User contributions for 108.7.2.66

30 March 2013

• 01:5601:56, 30 March 2013 diff hist +124‎ User talk:Eric Corbett ‎ Undid revision 547727719 by Malleus Fatuorum (talk)You can't even allow someone to try to graciously back down without vomiting on them. You're a Jackass.
• 01:2801:28, 30 March 2013 diff hist +125‎ Talk:Workhouse ‎ →‎Who owns this article?: Okay then.
• 01:2101:21, 30 March 2013 diff hist +124‎ User talk:Eric Corbett ‎ →‎Civility improvement required.: Okay then.
• 00:4000:40, 30 March 2013 diff hist +487‎ User talk:Eric Corbett ‎ →‎Civility improvement required.: Okay then.
• 00:0800:08, 30 March 2013 diff hist +123‎ Talk:Workhouse ‎ →‎Who owns this article?: Okay then .

29 March 2013

• 23:0123:01, 29 March 2013 diff hist −2‎ User talk:Eric Corbett ‎ →‎Civility improvement required.: fix "you're"
• 23:0123:01, 29 March 2013 diff hist +148‎ User talk:Eric Corbett ‎ →‎Civility improvement required.: alright
• 22:5422:54, 29 March 2013 diff hist +150‎ Talk:Workhouse ‎ →‎Who owns this article?: Okay then
• 22:4422:44, 29 March 2013 diff hist +38‎ Talk:Workhouse ‎ →‎Who owns this article?: refinement to previous edit
• 22:3422:34, 29 March 2013 diff hist +1,436‎ Talk:Workhouse ‎ →‎Who owns this article?: Okay then.
• 22:2422:24, 29 March 2013 diff hist +142‎ Talk:Workhouse ‎ →‎Who owns this article?: Hmmm, interesting point.
• 22:2122:21, 29 March 2013 diff hist +445‎ User talk:Eric Corbett ‎ →‎Civility improvement required.: Okay then
• 21:2121:21, 29 March 2013 diff hist −1‎ Workhouse ‎ Undid revision 547682931 by Malleus Fatuorum (talk) Civility please. See note on talk page.
• 21:1421:14, 29 March 2013 diff hist +553‎ User talk:Eric Corbett ‎ →‎Civility improvement required.: new section
• 21:0521:05, 29 March 2013 diff hist +1,297‎ Talk:Workhouse ‎ →‎Who owns this article?: new section
• 20:3320:33, 29 March 2013 diff hist −1‎ Workhouse ‎ So, improve it! FIX the "this"! "Gang of 3" tag-team knee-jerk reverts (w/ ZERO attempt to correct or improve anything) look more like you guys think you own the article & defend against changes (esp. by IPs) - verboten! Improve it, don't own it.
• 20:1120:11, 29 March 2013 diff hist −4‎ Mini ‎ Split up run-on.
• 19:2619:26, 29 March 2013 diff hist −1‎ Workhouse ‎ Undid revision 547669253 by J3Mrs (talk)Need more specific justification than subjective/arrogant "not improved". Ask any English teacher. It's improved bcse sentences are shorter and more encyclopedic.
• 19:1019:10, 29 March 2013 diff hist −3‎ Workhouse ‎ Rearranged to put the "list of three things" together for better flow.
• 19:0819:08, 29 March 2013 diff hist +2‎ Workhouse ‎ Broke up one long sentence.
• 16:3416:34, 29 March 2013 diff hist +1‎ Workhouse ‎ Broke up two long sentences and rearranged for easier flow (I hope). Replaced "mass"(unemployment) and "un"(sustainable) with versions less absolute or subjective ("increased", and "less"). (Everything is "unsustainable" when you get down to it.)
• 08:0508:05, 29 March 2013 diff hist +2‎ Talk:Rankine scale ‎ →‎Important? Maybe Not: corrected my Shakespeare
• 07:4507:45, 29 March 2013 diff hist −96‎ World peace ‎ Attempt at fixing a little awkwardness.
• 07:4007:40, 29 March 2013 diff hist −27‎ World peace ‎ Refined the uncited POV bits of edit from 29Oct2012. (POV to focus on U.S. contributions without at least very good citations)
• 07:0907:09, 29 March 2013 diff hist +705‎ Talk:Rankine scale ‎ →‎° degrees: concur
• 06:4606:46, 29 March 2013 diff hist +551‎ Talk:Rankine scale ‎ →‎Important? Maybe Not: Yeah, important I think. :-)
• 06:3606:36, 29 March 2013 diff hist +907‎ Talk:Rankine scale ‎ →‎Impartiality of reference: The ref is "good enough" IMHO.
• 06:0406:04, 29 March 2013 diff hist +69‎ Rankine scale ‎ I looked at the citation that had been removed in January. It was good enough I think - better than the two tags. The claims aren't so outrageous as to need solid solid refs. The claims are also true BTW, as any aero engineer knows. :-) .
• 05:4905:49, 29 March 2013 diff hist +28‎ Rankine scale ‎ Well, aeronautical engineers use Rankine. If that fact that some fields use Rankine needs a citation, then the expansive claim that the whole scientific community uses Kelvin needs a citation too! :-) .
• 05:2005:20, 29 March 2013 diff hist +32‎ Heat pump ‎ →‎Efficiency: Rankine is pretty common too. To head things off at the pass, it's perfectly okay to say "degrees Kelvin" vs. the new esoteric jargon "Kelvins".

27 March 2013

• 21:5721:57, 27 March 2013 diff hist −76‎ Dan Rather ‎ →‎In popular culture: removed promotional aspects of the mention
• 21:5521:55, 27 March 2013 diff hist −8‎ Dan Rather ‎ →‎In popular culture: subjective, slang
• 21:5421:54, 27 March 2013 diff hist +4‎ Dan Rather ‎ →‎In pop culture: The "In popular culture" habit (in WP) is unencyclopedic enough, shortening it to the slang "pop" is just crazy unprofessional/unencyclopedic. :-) .
• 01:5401:54, 27 March 2013 diff hist −1‎ Elizabeth Montgomery ‎ →‎Personal life: POV, expression of surprise

25 March 2013

• 06:4906:49, 25 March 2013 diff hist −37‎ 2009 satellite collision ‎ Distracting to give figures in every possible combination of units! :-) Thinned out giving the two units most likely meaningful for most readers. (by the way, they're dubious too - they don't jive with the collision angle given in the diagram)
• 04:3804:38, 25 March 2013 diff hist −136‎ Tesla coil ‎ →‎The 'skin effect': Uncited, non sequitur. Use for "electrotherapy" doesn't counter previous statements, mere *use* doesn't establish or disprove any science hypothesis. Most electro-medical "therapy" in early 1900's was rife with dubiosity anyway.

24 March 2013

• 19:2219:22, 24 March 2013 diff hist −26‎ Issue advocacy ads ‎ →‎History of interest versus express advocacy: integrated comment more smoothly into the text so it doesn't come off as an off-topic little "teaching opportunity".
• 19:1919:19, 24 March 2013 diff hist −25‎ Issue advocacy ads ‎ →‎History of interest versus express advocacy: speculation, overly-general as well
• 19:0919:09, 24 March 2013 diff hist −48‎ Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber ‎ subjective
• 19:0619:06, 24 March 2013 diff hist −8‎ Al Franken ‎ minor - redundant

23 March 2013

• 08:5008:50, 23 March 2013 diff hist −14‎ Cavemen (TV series) ‎ →‎Synopsis: "usually" was non sequitur to "sufficiently closely related" (it didn't logically follow) - the expected following phrase would emphasize a similarity not set it apart with "but"
• 08:1208:12, 23 March 2013 diff hist −4‎ Sandra Bernhard ‎ →‎Filmography: link didn't go to the correct place, couldn't correct it (couldn't find a link to it the 1989 film in WP)

22 March 2013

• 05:0905:09, 22 March 2013 diff hist −10‎ Spamdexing ‎ →‎Sybil attack: Actual name of the character "Sybil" is off topic. Linked "Sybil" to the book.

21 March 2013

• 08:3508:35, 21 March 2013 diff hist −17‎ Plumb bob ‎ →‎Etymology: speculation
• 07:5607:56, 21 March 2013 diff hist −19‎ Bibi Besch ‎ →‎Career: speculation - fixed to straightforward encyclopedic form
• 07:5407:54, 21 March 2013 diff hist +2‎ Bibi Besch ‎ →‎Early life: wrong form of verb -- fixed to "attended"
• 07:5107:51, 21 March 2013 diff hist −42‎ Bibi Besch ‎ →‎Early life: It's not "not known", just not yet available for inclusion. It's unnecessary (and silly) to point that out as well.

19 March 2013

• 04:4904:49, 19 March 2013 diff hist +19‎ Rocket Racing League ‎ There's nothing about the first flights in 2008 that means they started working toward regular seasons in 2008, you can be sure they started working in that direction immediately upon founding! :-) Now more straightforward, less POV, more encyclopedic.
• 04:4104:41, 19 March 2013 diff hist −50‎ Rocket Racing League ‎ redundant (implied by "since 2008"), also POV & subjective implying some kind of failure - it is normal for businesses to go through teething pains and delays, off topic for intro.

18 March 2013

• 06:3806:38, 18 March 2013 diff hist −4‎ Space elevator ‎ Subtle-but-important difference (also not minor :-) ). It is in fact very "proposed". "Hypothetical" sounds more like a thought experiment. People are doing very real work on it with the very real intent to build one. "Proposed" is more accurate.