User talk:Ginger Conspiracy

Renewable energy

Hi. I notice that you have been "staggering" some images in this and a related article. I see where WP:MoS says "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". I take this to mean they can be but need not be. Perhaps more is said about this elsewhere? The editors on these articles seemed happy with the way the images were, so I'm hoping to get some clear idea of which policy you are following in making these changes. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to keep the images next to the paragraphs with which they are associated. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, for example, here you have moved the wave converter image into the geothermal section? I honestly don't see any advantage in this and there is the disadvantage that now the wave-related material is spread across two sections. Johnfos (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't put a left floating image before the subject head, it will break the header from the text, which the MoS says to avoid. Examples:

This isn't as good as the next section, because even though the image is nominally "in" this section, the header is split far from this text.

Header

This is much better because this text appears under the header, but technically the image is in the previous section. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I follow what you are trying to do but think there are problems with it. I've taken some of the RE text and put it in User:Johnfos/Sandbox as an illustration. You can see there that immediately following the statement "Biofuels provided 1.8% of the world's transport fuel in 2008" we now have an image of a geothermal power station with no header in between to indicate the change of subject matter. The eye goes straight from the biofuels text to the geothermal image. Doesn't look good to me and is less readable. Perhaps you can direct me to the exact part of WP:MoS which discusses this. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be way out of date! MOS:IMAGES says, "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading)," which is contrary to what I tried to explain above. I'm sorry. I do think it looks much better but of course I'm not opposed to following the MOS. Please put it back if you think it's better that way. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. I'll put things back in place. Nice to chat with you. And cheers... Johnfos (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment regarding religion

Hello,

I'd like to point out that your comment in the section "Were Adam and Eve Muslims?" was entirely inappropriate. Firstly, it had nothing to do with the question, and the Reference Desks are not forums for people to broadcast their opinions. More importantly, an attack on a group of people, or what they believe, is contrary to Wikipedia etiquette. There are plenty of places on the Internet where that kind of sentiment is appropriate, but Wikipedia is a place where people are supposed to work together to create a useful encyclopedia. Further comments along the lines of the ones you made are likely to draw more criticism from Reference Desk regulars. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone who asks "If 1+1=3 then is cheese red?" that they may want to examine their premises is not an attack, it is an assistance. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snarky comments in the Reference Desk

Keep the snark to yourself. The Reference Desk isn't Mystery Science Theater 3000, and you're no Joel Robinson. The point of the Ref Desk is to help people, and since that is quite obviously not your intent, you should either adopt a spirit of helping people, or leave the Desk be. --76.115.3.200 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you best help the people you propose I am not helping? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homework

Asking for help with homework is actually encouraged on the desks: see our guidelines and the instructions at the top of the desks. What is frowned on is asking for your homework to be done for you, or giving help that does the homework for someone. Asking for help, and giving guidance, are perfectly fine. I'm reminding you of this because I see two comments you made on the science desk, expressing shock that obvious homework-related questions had been answered. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Bradley Manning

There is a thread on the talk page discussing the conditions of his confinement. You're welcome to join the discussion. Cheers, Ray^Talk 18:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Bradley Manning, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. (Now it's true you did not go and print what you found out with regard to the Article 32 hearing, but please keep the OR restriction in mind.) --S. Rich (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to WP:V not OR, but I agree removing unsourced assertions violates neither. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tetragonal

Once upon a time you asked "When this lattice is perturbed by irregularities caused by impurities, is there any way to quantify when it breaks down?". The answer depends on how you define "breaks down":

As the fraction of impurities in a mineral increases, the extent to which the atoms conform to their theoretical position in the lattice decreases. The rate depends on the details of the impurity and the mineral, such as the size of the impurity and whether there is an alternate allotrope that the presence of the impurity makes preferable. If there is a different allotrope, the transition can be abrupt at a particular impurity fraction, if not, it can be very gradual. If gradual, the extent of conformance may not ever go to "none at all", depending on how sensitively the coherence is measured; X-ray crystallography can measure "coherence" down to a "crystal size" of 2 atoms. --Wcoole (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]