User talk:Constant314/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Constant314. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ref. Ampacity. PeterEasthope (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I make a lot of edits. When you ask an editor about an edit, it is best to include the diff (the URL of the page showing the edit). Here is the diff for this edit diff

See WP:EL for general guidelines.

In this case:

• The link did not have any information that could not be added to the article.
• The link is to a commercial website full of product for sale. You can get around this if you can link directly to the useful information without seeing promotional material. For example, some manufacturers provide links white papers on a useful subject without seeing any advertising. Here is an example that would not be overly promotional: [1]. It does use the manufacturer's products for examples, but there are no offers to sell. It also has information that cannot be included in an article because of the length.
• The site is not a reliable source. See WP:RS.

Constant314 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for looking over my proposed updates to the page awhile back. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electrical_engineering#I_could_use_some_help_with_updating_ESAB] The Request Edits still haven’t been reviewed, even though I cut back the list from 8 to 4. Would you mind taking a look again and implementing these if you still think they’re reasonable? Request no. 4 is new since the last time you looked at these. Thanks so much for your time. Wiki-Free-Pie (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they still look good. I added a comment to the talk page that encouraged you to go ahead and make the changes yourself. I think you have completed the necessary due diligence. If you would message me when you are done, I will review them and comment. Constant314 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We would appreciate it if you put the precession of equinoxes 2024 map back in the (Axial Precession) page where it belongs as it has everything to with that specific article. Sincerely Lion's the Tiger 2603:8001:1BF0:2200:58FC:19CB:57C8:E658 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for contacting me. The best place to discuss this is on the talk page of the article. That way other interested editors can add their insight. When you add new material to an article that gets reverted, the next step is to start a discussion on the talk page. If you can achieve a consensus to add the material, then you can restore it.

In this particular case, I have a few objections.

• There are already good illustrations of the earth's axial precession in the article.
• The illustration appears to be the work of John K. Daley. Unless that is you, then you need to establish that you have permission from him.
• A single cycle of axial precession takes 26,000 years, so a 1-year map won't show much.
• If I don't understand it then the typical reader also won't understand it. This is my principal objection. Maybe your illustration is brilliant and shows a deep understanding that the other illustrators miss. If it is, then it worth having enough explanatory material to make it accessible to those of us who don't get it.

Constant314 (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)