User talk:Uruiamme: Difference between revisions

I am starting "Wikipedians Who don't care about Kate Knight" a.k.a. "Wikipedians against stories about Kate Knight" a.k.a. "Wikipedians who don't give a flying flip about Kate Knight or any other absurd maniacal non-notable criminal" which has as its stated goals, the following"

• When articles appear to refer to Kate Knight, we remove the Kate Knight portion immediately and in its entirety
• When articles appear to refer to Kate Knight, the source is reprimanded
• When articles appear to refer to Kate Knight, sock puppets are monitored
• When we are bored, we track down previous Kate Knight sources and wreak havoc on their accounts in some way, preferring to do so civilized and within the rules
• When we encounter fellow "Wikipedians who don't give a flying flip about Kate Knight or any other absurd maniacal non-notable criminal," we exchange the official and secret greeting, which is lacing our comments with nonsense words that can only be interpreted by insiders, which coyly imply that antifreeze and is basically the root of all evils (more basic than money) which forms the pillars of satanic possession. e.g., "That wonky dude's got a fluorescent green tongue, huh?" or "Have an insidious Pre stone on me, you flying freeloader."
• We drop random hints about the "Kate Knight Manifesto," known by the backronym for okay, sic: "DUH: K!"

I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, like I said at WP:BLPN, you could get an admin to semi-protect the article which would prevent unregistered users from editing the article for a while. It could just give the article a bit of breathing space and persistent ip vandals might become bored of waiting and go elsewhere. She'sGotSpies (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken our difference in opinion about this to the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Twice you've added material to Rachel Carson that you've sourced to 21st Century Science and Technology, and twice I've removed it. The problem is that 21st Century Science and Technology is publication of the LaRouche Movement, and on wikipedia all LaRouche-associated publications are considered to be non-reliable. So we can't use it as a source, and of course we needs sources for statements like the ones you are trying to insert into Rachel Carson. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, it's not like I am sock puppet for LaRouche or using some of their odd ideology. Browse the diverse contribs of me. (icemaker and silk and Fully qualified domain name ) It would appear that the Doctor Edwards articles... one written by him for 21st Century I suppose.

The last edit contained the book quote (see Google book here) and you are still just a "wait a cotton-picking minute" on the 21st Century pub. Did you look at those cites? One shows the picture of the writeup in Esquire (magazine) and this picture: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/Gordon.Edwards.jpg - which is the crux of the quote in Rachel Carson. See The article.

So veracity of 21st Century aside, (I did gather a lot during prior research and before your comments, and I agree with your disparaging remarks of LaRouche, et al), the quotes and statements put in Rachel Carson are there for lack of prettier sources or the Esquire article from September 1971. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry: I didn't mean to suggest that you personally are associated with the LaRouches, in fact I was assuming that you weren't even aware that 21st Century was a LaRocuhe publication. I was just trying to explain why I've removed the things you've sourced to it, and why other editors will probably do the same if you use 21st Century as source for other things in the future. (And as an aside, do you really think Edwards is all that credible, either? I mean, sure, he's sometimes called an "expert" on DDT, though this characterization is generally used only by right-wing commentators. Yet his most substantive screed on the topic was published not in an academic journal or by a respected press, but rather in the magazine of a wacko political cult. If any real scientists took his thoughts on DDT seriously, you'd expect he'd be able to get them published somewhere respectable. ) Yilloslime ^T_C 16:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you positive single rear wheel 1 Tons such as F-350, GM 3500's and Dodge 3500 never had GVW's over 10,001? A Dana 80 had a Gross axle weight rating of 11,000 alone. They obviously got derated, but there were rare snow plow prep package F-450 SRW* trucks that I imagine got decent GVW's. I am not positive either way, and will bet your edit is correct. It makes perfect sense not having dually in the rear and not being able to safely have a 10,001 GVW. However I'm going to be doing some investigating on SRW F-350, Dodge 3500 and GM 3500.

• The F-450 it really doesn't count anyways being extremely rare. I just mentioned it as a example.

--Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot of investigation, but from a sample of 1, I know that Ford uses the "9900 lb." GVW on the great majority of the current F350 models with single rear wheels, and I believe this is common practice. People buy into that because certain regulations make a 9900 lb. GVW cheaper to own or title in certain jurisdictions. Everyone knows that they are derated for obvious reasons like that. A lot of boats made for going into the national rivers have 9.9 hp motors. Can you guess why the industry did that?

Looking at the reference near where I edited, there may be some 3/4 tons that exceed 10,000, and I suspect this may be for Ford F250 gassers with a V-10 or whatever. There are dozens of special order possibilities that make that a special problem.

Totally agree with that. I'm thinking I won't find anything SRW w/ a rating over 10,000 GVW. Gonna look anyways, but I'm betting I'll find nothing. Heaviest axles in a SRW truck is a Dana 60/80 combo and Dodge rates it @ 8800 and Ford rates it @ 9900--Dana60Cummins (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I know to for sure test it is to go to a dealer and ask them what happens if you order an F350 with optional 19 or 22.5 inch rims, a camper package or snowplow package (which beefens up the front springs) and see if that gets you to 10k. Also try different axles, engines, and axle ratios. The axle ratio is a big factor. Try 2WD. Your normal dealer would need to be pretty smart, so talk to a commercial dealer who sells to fleets and carries chassis cabs and stuff and the F450 on up. The guys who sell the bigger Fords know about the bazillion options for those so they will be used to it. I like to saw logs! (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried, still haven't un covered any SRW Class 3 trucks. It's amazing, I'd say 99% of full size truck owners don't know this.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being you already thought me DRW vs SRW. Help me through this one: Locking differential-Alternatives A IP editor seems to think Limited slips can do the exact same thing lockers do. This floors me, so I'm wondering your thoughts on this.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rosetta Barnstar

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		For the work done on Truck classification & Locking differential . Dana60Cummins (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Ton rating section? I'll brainstorm about that for awhile. It might be while, 2010 maybe, until I add something about that in there.--I like to saw logs too! (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did; a glance at my contribs would have shown the dozen+ reverts I did. :) --Golbez (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Deviation (law), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.wordiq.com/deviation.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that copyright concerns were cleared of this, appropriately, but I did want to point out that to comply with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, it is necessary to make a specific note that you have copied content. In this case, you can probably do so most easily by utilizing {{PD-old-text}}. Directions for using the template are at that page. Please add this to the article to let other contributors know that the text is not original to Wikipedia. If you encounter any troubles, please feel free to drop by my talk page. :) Thanks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like nominating real life for deletion. What a bunch of rubbish.

Wow. Even the original article author admits: "(I'm probably in serious trouble just for _thinking_ we need an article on this topic)"... which he/ she wrote when the page began back in 2003, which makes this article seven-pushing-eight years old without being deleted yet. Hmm. How'd it get this far? The references look pretty thin, several things pulled from the Internet, very little (perhaps nothing?) drawn from any truly reliable secondary sources (I am not counting the Internet as reliable here, cuz mostly it just ain't... Mostly). But I am with you for proposing a deletion-- real life, whatever its subtle social or technological connotations, doesn't belong as a Wikipedia topic. Now... Do you have the guts to make the proposal?? KDS4444^Talk 16:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it happens, and we succeed, I think we should then swap Wikipedia "Real Life Barnstars" to reward ourselves (yes, there is such a Barnstar, and I think this would be a perfectly appropriately ironic use of it). KDS4444^Talk 16:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hA, HA, hA (SORRY, MY caps lock MALfunctioned) Ha, ha, ha. Yeah, it's really a stupid thing. I think we should collude on this or get together in a smoke-filled room, except of course I don't smoke, and form a Cabal, except I am not Jewish, at least not in real life! What you said is funny, and I think the Wikipedia is full of some strange folks. I like to saw logs! (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to do it? See the article's talk page. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uruiamme, why did you revert my edit? Both deleted wikilinks are already part of the article. There is no point mentioning exactly these two words again in the "see also" section, right? --Gnom (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, you don't understand WP:ALUM. The reason for using internationalised words for aluminum and cesium are for discussing topics which are not bounded by a nation's borders. The SL-1 article is firmly in the USA, it was designed in the 1950s by American scientists who wouldn't use many metric or international meanings. This article is not remotely about IUPAC things. I edit a number of science articles on general topics, and even in those, there is a lot of Americanization of units and the like. Refrigeration and antifreeze come to mind. You could make your point in those articles, but not at SL-1 in Idaho. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting some of the edits you made to the article, for the following reasons:

1) The lede is not the place to put mountains of detail; that's best located in the article below. This is doubly true if the information is already covered in the article body.

2) You removed useful information (the TMI manufacturer) without mentioning so in the Edit Summary. While this may be fine, it looks a little underhanded and might make someone accuse you of a WP:COI.

3) You marked some edits Minor that do not meet the criteria outlined in WP:MINOR.

Please note that I'm not accusing you of POV-pushing but, in these articles that discuss hot media topics, we must be extra careful to keep the encyclopedia looking encyclopedic.

If you wish to discuss any of this, I'm watching this page as well as (obviously) the article. Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The "lede" [sic] is a good place for an overview of what follows. I feel strongly that a few keywords should be in the lead of the article. Namely...
   1. radioactive contamination
   2. radiation poisoning
   3. containment building, although the keyword is actually going to be "primary containment." This one in particular leads the viewer to relevant sidelines and is one of the key points of a meltdown... the containment is breached. The other 2 keywords are there because no one would care if a coal plant melted down because there would be no spread of radioactive material. We need to cover the main reason why meltdowns strike a nerve with the public... they may lead to evacuations because of the radioactivity.
2. The manufacturer of TMI? You must be kidding. No one would care! I mean, it's a silly black and white picture of some cooling towers... and not exactly pertinent to our meltdown discussion. I also removed the "TMI-2" name and replaced it with Unit 2. Again, for readers unfamiliar with the terminology. What would be better in the caption is describing which building is TMI-2, not who made it. And as you could gather from my editing on Wikipedia, I pretty much edit a number of different articles and COI here strikes me as a weird assumption not supported by the evidence.
3. I guess I am a rebel, huh? Too many late nights.
4. The current article's lead uses irregular terminology: A meltdown is considered a serious event because of the potential, however remote, of radioactive material being released into the environment. Radioactive material is not the correct way of describing the unintentional or emergency release of something. Radioactive material (RAM) is technically a term which describes a discreet radioactive source material that is often bagged, tagged, and handled with special protocol. The shipping industry, medical industry, and other communities use this term. The stuff floating through the air and contaminating people at random is more like the fallout from a nuclear weapon, and only differs primarily in its source. I object to portraying the uncontrolled release of fission products as RAM.
5. Curiously enough, I have edited the article more than you. And I have been editing for 4 years compared to your 4 hours. See http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Nuclear_meltdown
6. This is strange, but in the weeks prior to the current meltdown, I had been researching nuclear subjects and editing them lately. Strange coincidence, or did I know that this would happen?!? Maybe I made it happen!! I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts--in no particular order:

• "Lede" is a correctly spelled, precise term; the [sic] looks silly. Look it up. An interesting example: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/. It's used by knowledgeable people in the newspaper business to distinguish the beginning of an article from, say, the element used in the press room.

• "Radioactive material" is material that is radioactive. Period. I doubt you can find any knowledgeable person that would not consider a lump of Pu239--or a spent fuel element--or fission byproducts--to be "radioactive material". The objective here is to explain the topic to the readers, as simply and concisely as possible. The term here doesn't describe a leak of anything; it describes that which was leaked and is no more incorrect than someone saying "a blowout is considered a serious event because of the potential, however remote, of crude oil being released into the environment".

• Regarding the manufacturer of the TMI plant's reactors: Last time I checked, I am "someone" and I care about it. I object to pertinent information arbitrarily being removed. Your "TMI-2"-to-"Unit 2" edit was very good, though, and I didn't touch it; it's not germane to this discussion.

• I didn't assume COI nor did I assert same. I merely stated that some folks might ask. The simple fact of the matter, though, is that there are P.R. organizations out there who will scrub any mention of their clients from certain sites. That's being done in WP every day and thus is a legitimate question. I'm glad it doesn't apply to you and I'm sorry if you were offended by my question.

• Please remember that there may--or may not--be more than one component in "containment". At minimum, the "containment vessel" and "containment building" come to mind, which is why the terms "primary containment", "secondary containment", etc. are sometimes used. It is possible for primary containment to be breached but secondary containment to remain intact.

• Please don't take this the wrong way, but the length of time you claim to have edited a certain article is irrelevant. Such ad hominem arguments are--by definition--fallacious. Please don't bring them up in discussions here. The only thing that matters is the presentation of accurate, encyclopedic data within the rules and guidelines of the site. Hyperbole and grandstanding have no place in an encyclopedia.

— UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Period." No, I took you to school and you wouldn't learn. When you put 2 English words together, the sum of the two words is not always equal to the concatenation of their most common individual meanings. (Countless examples... "hot shop," "hot dog," "big dog," "bird dog," "disco fever," "cellular phone.") "Radioactive material" is a precise term in the nuclear industry like "lede" is in the newsroom. It would be like an article on music that used a keyword like "scale," but suppose the word "scale" was used just like it might be used in commerce for measuring. "The white piano keys are made to scale the keyboard every 0.75 inches." I would say, no, the keys are spaced. You refuse to understand that although there are terms which may work, but there are terms which work better? Both RAM and scale are examples of terms which have niche meanings. But please don't take my word for it, do some research into radioactive material and see how it has a specialized meaning that contradicts its use in the article. RAM doesn't include the fuel, for example, as fuel would have different radiological controls (RadCon) than RAM. The same is true for depleted uranium (DU). Notice the acronyms I use? Pretty sure sign of a common term. Anyway, here is a gift link: http://www.idph.state.ia.us/eh/radioactive_materials.asp And it's seriously not just Iowa who coined this term. Notice other terms like "license" and "inspect." You might even see similar things codified in the laws of certain countries.

Hyperbole? Why not just admit that you are jumping on the bandwagon, and when you assume bad faith for established, non-biased editors, you might do better to do more listening. I wasn't making any logical attack, but showing you some interesting data which might make the average editor consider. Consider the source when you observe things like my removal of Babcox. It's not pertinent to the article and not only that, I said it wasn't! That's as funny as saying, "Last time I checked, I am 'someone' and I care..." Well, I thought Wikipedia wants WP:verifiable facts. When a pendulum swings one way pretty far, it can sure do some damage on its way back.

I can't follow your containment concerns. All I said was that there should be a link to the article on containment, which is Containment building, which discusses primary containment, which is pertinent to an article on nuclear meltdown.

This discussion brings to mind the old parable about wrestling with a pig and has consumed way too much time. It's disappointing that you don't seem to want to learn anything, even in the face of inarguable facts.

You really should remember to sign your comments with "~~~~", by the way. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence to back up your clam that increasing the height difference between engine and radiator improves cooling? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It is known as simply Bernoulli's Principle. Look at the equations inside "Derivations of Bernoulli equation" for incompressible fluids. I helped write that section a few years ago. You will see this equation and many others....

${\displaystyle {\frac {\rho v^{2}}{2}}+\rho gz+p=C}$   (Eqn. 3)

I would quickly reduce this by dividing by g and talking about how the pressure inside the system is constant. Therefore, what this tells us is that the speed of flow ${\displaystyle v}$ is dependent on the difference in densities (${\displaystyle \rho }$) of the hot leg and cold leg (as you surely know already, this is due to the temperature difference)... however we can see that ${\displaystyle v}$ is also dependent on the z_elevation term. In other words, to increase natural circulation flow, we can either make a large density difference in the hot and cold legs, or we can increase the elevation difference between the two legs.

Look at it by considering how gravity affects the pressure in a system. Toilets flush due to gravity (a pressure differential)... they keep flushing due to fluid momentum. Now imagine a system that uses both gravity and density to cause flow... the density difference causes a slight localized pressure difference, and the height difference causes a similar pressure difference. See also pressure head, which I wrote basically from scratch.

Also understand that if the z_elevation difference is zero, natural circulation will not work, because flow rate would be zero. This can happen when the head losses from friction exceed the head gained from the temperature and height difference. I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks for providing the refs, and apologies for doubting you initially. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it's a hilarious reference or two about Tetris! I thought you or someone would enjoy. After all, if the Wikipedia is full of boring, standard facts, it would be the OED or the Encyclopedia Britannica. I like to saw logs! (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, our ability to accept unusual material that meets certain criteria is one of our strengths . Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uruiamme. Before deleting the discussions on this page again, please reconsider that the discussion clearly is relevant to the article and the topic appearance in Wikipedia. Also, the basic rule is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission and normally stop if there is any objection to removing the comments. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If there is something specific you object to in NewsAndEventsGuy's posts, we can ask him to consider refractoring it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, continue our discussion at Nucleate boiling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.147 (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didnt tag. I wasnt sure how to compile them all and it was quite late so I waited for the next day to continue only to realize you had already merged them all into one article. I left most of my explanation on the Nucleate boiling talk page. Venny85 (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me convert the equations to wiki code too? Im not familiar with typing them in wiki! hahaVenny85 (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

btw, i did realize DNB is the same thing as Transition boiling. it was already in the talk page! Venny85 (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the math, i found out that mathtype can convert equations in MS word to wiki math. no worries! haha Venny85 (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it was already made political before I came along and found it. Selective sourcing (a favorite tactic of the Palinistas on here) was used to make a statement whose history is so blatantly incomplete, it borders on misleading. If left unchecked, a reader can develop the impression that the idea of a road to Nome was Sarah Palin's brainchild, which is flat out bullcrap. Entering "road to nome" into the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner search engine on the Alaska State Library website reveals that it was first mentioned in those pages in 1957, years before Palin was born.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make such comments in the talk page, and please keep them relevant to a discussion of the facts. This isn't a blog or soapbox. Just change the article in its visible text if it's in error, or put in some note that the material is biased, or delete it. I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing so allowed me to recall that I ALREADY addressed the issue in the talk page EIGHT MONTHS AGO. I guess it's easy to say "Take it to the talk page" when reality reveals that said talk page is nothing more than the final resting place of one's words. If you know of anyone who wishes to subsidize me, I would be happy to become WP:ALASKA in the absence of everyone else. It would beat the hell out of what I'm doing for a living right now. Otherwise, I would much rather spend my limited time on here improving things rather than spend as much time as I have cleaning up the messes of those displaying a certain oblivion to common sense, including what kind of mess they're leaving.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote " what a Mess. A stabilizer bar is different from an anti-roll bar! " OK, I'll bite. Could you perhaps write a short summary of sway bar vs stabilizer bar vs antiroll bar as terminology? Because they are synonyms where I work! Cheers Greglocock (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I could. I know enough to be dangerous on that topic. My only insight is that there are people who call something a stabilizer when it pertains to steering. But on second thought, I think the context is such that a stabilizer bar is generally meant to be an anti-sway bar. There is also a track bar, which is what I was thinking about. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uruiamme,

I have added new material to the article Lolita that I hope legitimately addresses your concerns, and incorporates some of the keywords you wished to see. There is both material in the article lede noting Humbert's self-condemnation out of his own mouth near the end of the novel, and additional material in the "Publication and Reception" section which notes contemporary moral controversies surrounding the story. The lede additions were reworked through three edits (one by someone else) but in its final form reads

The book is also famous for its writing style. The narrative is highly subjective as Humbert draws on his fragmented memories, employing a sophisticated prose style, while attempting to gain the reader's sympathy through his sincerity and melancholy, although near the end of the story Humbert refers to himself as a "maniac" who "deprived" Dolores "of her childhood", and he shortly thereafter states "the most miserable of family lives was better than the parody of incest" in which they were involved.

New material in the "Publication and Reception" section reads

The novel continues to generate controversy today as modern society has become increasingly aware of the lasting damage created by child sexual abuse. In 2008, an entire book was published on the best ways to teach the novel in a college classroom given that "its particular mix of narrative strategies, ornate allusive prose, and troublesome subject matter complicates its presentation to students"^[1] In this book one author urges teachers to note that Lolita's suffering is noted in the book even if the main focus is on Humbert. Many critics describe Humbert as a rapist, notably Azar Nafisi in her bestselling Reading Lolita in Tehran,^[2] though in a survey of critics David Larmour notes that other interpreters of the novel have been reluctant to use that term.^[3] Near the end of the novel, Humbert accuses himself of rape- however, after noting this Nabokov biographer Brian Boyd tries to let Humbert off the hook on the grounds that Dolores was not a virgin and seduced Humbert in the morning of their hotel stay although sex had been suggested by Humbert earlier.^[4] This perspective is vigorously disputed by Peter Rabinowitz in his essay "Lolita: Solipsized or Sodomized?".^[5]

Of lesser note is the new material on Michael West's stage version

Hiroko Mikami notes that the initial sexual encounter between Lolita and Humbert was staged in a way that left this adaptation particularly open to the charge of placing the blame for initiating the relationship on Lolita and normalizing child sexual abuse; however, Mikami challenged this reading of the production,^[6] noting that the ultimate devastation of events on Lolita's life is duly noted in the play.

We have now worked in with wikilinks the terms (or as you put it keywords) "rape", "incest", and "child sexual abuse", while noting with regard to "rape" the reluctance of some readers of the novel to use that term, while others use it forthrightly. I am reluctant to incorporate into the article (as you did) the term "sexual predator" for two reasons.
1) Its legal meaning varies enormously from one jurisdiction to another. (Some states require multiple victims to employ it- others do not.)
2) I can't really find any sources on Lolita that use that term, although many many such sources use the term "child sexual abuse".

At any rate, I think we need to respect Nabokov's intention to let readers come to their own conclusions about Humbert whether slowly or swiftly, so I think we need to at least both source all character judgments and place them in the correct place in the article. However, your aim to include the keywords somewhere in the article was laudable. But in legal terms, we have to give Humbert "due process". I hope you are at least partially happy with the new additions. They would not have been made had you not made the changes which I chose to revert, so you can take partial credit for having at least inspired them.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but will wait for other people to weigh in on the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I sort of knew you disagreed. But here was the point: Show me the research. There is either "research" as you stated in your edit comment, or there is not. I profoundly believe that it is implausible that research would demonstrably and unequivocally prove that people frequently misinterpret a didactic attempt at presenting the "how not to do" something. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input into our article regarding the WAC Bennett Dam. Perhaps with a small amount of insight you will appreciate the work we are putting into this. We are all university students at UBC. As part of our third year Environmental History course we were asked to produce or re-edit existing articles on Wikipedia. In groups of 5 we are to divide our research into sections and write a neutral article. Each of us are given approximately 650-750 words to do so. This can be difficult as I am sure you would imagine considering our guidelines and instructions from our Professor. While your input is valid and insightful perhaps the tone of your critique was a bit harsh. To include the amount of information you are suggesting we would need to expand our word count considerably, something that is not logistically possible for this assignment. Please also keep in mind that not all of our sections are completed. A "Social Impact" section will be added this week that does discuss First Nation Tribes as well as anglo-settlers in the region. We look forward to future insight but ask that instead of coming at us with what came across as hostility, you choose to be more positive in helping us expand and create an article that touches on a number of Environmental issues and historical facts. Tborto1 (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must second Tborto's points here. As an experienced Wikipedian, I am very concerned about your communication style with new users. WP:BITE is an important behavioral guideline, and one you have completely ignored in your comments. You have potentially driven away good faith contributors from participating with a hostile and unnecessarily negative tone. Please consider rephrasing your comments to conform to Wikipedia's spirit of welcoming and inclusiveness. The Interior (Talk) 02:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biting gets the point across to people who plagiarize. I didn't direct it to any particular individual, although it was obvious that a concerted (and possibly directed) effort was underway in regards to the article. It was a teaching moment in the offing. If political correctness is a contentious issue, then I would caution those who employ it with wanton regard to the big picture. The "big picture" concerns those measly little things I mentioned (like engineering) that this article should focus on. When a university student is directed to add things about social welfare into an article about a huge pile of rocks, rubble, and rebar, I feel the need to see if anyone is interested in the meat and potatoes of an encyclopedia, which are facts, figures, and the face value of important topics.

In other words, an article about Chevron could discuss all of the many nice things its employees or stockholders have done for their families and children. How obtuse should the Wikipedia go? Why must I bend over backwards to accommodate a university professor who wants to promote social science and bunny trails?

So my concern goes beyond newbies and students who do their school work. My concern is that the professor(s) who assigned this topic and tied it up with parameters on what the students should say has effectively influenced his students to artificially edit an article. By telling them what topics an article is "missing" or needs improvement, the professor has ruined a little of what an encyclopedia should be. At this point, it is like the government issuing information that suits its needs, which is tantamount to propaganda. The professor is setting up a false reality, and the students have to learn both the assignment and the false reality.

Meanwhile, the article lacks quite a bit of basic information about the dam itself. Case in point? The word "turbine" appears one time, via a template. The project is a hydroelectric dam!! Does it have Francis turbines? Who made them? What rpm do they turn? The only thing "spinning" at the W. A. C. Bennett Dam wikipedia page is the superfluous descriptions of the races of people that live in the area. And it was facetious for me to request a list all of the races of people who ever came near the thing. Hopefully someone can decipher my irony. I am not asking for all-inclusiveness; I am pointing out that when you amplify a minority issue or role, then the main points of an article become little needles in a haystack. When I come looking for a needle, I am glad when they are neatly packaged in plain view.

Speaking specifically to The Interior, I would say that it is admirable to stick up for the students here... the editors. But who will stick up for the article and its needs? Who will be the one who cleans up after them? Surely a novice can't show up and in a day propound... say... great and awesome words of wisdom? Novices are good at asking questions, not answering them. Novices need instruction, and they need reprimand when they break rules. They need rebuke. The misguided need direction, or redirection. They don't always need cuddling. As for specifically about biting, I will say this: I didn't go to any user's page and pop a template on there to tell them that they were clueless or stupid or needed a warning. I also didn't make a show of undoing any of their edits. I actually doubted whether some of them would ever read the Talk page. I think that it is encouraging that at least one did and that person will adapt and overcome. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple brief comments that are not intended to be inflammatory. The section on the construction is forthcoming, and yes, it will include information on turbines although we have not yet come across any mention of fish ladders in our research. But that is an interesting question, thank you! Would you be willing to look into it and add it to the article? We are all very interested in the dam in all its aspects. While some topics don't fall within our scope at the moment that doesn't mean that we are not interested! Any research you could contribute, we would be absolutely thrilled to read. On the "plagiarism": I cited the book and page number of where that information came from before your comments. If you think that prostate should have quotations around it or even that whole phrase of the sentence, I'm willing to oblige. If you disagree with where my quotations are or the spelling, please do feel free to edit it. As university students we take accusations of plagiarism very seriously. Last comment, please don't attack my professor, who is extremely knowledgeable, well intentioned, and talented. She has strongly encouraged us to look into our own opinions and do independent research, as well as pointing us towards prominent literature on the subject. I'm not sure that we can create a false reality when we have cited almost every line of the article from an academic source. Thank you for your help, and our major contributions will be online by April 10th, 2012 or sooner. --Heatheralyse (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments, Heatheralyse. You sound like you are getting some of the points that I was (admittedly) wielding about like a bludgeon. You may have missed the depths of what I was saying, but it sounds like you don't mind the extra effort. I don't mean to condescend, but the derision I hold for your professor's assignment may not be perceivable just yet. Imagine two great tennis legends emitting some sounds reminiscent of words. :) Okay, they are speaking the same English language, but their level of understanding of tennis makes their dialog and their little quips disturbingly incomprehensible to their understudies, to the media, and probably to their own parents and spouses. Now imagine for a minute that my diatribe against "social issues on the WAC Bennett Dam page" has such a flavor. And consider that you may be "carrying the water" for these issues, somewhat under duress from the school, the curriculum, the professor, the province, etc. Imagine further that a person, pick any person who has ever lived on the planet, can be tricked. And that one of the oldest tricks is to influence a young person to think a certain way while in the meanwhile telling that person that she is good at thinking for herself. It's an old trick. That's why I can read your own sentence above and know that although you know what is going on, you don't understand the ramifications of this in the long term. You actually make me quake in my ideological boots with these words: "She has strongly encouraged us to look into our own opinions and do independent research, as well as pointing us towards prominent literature on the subject." This actually repeats what said in my attack on your instructor.

My conclusion is that I just talked over your head, but you naively agreed with my attack. The best your professor could do now would be to claim that instructors by their very definition influence students to do artificial lessons. She would have to spin my argument around and observe that the attributes that I see negatively are positive aspects of "higher learning." Now that we are completely off topic, perhaps it is good in a way that students see some new things, if only through repetition and diligence students would learn to consider not just the lesson, but also to consider the big picture.

Back in my day as a student, I remember a major project I did in which I was supposed to write a well-researched paper. Not only did I get to pick the topic, I picked the "scholarly sources" myself. All my teacher did was to point us at the university library and tell us to find sources there if possible. I'll never forget it, because my teacher assumed that my topic would lead me to break her rules and she almost told me to pick a different topic. I told her, no, this is my topic, and I will research it properly. I got a good grade on it because I sneaked in a taboo topic into a literature class and I did it by the book. I taught my teachers a lot when I was in school. Even though I was assigned to do something artificial, I made it into something "informative and alive." (Quoting my teacher) Let that be a motivator. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I might as well let the cat out of the bag. Please do a bit of research on these two distinct words: prostrate and prostate. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have notice an issue with spelling in the article feel free to change. Other than that I believe it is highly unacceptable to belittle heatheralyse or anyone else about this minor issue in the way you have decided to do so. Refrain from using sexually charged insults such as "you may need to get on your knees", it's offensive in a myriad of ways. Let us please focus on the article and move away from constructing ad hominem attacks. I appreciate your interest in the project and I hope we can establish a more positive dialogue. I'd like to mention that you keep in mind that this is the first time many of my fellow classmates are editing wikipedia and encouragement and constructive criticism of the material is welcomed. --Biredale (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask that the UBC students stop replying in this thread. This is really going nowhere. If I Saw Logs has any policy-based criticisms of the content being added, he/she can raise them on the WAC Bennet Dam talk page. The Interior (Talk) 01:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my riddle. I only wrote this final hint after all the other hints didn't work. The hilarious word choice (of "prostate" for "prostrate") was just a perfect example of why novices should be monitored when editing the Wikipedia. Editors like Heatheralyse and others still didn't know of the distinction between the two words, so there needed to be a way to break through. It would have been simpler to edit the article myself and/or tell them what is wrong. But I wanted to help students learn something using their primary resource... their own noggin. I think if someone is editing an encyclopedia, it sure would help to have a better intimacy with a dictionary. I learned a long time ago that if you want to help someone learn to think, you don't tell them the answer. You coax it out of them.

Remember that I let practically all of their edits alone. I didn't go through and undo them immediately. I let them go and concern themselves with the things I hoped an instructor would care about... good prose, good grammar, relevant content, etiquette, proper attribution of quoted material, etc. I wish it didn't take all of the hints (and riddles) to say something like, "Hey, you misspelled a word, and it makes the article a laughingstock."

As for "sexually charged," I don't agree. You still must not understand the word prostrate. You have to be on your knees to be prostrate, and it has no sexual overtones. It definitely has religious overtones, but I was speaking about neither sex nor religion. The focus was semantics. See Prostration if you are still unsure. Describing the prostate could have been sexually charged, or at least could have been used as a euphemism for sex. It seems like whatever I said would have gone over someone's head. So whatever you think I shouldn't have said, I deleted the quip to gain your friendship. I still can't help laughing at the original gaffe about a prostate society. Run that through the euphemism mill! I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rice stink bug, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the rice stink bug (pictured), a major pest of rice kernels, can possibly be ignored when found on standing corn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rice stink bug.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Uruiamme, I noticed that you've been reverting the changes made to the 1932/33 Atl. hurricane seasons about 3 new category 5's; these storms have been officially upgraded by the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project, and the changes have been added to HURDAT. Here's a reference for it http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyread-2012.html. I would add it to the articles myself but I'm unsure how. Thanks. 173.252.40.80 (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than putting the reference in a talk page, did it occur to you to make that a part of the articles or the talk for the articles in question? Hurricanes don't typically jump up to Cat 5 without some comment or commentary. I like to saw logs! (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

I've just replied to your message on the Little's law talk page. Thanks, Gareth Jones (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you've time to look I'd appreciate your input on the Little's law talk page. Thanks in advance. Gareth Jones (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Uruiamme, indefatigable contributor of Siamese twins . . . probably just a slip of the tongue, but "pins and needles" isn't a euphemism ("substitution of mild or vague expression for harsh or blunt one" per Concise Oxford) but a metaphor ("application of name or descriptive term to an object to which it is not literally applicable"). This message courtesy of your friendly neighbourhood pedant Awien (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, ha. I was just having a conversation about some grammar "nazis" (as they are often called). I used the term "grammarian" as if it was a word coined myself. People nearby took the bait, and knowing how I tend to talk over their heads anyway thought I had invented the term "grammarian" and laughed at my word de novo. Little did they know that I was using it (in effect) as a euphemism for "grammar nazi" in polite speech (which they would have instantly recognized). So everyone had a good vocabulatory thrashing in word use. (There I go again, making up words.) I, by remembering the "proper" term, and they, by learning a new one.

But anyway, here was my thought process. Suppose a person uses the term pins and needles in the first person. This would be a metaphor, as you say, but it would be much more obtuse to the audience that the speaker is merely impatient. "I can't wait!" versus "I lack patience!" versus "I am on pins and needles here!" The one in the middle is meant to be the literal truth. The speaker is saying that he is writhing, wiggling, fidgeting, dancing around as if pins and needles are underneath his feet and/or rump. The needles excuse his apparent fidgeting, which in truth stems from nervousness and impatience.

It sort of amazes me when I consider typical speech patterns, especially in certain groups, in which similes fly through the air like mushy grapes, hitting the audience with the force of a mule's hind leg. I used to think grammatical absurdities were only found on the SAT. We English-speakers don't talk straight. No wonder it's difficult to learn. A good friend of mine cracks jokes constantly over the senselessness of English idioms, especially since he can't keep them straight anyway. Don't throw the baby out the window with the gun. Don't get the baby before the horse. You jumped the bathtub with the baby in the cart. (A mixed idiom gets hilariously absurd pretty fast, especially since English is his second language.) But absurd as they are, we English speakers love a good idiom and a sly euphemism as much or more than we love good grammar. So I tend to analyze things with that in mind. I have edited Euphemism a bit, too. :) <--- euphemism for my emotional state I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, consensus is against you. As such, you need to stop violating it. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]