User talk:Heron/2007

Spelling of William Gilberd's surname

- 26 May 2007‎ Heron (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,183 bytes) (-132)‎ . . (RV unconvincing attempt to rename him to Gilberd: the rest of the world seems to think otherwise. You wouldn't be from the Gilberd School, would you?) - No Heron, I'm a descendant of William's brother, James. The family is still known as Gilberd (the family was never known as "Gilbert". That seems to have been an 'adjustment'by later scientific authors). The Gilberd family did not change our surname down through the generations, and all contemporary references to William refer to him as 'Gilberd'. (as cited in the article: ....[the name Gilberd was] used in his and his father's epitaph, the records of the town of Colchester, and in the Biographical Memoir in De Magnete, as well as in the name of The Gilberd School in Colchester..." By the way Heron, which 'rest of the world' are you referring to when you say, in reference to me changing Gilberd's family name to reflect what he was known as in his lifetime, as an ".unconvincing attempt to rename [Gilbert] to Gilberd: the rest of the world seems to think otherwise..."? That statement sounds remarkably like something the tailor in Hans-Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes' would have said. Better not to get emotive in these exchanges, hmm? ICloche 13:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC) iCloche

Wonderful Job

I was reading the article and magically before my eyes the article reads much better now.

Please take a look at Cocamidopropyl betaine and rewrite the mess too! 63.17.104.107 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[The above comment refers to the article Sodium dodecyl sulfate.]

Yes, there's that tell-tale phrase again: "It would appear that we have two quite differing views on the safety of..." This marks it as the work of http://www.health-report.co.uk/, a health food marketing site written by Geoff Goldie. It's full of adverts for "business opportunities" and even has toxic pop-up windows offering to increase my web traffic. --Heron 12:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found another article that a particular section is a total mess. Check this out. It should be taggged ASAP.

Some of the references date way back to the 1940s? There is some poor editing at work here but we should assume good faith. 63.17.115.180 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one's a bit more complicated. I'm not sure that I can fix it, but it does need cleaning up, as you say. --Heron 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some up to date references to get go started.

[I moved the references to Talk:Soy protein -- Heron]

--63.17.115.180 18:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've moved the references to Talk:Soy protein in case someone else feels like having a go before I do. --Heron 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anode etymology

I have refined it again, kindly let me know how you like it and correct my Frenglish so I can do something similar for the cathode (aka exode, westode, occiode or dysiode, fascinating indeed ;) --MichelJullian 12:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. I simplifed your syntax in a few places, but otherwise it's perfectly clear. I wonder whether the etymology section should be moved downward, since it seems unfair to make readers scroll down to get to the scientific stuff. --Heron 16:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

• Image:Nand-gate.png
• Image:Nor-gate.png
• Image:Xor-gate.png

Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 06:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

• Image:Iec nand.png
• Image:Iec and.png
• Image:Iec not.png
• Image:Iec xor.png

Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 03:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^talk to me[reply]

I would like to help, but your survey asked me to enter my email address, and I do not give out that information to Wikipedia users. Sorry. --Heron 14:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin scale

Heron, why do you say there is no "Kelvin scale?" Just becuase Resolution 3 of the 13th CGPM created a unit increment called "the kelvin", doesn't mean that the scale (that "thing" on which zero kelvin is equal to absolute zero) disappeared. Please cite your source for declaring that the kelvin scale no longer exists. Your theory on this issue seems to be your own since Encyclopedia Britannica Online says the scale exists Greg L (my talk) 02:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg L. You are justifiably peeved, since I can't find any proof that the phrase "Kelvin scale" has actually been discontinued. I thought I read it somewhere, but I can't remember where. I have responded in more detail on the "Kelvin" talk page. --Heron 19:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

I thought that you might like to know that British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, an article to which you have previously contributed, has been put forward as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your help. If you would like to comment on this article's nomination, please see here. Your opinions will be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 12:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GC. I shall have a look. --Heron 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To use your photo on Wikipedia

Hi Heron, I'm a graduate student at UBC and am preparing my master's thesis. I would like to request your permission to include a photo from you (Coaxial Cable; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_cable). Please let me know if I can use that photo on my thesis (of course it'll be referenced). Thank you very much.

Hi, whoever you are. Yes, you have my permission to use the image. Thank you for asking. --Heron 16:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"we don't do normalcy round here"

Your edit. I'm terribly sorry. I must be careful what I write on someone elses Wikipedia from now on. WindsorFan 07:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should think so too. --Heron 09:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was enormous sarcasm aimed at your patronising edit summary, in case that wasn't clear to you.WindsorFan 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply was also sarcastic. Can we stop now? --Heron 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. But please, in future, can you just put something like "Changed 'normalcy' to 'normality' per MOS" in the edit summary? WindsorFan 13:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I admit that my laconic sense of humour isn't to everyone's taste, and I'm sorry that it caught you the wrong way on this occasion. --Heron 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made me laugh, though I suppose I can see where offense was taken. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 05:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of three (mathematics)

Dear Heron:

Please see Talk:Rule of three (mathematics)#Complete rewrite.

Finell (Talk) 03:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Heron 14:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Heron: I replied to you at (too much?) length at Talk:Rule of three (mathematics)#Complete rewrite. Did you see it? Is the page on your Watchlist? Finell (Talk) 04:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not too much length, although you must excuse my latest reply for being shorter than yours. I was aware of your reply, watchlist or no watchlist, but it took me some time to work out what to say next. --Heron 19:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flat-cap.jpg

Was that photograph taken around Springfield, Missouri? Because that is MY EXACT LIKENESS, right down to the hat pattern and everything.

You look like me? You lucky guy! No, it was taken in England, and the hat was made here too. --Heron 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ESW-pre1974.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ESW-pre1974.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Heron 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Opamp.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Opamp.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November 1 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Heron 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ddog1492 block

Don't think a week is too harsh at all. A brand new account exhibiting completely vulgar and obscene vandalism including edit summaries; same reason I warned at a high level to begin with. Thanks for doing it. AUTiger » talk 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the reassurance. :-) --Heron 19:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:YouSendIt.PNG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:YouSendIt.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See new fair use rationale tag on image page. --Heron 13:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radar FAR

Radar has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic amplifier FAR

Electronic amplifier has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 point resistivity measurement

Thanks for the heads-up regarding your changes to the resistivity page. I disagree with you about a couple of points, namely that resistance and resistivity are much different. What one measures in the lab is resistance, and only by eliminating properties of the particular sample do we determine resistivity of the material. In this way they are very closely linked. This is pretty well illustrated by the appearance of 'R' in the primary equation on the resistivity page.

Secondly, on an organizational note regarding Wikipedia, I spent some time searching to find a page on 4-point measurement techniques, and never found the '4 terminal sensing' page you directed me to. Also, to me the language on that page is very confusing and wordy, but maybe it is a physics/EE thing, since my exposure to 4-point measurements is exclusively from a materials physics and superconductivity standpoint.

I am willing to make changes to the 4-terminal sensing page to include mention of the resistance measurement, as well as redirects from what I consider the more common search terms. I would still like to have a mention on the resistivity page of this technique, even if only as a link to the 4-terminal sensing page, perhaps under an "experimental techniques" subsection. I can guarantee you that this technique is used in determining electrical resistivity, as it is being done in my lab as I write this. I can certainly provide references. Vessels42 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposals sound fine to me. I don't dispute that you use the 4-terminal method to determine resistivity. It's just that what you are actually measuring is resistance, and from that you infer the resisitivity. Anyway, it hardly matters, because we can add 'measurement techniques' sections to both the Resistance and Resistivity articles and link them to the Four-terminal sensing page. I did this yesterday for Resistance, and it sounds as if you are well qualified to do the same for Resistivity. That way you can get all the information you want into the article, but without duplicating what we already have. I agree that the 4T page needs a rewrite, so perhaps we can merge what you wrote with what is already there. We can also add more links to make it easier to find.

Finally, yes, please do add references, as Wikipedia can't get enough of those. --10:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference sought for 'D-subminiature' page

The text: "Cannon's part-numbering system uses a D as the prefix for the whole series, followed by a letter denoting the shell size (A=15 pin, B=25 pin, C=37 pin, D=50 pin, E=9 pin)" in the D-subminiature is missing a reference. And seems to be central. As you seem to be the one that wrote it originaly in Nov 2003, could you possible provide a reference? Electron9 00:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Electron9, I've done it. The reference I found shows that Cannon use P/S for gender, not M/F as stated in the article. That will upset the apple cart. --Heron 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio

The Radio article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll check it out ASAP. --Heron 20:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]