( talk) 12:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi David.
Looked at Long Branch today (moreso lately because of the recent vandalism) and saw your change.
I think that the section should go after the paragraph about Sam Smith and before the paragraph on incorporation (followed by the street naming paragraphs).
That keeps the chronological development of Long Branch in place early on the page.
Historical sites should refer to more specific sites in Long Branch. I kind of understand moving the paragraph where you did, but the page will read better if its moved above the street sections.
Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Chomik ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi David.
Have restored order to the chronological history under "HISTORY", so that there is continuity between Col. Smith's family and the Eastwoods.
The vandalism (the edit you refer to) is posted by Teksavvy Solutions Inc., under the names; Fwagent (currently blocked by Wikipedia), IP 206.248.139.134 (currently blocked), HarrisArsenault, 206.248.138.236, and currently, Jason Steeven Peck.
Whoever that is is deliberately posting false content that does not apply to Long Branch.
The more people who monitor this page and reverse the vandalism, the better.
This guy is seriously compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.52.246 ( talk) 17:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello DOwen,
Your friend.... Pocketthis ( talk) 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm here in reply to the question you presented to me on my talk page. I had to sit and think about it a bit, and in theory it sounds like something worthy of further thought. My only concern is the Oxygen factor. I don't know how much oxygen there is at 30,000 feet where Commercial Aircraft fly, however, I fly small single engine craft; and never above 10,000'. I can promise you there is still plenty of oxygen at 10,000'. Even with no gravity, logic would dictate that fire would not extinguish with just the lack of gravity with oxygen present. To discover if your idea holds water, you should contact NASA and ask them if someone in the space station has ever tried to light a match. Those guys float around in zero gravity with almost pure oxygen surrounding them. Of course that's why we see them on TV with no spacesuits on. Interesting subject I'll admit. I would tend to think that the match would light with oxygen present in zero gravity; however, I sold my Spaceship last week, and can't test it for you. :) Pocketthis ( talk) 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't appreciate the "Yanks dictating comment", and will never trust a Limey again. I am appalled at your reply there. You should be ashamed of yourself David. Won't be going to bat for you again anytime soon. Pocketthis ( talk) 03:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I am, actually, a graduate of Oxford University, in England. That's a pretty good ticket to social acceptability, at least, over there! DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)o
It certainly wasn't yours. Didn't you promise not to come back here? DOwenWilliams ( talk) 16:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Almost everything is seen through the prism of local culture. In England, the criteria for social acceptability are different in many ways than in the States. Members of royalty, or the artistocracy, are accepted pretty well anywhere, regardless of attained personality. Members of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are similarly accepted by default, although to become a member one has to succeed in a fearsomely difficult exam, which in itself is an attainment. I'm not saying that this is a good sytem, but it's the way it is.
Later...
Cheers.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 01:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a look at it. I agree with the "new fellow" and with you. I suggested that he should just cut and paste his revised wording into the article. Better that he should do it, and get whatever credit may be due, than that you or I should. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 20:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes! I didn't notice teh "protected" thing. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
David, I answered your question on 'my' talk page. Thanks Pocketthis ( talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
What text is it opposite? Also, in reply to your comments about the page views in articles: That's how I determine what photos to keep in the galleries and articles; as you can also use that system to get the stats of any particular photo, and see how many folks clicked on it in any language, on any Wiki. That's why you might notice me changing photos in the galleries so often. Thanks Pocketthis ( talk) 15:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. It's in the section called Parabola#Conic section and quadratic form. There's only one diagram there, and that's it. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 16:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I've done that sort of thing, and have lifted diagrams from other Wikipedias and put them in this English one. For example, the diagram in Parabola#Proof of the reflective property came from German Wikipedia, via Commons, of course.
As far as I've seen, the English Parabola article is better than those in all other languages (that I can understand), though the Spanish one is also pretty good. I imagine that, eventually, quite a lot of it will be copied into other languages.
Fun stuff.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Festivus for the rest of us! | |
Frank Costanza: "Many Christmases ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way." Cosmo Kramer: "What happened to the doll?" Frank Costanza: "It was destroyed. But out of that a new holiday was born: a Festivus for the rest of us!" Kramer: "That must have been some kind of doll." Frank Costanza: "She was." This holiday season, have a fantastic Festivus! —
Theo
polisme
16:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coasting ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
82.153.114.248. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Alpha-Methyltryptamine, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
82.153.114.248 (
talk)
14:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mercury (planet), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Morning star and Evening star ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parabolic reflector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vertex ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 23:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You are right about north-facing sundials in the tropics. It is a special case. I was actually about to add a footnote to that effect, when my connection crapped out (I am in Kuwait). When I got back online, I found your message! Waugh does say "No vertical dial can ever catch the sun's rays for more than 12 of the 24 hours in a day", Chapter 10, page 83 in my book, and that's the citation I gave. I'd say that his statement is generally true, and true even for north facers at latitudes greater than about 25º. I believe the maximum amount of sunlight possible for any vertical dial is about 13.5 hours, on a north-facing dial on midsummer's day right at the Tropic of Cancer. I don't think Waugh understands north-facing dials too well, actually, because he also says on page 86 that hour lines "below the horizon" need not be shown on north facing dials, which only shows that he never made one! I am actually just below latitude 29N at present, constructing a northeast dial that declines about 12º east, and even now, just a week before the solstice, with the dial declining to the east, the wall loses the sun around 10AM (and it doesn't really pick it up again till after 4PM). I'm not used to using the talk pages, so I hope I've done this the right way! Tyger27 ( talk) 21:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
From what I've read about Mr Waugh, sundials were his passion: he had quite a collection of old dialing books and kept voluminous notebooks on his own investigations, which I believe he bequeathed to the University of Connecticut, his employer. Even his wife found it a bit odd: "What a strange obsession for a grown man who owns a watch!" (Sundials, p. viii) But anyone can make a mistake, I guess, especially when one is only considering the majority of cases (or those closest to home), and not the exceptional ones. One thing that sort of threw me for a loop when I first started reading his book was his reliance on logarithmic arithmetic, but then I realized he was working in the days before cheap electronic calculation, when slide rules and trig tables were the order of the day. Needless to say we can "simplify" much of it these days: e.g. (p 79) his formula, log tan SD = log sin D + log cot ϕ, can more "easily" be expressed as tan(SD)=sin(D)/tan(ϕ). We no longer prefer addition to division now that we don't need to do the division by hand! Tyger27 ( talk) 16:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC
You placed a rather specific paragraph in the lead to that article, which I moved to a more appropriate section. However, it is still unsourced and I would appreciate it if you added citations as soon as possible; Moon is a featured article and doing this is akin to placing it on probation for de-listing. Serendi pod ous 05:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
About six weeks ago, you left a message on my talk page in response to a comment I had made on the Talk:Parabola page reporting a problem with some of the images. Please forgive me for not getting back to you sooner; I don't often log into Wikipedia, so I didn't see the message until this evening. I have taken another look at the page, and it does appear that you have fixed it. Thank you very much! LBourne ( talk) 23:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source that indicated how much the sun will expand over the next 1.4 million years to back up what you just inserted in the article? Thanks. — TimL • talk 03:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
I needed information about Parabolic Curves, and when I go to the page, it was filled with high quality work that I know you must have verified several times based on the stories on your page. I may have edited a lot less than you, but I think you deserve a medal. Keep up the good work! Coolastheothersideofthepillow ( talk) 02:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks very much. I used to be a high-school math teacher, so I am very familiar with this kind of stuff. I think many of the readers of the Parabola page are high-school students, so I've tried to include lots of things that they would find useful. I hope you find it useful too. Regards. DOwenWilliams ( talk) 16:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Your tale of J.E. is tantalizing! I'm wondering how a criminal case can turn on "if a certain discovery had been made". Alas, I understand why you didn't make the story more explicit. — Tamfang ( talk) 22:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biarc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bisector ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. You're right about the cuff of a shirt not meeting the definition of a bracelet (the former definition could have been interpreted as such), but when you reverted me, you brought back the mis-punctuated version (should be a comma instead of a period). I'm assuming you didn't catch that. Don't get me wrong here; I have an eagle eye for typos, and I was little disconcerted to see one that I had corrected getting reverted right back.
Cheers! -- Seven of Nine ( talk) 01:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've removed some of what you added to Watch for two reasons;
I see you removed the speculation, but the original research remains. If you have a reliable source this, then please re-add. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Until the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board#Talk:Isis is closed you shouldn't be removing the link to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - and we haven't made a decision there, the main article, as to whether or not to call it Islamic State. There's a move request open on that issue and it doesn't look so far that the name will be changed. Dougweller ( talk) 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ping Dougweller - your initial reaction looks right to me. DOwenWilliams removed it here [2] and here [3] (as well as on the primary topic here [4]) Irrespective of the article name, this is an alternative title detailed in the article, so can be listed on the dab (see WP:MOSDAB / WP:DABACRO). The fact that this is one of the most read articles means this should be listed, arguably at both locations. Removing both in this context may be quite disruptive. Even if the article is renamed, these are valid historical titles and the disambiguation should stay. As the primary topic discussion is underway, this should be the status quo. For more opinions feel free to ping the dab project. Widefox; talk 01:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit to the
disambiguation page
Isis (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the
disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:
please could you read MOSDAB before editing dab pages again, especially DABACRO. We prefer the ambiguous term, and links at the start which was all OK. WP:NOTBROKEN also handy to explain. Cheers Widefox; talk 01:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
As you note at Planetimer, the article is problematic promotion. I put it up for AFD, but no one else weighed in. If you'd like to see it removed, I encourage you to take it to AFD. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! As part of a class assignment Victoria ( talk), Andrew ( talk), Kieran ( talk), and I ( Jordan ( talk)) will be working on expanding the article about lunar eclipses ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Lunar_eclipse). We noticed that you have been writing on the talk page on the article, and we were hoping you might be able to help us out with getting started. For each of us, this is our first time seriously editing Wikipedia, but we wanted to add citations in the Lunar Eclipse in Mythology, Blood Moon, and Occurrence sections. We also wanted to add material to the Lunar Eclipse in Mythology section, Lunar versus Solar Eclipse section, and the Multimedia section.
In case you were wondering, the talk page for our class website is /info/en/?search=Education_Program:Cornell_University/Online_Communities_(Fall_2014)
Thank you,
Vmdavid ( talk) 00:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Please give me one example of such a change. [5] -- JorisvS ( talk) 18:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I took a look, today, at several dictionaries, some British, some American. They all say that both "that" and "which" are correct in the contexts we are discussing. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary also mentions a third possibility, to omit the pronoun altogether - "The book I bought today was expensive.") I was taught in my youth that in this kind of situation good style is to reduce repetition by using both (or all) available options, mixed together. Certainly, there is no justification for replacing all instances of "which" by "that". DOwenWilliams ( talk) 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the derivations can skip some steps, mostly in Angle \theta required to hit coordinate (x,y), to make it Wikipedia quality. I aggressively trimmed the article in an edit; What do you think? Timetraveler3.14 ( talk) 23:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
We have both started a discussion on net+ at Talk:Differential (mechanical device) within a few minutes of each other; we should probably consolidate. I'd refactor mine into yours, but the one I started has a reply, and I don't want to refactor someone else's comments without permission. Would it be alright if you folded yours into that one? Or do you have another suggestion? -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 22:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear DOwenWilliams,
Thank you very much for your many improvements to Wikipedia.
When words from some foreign language are crammed into an article in the English-language Wikipedia, the vast majority of the time, simply undoing that edit is the right thing to do.
Please forgive for re-instating just such an edit that you recently undid. [6]
In this case, User: Yoshi Canopus did the right thing. Yoshi added the appropriate link in the correct way to show up in the "languages" sidebar to the left of the English-language "Reflecting telescope" article. Yoshi was apparently using the "local links ... are required in order to link to sections of articles" exception described in Help:Interlanguage links. When I look at the English-language "Reflecting telescope" article and then click on the link Yoshi added to the sidebar, I go to the "reflecting telescope" section of the "optical telescope" article in the Japanese-language Wikipedia.
That's the way the "languages sidebar" is supposed to work, right?
Again, thank you for your many improvements to Wikipedia, and forgive me for nit-picking this one well-intended but counter-productive edit. -- DavidCary ( talk) 03:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I should have said Hello a couple of years back--I always regard your edits as safe and reliable. I see that today you have started on unravelling the spiders nest of references on the sundial page. Can I point you to User:ClemRutter/Citations#Citations where I have attempted to make sense of linkages when the paper has no author. Yes I have got it to work! I am a bit busy at the moment looking at Manuals of Style and setting Maths using <math> tags- prior to an edit-a-thon (where we will also be addressing sfnref! I hope that link is useful.-- Clem Rutter ( talk) 10:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
|author=Sunshine in your pocket!
? I simply changed it from the slightly more incorrect |last=Sunshine in your pocket!
|first=
. Fixing it any more is beyond my code (and normally beyond my interest level) and up to the next good editor :) However, upon closer inspection, the author appears to be
Michelle B. Larson. I scanned your sandbox text. Obviously, it's a work in progress. There's a curious truncation at the end of the "sundials in the southern hemisphere" section. I guess that's a mistake. Also, I noticed you deleted the bit about sundials being less used in the southern hemisphere than the northern. I had written that, long ago. I couldn't find any good citations, but I'm sure it's true. In Chilean-Spanish dictionaries, there isn't even a word for "sundial". In Spain, it's well-known. There's a sundial in Argentina which was made by a Spanish immigrant. He said he wanted to show the people of his new country one of these devices, which can be found on every street-corner in Spain. I built a sundial in the back yard of a friend of mine in Santiago, Chile. It caused a minor sensation, being described on the radio. I had tried to buy a sundial there, but nobody knew what I was talking about. Unfortunately, mine didn't last long. An earthquake shook it down. There are a few sundials in Australia, but I'm told not many.
Waugh describes the empirical method of marking hour-lines, but doesn't mention the need to allow for the equation of time. Obviously, it's essential. I've put it in the article, but I'll probably be burned at a stake. Do you know of any citable texts that describe it?
Later...
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
For relaxation- I found Giovanni Francesco Zarbula. while he was not known on enwiki- there were some lovely references on frwiki- and following those led to two ppt presentations on the left bar of Walking shadows. Then there are rest of his links... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I have got London dial up to a reasonable standard. Would you care to have a look, and make some comments.-- Clem Rutter ( talk) 13:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
In the US, it is usual to follow e.g. or i.e. with a comma. It is less common in the UK. There is leniency in all conventions. The golden rule is: be consistent. JoeSperrazza ( talk) 22:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi DOwenWilliams, I recently reverted two edits you made to parabola, and you've re-added them without any real comment. I mentioned 3 reasons for removing it in my edit comment: it is unsourced, it was (in part) misstated, and it gives undue weight (in that I don't think this random fact is significant enough to merit its own section). I would appreciate if you would address these comments on the article talk page. Thanks, JBL ( talk) 00:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
We can't have an article with no references about a (possibly) living person. Please don't restore this material. -- John ( talk) 19:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There never was a TTC route 507 Lake Shore, the correct name for that number was 507 Long Branch which was discontinued and amalgamated with route 501. The reference you give in your creation is for a temporay split of 501 Queen. There was a 508 Lake Shore which, until recently, split on to King Street at Roncesvalles Avenue and short turned via Church Street in downtown. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 18:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
How do you mean that the edit you undid is wrong? - How is it as incomprehensible image? -- Simeondahl ( talk) 08:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay. It's a incomprehensible picture. We will just leave it off, I kinda don't wanna use too much time talking about if a picture should be on an article or not. -- Simeondahl ( talk) 00:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
That's the first time you got my back in a talk page, and don't think I don't appreciate it. However, I promised (over at the admin's page), that I was done ranting over this subject. I also stated that if no one comes to my aid, then "it is what it is, and there's nothing more I can do about it". Thanks again.....- Pocketthis ( talk) 20:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, DOwenWilliams. 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)
Mwidunn ( talk) 04:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)mwidunn If you check the etymology, you'll see that the word derives from: "to inflame." So, something that is "inflammable" is: "something that is capable of becoming inflamed" (i. e., catching fire). It may cause confusion to many, but: So, what? The fact that the word has entered into some contemporary dictionaries only indicates how either ignorant or lazy those books' editors have become.
The redirect
Trymene 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 September 18 § Trymene until a consensus is reached.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
22:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)