User talk:XFEM Skier

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {| class='wikitable'

Thanks,

Skier, I have a background in biology, particularly in zoology. I am retired currently, but remain actively involved with hunting dogs. I have published three books about hunting dogs and hunting, one of them is my translation from Russian original published for the first time in Russia in late 19th century. I thank you for your assistance. Vladimir Beregovoy (Moved the User:XFEM Skier as it should have been placed here XFEM Skier (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

Apparently you did not read the Los Angles Times article. "Other foundations are commonly poured in sequences and connected with reinforcing steel and ancillary slabs of concrete, but the engineers for the New Wilshire Grand insisted this foundation be created in one piece to provide the tower with greater structural support." This is slip forming.The Stroll (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)The Stroll[reply]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-concrete-pour-planned-world-record-20140214,0,3352632.story#ixzz2tRirh0gt

The title of the LA Times articleThe Stroll (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC) had a 20 hour pour and I also had the information concerning a 20 hour pour in the paragraph. That is slip forming. The Stroll (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pavement milling, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aggregate and Micro (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) 09:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the comment you made on my talk page. I did not edit anyone;s comments. I improved my own. I am allowed to do that. Okay?

Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I read the policy many times and believe that among others, the fact that I did edits to my own before anyone had responded, means that's fine. At that's all. And compared to the personal attacks I have had to suffer these past few days, it is a pimple in the pimple bucket. I really dont want any unnecessary aggravation over "nothing". Thanks. So if you have discretion, let's assume good faith. I am really getting to the end of my patience with Wikipedia. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EMC Talk page

Please see my message on your posting. I am at the end of my plank. Sorry I'm Swedish I dont always have the right words. Just take a look at the latest postings of this Karl. It just never stops. It's relentless. Now he is using your words to ally you to him. I am convinced he is a Portland cement lobbyist. It is just crazy what he is saying. Why is he so fixated with making EMC a subset of Portland cement when so obviously it is anything BUT? 213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Please forgive me if I have posted this in an inappropriate way, here(I am very inexperienced at all of this).

As an interested party, XFEM Skier, you may want to comment on a lengthy post I made on the Jono213/213.66.81.80 SPI page.

Thank you.

Karl (please delete if you like when read)

		The Civility Barnstar
		...presented to you for your efforts to encourage and demonstrate civility during the energetically modified cement incident, which I observed from the sidelines during its final moments. Congratulations on offering the community such a noble example of civil behavior. Azx2 18:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry. I thought a minor edit was a small edit that's only changing or adding 1 or 2 words. :o — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelby2002 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You reverted out my addition in the Scruffy Wallace article without discussion. "No need to add name of child" was your justification. Many, many biographies have the names of spouses, relatives, and children. "No need ..." seems subjective and fanciful. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLPNAME, or my understanding of it. I agree the names are widely used but there is also some strong opinions that they should not be, especially when there is little coverage of the name. I am more then willing to discuss. XFEM Skier (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your kind reply. It's kind of a sketchy item, what to include in personal data in a BLP or even with a deceased personage. Scruffy Wallace's son's name appears in many articles in the media, and likely Mr. Wallace is very proud of his son. So it seemed somewhat appropriate. I admit, I always pause before putting in such information. But this appeared in the public media in legitimate articles and interviews. I'm willing to forego a debate in this case, in deference to your strong feeling in the matter. But I parenthesize this with the plethora of articles containing wives, children, brothers, sisters, let alone aunties. Let it be for now. Sagacious Beatles' words. Thanks and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thanking me for my edit on David Zabriske. Surge_Elec (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A) I hope I've done this right, I've not 'talked' to anyone on wikipedia so if this is wrong do alter. B) Noted you put in a bit about the list being in flux. Profuse apologies if by editing it all Tour I've somehow messed up. Tried to do it properly etc but sometimes errors likely creep in.

ShadowMerckx, you seemed to be doing a good job updating the list. But I noticed that you were not updating the rankings. In my opinion this was fine. Updating them daily would be super annoying without a script. I figured after it finished someone could go back through and update those ranking numbers. Just seemed pointless to do on a daily basis. I just wanted to let people know they were not updated. It was nothing about what you had done. Thank you for doing a good job on the TDF stats throughout the tour. XFEM Skier (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I noticed someone edited a KOM win to Cadel Evans based on him being in polka for one day in 2011. Were we to do that for all riders who'd worn a secondary jersey it might prove a mighty headache! Though I don't think it was you, took the liberty of undoing it as those secondary columns in the ranking list are surely for if they've won the jersey (i.e Froome won the Tour last year, he also wore the KOM jersey for a few stages but didn't win it, thus his reads 1-0-0-0. Anyway, I'm sure all will become clear rankings wise once the Tour ends sunday. My thanks overall and indeed on this signature business, hopefully got it right this time. --ShadowMerckx (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We use this software at Sandia and Idaho National Labs for fracture mechanics in fuel claddings: see http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0805/ML080500276.pdf. A simple search can bring up numerous applications of this code. I am not a developer or affliated with the developers in any way. Jesse.johns (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesse.johns: I mentioned the COI because many people add their own software to this list. If you have references to establish notability you can read it to the list with the reference. My removal was not an indication of whether I thought the software is notable but simply that it had not met the requirements to be added to the list as it was added. I simply remove everything that does not meet the list rules leaving it to the original editor that added it to provide the reference. XFEM Skier (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, be it. I am trying to help the community, since none of the aforementioned open source FEM options can do what WARP3d does. You now have the information to proceed and add it, but I won't tax myself with the unwarranted labor of appeasing your subjectivity. Jesse.johns (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should not use Taiwan instead of the Republic of China, Otherwise，it will show the tendency of Taiwan independence movement. And there is no country recognized Taiwan as a sovereign states, but there are some countries recognized Republic of China as a sovereign states — Preceding unsigned comment added by A862678110 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A

TheMesquito Yeah I missed it as well until I was about to leave a message on your talk page and it seemed weird that you would be vandalizing a page. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

 You've sent me a message incorrectly stating that I made unhelpful edits to the Misfits (band) article. This is automatically untrue, as I would only have edited it to correct something. If I changed something, it was because said something was wrong, and therefore needed to be changed. I admit I cannot recall the exact edit that I made, perhaps it was the wording, spelling- Whatever it was, it was wrong or I would have left it alone. Suffice it to say that it was "only helpful" as opposed to "unhelpful". You've caused a fair amount of annoyance as I now have to go back, find the error, and re-edit. Please fornicate yourself accordingly, and I hope that you are thinking about you rag-dolling on your next ski outing as much as I. Regards, Locustfire77 (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Alex Honnold page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

"If you feel 2 months is too short I suggest take it to the talk page but you can see there was a discussion about less than a year and there was little support for not counting them." [1]

If anyone thinks that 2 months is enough to include someone in such lists, I will question the intelligence of that individual. List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation seems to be totally out of control. I will take it to the talk page. In Heels (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UCL's official list doesn't count

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with University College London and I will remove them from List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Please don't add them again. Maybe we should wait and see what other members of Wikipedia think. In Heels (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

That is not how wikipedia works. There is a standards that has been set and you can disagree with it and try to get it changed but why do you think that you standard is better than the accepted one. I am simply maintaining the accepted standard. XFEM Skier (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If I go wrong, you can suggest me what to do. I want to know what other members of Wikipedia think about this issue. In Heels (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nisei Week Mrdowntownla (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A massive revision of the Nobel Prize University page has been undertaken. The user claims to be using the "Field and Turing Medal criteria". This seems totally strange. Please see my notes in the talk page under the most recent section heading "Minimumbias Vandalism". (PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, XFEM Skier. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XFEM Skier. 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]