User talk:Isofilm

Please read WP:Reliable sources which should verify the claimed facts, not merely present calculators for the reader to DIY. SpinningSpark 20:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start playing Mr. Angry, I suggest you make yourself familiar with some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As well as the two linked above, you might want to look at WP:EL and WP:COI. I am sure you are, as you say, well qualified, but Wikipedia has good reasons for not encouraging editors to write from their own authority. We have no method of verifying such contributions and rely on reliable sources doing this for us. SpinningSpark 09:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your recent edits and your comments (User_talk:Spinningspark#You_seem_less_than_intelligent.2C_and_a_little_bitter) on Spinningspark's user talk page, it appears that your many links to http://www.novelconceptsinc.com may represent a WP:COI. If you disagree, please state your relationship to the inventor D. L. Thomas whose site that is, and explain why you are linking to it so much. Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if the author of authoritative reliable source cannot reference the reliable sources, who should, YOU. I think everyone would agree that the authoritative source is better equipped to decide if the reference is viable.

These calculators have nearly 4,000 non-reciprocating outside links. And you want to know why I added <10 links (that you state “and explain why you are linking to it SO MUCH”). REALLY, SO MUCH.

I wonder if you have a conflict of interest in chiming into the SpinningSpark conversation. It would seem so, since you are worshiping him with banners on this discussion page.

What is your relationship to SpinningSpark?

isofilm (talk) 17:24, 03 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your reply to here from my talk page, and editted a bit to show you how talk replies are done. I hope that's OK. For the record, you statement of "worshiping him with banners on this discussion page" referred to User talk:Dicklyon.

You are obviously a newbie, not familiar with WP policy and guidelines. But please do look at the referenced pages like WP:COI, and respect WP:NPA, and try to understand where we're coming from. Your statement "I think everyone would agree that the authoritative source is better equipped to decide if the reference is viable" is objectively false; most wikipedia editors have agreed that the authoritative sources themselves often have too much bias and conflict of interest, and so it is better to have uninvolved editors decide. If your only contributions to wikipedia are links to your own commercial site, you are a de-facto spammer.

My relationship to SpinningSpark is that we both edit a lot of the same electronics-related article, and he gave me my third barnstar; that's all. Dicklyon (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, it may not be a reliable source

Then, the external links may not be helpful

Now, there may be a conflict of interest

What’s next, I’m over-qualified.

In order for there to be a conflict of interest you need to establish the interest. The users that are directed to our Thermal Calculators do not buy anything from us, since we are a development company, not an OEM (meaning that we do not sell tangible items). We have never had a client come to us for development contracts, who has said, “sorry, but your free calculators are not quite doing it for us, so we would like to open a development contract”

So why don’t YOU describe in detail the conflicting interest, instead of simply pointing to COI links.

So by your definition, all references to books should be deleted, since it may lead to book sales. isofilm (talk) 19:14, 04 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when editors reference their own books there's a COI; those are evaluated in the context of the editor's contributions, as are your links to your site. Dicklyon (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have avoided my question "So why don’t YOU describe in detail the conflicting interest, instead of simply pointing to COI links." isofilm (talk) 20:20, 04 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details. I asked you to say if you are other than the inventor/proprietor whose work you are linking. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I stumbled upon your work from the Heat Sink article, great image contribution. I hadn't heard of Novel Concepts before, that sounds cool! I recently saw this at a computer convention, Mineral oil submerged pc. As the expert on thermal issues, I'd like your thoughts on it. --Conrad Kilroy (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the final heat transfer exchange, which is the surface area of the aquarium, under free convection. Whereas air cooling keeps flushing the system with fresh ambient air.

isofilm (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been fixing links to Phase change - a disambiguation page. You have one at the top of your userpage, and it looks to me like you meant to link to phase transition. I didn't want to change your userpage myself, but I thought I'd let you know. CarrieVS (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]