User talk:PerfectSoundWhatever/Archives/2023/December
This is an archive of past discussions with User:PerfectSoundWhatever. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It really doesn't need to go through me to be passed. If Skyshifter is happy with the changes, it should pass. I've been meaning to take a second look but I've been super busy honestly. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
@Davest3r08 and PerfectSoundWhatever: I thought the nominator/main contributor needed to confirm that they are okay with the changes before it passed (after all, they said "I don't think I agree with everything"). However, considering PerfectSoundWhatever's comment (If Skyshifter is happy with the changes, it should pass), I'll pass the article. Skyshiftertalk01:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Rickym1008: Hi, are you Enrico James? If so, you must declare that you are writing about yourself on your talk page. We strongly advise against writing autobiograpies because you are inherently biased towards yourself. If you are not Enrico James, please read WP:42 for why your article currently does not pass notability. Thanks. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
You reverted my correction about this area. I know that a widespread figure is 432,000 km2. But nobody knows where this value comes from. It seems that every Internet site copied other sites without checking.
The correct figure is much less: 351,000, as given for instance by le Petit Larousse illustré 2000, Larousse, Paris, 1999, p. 1108. A simple computation using spherical trigonometry also yields this value. One can also use Google Earth to compute the area of the corresponding polygon, which again provides the same value.
@Pepys: Hi, thanks for your message. I'm not entirely sure what to do here, when sources disagree so wildly. At a minimum, any number placed in the article should match the corresponding source. This is why I reverted your edit. Also, conclusions should not be made based on your own knowledge and calculations, since that would be considered original research. Le Petit Larousse illustré seems to be an encyclopedia/dictionary (a tertiary source) which is unideal for making such a claim.
I think the best way to resolve this is if you can find high quality secondary sources (scholarly articles, subject matter experts, non tertiary books etc.) as this would make your argument much stronger. The more sources the better. If what you say is true, and internet sites copied the values without checking, it's likely you could find a "correct" value in older documents. Do you think these sources exist, and would be possible for you to find?
The fact is that I have tried to solve this problem for several months by contacting an incredible number of persons in ministries, research institutes, universities, and I realize that nobody cares, or nobody knows what to do!
A dictionary source, even when you qualify it as tertiary, seems to me much more reliable than an Internet site. But, anyway… I saw that the Encyclopedia Britannia on line gives another intermediate value, halfway between 351,000 and 432,000. Trying to solve the problem seems hopeless.
Hello, and welcome to the December 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. Don't forget that you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Election news: The Guild needs coordinators! If you'd like to help out, you may nominate yourself or any suitable editor—with their permission—for the Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2024. Nominations will close at 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). Voting begins immediately after the close of nominations and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under current sanctions) are eligible, and self-nominations are welcome. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on 30 June.
Drive: Of the 69 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 661,214 words in 290 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.
Blitz: Of the 22 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz, 13 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 109,327 words in 52 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.
Drive: During the November Backlog Elimination Drive, 38 of the 58 editors who signed up copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 458,620 words in 234 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.
Progress report: As of 20:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 344 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,191 articles.
Other news: Our Annual Report for 2023 is planned for release in the new year.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hello :) I wanted to ask when editing an article by writing an additional perspective from a secondary source, should I make the edit right away or should I first communicate it in the Talk section of the article? --Ellegony (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Ellegony: thank you for your question! Generally, the advice given on Wikipedia for potentially controversial edits is to use the Bold, revert, discuss cycle (BRD). First, you should boldly make the edit. If someone disagrees, they can revert it. At that point, you would discuss on the talk page. Let me know if you have any other questions. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, you're very helpful! I guess my other question would be how do I go about discussing something in depth. Not the validity of sources or relevance of adding a new edit but more like general discussion. I read the Talk page is not a forum so I'm not sure if that would be appropriate to conduct it there. I assume such discussions are better outside of Wikipedia completely? Ellegony (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Alpha-gamma type The Austrian company Frauscher Thermal Motors has combined the alpha and gamma type. The design, known as Alphagamma technology[8], is patented as a "Stirling engine with stepped piston"[9].
The core of the innovation is an expansion piston, which is designed as a stepped piston. The connecting rod passes through the small diameter of the stepped piston and is hinged to a crankpin together with the connecting rod of the compression piston. This reduces the work of the expansion piston by around half compared to the alpha type and by around 30 % compared to the beta and gamma types. Both pistons perform positive work. As a result, piston forces, piston friction and bearing loads on the connecting rod and crankshaft main bearings are reduced[10].
The simple design in conjunction with the reduced piston forces enables lubrication oil-free and long-lasting operation with high efficiency. The advantages of Alphagamma technology have been confirmed in scientific reports by Bernd Thomas[11] from Reutlingen University and Michael Gschwendtner[12] from Auckland University of Technology.
An Alphagamma Stirling engine with an electrical output of 6.5 kW was tested with various gas fuels. The overall electrical efficiencies achieved (generator terminal : fuel power Hu) reached 28.1%[13] with biogas, 30.0%[14] with landfill gas and 31.1%[15] with sewage gas. --Iglsed (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I just applied for administrator on Wikipedia. However, when I click on the link that it gives to show edit summaries, it only displays that I have 333 edits, even though I have 510 edits. Do you know why this is? Thanks! --Antny08 (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
When I try to add it, it says error parsing votes, error getting time, and error parsing end status. What am I doing wrong? Antny08 (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Question from Larrystaley07 (23:57, 27 December 2023)
No, I did not say I started an account to publish a new article. I could not find an option saying I wanted input on something else so I had to pick something. --Larrystaley07 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)