User talk:AndrewBuck

I notice that you disambiguated a couple of links on Long Mynd to point to Phragmites. This is clearly false. In common with all upland heaths in Britain, it is rushes (Juncus) which are plentiful there, and not tall water plants. There is much confusion between reeds and rushes, and it could even be argued that there is now a degree of synonymy between the two words. Either way, is it likely that any other of the links you have disambiguated should not be pointing to Phragmites? I think it's worth looking into. --Stemonitis 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---The remainder of this discussion was carried out at User talk:Stemonitis, I reposted it here for clarity---

I disambiguated all of the plant uses of reed to Phragmites because that one is referred to as the "common reed" and has a link in the first sentence to the disambig page for the various species of reed. I'm not really sure what else to do. If you think it would be a good idea I can go back through and revert the disambig edits that went to that page and leave them for others to disambiguate more accurately. -AndrewBuck 21:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about reverting them all, but it might be worth checking through them. Phragmites only occurs in standing water, so any articles about heaths or other upland habitats are not talking about Phragmites. How many articles are we talking about? --Stemonitis 06:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was working from the this at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, there were 113 pages that linked to Reed which is a disambig page. Of them probably 70 or so referred to plants, mostly along riverbanks, lakes etc. As I mentioned above I sent anything referring to a plant to Phragmites because of the link in its lead sentence. If you give me good criteria for how to handle them I would be happy to go through the list, I did them all at the same time so my contributions page would make this easy, and check each occurrence against your criteria. I am a physics student, not a biologist, so I'm not sure what to do on my own thats, why I suggested the revert, but like I said with some guidelines I could check them. -AndrewBuck 07:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's only that many, then I'll do it myself. For rivers and lakes it could conceivably be either Juncus or Phragmites, and there's nothing we can do about that, but anything growing on a hillside is much more likely to be Juncus than Phragmites (as is anything under about 2 m tall). --Stemonitis 07:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been through the changes you made, and there were only a few obvious mistakes. Lots of them I'm not sure whether they really mean Phragmites, but that's the fault of whoever wrote it. It turned out not to be as big a problem as I'd feared. --Stemonitis 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking through them. I spent a fair amount of time before I started the list trying to figure out what to do with all those plant related ones and thats the decision I came to. In the future I'll probably just leave them pointing at the disambig page if I'm not sure or try to find an expert on the subject to assist me. I'm going to put a copy of this dialogue on my talk page to go with your initial comment, feel free to delete this here if you would like. Thanks again for your help. -AndrewBuck 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making Image:Tidal_braking.svg! It's a very valuable addition to the article, which (perhaps finally) makes clear what a lot of verbal belabouring was going on about in the associated paragraph. Deuar 09:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you uploaded an SVG version of Image:Kepler's-equation-scheme.png. I also created an SVG version of this file, but I had some trouble uploading it. I was wondering if you could maybe tell me what I was doing wrong. Let me know if you want me to email you my version so you can check it out. Thanks, Lasunncty 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I figured it out. My file is Image:anomalies.svg. --Lasunncty 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the mean anomaly page. I was finding it a very difficult concept to summarise. AstroMark 11:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you found my edits worthwhile, and thank you for the encouragement. -AndrewBuck 15:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

I like your idea for an orbit diagram, so I have added some data to the 'Apollo 13' talk page that may help you to construct one. I look forward to seeing the finished picture! Logicman1966 (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fix this. —Preceding

Thanks for the excellent article! You should nominate it for GA. --IanOsgood (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I just tightened the language, that's all.

I'm still trying to fully understand the gravity turn myself. Is the angle of attack exactly zero, or is it just very small? The launcher is flying a curved path through stationary air so the wind would come not quite directly off the nose of the rocket, right? Karn (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The launcher is flying a curved path through stationary air so the wind would come not quite directly off the nose of the rocket, right?" that's an interesting point actually. The path is curved but it is curved over a very long distance and so if you were aboard the rocket the effect with the air you describe would be very small. Also the shorter the rocket is relative to the path length the less this effect will be. It's just like the surface of the Earth, it looks flat until you try to build something several miles long that is straight, as in what a laser would tell you, and level as in what a bubble level would tell you. In reality of course no real rocket ever flies with perfectly zero angle of attack either as they often try to do a bit of steering to keep the error in the orbit small. -AndrewBuck (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's pretty much what I thought. BTW, I see the term "gravity turn" applied both to launch/landing trajectories and to what are normally called "gravity assists", hyperbolic trajectories that don't contact the planet. It's true that both use gravity to turn the path of a spacecraft, but isn't it confusing to apply the same term to what in practice are very different things? Should the term "gravity turn" be limited only to launches and landings? Karn (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the literature uses gravity turn in conjunction with the gravity assists so I included that aspect in the article. I did think it could possibly be confusing and it can be reworded or taken out, as it isn't really important for an understanding of what a gravity turn really is. The launch/landing aspect of it is by far the more commonly used use of the name. -AndrewBuck (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image you created caught my eye, and I listed at FPC, however their have been some complaints and I do not have the technical skill with photos needed to fix the problems raised. If you get a moment, would you cinsider lending a hand to the nomination? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AndrewBuck. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AndrewBuck. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AndrewBuck. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]