User talk:Michael Courtney

Hi Michael Courtney, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. --Roleplayer (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Data sharing

You made some good comments on Data sharing. Some I agree with and some not. I responded and would like to see your response. I just want to make the article better. Thanks for your input. RonCram (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:3dbifmap.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:3dbifmap.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sasikiran (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with hydrostatic shock / ballistics graphics

Michael, it is not appropriate to be submitting graphs to articles related to hydrostatic shock unless these submissions come from WP:RS and these contributions you make appear to be WP:OR and it not necessarily appropriate. Please consider avoiding adding this to articles on specific calibers, as it is not germane and may be WP:COI if you are trying to advertise or build reputation as an expert. Experts should be cited through second and third parties. Spectre9 (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Our work has been published in reliable third party sources, and cited favorably by other scientists. This conforms to Wikipedia policy which states:

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy.Michael Courtney (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that experts may self-contribute. Please take a look at Wikipedia:ADVERT#Citation_spam. While you may be an academic who is published, it does raise questions with me about WP:COI. Please consider the appearance that you are trying self-promote your work to others in these actions, and insure you are fairly balancing the article itself not adding superfluous content that really belongs elsewhere. A link to a wound ballistics article without re-adding your papers to each firearms caliber is a more appropriate tack. Spectre9 (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be appropriate to add other citations that deal with many different calibers to individual articles, provided they are reliable sources? For example, the "Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading" is a reliable source for many different cartridges. Or what about a source that had expansion and penetration data for loads in many different calibers? The spam thing seems like a red herring. I've cited lots of other reliable soures other than ones that I've co-authored. I've also cited papers I've co-authored in the Quantum Chaos and other physics articles. No one has complained of spam there. I can support the hydrostatic shock stuff with lots of other cites, but many are not accessible online.Michael Courtney (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Your comments make more sense on this than anyone, but consider these things; People shot with rubber bullets in the chest develop cone shaped densities in their chest xray. Lung tissue has a lot more air than other tissue, a lot more compressible than water. The xray can show the tissue damage, but it is probably less than water density tissues. Stun guns at slaughter houses do not penetrate but cause devastating brain injury. An actor killed himself by putting a blank gun to his head, and it would have killed him even if skull fragments had not been depressed. dlaurentz@msn.com 32.176.177.40 (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yahweh

I've made the split on Yahweh. I'm also suggesting a new stage of editing. You might like to comment on the article talk page. PiCo (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Square root

For your work!

- DVdm (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Replication of results

Hi, I saw your comments at talk:Experiment and was wondering if we could collaborate on the replication of experimental results, as a routine and/or essential part of the process of scientific research and scientific progress.

This topic may also be related to data sharing, as in:

"Here are the results of my experiment. They seem to confirm/contradict theory X. Would others please duplicate my experiment, so we can all be sure that I didn't make some kind of mistake."

I think there is a history, in science, of careful researchers using data sharing and replication of results to guard against confirmation bias and other problems. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Hydrostatic.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hydrostatic.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:3dbifmap.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Bhevendk2.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Bhevendk2.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Bhevendk2.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)