User contributions for 98.216.244.217

12 February 2019

• 00:4200:42, 12 February 2019 diff hist +41‎ Witan ‎ →‎American Revolution: Fixed up single-sentence paragraph -- a crazy here-and-there back-and-forth run-on.

8 February 2019

• 21:5321:53, 8 February 2019 diff hist −226‎ Real Men Don't Eat Quiche ‎ Uncited WP:OR.
• 06:1706:17, 8 February 2019 diff hist +11‎ Edward the Confessor ‎ Split/simplified run-on sentence.
• 05:4605:46, 8 February 2019 diff hist −89‎ Molly Picon ‎ →‎Death: Removed off topic (uncited too). Notable people also in the same cemetery as a subject is magazine-article-like, not encyclopedic. The cemetery's article lists notable people there anyway, so it's covered.

7 February 2019

• 23:2723:27, 7 February 2019 diff hist +8‎ The Jazz Singer ‎ Same.
• 23:2523:25, 7 February 2019 diff hist +26‎ The Jazz Singer ‎ Split up agonizing run-on.
• 21:2921:29, 7 February 2019 diff hist −548‎ Molly Picon ‎ →‎Career: Removed primary-source WP:OR, not notable, no secondary source even mention it. When it comes down to it, an actor uttering a word that 11 years later is the function of a character she plays is not a big deal at all and not noteworthy/notable, nor "ironic". The part may or may not have been noteworthy, but not the utterance.
• 21:2121:21, 7 February 2019 diff hist −19‎ Molly Picon ‎ →‎Career: Glib, unencyclopedic "on an ironic note". Is it notable, as noted by a secondary source? (still checking)
• 04:0604:06, 7 February 2019 diff hist +1‎ Björn Ironside ‎ →‎Björn in Frankish sources: comma
• 04:0604:06, 7 February 2019 diff hist +8‎ Björn Ironside ‎ →‎Björn in Frankish sources: Encyclopedic style vs magazine-article style (two subjects incongruously linked into one sentence without a verb in the first half).
• 00:2700:27, 7 February 2019 diff hist −9‎ Pole vault ‎ →‎Fly-away: Whether one can argue a point is immaterial (off topic), unencyclopedic. Either it's notable, not-dubious, and supported, or it's not.
• 00:1300:13, 7 February 2019 diff hist +6‎ Pole vault ‎ consistent sentence structure

6 February 2019

• 03:4403:44, 6 February 2019 diff hist −19‎ Micro black hole ‎ "center of mass" is a pretty readily knowable term, but here it appears to be used as jargon. I.e., it's not clear what "center of mass energy" is. I just removed "center of mass" and it seems to have a correct intended meaning, but I'm not sure. SO, please go ahead and fix it better!

5 February 2019

• 17:2417:24, 5 February 2019 diff hist +12‎ Ejection seat ‎ →‎History: Simplified/split sentence.
• 17:1717:17, 5 February 2019 diff hist +2‎ Ejection seat ‎ →‎History: Simplified (split) sentence.
• 17:1217:12, 5 February 2019 diff hist +6‎ Parachuting ‎ →‎Common uses: Split sentences.
• 16:5216:52, 5 February 2019 diff hist −6‎ Rogallo wing ‎ →‎History: Split two connected sentences.
• 16:4916:49, 5 February 2019 diff hist 0‎ Rogallo wing ‎ "in" -> "by"
• 16:3816:38, 5 February 2019 diff hist −13‎ Rogallo wing ‎ →‎Rogallo wing hang glider: Dubious. Nobody calls it "mass-shift". "Weight" is more apt anyway because it's the *weight* (an actual force) moving that causes the desired trim change.
• 16:3316:33, 5 February 2019 diff hist −7‎ Rogallo wing ‎ →‎Rogallo wing hang glider: Same. The refs don't say "airfoil" either.
• 16:1116:11, 5 February 2019 diff hist −3‎ Rogallo wing ‎ Corrected to simply "wing". "Airfoil" almost always means the 2-D cross section of a wing, rare exceptions to that don't apply in the context.

4 February 2019

• 13:4713:47, 4 February 2019 diff hist −3‎ The Mike Douglas Show ‎ →‎History in Cleveland: a little bit of grammar
• 06:5406:54, 4 February 2019 diff hist +5‎ John Denver ‎ →‎Death: a little extra specificity ("tank")
• 06:5206:52, 4 February 2019 diff hist +32‎ John Denver ‎ →‎Death: Split awkwardly connected sentences. Clarified the subject *up front* instead of having to slog through the whole run-on to find out what it's talking about.
• 06:4706:47, 4 February 2019 diff hist −2‎ John Denver ‎ →‎Death: "Transfer" could mean anything, It was a "flight" which burned the fuel.
• 06:4406:44, 4 February 2019 diff hist +8‎ John Denver ‎ →‎Death: Split unnecessarily connected sentence. Simple = encyclopedic. :-) .
• 06:3206:32, 4 February 2019 diff hist +4,208‎ Richard E. Grant ‎ Undid revision 881585685 by Greenock125 (talk) Undid unexplained large removal. There might have been good reasons, we just need a bit of a clue what they are. Tag: Undo

2 February 2019

• 19:5519:55, 2 February 2019 diff hist −149‎ 2018–2019 United States federal government shutdown ‎ Removed uncited/tagged, unfit for lede. Lede statements don't strictly need cites as long as it's a summary of something in main text (as all of lede needs to be) that *is* well-cited. This bears only a very marginal resemblance to one passage in the main text, but not really enough, i.e. it's not summarized from main text. Also, that passage is balanced while this is *not*, giving poll results for all parties, i.e. this statement smells a bit of POV-pushing as well.
• 19:0019:00, 2 February 2019 diff hist −13‎ Richard E. Grant ‎ Fixed WP:weasel.
• 06:4706:47, 2 February 2019 diff hist +30‎ Quantum vacuum thruster ‎ →‎Theory of operation: The "next ref" (H White currently ref 22) doesn't cover any of this. I think the wording gets a few things wrong. Need some cites and improved/fixed phrasing.
• 06:3106:31, 2 February 2019 diff hist −13‎ Quantum vacuum thruster ‎ →‎Theory of operation: Incongruous. Acceleration is not speed. As I understand it, the acceleration needs to be really really high like order of c/s (One speed of light per second). I just said "extremely high rates". I think that *might* cover it. Improvements/fixes welcome.

1 February 2019

• 10:1010:10, 1 February 2019 diff hist −94‎ Quantum vacuum thruster ‎ Sentence misapplied "specific impulse" (Isp), which is thrust divided by mass rate of ejection of propellant. Isp would be infinite for this thing, not just "much higher". Sentence seems to be saying that the total delta-v would be limited by available energy and not by available propellant. I made my best guess at what I thought it really wanted to say.

31 January 2019

• 07:3807:38, 31 January 2019 diff hist −18‎ Two's complement ‎ "For this reason" didn't really fit or follow, reworded to "just give the facts". Also forgot to mention removed "most important" as subjective, uncited, unencyclopedically grandiose.
• 07:3407:34, 31 January 2019 diff hist −30‎ Two's complement ‎ Fixed a logical error: being "best known" for something is not the reason for it being an example of X. Also, what people know is uncited, uncitable, and off topic.

30 January 2019

• 05:4105:41, 30 January 2019 diff hist −10‎ Vanity Fare ‎ Split needlessly long sentence. Also, who says who remembers what? Was there a poll? Nope. That's uncited. "What people remember" is off topic, and unencyclopedic form. Reworded as the facts stated straightforwardly. Nice.

29 January 2019

• 05:1505:15, 29 January 2019 diff hist −7‎ Elmer E. Ellsworth ‎ What people know is off topic and almost always uncitable, as here. It's usually more encyclopedic and easier to read if it's just left out, as is so here. Reworded without "best known".
• 05:0005:00, 29 January 2019 diff hist +693‎ Talk:High-voltage direct current ‎ →‎What late completion date?
• 04:4204:42, 29 January 2019 diff hist +16‎ High-voltage direct current ‎ →‎Thyristor valves: The ref refers to service interruptions, not to any kind of "late completion date" -- modified to reflect that. See talk page.

27 January 2019

• 23:3123:31, 27 January 2019 diff hist +1,359‎ Talk:High-voltage direct current ‎ →‎What late completion date?
• 23:0623:06, 27 January 2019 diff hist −91‎ High-voltage direct current ‎ Undid revision 880502441 by Wtshymanski (talk) Unnotable. Immaterial. Unsupported. Vague. Off-topic. Removed for all that and for being dubious and unreferenced. WP:burden requires reliable ref to be provided if it's going to be reinstated. Can you find at least a news article saying it was delayed? (The current ref doesn't say it.) There's room on the talk page for this. Let's take it there. Tag: Undo
• 09:0509:05, 27 January 2019 diff hist +1‎ High-voltage direct current ‎ →‎Thyristor valves: ("Null" edit.) I've opened a spot on the talk page if you'd like to take the matter there.
• 09:0409:04, 27 January 2019 diff hist +301‎ Talk:High-voltage direct current ‎ →‎What late completion date?: new section
• 08:4708:47, 27 January 2019 diff hist −91‎ High-voltage direct current ‎ →‎Thyristor valves: What late completion date? A piece of equipment built 5 years before some other point in time doesn't imply anything, certainly not a "late completion", which is vague and crazy off-topic anyway, and unsupported by the cite. And, this is not an essay on wars interrupting big projects, take that to an article on effects of wars. It's completely off-topic here even if it was clarified and properly cited. Its dubious and without 2ndary supporting ref, so it's out.

26 January 2019

• 00:2400:24, 26 January 2019 diff hist −53‎ High-voltage direct current ‎ →‎Thyristor valves: Nice ref. doesn't mention "late completion date", just interruption in service. It's also a primary-ish source by Siemens itself, i.e. "self published". Primary sources can be used to verify facts, but not to establish notability. Self-published sources obviously can't support notability either. A late completion date due to some war isn't factually supported by the ref, nor is notability. The biggest reason for non-inclusion is that it's an unnotable digression off-topic.

24 January 2019

• 18:3118:31, 24 January 2019 diff hist −85‎ High-voltage direct current ‎ →‎Thyristor valves: Uncited (tagged so for 8 years). Also off-topic, unnecessary, gives and excuse for something that isn't even defined or mentioned prior..
• 18:2318:23, 24 January 2019 diff hist −57‎ High-voltage direct current ‎ →‎High voltage transmission: Split up and trimmed long run-on.
• 18:1118:11, 24 January 2019 diff hist −88‎ Pacific DC Intertie ‎ Dubious notability (i.e. "so what?"), especially for lede.
• 16:3316:33, 24 January 2019 diff hist 0‎ William Henry Harrison ‎ Years of "election" were 1980, and 2016. If, rather, the intent is to give the years of "taking office", then 1981 and 2017 would be okay.

22 January 2019

• 03:5803:58, 22 January 2019 diff hist +24‎ Icebreaker ‎ →‎Structural design: Same "global" usage. It appears to be jargon because it appears in the ref. I used "locally concentrated" and "more spread-out" as my best try at de-jargonizing it. Any other ideas? ("local" is lay-understandable and probably okay, but "global" is just weird.))
• 03:4603:46, 22 January 2019 diff hist −17‎ Icebreaker ‎ →‎Structural design: "Global" load? Surely the load isn't world-wide(!). Unless it's jargon for loads spread out evenly over the whole hull, but that's unclear, and it would be jargon anyway, which is verboten. Just saying "loads" by itself works well enough anyway.