User talk:Dhollm

Welcome!

Hello, Dhollm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\^talk 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hi Dhollm, I added a few sources (and slightly reworded a bit) to your most recent unsourced edit to Momentum. Could you please add references to the material you add? Thanks and cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additions; however unfortunately I didn't originate that text, but took it from another article (mass transfer I think) as it seemed pertinent in momentum also. It was unsourced at that location also. Dhollm (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, feel free to copy the sources. On the other hand, I don't think that copying text between articles is a good idea. Perhaps adding a short note and a wikilink to the original article would be better? DVdm (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it isn't ideal ... but as there was no real "home" for the text I didn't think linking among them was the best solution. ie linking from momentum to heat transfer (for instance) didn't seem to really make sense. Perhaps a separate article on the analogy topic could be created, but the material existing at the moment is pretty brief and didn't seem to warrant it. OTOH if you think that's a better approach I'm happy to do that. Dhollm (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material doesn't seem to call for a new article, so no big deal :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Cycle

I just reverted your deletions, because there was no explanation in the edit summary, plus you removed things that certainly can't be removed (like translations and categories). At least some of the material you removed appears to be reliably sourced. If there was some justification for your removal of sourced material, please explain on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that! It was a mistake - not sure exactly what I did, but removing material wasn't my intention. I guess I thought I was only editing a section when in fact I edited the whole article (?) and somehow didn't realize that Dhollm (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell's thermodynamic surface and timelineSince the timeline contains no referenced material, it was IMO simply confusing. I think the timeline should be significantly improved before creating multiple links to it (template boxes are a very high-profile form of linking, and should not IMO be overused). I agree that a future link to a better timeline would be beneficial. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]PensionI removed a lot of duplicate links from the article; the Manual of Style for links indicates that things should only be linked once. The "See Also" link removals were in error - I added them back, thanks for catching it. Although, unless there is a strongly compelling reason to have those links in the See Also section it is MOS policy not to have them there (as they are linked in the article) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]On reflection I decided to remove the duplicates in See Also altogether - none of them are particularly significant as see also topics considering their linkage elsewhere in their body :) (if you want to put them back I won't complain though) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] If they were duplicates I guess that makes sense in general, but I think see also needs to be a list of links to be usable. Thanks! Dhollm (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Namespace vioI have moved Dhollm/Electrostatic fluid accelerator to User:Dhollm/Electrostatic fluid accelerator. Please read the red warning at the bottom. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 16:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]RheologyHi David - it happened because as part of its general fixes, AWB automatically unmakes any self-referential links. Sorry for unintentionally causing some disruption, but I wonder if the design of the template needs to be modified - there's pretty much guaranteed to be trouble when a behaviour of the template can be influenced by some apparently unrelated factor. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks for your reply. I agree with you about the template; but it is very widely used (derives from Template:Physics navigation) so I doubt it could be easily fixed. I'm not familiar with AWB but could automated edits (if that's what they are) be tuned to ignore anything in a template? (Maybe that would cause more problems?) David Hollman (Talk) 08:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thermodynamic energyFYI: As far as I can tell thermodynamic energy is a term used mostly in atmospheric science. If you search for it in this paper, for example, you will find it all over the place. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it means, though. So far I get the impression it may be a little broader than thermal energy but a little narrower than internal energy, as is described here. However, I'm not going to be offended if the page is deleted; as I might never actually get around to clarifying what it is! (If I do, I can always just make a new page...) Riick (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I get the impression from that paper and from Googling that it is used nearly synonymously with internal energy; but I haven't seen anyone define it carefully. In any case, the reason I suggested deletion was because there were no links to that page, and so it just seemed superfluous. David Hollman (Talk) 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]OK. Riick (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Well the delete got denied anyway, and I guess for a good reason! Oh well... David Hollman (Talk) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Proposed deletion of Physics/TheoriesI removed the prod tag you placed on Physics/Theories because the article has been prodded before and is therefore ineligible for another prod. Please open an RfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]template useHello, just for info that template Machine configurations redirects to template heat engines, so you added some double templates --Typ932 ^T·C 20:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I did notice the redirect but missed the cases where the template was not at the bottom of the article (ie in see also sections). Sorry about that, but thanks for picking up on it and fixing! I'll look out for that in the future. David Hollman (Talk) 20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Nomination for deletion of Template:Thermodynamics philosophical contextTemplate:Thermodynamics philosophical context has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Trying to contribute...GortGetsGoing (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Not sure why every time I add unbiased content that has third party backing, it is deleted. Some help here? Please. Thank you! The content I added to mechanical bearings was legitimate info from an engineering publication? I appreciate your help.[reply]I'm sorry if my edit seemed overly harsh; I should have taken a moment to explain my reasoning (although since the edit was made not-logged in, I didn't think to write on your IP address's talk page). The reason I felt it was inappropriate was because it appear to be from a source which was self-promotional. Also Wikipedia guidelines requires "notability" and material from a primary source (ie the company itself) doesn't necessarily fulfill that criterion. (You can read more about some of these topics on WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Spam may also be relevant).I'm not, however, claiming that these sorts of decisions are infallible; others might disagree with my interpretation. I suggest if you want more input on whether or not the text you added is acceptable (or how to make it so) you can also post on the talk page of the article; anyone interested in the article can then give you their opinion.I do hope that is helpful; contributions to WP really are welcome and I'm sorry if I've put you off at all! Let me know if I can help with anything else. David Hollman (Talk) 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usageHi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Regarding your changes to Entropy pageI would like to find out the reasoning behind deleting my defitinition and then the explanation of entropy in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy Compare my revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_entropy&oldid=383213883 and yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_entropy&oldid=383322942 The reason behind my explanation was to make the concept understandable:Every time heat flows from a hot spot to a cold spot, entropy increases, as heat becomes more distributed throughout the system. Every time heat flows from a cold spot to a hot spot, entropy decreases, as heat becomes more concentrated in certain parts of the system.While yours, as it currently stands:In a physical system entropy can provide a measure of the amount of energy that cannot be used to do work.Is confusing and does not mean anything. Please let me know. Drozdyuk (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I tend to support the former definition of entropy (in terms of heat flow) as more understandable to the novice in the science of classical thermodynamics. But I do not agree with that author that the latter statement (in terms of useful work) has no meaning. To the contrary, the measurement of useful work provides one of the most mathematically fundamental definitions of the concept of entropy. (In fact, the only way to be comprehensive on the subject matter is to provide several different definitions, and preferebaly several examples!)Over time (~ 30 years) I have found that the most satisfactory definition of entropy typically arises from the arguments describing the concepts of irreversible processes. I quote here from P.W. Atkins' Physical Chemistry (5th Edn., Oxford, 1994) which is where I cut my proverbial teeth, before moving on thru such literary classics as Swalin (solid state thermo), Prigogine & Defay (irreversible processes), Van Wylen & Sonntag (for engineering applications), etc. Atkins begins by proving mathematically that a system does its maximum work when it is working reversibly. This concept of maximum work is quantified by the relation:W_max = delta U - T delta SThis expression shows us that in some cases, depending on the sign of the final term, not all the change in internal energy may be available for doing work. I.E. In order for the change to be sponaneous, some of the energy must be dissipated -- or escape as heat. Thus, Nature is demanding a sort of 'tax' on the internal energy U as it is converted into useful (atomically directional) work. I.E. Because chaotically stored (atomically disordered) energy cannot be used to achieve uniform motion in the surroundings, only the portion of U that is not stored chaotically (U - TS) is available for conversion into useful work.Thus every irreversible process has associated with it a net increase in entropy which inevitably results in a certain amount of lost energy -- that is , energy that is unavailable to do useful work. In my humble opinion, the best definition would include all of the above, in addition to a statistical approach to the definition of entropy. Who is to say whose is better ? The most satisfying part of this approach to me over time is to learn repeatedly that they all resonate nicely with one another :-)- logger9 (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hello. Can you provide a link to the exact diff you are referring to? I don't quite see where that change was made. My edits on Sept 6th were mostly to restore some text that another editor deleted. Compared to your edits on July 15, the wording is still pretty similar. Thanks, David Hollman (Talk) 09:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Template:Thermodynamics philosophical contextHi, the TfD discussion closed just after I snuck in another comment, so I was wondering what you thought of the hatnote-style versions I created in the sandbox? PC78 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I like it, the sandbox approach would seem to be more consistent with WP style without losing the ability to place some emphasis on the context. David Hollman (Talk) 07:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Watch you fixingI just discovered this (erroneously "Eg", symbol for exagram, is changed to "E.g."), please be more careful. EBusiness (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yup, I missed it, sorry. David Hollman (Talk) 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Copyright?Hello! In regards to this edit to the Harlem River article, I can't find where on the referenced site the students' papers were released under free licenses. In fact, on the higher level pages in the domain I find strict copyright notices in the page footers. Can you help me out with finding where the free license for the material is so we can properly cite it in the article? Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]Sorry for the long delay in replying, I hadn't logged into WP in a long time. Anyway, I had added some citations to those changes, although they might be incomplete and there certainly may be room for additional or improved ones. I do recall wanting to do further editing / consolidation / etc. to that text but not having the time to complete it; though being almost a year ago I don't remember exactly where I left off / what was actually accomplished. I did not mean to leave the article in a state where a lot more improvement is still needed, in hindsight maybe I should have left it in a sandbox until I had more time to deal with it. dhollm (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Nomination for deletion of Template:Composition of internal energyTemplate:Composition of internal energy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]Gibbs ("free") energyHi, I was trying for a while to bring some rationality into the Gibbs ("free") energy article. I know it's not so recent, but I appreciate your amendments around http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibbs_free_energy&diff=383532592&oldid=383529848 It needed someone else to help me push against the 'inertia' of the old text :-) —DIV (138.194.11.244 (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Music group naming, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Madonna, Branding and Smithereens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]Disambiguation link notificationHi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.Less-than sign (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to ≤Pressure-volume loop analysis in cardiology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to MethodsIt's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Landscape fabric, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synthetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]Article restructuring at the BeatlesThere is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]Disambiguation link notification for April 10Hi. When you recently edited Three-point hitch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drawbar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]