User talk:Bovineone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! Please use the link to leave me a new message. Thanks.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Bovineone/Archive_1. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

1 Hows about it?
2 DS9/Voyager
3 Edit to US-airport
4 Help with Virtual Iron entry?
5 ATHF/Adult Swim Apology
6 Fallingwater
7 Vista

[edit] Hows about it?

I got a proposition for you. How about me and you work on the article Brotherly Love Us TV series, Dig it up from the ground, I read that you've added alot to the article. It's on my watchlist, so how about it? Ace Fighter 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Ace Fighter 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What else do you want to do to it? I've already done pretty much all I can for it I think. Since I've never actually seen an episode, it's a little difficult for me to contribute much additional content to it. I will try looking for some screencaps from the net for an image to include though. -- Bovineone 09:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true, and it was cancelled on Family JUST when I was editing this. Plus there isn't a way to expand on it. Even with it on T.V., it's hard too. Oh well. I'm working on the Sinbad Show as well. Ace Fighter 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good shot!, Just like the one I requested. Your job is done! Ace Fighter 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DS9/Voyager

That's what I get for stub-sorting at 5 am...:P Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked through a few of the other Star trek episode pages that you updated, but didn't see any other problems, so I think that one was the only one. -- Bovineone 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to US-airport

Jeff -

Writing in regarding your edit to US-airport template that a) I added to discussion page and b) had a discussion with MJHankel about the addition of the link and c) seems to be figuring out a way to remove it instead of a way to keep it (the reasons for removal keep changing).

Simply looking at the nature of the link in the same light as Flight Aware and AirNav, the link to MyMetar is complimentary. It is providing pilots "flight rules" interpretation that is not provided by other services. "Flight rules" applies to the analysis of the current conditions and labeling the conditions as "Visual", "Marginal Visual", "Instrument Conditions", "Low Instrument Conditions". Pilots use this information to determine whether it is legal to fly given their certificate rating. The website is also a gratis service.

The FlightAware link was added in October 2005. FlightAware did not launch until November 2005. At the time the link was added, they had few users. MyMetar went public beta in October 2006 and is running 2M hits through it annualized.

I'm confused by, from my point of view, appears to be an inconsistent application of logic. Do I need to wait for other users of MyMetar.com post the link? If the addition of the link is a valid and value adding contribution when objectively evaluated on the merits of the content provided, does the source matter?

Regards,

-tweihs—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tweihs (talk • contribs).

Notability is one major concern regarding inclusion status, for which wikipedia has established policies. Mymetar.com does not even appear to be in Alex's top 100,000 ranking. As I mentioned in the talk page, there also doesn't appear to yet be any significant amount of Google hits that would qualify mymetar's notability.

I am also a little concerned about the premise that your site is being positioned towards pilots to rely on your site to judge the safety of flying conditions. There are significant liability concerns about offering a non-certified source for such safety information. All pilots are expected to have the ability to directly understand raw metar reports provided by direct FAA sources without intermediate interpretation anyways, so I question the general utility of such a site.

And you again bring up the subject of self-promotion. Although the page in question is not quite a biography, Wikipedia has guidelines on WP:AUTO and WP:BIO that discuss some of the similar types of concerns that exist. --Bovineone 09:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Virtual Iron entry?

Hi Bovineone,

I hope you can help, as you have a bit more wikipedia experience than I do and you have already contributed to the article in question. An anonymous user at IP 216.254.57.130 has repeatedly made the same change of incorrect information (does not match up to source). I am assuming (and perhaps shouldn't do so) that their complaint was to the reference of Virtual Iron being a top contributor to the Xen project. I've reverted the latest incorrect information from this user and omitted the reference to top contributor instead saying "to which Virtual Iron is a contributor to" (as "top" is a subjective word and probably should not be included). Is this the correct response? I'm certainly not trying to get into an edit war. Thanks for any guidance. Vanpedia 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vanpedia, can you provide any other sources that indicate the precise version of Xen that is used by Virtual Iron? Or how about a more recent statistics that can confirm the contributor information, than the outdated presentation that is currently cited? Also, can you clarify your relationship to Virtual Iron? Are you an employee or customer? -- Bovineone 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't have any other information than what I posted as a source and am not really sure if there's any updated information. I'm interested in the software and have downloaded VMware, Virtual Iron and XenSource (also, new to Wikipedia, at least as a non-anonymous contributor). I've become somewhat fascinated with the "wiki culture" over the last couple of weeks.

[edit] ATHF/Adult Swim Apology

That was pretty cool with the quote marks. I had no idea you could do that. Thanks! - SVRTVDude 11:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are actually a few other quotation templates available, see Category:Quotation_templates for some more. -- Bovineone 14:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fallingwater

Sorry, but I struck your recent edit to Fallingwater. Reinforcing steel is a trivial contribution to overall weight of a concrete member. Plain concrete wieghs 145 pounds per cubic foot; reinforced concrete is 150± pounds per cubic foot. MARussellPESE 13:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a structural engineer, so I cannot validate your apparent claim that adding steel to concrete will never result in deadweight. You might want to remove the same text that is found in Frank_Lloyd_Wright#Notable_projects_after_the_Prairie_Period, since that is my source for it and I thought that was a significant claim if true. -- Bovineone 14:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I took it out too.

Figuring it out is fairly easy for me. Consider this example, and not that removed from the Fallingwater cantilevers:

A 20' long cantilevered balcony (an assembly area at 100 psf), 12" thick (150 psf), would need 1.70± in²/ft of reinforcing steel. (¾" bars at 3" centers.)

If one doubled that (3.4 in²/ft, ¾" bars at 1½" centers), the additional weight would be 4.0 psf vs. the 250 psf total of dead and live service loads. (< 2% increase)

You also would now have serious problems getting concrete placed around a mat of steel that tightly spaced. Since the record doesn't indicate that the contractor had placing problems, even after doubling the steel, I would concur from a cursory consideration that the cantilevers were likely woefully under-strength.

MARussellPESE 14:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)