User talk:Maury Markowitz/Archives/2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review 320 mm mortar

I'm reviewing the article 320 mm mortar and I have a list of points to ponder posted here: Talk:320 mm mortar/GA1. I'm heading away from home until January 5th but I'll be leaving the GAR open... I don't believe in putting a review "on hold" when holding it open for a few days serves the same purpose. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nif

Hello Maury! I think having acted in the sense of your suggestions, which I found justifiable. Nif directs to NIF now. I re-arranged the disambiguation page slightly though, having noticed in a number of disambiguation pages in wikipedia that the names of localities are generally placed at the top, and abbreviations come next (i.e. Mount Olympus). Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of In and Out scandal

Hello! Your submission of In and Out scandal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:DYK

I believe I have fixed the issue you had with my DYK nom, IR-40. Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: IR-40

I have fixed your issues on the T:TDYK page. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, I'll update. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.


The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: 200th issue 
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones 
Wikipedia in the news Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost
ArbCom elections: Elections open Wikipedia in the news 
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System Features and admins 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost
From the editor: Getting back on track 
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK 
Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting 
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers 
Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gas Turbine-Electric Locomotives

Gas turbine-electric locomotive article needs some "professional help", several of the locomotives mentioned are Gas Turbine-Hydraulic, not electric, examples of these include the French RTG, the UAC TurboTrain, Amtraks Turboliners, and CN's "Turbo"Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point! If we split the article it might be fairly small when it's done, perhaps a better solution would be to make it "gas turbine locomotive" and remove the "electric" part from the title? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Gas turbine locomotive article already exists, 2 solutions present themselves:
  • Move the "hydraulic" examples to the proper article.
  • Merge the 2 articles, & sort into 2 or 3 sections (electric, & hydraulic/mechanical) with proper transmission descriptions at the beginning of each. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
tried a 3rd alternative, moving all "hydraulic" examples out, and starting new article with all passenger train examples: proposed "Gas Turbine Train" article is here:Gas turbine-electric locomotive/Gas turbine train, and proposed example of changes to "Gas turbine-electric locomotive" is here: Gas turbine-electric locomotive/Gas turbine-electric locomotive. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Little Sark

Hi Maury - you made comments at Talk:Sark#Merge Little Sark about merging the article on Little Sark into the main one on Sark. I've made a few changes to the Little Sark article - could I ask you to have a look at it now, to see whether you still think it should be merged? Thank you, Grutness...wha? 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

General Instrument CP1600 DYK nomination

Hi, I just reviewed your General Instrument CP1600 DYK nomination. There is a slight problem - the alternative hook does not have a citation. Could you quickly remedy this so it can be approved? Thank you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be a mistake from my end, but I only see two citations ([1] and [2]) and neither are used for a paragraph discussing Intellevision. This can be corrected by citing this paragraph:
"The CP1610, used in the Intellivision, was essentially a "de-tuned" CP1600 with several simplifications. In the Intellivision, the CP1610 ran at 894 kHz to match NTSC signals, or 1 MHz for PAL/SECAM versions. Although users of the CP1600 in the traditional computer role were relatively rare, over 3 million Intellivisions were produced from 1980 until the video game crash of 1983 led to the closing of the Intellivision production lines in 1984."
I don't think it would be hard to find this information, and it might be on one of the references already used. It just needs a citation for the paragraph to be approved as a DYK hook. Ottava Rima (talk)
Yes, that should be enough. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There, now you are ready to go. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for In and Out scandal

Updated DYK query On January 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article In and Out scandal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

» \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for General Instrument CP1600

Updated DYK query On January 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article General Instrument CP1600, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

TOPS (file server)

Hello! Your submission of TOPS (file server) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Xasodfuih (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Boosted fission weapon definition question

Maury - In September, you added a third definition to Boosted fission weapon discussing a usage where it refers to using a neutron reflector.

As far as I know, essentially every fission weapon uses reflectors, and boosted has only been used to describe or denote D-T gas or Li6D/T solid boosting.

Do you have any sources for that usage, as a synonym for reflected?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I recall coming across this definition as an obscure older British use while I was looking for refs on the second definition. That's all I can recall. BTW, not all nuclear weapons have reflectors, early ones in particular. I believe it was the addition of the reflector in a mid-layer around the initiator that was being referred to as "boosting" in this definition. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Most of the reflectors are dual use in early ones - tamper/reflector layers. Fat Man / Mk 1 used that thick natural uranium layer as a dual tamper/reflector, Little Boy used the thick WC tamper/reflector. Many of the materials usually tested / specified as reflectors for critical mass values are massive enough to be dual tamper/reflector materials (W, WC, U, Mo, Fe, ...).
The only weapons we don't think are reflected are the 6" linear implosion artillery shells, and then only because the minimum pit diameter for combined delta-Pu / reflector assembly for a given final criticality and explosive input is for an all-Pu-no-reflector assembly, but that comes with a very large (13 kg or so) Pu mass requirement, which makes those shells much more expensive than alternatives... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits

A fair number of my edits are using HotCat, which is a categorization tool that adds categories to or subtracts categories from an article without actually opening a full edit window — it just opens a small box in the category range while leaving the rest of the page in view mode. I'm not sure an edit like that should really be flagged as minor, so I probably wouldn't want to make "minor" my default setting. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that any edit that does not significantly change content of the article is, by default, minor. I always mark my +cats this way. Regardless, if the tool does not properly set/clear this flag, it's a problem in the tool, and should be fixed. Clogging up the database is not an acceptable punting situation, IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Aerial lifts vs. ski lifts

Hi Maury,

I noticed that you changed the categories on almost all articles in Category:Aerial lifts to be Category:Ski lifts a couple of weeks ago. However, there is a significant problem with that: all aerial lifts are not used as ski lifts. They are used for many other purposes, including tourism (e.g. on mountains which have no ski areas, like Palm Springs Aerial Tramway and Mount Roberts Tramway, or going across rivers like Mississippi Aerial River Transit), construction, open-pit mining, etc. So all of those articles should retain Category:Aerial lifts, and some could be placed in Category:Ski lifts too.

I also noticed that you emptied Category:Surface lifts, which resulted in its deletion a few days ago. The issue here is murkier, since it appears that all of the devices which had been in Category:Surface lifts are used only as ski lifts, without much (if any) application outside the ski industry. Even the main article surface lift refers exclusively to skiing. However, even in this case, I see no harm in retaining the useful subdivision of Category:Surface lifts. so I'm undeleting that category, and re-adding it to the appropriate articles.

I know that you've been a longtime admin here, many years longer than I have, so I'm a little mystified by your series of edits which produced these issues. I noticed that some of your edit summaries said "unsplitting cat", but hopefully I've clarified the main issue now: Category:Aerial lifts and Category:Surface lifts are not merely two halves of Category:Ski lifts, and although Category:Surface lifts may be a subset of Category:Ski lifts, Category:Aerial lifts is not a subset and is a completely separate (partially overlapping) category.

I hope you don't mind me reverting many of those recent edits. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you've come across articles where the author(s) have linked to practically every word that has an article, whether or not it has anything to do with the topic. Over-linkification is bad for several reasons, it makes the article more difficult to read (studies show that many users click on every link out of habit), and it pollutes the search engines by promoting a topic link that doesn't really exist.
The same is even more true for categories. Cats are intended to help the user navigate between related articles if there is no other linking, while making it easier on the editor by automating much of the process. But it is important to ensure the topic collection is actually useful. In an article on chairlifts, for instance, the user will likely want to navigate to articles about other forms of ski lift. They simply aren't going to want to navigate to elevators, yet I see that such a cat is currently in that article. This is precisely the sort of polluting that overlinkfication within the article creates; people will search on ski lifts and get hits on elevators because Google will considering the inward-pointing links to make it authoritative. These sorts of false positives lower the value of the searches.
So then the question is simple: does the value of the cat overweight the negatives of search engine pollution? I think you would agree that the value of this cat, by itself is very close to nil. The ski lift cat has only 20 entries, with 100% overlap. Does sectioning out these particular articles add value to the reader? No, they are almost certainly interested in other sorts of lifts as well. Does it help reduce clutter? No, it actually increases it by having two pages when the second is tiny. Does it help the search engines? No, there's already an authoritative article on the topic. So it seems the value is low, and the downsides obvious. That is an argument to remove.
From what I can tell, and from what you say above, it appears this cat does not exist because of any user need. From what you state above it appears the thought process was something along the lines of "well gondolas can be used for non-skiing purposes, so we need to have a cat for those, which is aerial lift. And since that one exists, we need to put all the other similar lifts in it. And since that exists, then we need another to differentiate between aerial and others". So if one thinks the Wikipedia is a collection of categories it makes sense, but if you think it's a collection of articles, it doesn't.
To put this another way, there is an argument that says that the chairlift article should be placed in a cat called "articles that start with the letter C". Why isn't it? Because the value of such a cat is zero. I argue the same is true here.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Maury, I did see your reply here on the 26th, but I've hardly been on-wiki for more than a few minutes at a time since then, so I didn't get a chance to write a proper reply.
You have an interesting viewpoint on the role of categorization, but I don't entirely agree with it. Having very unobtrusive links to cats at the bottom of the page is vastly different than wildly overlinking within the article text. Clearly you're pushing it a bit too far to compare placing articles into a category for surface lifts with placing them into a cat for the letter "C". I think that having a handful of useful categories listed at the bottom of an article does no harm, even if there are a few more categories down there than the bare minimum you seem to favor. I think that cats are fine as a supplement, even if other linking (in article text or templates) already exist. Also, you didn't really address the most important point I was trying to make, about mis-categorization such as placing aerial tramway or gondola lift into only Category:Ski lifts. If we're going to categorize at all, we might as well do it in a self-consistently correct manner.
You make some strong assumptions about what the reader wants, but they're not necessarily true: I (for one) am an example of a reader who might view the chairlift article, click on Category:Vertical transportation devices, and be happy to find articles on elevators or escalators. That broadly- and multiply-linked web is one of Wikipedia's most important and engaging characteristics. I'm often amazed by the lengthy seemingly-random intellectual journeys which I'll go on during a session surfing Wikipedia, almost always starting with a Google search for a single topic and ending up who knows where, hours later (I almost never hit "Random article" either, that's too random for my taste). Having plenty of categories to click on often helps spur such journeys, for me at least. I think Wikipedia can be both a collection of articles, and a collection of categories which help some readers find those interesting articles. I guess we have two different points of view on this matter. --Seattle Skier (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 2 10 January 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: December themed Main Page Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Shockley-Queisser limit

Hi Maury! I am Pablo, from Spain.

Liked a lot this article, thanks! I found it a very nice and thorough read!! I am getting back to some photovoltaic reading. Wanted to tell you I was a little shocked on the "around 2 suns" limit for concentration PV on one layer silicon cells. Never heard of it, used to work in PV for a year and a half but never had to get my hands on concentrating systems. Did go to a Congress on the subject two years ago and can't recall this was brought up, but haven't studied it so... I'll go an read more. Do remember a talk on a system by an USA guy that was using in China precisely 3 sun concentration (1 sun for the "normal unconcentrated" sun and another 2 suns with mirrors). Might look up for my notes... . Anyway that is for another day, not nearly so prolific as you. Cheers!! Pablo2garcia (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

notable.......

http://www.flickr.com/photos/llnl/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.3.131 (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Vesicular film DYK

Your last edit to this article involved moving a statement. Is that statement supported by ref 1? If not you should duplicate the relevant reference there. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the text in question is simply explainitory. The hook material is covered completely in ref 1. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations for Reservisor

I am sure it is but a list of references without inline citations is not clear; particularly since anyone can come in and add content later that is not from those references. It's best to get into the habit of adding in-line citations. See WP:Cite for recommended guidelines. Although such actions are not mandatory requirements at wikipedia, it is beneficial and improves the article's quality. It also would go a long way in getting the article ready for a peer review and future GA/FA status if you are interested in that.

I just got your other message as I was writing above. Your article was nominated by another user to be featured in the DYK section of the mainpage (of which both you and the nom would have gotten credit for). It was rejected for insufficient inline citations. If you go ahead and add them now, as the reviewer I would be happy to change my ruling and promote the article's hook to the mainpage for later this week. Nrswanson (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I wasn't aware that you didn't know about the DYK nom. I assumed that the nominator would have informed you as the article's creator.Nrswanson (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

1) The article is literally filled with in-line references. Many of the cite-neededs are clearly and obviously stated in the references. From what I can see, you have simply added a cite-needed tag to the end of every single para if there wasn't a ref tag at the very end, regardless of whether or not the statement was referenced.
2) I nominated the article. No one informed me that the DYK was under review. Worse, no indication of any problem was placed on the article page, nor the article's talk page. How was I supposed to fix a problem I was not informed of?
3) "insufficient inline citations" is not a criterion for rejection, as one can trivially see from the DYK nom page. All that is required is that the hook be referenced.
Please re-insert the article into the queue. There has been a complete failure of basic etiquette here, and having put considerable effort into the article I am more than a little miffed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Vesicular film

Updated DYK query On January 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vesicular film, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films

Thank you for your recent contributions to Vesicular film. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Films? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! PC78 (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost
Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices 
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet 
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Electronic Recording Machine, Accounting

Greetings! From the history, I see that you added the initial content for the Electronic Recording Machine, Accounting article. Unfortunately, from what I see, it appears to largely be a WP:COPYVIO of http://www.sri.com/about/ermastory.html . I have reduced the article to the lead section for the time being. However, the article could be expanded by properly paraphrasing the content. It would also be wonderful to find additional independent resources to corroborate the details. -Verdatum (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I do understand what constitutes a copyright violation and what does not. I reach my conclusion, I did a string search on a selection of phrases through the article in the website given. The phrases I searched on happened to be among the few common substrings. Looking at the content more closely, A Longest common substring scan of the unformatted content of the article and the source revealed the following in common:
checksorterahighspeedprinterapowercontrolpanelamaintenanceboard24racksholding1500electricalpackagesand500relaypackages
as900branchesthecentersthenhandledmorethan750millionchecksayearaboutthenumbertheyhadpredictedtooccurby1970
anexperiencedbookkeepercouldpost245accountsinanhourabout2000inan8hourworkdayandapproximately10000perweek
rateof23000permonthandbankswerebeingforcedtoclosetheirdoorsby200pmto
susedmorethan80kwofpowerandrequiredcoolingbyanairconditioningsystem
ofwiring8000vacuumtubes34000diodes5inputconsoleswith
bankofamericascheckingaccountsweregrowingata
electronicrecordingmachineaccountingwasap
becauseaccountswerekeptalphabeticallya
systemfromacompanyinarlingtonvirginia
computercontainedmorethanamillionfeet
regionalermacentersservedallbut21ofb
generalelectricwonthecompetition
12magnetictapedrivesfor2400foot
32systemswereinstalledandby1966
electronicrecordingmachine
thetechnicalleadershipof
Which is a bit high, but I would agree, it's nothing to require stubbifying the page. I hope you'll understand my hasty conclusion. I'm glad the content can remain, as it is most informative. I do believe quite a bit can be done to improve the article, given the WP:COI nature of the content. Thanks for your contribution! -Verdatum (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Automatic Language Translator

Updated DYK query On January 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Automatic Language Translator, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Itek

Updated DYK query On January 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Itek, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for DAC-1

Updated DYK query On February 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article DAC-1, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost
Large portion of articles are orphans News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored 
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on Dispatches: In the news 
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK response

Just so you know, I've left a response to your question at WT:DYK#Can the CN article be given a pass?. Best, Politizer talk/contribs 17:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Maury, sorry about the DYK. You're right that rules are meant to be broken, and we usually do IAR if it's a matter of like 4.5x expansion or something like that...but if we IAR too much then more and more people will want us to bend the rules for them. I understand that it can be frustrating when you've put so much work into an article and then get caught up in a technicality like this...but most of those "rules" were built out of numerous discussions and consensus, and for the most part they're there for a reason. Anyway, the main issue here is that we just don't usually have time to do a rigorous quality assessment; but if you can find a DYK person who is willing to do a quick assessment for you (just look at T:TDYK and see whose name pops up a lot; I know Dravecky, Chamal N, and Daniel Case are pretty active there) they might be able to take a look. And you're always welcome to contact other DYK people and admins if you don't agree with what I said at WT:DYK; they might have different thoughts than I do.
And, again, if this is any consolation...from what I've seen in my quick glance at the article, you could definitely get a GA out of it even if no one is able to review it for DYK.
My apologies again about the article, and I hope it doesn't discourage you from keeping up all the good work you have been doing so far. Best, rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 16:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually the reason I go to DYK is because I have completely given up on GA. If you think DYK has rules, then let me assure you that GA is utterly hopeless. User edits are plummeting, and the only response has been to add even more rules to "fix it". I realize this has nothing to do with you, or DYK even, but it's a symptom of what appears to be a fatal disease - mil speccing the process to death in order to avoid having to stop and think and potentially get in an argument. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Chromatron

Updated DYK query On February 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chromatron, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Schutz

Updated DYK query On February 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Schutz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK issue, need 5x expansion

Hello! Your submission of Trinitron at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Royalbroil 06:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A reminder of what talk pages are for

While I'm sure you feel you're doing someone a favour by writing positively about new features in a web browser on its talk page, you need to keep in mind that there are policies and guidelines that expressly disallow this. {{talkheader}} explicitly states that talk pages are "not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines makes it very clear (in bold letters, no less) that talk pages "should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Wikipedia's WP:NOTFORUM policy states that, "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance."

If you feel it's necessary to write about how a particular topic covered by Wikipedia is "extremely impressive", please do so outside of Wikipedia's article and talk namespaces. The Village Pump, for example, may be a more suitable venue. You aren't exempted from adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just because you want to advocate a piece of software some people may use to edit the encyclopedia. We are in the encyclopedia-building business, not the Apple advocacy business. Thanks in advance for your future cooperation in the matter. Warren -talk- 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Your snarky, self-aggrandising, threatening response to this on my talk page was unnecessary and doesn't help the encyclopedia get built. Chill out, accept you did something you shouldn't have, and move on to more productive things. Thanks. Warren -talk- 13:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Trinitron

Updated DYK query On March 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trinitron, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Aviator

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Trinitron

Very nice expansion of an article on a great technology. My friend has a 1985 27" Trinitron and it's the first one I had ever seen and it seems better than the rest, somehow. It looks different, too. It's two pieces; the TV amd a stand with glass-doored drawers. It has dark wood grain veneer. When I first saw it I thought it was new because the picture was remarkable; IMO better than the overall quality on HDTV's, too. Not anywhere can I find a picture of one like it, not even on Google Images. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway/TV8-301

You added this redlink to Trinitron: TV8-301. Seems article worthy; help me out, I got it started: User:Daniel Christensen/TV8-301. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RCA Dimensia

I started this article on RCA's great brand. Also I made the Colortrak 2000 article as well (very similar TV). Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

PS

Your one of the first if any users I've seen besides me that uses their full and real (presumably) name for their account. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

SelectaVision

I looked up the traffic stats; it must have been deleted before; it has quite a lot of links and gets many views, I see. Are you sure it's been defunct since 1986? because I have quite a few SelectaVision things and I think some seem newer than that. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see now; you made the page a redirect; you didn't make it. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Plasmatron

Hello! Your submission of Plasmatron at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Plasmatron

Updated DYK query On March 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Plasmatron, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Color television

As someone who wrote a lot of the history portion of the article on color television, I want to compliment you on the additions you have made to the article. Keep up the good work. — Walloon (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Field-Emission Display

While I thank you for your exuberance and your varied and numerous contributions, may I ask you to re-consider your re-writing the entire FED entry? Aside from my disdain of the long form narrative style, I feel that a wholesale gutting of a page should be reserved for cases where the entry has been so mangled as to not allow reasonable edits to return it to functionality. Additionally, the verbiage you have chosen can be seen in numerous places to completely misrepresent the information cited. Maury, I really do value your contributions -- including many to pages I actively tend -- but you have included much information not related to FEDs, and inadvertently introduced errors. While I try my best to never present personal research, as I am active in the display engineering field, I can attest as an expert in the field that more that a few of your changes to this page are wrong. Let's try and talk this one through. OldZeb (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for it, but please do so on the article talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, uh.. I know this is random and our previous discussion ended in March of 2008, but I just wanted to let you know I was sorry for the grief caused then. If you don't remember me, my username was Kaiba before. I was just looking through my talk page discussions from back then, and stopped on your conversation with me and I think i might have been overly harsh when I didn't mean to be. So, sorry. Regards, — Moe ε 02:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Aiken tube

Updated DYK query On April 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aiken tube, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Microsoft Chrome

Updated DYK query On May 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Microsoft Chrome, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ju 388L-1.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Ju 388L-1.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 to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hispano Suiza HS 404

You wrote: The HS.404 was based on the earlier Swiss Oerlikon FF S weapons, which Hispano-Suiza manufactured under license in France as HS.7 and HS.9. The FF guns used a blowback mechanism, and in the 1930s engineer Marc Birkigt designed a new and much improved gas operated version with a locking bolt. It had much faster rate of fire, and a somewhat higher muzzle velocity. You are wrong. The Hisso 404 was an entirely new construction based on a locking mechanism patented by Carl Swebelius (an American) and 1938 by Marc Birkigt. It was not based and not a variant of the unlocked blow-back Oerlikon System Becker. It fired also a different 20 mm round. I had pre-war Oelikons, Hisso 404's (and still a Hisso 820 AA-Gun) - same system as the 404 - but bigger, in my collection. I disassembled both and there is not one part interchangeable. --hmaag (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cockcroft Walton generator

I think what you wrote at Cockcroft-Walton generator would be better moved to voltage multiplier. The CW article is specifically about the machine they built for particle acceleration. SpinningSpark 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think if you're going to have a circuit diagram, having an explanation of it is a good idea, IMHO. I know I hate having to flip to other articles to figure out how "this" thing works. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Image rename on Ju 388L-1 image

Commons doesn't like the name sadly, thinks it's not descriptive enough. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, try adding "Junkers" to the front? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

VIA redirects

Having no incoming links is not a reason to delete a redirect. I'm re-creating the VIA redirects you deleted. --NE2 16:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you have a history of deleting "unused redirects". There is no criterion that allows for their deletion, unless they are an unlikely typo. Can you please undelete them? --NE2 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Unused redirs are VERY bad. Each one of them goes into Google, which polutes the search hashes. Since Google only displays the two two hits per site, the redirs often push the real article off the search results. Given that something like 80% of all article hits come from Google, we need to avoid this at all costs. Remember, each hit on a redir also means two page hits on the webservers. Namespaces need to be given TLC, just like the articles. Sorry, I'm not going to un-del. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If you feel your view has merit, take it to WT:CSD. You should probably read Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?. --NE2 02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
More rules? There's already a page of them. (7) covers this case perfectly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Since when is "VIA Rail Canada Inc." a "novel or very obscure synonym for an article name"? --NE2 12:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
There are zero links to it and it does not appear once in the entire wikipedia, which is a good definition of "very obscure". In fact, the only place this term appears on the entire internet is in the tiny legalese at the end of VIA's web site, which is titled "VIA Rail".
I grow tired of this. What is your argument for having them in the first place? I gave you cogent reasons for removing them, you've failed to give me a single one for them being there in the first place. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
So you're seriously saying the (former?) official name of the company is "very obscure"? I'm taking one of your deletions to WP:DRV; expect it to show up in a few minutes. --NE2 21:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
So you're seriously saying that an unused redir that will never be typed in and pollutes both the google and wiki search caches is worth this level of invective? C'est la vie. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek

Good morning! Are you the same Markowitz who maintains a website on archaic video games? If yes, there's something that you might be a big help on. If not, look over there! A levitating dog! *flees* --Kizor 08:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's me! I really should keep it up to date though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. What's up is that our coverage of the Star Trek game and its variants is in serious need of improvement. Star Trek (text game) and Super Star Trek were PRODded, contested, and the latter was AfD'd a few days later. As I proposed in a ridiculously verbose message, we definitely should cover the game, but have to review what's the best way to do so and what our references can support. Here, you have that rare advantage that you know what you're talking about. I came in too late to witness more than EGA Trek. (Every game is a puzzle game when you can scarcely read the language. Good times.)

Several issues come to mind that you could help with, if you're interested, but I can't ask you to address them as dumping large workloads into other people's laps uninvited might be rude:
  • I gather that Super Star Trek is an enhanced and relatively popular variant of Star Trek amidst the bazillion out there. Do you agree that our coverage would be better organized by having the former as a section of the latter's article? At the same time, are there other articles about the variants? Star Trek (script game) and Trek73 seem separate.
  • Sourcing. A cursory search discovered that BASIC Computer Games from the late 70s covers the game's history, as does Creative Computing a bit differently, while also giving us some proof (second column) of the number of variants. I expect that these can support one article. There may be some accusations, about history being a "cursory mention" in the magazine or something, but at that time why would you write about a game if you weren't going to include it? Can you remember any leads for more sources, printed or otherwise?
  • Do you think that Mayfield's letter on your webpage is an usable reference about his views? It'd be nice if it was a large respected website with a reputation for blah blah blah, but if we can't trust admins to strive for accuracy, who can we trust? Someone else should still integrate it to the text to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest.
  • Actual article writing. I'll be plenty busy with schoolwork for weeks. However, if you have reservations about putting effort into threatened articles, then I can take that on my plate. Article Resque Squadron member at your service. --Kizor 14:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Super should absolutely be a section of a single article. The differences between the original and super are relatively minor, in spite of the name. The real difference was that Super was ported to MS Basic, and from there to thousands of home computers. There are other versions, like the common one on the PET, that were considerably different than the delta between Super and original, and they should also be in a single article. I support a merge.
As to references, I have personally e-interviewed both Mike Mayfield and Bob Leedom. There is no possibility that there are better references out there, by definition. Perhaps we should just submit the original e-mails into OORTS (or whatever the heck its called) and quote that? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh. The closest thing that I know of is the Oort Cloud. Let's keep that option on the table in case someone comes in and DEMANDS HIGH STANDARDS, but I believe that your webpage will do for now. Thanks, this might work out amicably. --Kizor 14:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anomalon

Hello! Your submission of Anomalon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jamie☆S93 01:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear...

Just as I was trying to leave you a message about the AfDs, I find that you're taking the opportunity to tout your own fan sites of the games... Alastairward (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Whut? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maury Markowitz. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

One of your deleted redirects has been undeleted. I hope you'll go through and undelete the others you've deleted, so that this does not have to be taken elsewhere to get them taken care of. --NE2 02:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you do this? No one uses it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you're wrong about that: [1] There are reasons for having redirects, and you're simply ignoring them for misguided worrying about performance. --NE2 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The article does not appear on that page, did you actually look at it? Soooo, you're wikistalking me? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that; can you explain? --NE2 12:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You said, "go to this page, it shows that the redir is being used". It does not. Did you actually look at the page? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It shows two hits last month. Not much, but it's more than "no one". --NE2 14:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions. --NE2 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NE2 is absolutely correct. There is no deletion policy that permits deleting redirects because they "pollute Google". We have one for recently-created, implausible redirects (CSD:R3), but that's the limit. I strongly urge you not to delete any more redirects until you have familiarized yourself with the relevant policy. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

userboxen

I kinda have it hidden. enjoy. :) --mav (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Trek73 merge

Actually, it was User:Alastairward who merged Trek73's content into Star Trek (text game). Let me look at some TREK73 sources to see if it really is just a variant of Spacewar!. Bumm13 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on an MS-DOS version of TREK73 that I just tested, it appears that it's actually neither a version of the text game (quadrants and sectors, letters/symbols for ships, stars, etc.) nor a variant of Spacewar!. It's a Star Trek-themed text game that involves attacks by up to nine enemy ships. The captain (player) makes decisions on how to deal with attacks (32 commands total) while various classic Star Trek characters make comments. The game lists three possible outcomes: Total victory, tactical victory and moral victory. Everything is in "normal text" (no character-based pseudo-graphics that I can see, anyway). It should be un-merged. Bumm13 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
sigh. Any suggestions on what to do? I'm sure if we re-instate the original page someone will get all up in our inz. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ho hum, I came here to ask just what to do about the Trek73 merge. I thought it was the best place to ask, after all it was the two of you who requested the article be specifically merged into the Star Trek (text game) article. Alastairward (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
And guess what? I was wrong! Shit happens. And ice cream. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping more for a way forward than a confession. Alastairward (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but being non-religious, this is the best I can do. In the meantime, I think we combine TREK73, Begin and Begin2 into one article, and see if we can NOTE that. I'm not entirely convinced we can. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Port Whitby and Port Perry Railway

Updated DYK query On June 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Port Whitby and Port Perry Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 02:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

AESA

Your latest revision on Active Electronically Scanned Array says "working on a major update, please bear with me" and the article was incomplete when I viewed it. I had wanted to read the article and instead had to go to a prior revision. A sandbox should be used to construct the article intead of making an in place update to the main article page. --Rain (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Frequency agility

Updated DYK query On June 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frequency agility, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 03:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

E-mail as source for citation comment

Hi Maury, I just finished reading your comment in the archives/Verifibility which answered my question. I'm just unwilling to let this fish go right now-an e-mail from an expert should be allowed, although I can't think of an easy way to put a copy of the e-mail on Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk page, the clutter would be massive. Anyway, I will remove my footnote stating "personal observation, June 2009 and e-mail from DGF's Paul Hofmann, Assistant Biologist." If there has ben a change in this policy recently, please let me know. Sincerely. Marcia Wright (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PS The start-class article I'm referring to is Loch Lomond Vernal Pool Ecological Reserve.

Well I have actually had this happen to me. What I've done is sent the e-mail to the Wikipedia:OTRS system, which records it and allows certain people to see it, but still leaves the original e-mail essentially anon. It's definitely not a perfect solution though, I'd prefer to have a "public OTRS" in the cases where the author is made aware the comments will be public -- which I am careful to pre-arrange every time in spite of it going into OTRS. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, I'm glad to know that it can be arranged. A public OTRS is a great idea...hope someone is working on that. Thanks. Marcia Wright (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Maury, Has this idea been brought up in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) that you know of? If not, should it be? Marcia Wright (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Short brothers.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Short brothers.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 to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Elsie macgill graduation.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Elsie macgill graduation.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 to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Sweet Spot

I have nominated Sweet Spot, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Spot. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Patchy1Talk To Me! 09:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Markham Gang

Updated DYK query On July 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Markham Gang, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 14:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweet Spot

Would you mind re-visiting Sweet Spot and seeing if you think it's improved? It so, a quick-kill on the AfD is in order - it was a widespread KEEP anyway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Have done so, looks good. I have further commented on the AFD debate and removed the unencyclopedic tag. Someone needs to close the AFD now. Thanks. Patchy1Talk To Me! 20:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for McCaw Cellular Communications

Updated DYK query On July 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article McCaw Cellular Communications, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject:Did you know 14:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Short_brothers.jpg

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Short_brothers.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Elsie_macgill_graduation.jpg

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Elsie_macgill_graduation.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:Cray-3 module with one plane lifted.jpg

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Please also consider checking Commons for other media that you may have uploaded locally, but which was subsequently transferred.

Special:Log for uploads can help in this.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:CDC6600 core memory plane.jpg

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Please also consider checking Commons for other media that you may have uploaded locally, but which was subsequently transferred.

Special:Log for uploads can help in this.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)

Also please ensure the permission you got is lodged with the appropriate places on Commons.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ft Toronto

You posed a question here a while ago; I’ve replied there (such as it is)...Moonraker12 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 11:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for E-1 (rocket engine)

Updated DYK query On July 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article E-1 (rocket engine), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Heinz-Hermann Koelle

Updated DYK query On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heinz-Hermann Koelle, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject:Did you know 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lavalin

Updated DYK query On July 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lavalin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 07:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Electro-hydrostatic actuator at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Killiondude (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I left another comment there. Materialscientist (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Urban Transportation Development Corporation

Hello! Your submission of Urban Transportation Development Corporation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Electro-hydrostatic actuator

Updated DYK query On August 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Electro-hydrostatic actuator, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ICTS/ART

Yes, it's definitely a complicated subject matter to cover properly. The technology and the politics behind UTDC are inextricably intertwined (I'd say GO ALRT and perhaps even the province's pushing of Orion buses are also relevant), but the subjects are still distinct. I'll give it some thought, but my instinct is for the politics to go mostly on the UTDC page, with allusions to them and cross-referencing on ICTS/ART where appropriate. David Arthur (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Me 210 wing LE angle debacle...

Dear Maury:

The PIPE here...thanks for your reply.

I noticed the difference in 210-vs-410 wing leading edge angle in the three-views in my copy of the book 'Hitler's Luftwaffe", an early-1980s era (I think) book on "the Mad Austrian's" (what my German Email buddy Jens Klank-the Webmaster of http://www.biplanes.de/ -has said what many modern Germans have nicknamed the despised Nazi leader) air force, shows the double-angle wing leading edge angle on the 3-view of the 210, and like the 410 Hornisse's 3-view now viewable on Wikipedia, your 3-view of the 410 shows but a SINGLE angle going from root-to-tip. That HAD to be a contributing influence on the better flying characteristics that the 410 had...true, it WAS only one of many changes that Messerschmitt AG had to make on the failed 210 design, but it is noticeable, and right where the 210's troublesome automatic wing leading edge slots were located!

I've also seen the unique turret aiming setup the rear gunner had in the 210 & 410...in a showing of the "Wings of the Luftwaffe" series on the Discovery Military Channel, a WW II era German training film meant to familiarize Luftwaffe personnel with the features of the "new Zerstorer" they were about to get, clearly showed the handgun grip and trigger being used to train the guns throughout their firing arcs, while the 210 or 410 was parked on the ground.

I've also got a CONSIDERABLE amount of information on World War I aircraft...it's my main area of aviation interest...Pioneer era (1903-1914) and "golden age" aircraft between the Wars also score well, and I've got some serious interest in WW II aviation.

The pioneering efforts in 1915 through 1918, of Hugo Junkers, the original innovator of metallic aircraft construction materials near the dawn of aviation (almost exactly as Burt Rutan, with his revolutionary composite materials for aerospace, is considered to be today) are something I've been interested in for a VERY long time now...and an article written from scratch, just like my Bristol Scout Wikipedia article, will be coming, on the very first all-metal fighter aircraft to be produced in quantity...the JUNKERS D.I. This article IS something I've wanted to do on Wikipedia, seeing as though I've got so much info accumulated on it, for a future Radio Control quarter scale flying model of it...the model will even have real scale corrugated aluminum covering, exactly as the full scale aircraft had so distinctively been covered with.

Thank you for your reply...

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE!

Then, your intial response...

Sorry, I'm going to have to remove the content in question. As you stated, "That HAD to be a contributing influence". Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it's definitely original research either way. If you can find cooberating evidence in a referenceable 3rd party source then the material can remain, but until that time it's just not suitable. Maury 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you might want to experiment with the "minor" button on checkins. Things like spelling or minor grammar should be marked M. Maury 12:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And here's my most recent response to what you answered...

Dear Mr Maury:

...The pIPE here once more...IF you've checked the Me 210 article here at Wikipedia a bit MORE recently...at [File:Me 210 w trzech rzutach.jpg] , that "cranked" double angle leading edge (shown on the new three view at that page) that COULD have led to many serious handling problems on the 210's initial design is CERTAINLY there for all to see...just thought I'd inform you about it...and if you check the article on the "most produced warplane of all time", at Ilyushin Il-2#Operational history...

"In 1943, the IL-2 Type 3 or Il-2m3 came out with redesigned wings that were swept back 15 degrees on the outer panels, and nearly straight trailing edges, resulting in a wing planform somewhat like the AT-6 trainer."

And I've even heard from one Bob Underwood, a famous radio control scale aircraft enthusiast and former Academy of Model Aeronautics officer, who's flown an Il-2 RC scale model for as long as I've known him, had to change his model for scale accuracy based on that above statement. The Il-2 made a major change to its outer wing panels that gave it a double-angle leading edge, since the added rear gunner sitting in tandem behind the pilot (formerly the only crew on the initial design) had shifted the two-seat Il-2m3's center of gravity rearwards, so some wing area "had to go along for the ride" in a slightly rearwards direction to keep everything flying safely.

With the two-seat Il-2, the change TO a double-angle wing was needed...but the Me 210 had this already (with the rearwards-located outer wing panels' area), and it seemed to have helped to throw the plane "out of kilter", aerodynamically speaking, which apparently bringing the outer wing area "forwards" with the Me 410's different outer wing planform, with more of its area a bit further forward in comparison to the Me 210's outer wing panels, seemed to have some positive effect on solving.

The image of Wikipedia's Me 210 three-view actually SHOWING the double-angle leading edge on the drawing prompted me to add this commentary!

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for MOBIDIC

Updated DYK query On August 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MOBIDIC, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 02:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Urban Transportation Development Corporation

Updated DYK query On August 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Urban Transportation Development Corporation, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

{{User0|ImperatorExercitus 14:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for LRC (train)

Updated DYK query On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article LRC (train), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ford ACT

Hello! Your submission of Ford ACT at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of headway

Hello! Your submission of headway at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The V-Man (Said · Done) 14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi, there are still some issues with this nomination. Please comment at the nom page. Thanks!

DYK for Ford ACT

Updated DYK query On September 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ford ACT, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Headway

Updated DYK query On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Headway, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

I see that you are a Wikipedia Admin (according to your user page). I would like to know (to have in writing if you will) if the "advice" you left on my talk page are some sort of orders, if there are any specific WP policies you might link to, to give some sort of basis to them.

I'd particularly like to know, given the tone of language that you used on my talk page, if you believe that I shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia. You seemed (again, simply by the language you used on my talk page) that I was damaging Wikipedia in some way. As an Admin, I believe you should be held to a higher standard than the average user (i.e. me!) so I would appreciate a considered response (bearing in mind such things as WP:CIVIL), thank you. Alastairward (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed with the reply I received on my talk page. I would repeat my call for clarification re: the above, else I may have to renominate the article for deletion. I have, in good faith, searched for references and examined those that are left. I can only assume now however that there is an ownership issue over this article.
In addition, the article did not survive the Afd process intact, it was supposed to be merged to another article after all. So, it is clear that notability has not been supplied. Alastairward (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Maury, could you please clarify just one thing, is there any reason why I actually have to do as you order on my talk page. There is to me a clear difference between friendly advice with reasoning supplied, and the demands you have made on my talk page.
Also, can you tell me what you mean by consenus with regards the deletion of Trek73? On the last AfD (which I hope you remember, you voted on) it was decided that this game was a minor variation of another, and so could be merged. So you agreed then that it was not notable enough to have it's own article, two other users agreed. I, as nominator of the AfD, sought its deletion. It was previously PRODded, the tag was removed not because the article was notable, but because the editor disagreed with the wording of the PROD.
Consensus would seem then to be that the article did not qualify to stand on it's own. Since the tag was placed for this reason, what is your counter? Do you still declare that a one word mention in a book suffices for notability? Alastairward (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
A slightly more considered response, but no real answer to the problem of notability. Are you more concerned with going through the motions? There are three trivial mentions of the game in the references, can you explain why you feel they promote notability (with reference to WP:NOTABILITY). While the book they feature in may very well be widely read, although that is only your assertation, the game merits from what I can see a one word mention. All we can say is that it's been heard of and was played in a university in the US. Alastairward (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Trek73

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trek73, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trek73 (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alastairward (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Parsoft Interactive

Hi, I nominated Parsoft Interactive for prod because it has no references. Blanche, Blanche DuBois (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the info on my talk page. I guess I got a little bit carried away, and didn't use very good judgment. I will be more careful in the future. Best, Blanche, Blanche DuBois (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Units

Well I did this with AWB for some of the French communes, but I think space debris looks good as it is. Are there really still people who don't know what a kg is? And do the same people know what a lb is? Rich Farmbrough, 12:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC).

Hm I did a find and replace. Rather effective thanks to the fact that all the units had non-breaking spaces. The Hazard to Earth section needs fixing, maybe less precision would be good too. Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

TAS

Hi, thanks for your input on my talk page, it would also be welcome on the project or article talk page. BTW, whatever happened to "be bold" and edit? Alastairward (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of ClearCurve

Hello! Your submission of ClearCurve at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Slaver Weapon

Updated DYK query On October 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Slaver Weapon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wi-Fi Direct

Hello! Your submission of Wi-Fi Direct at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Wi-Fi Direct

Updated DYK query On October 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wi-Fi Direct, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 03:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

MM

ref.... I think you know more about advanced reffing than I do ... I noted this when looking at your article. I just added an inline ref as it meant you got a 100%tick. cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Route Reference Computer

Hello! Your submission of Route Reference Computer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

White noise/Snow (television)

What is the sound of a television set to a channel with no signal-the loud noise- is it white noise? See Snow (television); it doesn't say. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for VIAFast

Updated DYK query On November 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article VIAFast, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ferranti Sirius

Updated DYK query On November 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ferranti Sirius, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 02:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Route Reference Computer

Updated DYK query On November 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Route Reference Computer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BencherliteTalk 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Telidon

Updated DYK query On November 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Telidon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Citing

I really like the referencing you did in the Telidon article. Can you give me the $.25 tour of that syntax? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Its pretty easy, you just use Template:harvnb template:
<ref name= "LASTNAME p. PAGENUMBER">{{harvnb|NAME|YEAR|p=PAGENUMBER}}</ref>
Then put a book cite in the references with a, "ref=harv" attribute like below:
*{{cite book |ref=harv|last=LASTNAME|first=FIRSTNAME| authorlink = AUTHORLINK | title = TITLE|edition=YEAR|year=YEAR| publisher = PUBLISHER| isbn= ISBN|language=ENGLISH }} <small>- Total pages: TOTALPAGES</small>

DYK nomination of Telidon

Hello! Your submission of Telidon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. When I had went to verify the quote I had mistakenly opened up the IDA report from Manitoba Telephone System.Your original hook has been verified and I offer my apologies. It was indeed a very well written and sourced article. Feel free to slap me with a trout anytime the need arises. Thank you again Calmer Waters 17:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I liked the alt better anyway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

TV8-301

It is made; the YTube reference was quickly removed, not surprisingly. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


it would be half-assed but I could take a picture of the video.... Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Then you're into the world of YouTube licensing hurt. Definitely more trouble than it's worth. There's got to be one of these sitting in a store somewhere... Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I commented on the video, asking the guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StbCuBM3lA0&feature=related Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Antenna theory

How much mathematics do you understand? Do you know Vector (mathematics and physics), partial differential equations, Calculus Curl (mathematics) Integral electrostatics magnets. Unfortunately the physics depends greatly on mathematics. But there may be ways to visualise the results without your own understanding of calculation. One first step in understanding receiving antenna workings is Faraday's law of induction, but this uses mathematics too.To understand arrays of antennas it is basically adding the signals with different phases. Do you understand complex numbers? Or enjoy trigonometry? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

using metrics

this discussion is only about which system has priority. in general i think the present system of the country does, which in this case happens to be metric. it did not escape my attention that lrt in canada existed before the metric system was introduced. after some thought i nevertheless think metric measurments should be applied. using your argument we would be using hundreds of kinds of measurements whenever writing about things from the past. wikipedia also isn't just for train specialists, of which only the north american ones are familiar with the figures, but for international usage by "average" people. they come first, then the train freaks, for which the figures are in brackets. in case you want to argue about en:wikipedia being for english speakers: even the majority of english speakers are metric. by the way - hi to canada!Sundar1 (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But that is the standard on the Wikipedia, you use the units that were used in the documents and then convert that into modern versions. If someone is writing about biblical times and the author mentions someone being two cubits high, you say the person was two cubits high (about 2 meters). We're quoting a source directly, we need to use whatever units they did, and any conversions are strictly for helping the modern reader. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alden staRRcar

Hello! Your submission of Alden staRRcar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Alden staRRcar

Updated DYK query On December 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alden staRRcar, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rohr ROMAG

Updated DYK query On December 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rohr ROMAG, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Computer-controlled Vehicle System

Hello! Your submission of Computer-controlled Vehicle System at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

DYK for Computer-controlled Vehicle System

Updated DYK query On December 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Computer-controlled Vehicle System, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maury_Markowitz/Archives/2009&oldid=1166514168"