User talk:Junckerg

Hello, Junckerg! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Crowsnest (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Tide

Welcome Junckerg. Thank you for your additions to Tide. These contain several claims regarding the relationship between the Moon's altitude and tides along the US coast. One of the core pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability by reliable sources. And the proof lies by the editor inserting the material (see WP:PROVEIT). Can you add inline citations to your edits backing up the claims made? That would be of great help. Otherwise, some might question the claims and dispute them, or even remove the material. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see I am a bit late with my welcome :) but welcome anyway. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Crowsnest. I had never seen an authoritative source, and assumed one didn't exist, but looking in response to your comment I came across a Wiki entry on "Lunitidal Interval". I will add that (perhaps inartfully, I am just a beginner). I will also correct the entry about Florida, which I extrapolated (always dangerous) based on my familiarity with NY and VA tides, and their consistency with the amphidromic principle. It turns out that some other resonations are affecting FL, and the relationship is not as I had stated. Junckerg (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added that I can offer up two websites with illustrative data that confirm the relationship between Norfolk tide and moon altitude. http://www.mobilegeographics.com:81/locations/4195.html gives you tide times for Norfolk harbor, and http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=23501 gives you (in the lower lefthand corner) moonrise and moonset. If you are looking at today's (June 5 2009) screens, you will see that high tide is at 8:56 PM. Moonrise is 6:50 PM and moonset is 3:52 AM, so total elapsed time is 9 hours and the moon will therefore be overhead 4.5 hours after moonrise, or 11:20 PM. These data confirm that high tide occurs approximately two and a half hours before the moon pases overhead.

The data for NY Harbor can be found at http://www.mobilegeographics.com:81/locations/4133.html

But it seems to me these are not the sort of references would be useful to Wikipedia readers (?)

Junckerg (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References from a more authoritative source would of course be nicer. How about this one, for the general relation between Moon phase and corresponding tide components: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Understanding_Tides_by_Steacy_finalFINAL11_30.pdf, which I found from this Google search. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NOAA pamphlet is wonderful, and has an elegance of style that is regrettably rarely found in modern technical writing. My concern about referring to it is that it might tend to reinforce a very common misconception. I my experience, the vast majority of people, including scientists, and even many scientists who are sailors, have a simplified concept of tides that is derived from a figure in their gradeschool textbook, reproduced as Figure 2 in the Wikipedia article and also used the basis for the explanation in the NOAA pamphlet. They expect that the high tide will be rougly identical in time with the moon's transit, and higher between the tropics than at the poles. If the authoritative source does not also describe, indeed emphasize, the more complex resonance phenomena that give rise to amphidromic points and cotidal lines--as Wikipedia does but the NOAA pamphlet does not--I fear it would reinforce the misconception rather than dispel it.

My addition was intended to use a concete example to reinforce the visualization of the counterclockwise rotation of the cotidal lines in the North Atlantic basin, and to highlight the "counterintuitive" (if you uase the oversimplified model) fact that high tides along the northeast US coast are actually a few hours *ahead* of the moon's passage, rather than coterminous or perhaps lagging a little as the oversimplified model would predict. So, maybe an online tide table and astronomical table for the moon would be suitable "authoritative sources"?

Junckerg (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good philosophy and approach with respect to the subject to me. I like the stressing of complex response to the forcing by the Moon. I think it is important to find sources for citation who explicitly give the relation between tide and Moon phase, e.g. like the data in the web-pages you refer to above, but without the need of synthesis by the reader to combine data from two sources to find the relationship between tide and Moon phase. I will also try to find some. -- Crowsnest (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AllCity Wireless LLC.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

AllCity Wireless, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Junckerg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old message

You said....

I think your graphics are terrific. You chose not to include a graphic for the magnetic field vectors for linearly polarized light, and note in the text that they would be virtually identical to these except rotated 90 degrees perpendicular to the direction of propagation. I think there would also be a 90 degree phase shift. If so, a second graphic would be very illustrative.Junckerg (talk) 3:59 pm, 30 November 2012, Friday (4 years, 11 months, 13 days ago) (UTC−5)

....I check and no I was right refer to image....https://www.google.ca/search?q=em+wave+propaganda+imAGES&num=20&dcr=0&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=rxJg6FasSAfQUM%253A%252CamU0Bh5RFXJUQM%252C_&usg=__nK--QxB9s2suqWwfOY-G7NlYlLI%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwias9-l17fXAhVGTLwKHa5BCUwQ9QEIKjAA#imgrc=rxJg6FasSAfQUM:

Thanks anyway

Dave3457 (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]