User talk:Kgrr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Kgrr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ so others will know who left which comments.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
How to edit a page and write a great article
The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
The handy Manual of Style
And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango 123 00:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs

Hi, I want to thank you for creating all of those pages. However, I think you made a few mistakes. On the page David D. Newsom I have corrected your entry to make it look like a typical wikipedia stub. Firstly You should always put the name of the person at the beginning in bold followed by his description, not just his description. Secondly, Template:Succession box contains everything that your Template:U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs contained so I changed to use succession box and put the category below as it normally would go. Unneeded specialization in templates is usually not a good thing. I ordered your page so that it goes:

Stub

[edit] Cindy Sheehan

Haha, thanks for the compliment but any good wikipedia user will try to help others. Helping users that try to do good for wikipedia is easy... the hard part is dealing with the ones whose aims you doubt. From what I've seen with my dealings (mostly watching actually) with the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake article most any verifiable information can go as an event is breaking news. Over time the article will become formed and more encyclopedic but it's expected that while an event is occurring, or at least at its climax, that there will be a great deal of interest in it and unfortunately a fair amount of unwanted attention. Now, I am not familiar with the article so I am not advising you on content... because, honestly I've only seen the news clips about her nothing remotely in depth... but, if you view the page's history and then click on the version you think is correct then click edit and then save it that will revert it to the version you chose. When doing that make sure other editors haven't added useful material in the meantime that you inadvertently delete. Typically if an editor is anonymous and just makes an completely out of the ordinary change you can revert it with few problems... however, if the editor is established it is best to use the talk page and work out how you are going to do things with them. On my look at that page's history I didn't see the material that was removed... so, if you want to show me the difference (do you know how to look at differences between two versions using the page history?) then I can make a better judgment... but for now I hope that has helped... which, I'm not sure it has. Feel free to ask if you need anything else. gren グレン 20:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is currently being vandalized. Also please be more careful when attributing inappropriate editing behavior; as you will note from the article history I've been trying to stop the vandalism on this article for several days.--CSTAR 21:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well OK, I think the vandals got tired. At least for now.--CSTAR 05:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted.--CSTAR 13:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

May I also suggest you format the chronology as a table such as the one in the article Tsunami (just to pick a random example).--CSTAR 13:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decision to leave Crawford

Amazing editing on the Sheehan article. Re: Bush's decision to leave, make sure you make a distinction (doesn't exist with your newest edit) between Bush's *decision* to leave Crawford and his *leaving* Crawford. Badagnani 02:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I hadn't read he went straight to D.C. Didn't he do a flyover of New Orleans today? I just read that somewhere. Badagnani 05:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That's right!! It WAS supposed to be a 5-week vacation. Starting on August 4, that would mean the last day of the vacation would be Sept. 7. Why on earth is ALL of the press reporting that he cut his vacation short by 2 days? That should be easily checked, and why is it that a WP editor is more factually accurate than the major media? Funny, White House staff are now claiming Bush has only been on vacation for the past week, and that for the previous three weeks he was really working, that he had to leave the White House due to a renovation of the White House. I wonder why this was only reported on the last day of his vacation. I guess people will believe anything, according to the principle of wishful thinking, especially when a tragedy has just occured and people want to think the best of people. Badagnani 06:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning News says Bush's "five-week vacation" was cut short by 2 days -- http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12527455.htm That doesn't make any sense. I agree with you about the "beginning of the end," as I understand all too well being based at a university called Kent State. With Rove in hot water and disasters on three fronts (Iraq, Crawford, and now the Southeast), I really do wonder why Rove et al. haven't cooked up a new crisis to prop up the prez's ratings. I think Bush really thought Iraq would be a "cakewalk" and ever since he realized it wasn't he has been improvising, often in a not very clever way. The most likely scenario would be a new war but that doesn't seem politically expedient now, with the forces stretched so thin. Badagnani 07:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, who IS writing this script? :) When you posted the chronology entry about the Jamboree, the first thing that came to mind was his not wanting to stop the elementary school book reading in 2001. Maybe I shouldn't wait for the pundits to point out this new example of misplaced priorities, as they may have been more likely during the previous president's tenure. Then again, maybe there wasn't even anyplace to land down there due to the flooding, and the area couldn't be made secure...although I suppose he could have met with the governors of the affected states in some other area on higher ground.

Watch out, though, the inclusion of the Jamboree reference in the Sheehan article may be labeled POV as it is tangential to Sheehan's story. Badagnani 08:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comment. Glad to be of help. Eleemosynary 05:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

Good work on keeping the Cindy Sheehan article in decent shape (although eventually, at some future date, it will have to be cut down with a compendium of the chronology). In a similar vein, you might also want to keep an eye on Ronnie Earle.

Keep up the good work. Thanks. --CSTAR 04:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shout out

I'd gotta give you some props on the work you've been doing on the wiki. The cindy sheehan and constance articles are really sticking to the right-wing nutz that spread their Bush propaganda everywhere. Keep up the good work. Reparaizins 06:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The film Identity

Hi Kgrr, you added this film to the DID page. There's a separate page for DID in the media (comics, novels, films, etc.). I forget the name of the page, but it's linked to the main DID article.

I looked at the IMDB listing for the movie and it seemed to be a slasher film. Is it really DID related? That's why I didn't immediately move it to the other page; I wasn't quite sure why you'd added it. Zora 19:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links not used as reference material

Hey Konrad. I have a discussion going over at Talk:Dave Reichert you might be interested in contributing to. BTW, I'm a big Darcy Burner fan. Thx for creating that article. Velvetsmog 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing

Hi. . .I noticed your edits to the Sam Graves article. Then I noticed you had made edits to a dozen or so articles adding links to a POV site about Tom Delay. It really looks like POV pushing when you have edit summaries like "another recipient of Tom delay's dirty money." TMS63112 20:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a nice start on the ARMPAC article, which is certainly a newsworthy topic. I think Wikepiedia strives to present the relevant facts in a balanced, neutral way. I assume in good faith that is what both of us are trying to do. I suggest that we continue our conversation at the Sam Graves article so that other editors who are interested in that article might be able to join us more easily. TMS63112 20:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Gordon

Yes, it's true. He dropped out yesterday. Chadlupkes 23:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nice illustration on Dipole antenna

I think your drawing of a dipole antenna is great! I don't suppose I could get you to look at the hand drawings that are there now and replace those too? --ssd 06:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Good start on the rewrites! Not what I had in mind, but I like it. Some of the pictures are too small to read now, though. I still think redrawing them would fix that. I put the balun article reference there because the book has a (conceptually) better illustration of the common mode radiation picture. --ssd 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:E and H Plane PD-h-yagi.png

Thanks for uploading Image:E and H Plane PD-h-yagi.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyrightstatus is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tagsfor the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam^(T/C)10:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cindy Sheehan image

On Image_talk:Sheehan.jpg you write, that you will try to ask Jeff Patterson about the copyright. Did you have any success so far? Please explain, that we'd need an image with one of those licences. Raphael1 12:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheehan Picture

No one has contacted me with this problem until today. I only posted photos that were released into the (pd) public domain, or that are (cc) Creative Commons. I'm glad you found a picture that is suitable. Konrad

No problem, I thought I might be able to get one, and I found it pretty easily :D Anyway, the creative commons one I think is better anyway :) - cohesion^t 04:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Wave Wikipedians

Thank you for the clear explaination. Another user identified himself as such and I wasn't sure what it meant...being a writer, rather than an EE or whatever.--Beth Wellington 05:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:20050926 Sheehan Arrested 7 1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:20050926 Sheehan Arrested 7 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Thuresson 15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thuresson15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiation pattern of the half wave dipole.

You have published in wikipedia "dipole antenna" a radiation pattern that I found "very strange". As far as I know, the radiation pattern of a short doublet is a circular section torus. The radiation pattern of a half wave dipole is a flattened torus. The diagram you published is that of a lengthened (in the axial direction) torus. Would you please tell me where this diagram comes from? Thanks. LPFR 11:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: I drew the diagram, generalizing a typical dipole e and h plane diagram such as this one, since I cannot copy copyrighted materials: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps469/prod_installation_guide09186a00806ad867.html So in short, my diagram came from empirical experience, not theory.

Having read through the text that has been added above, I will redraw it as a slightly flattened taurus. Thanks. Konrad

You wrote:

I drew the diagram, generalizing a typical dipole e and h plane diagram such as this one, since I cannot copy copyrighted materials:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps469/prod_installation_guide09186a00806ad867.html

So in short, my diagram came from empirical experience, not theory.

Having read through the text that has been added above, I will redraw it as a slightly flattened taurus. Thanks. Konrad

Hi, Konrad, After looking at the CISCO site, I think I understood what the problem is. The CISCO radiation patterns are not linear polar patterns, that is: polar patterns where de radius r is proportional to the electrical field or to the gain (not in dB). The CISCO diagrams are polar patterns where the radius is proportional to the gain in dB. May be this is a good representation when you are interested only in what happens near the maxima of the radiation lobes. However, you cannot represent a zero, which gives a minus infinity for r. You have to make a choice as where the zero for r (something like -30 dBi or-50 dBi) and accept to ignore lower values of gain.

A Wikipedia must be didactic; I think that the best thing you can do is to show the same radiation pattern in the two kinds of diagrams. First in linear form (easier to understand for nonprofessionals) then in logarithmic form with a caption like "The same radiation pattern draw in logarithmic (dB) scale. Note that the overall shape changes and that zeros cannot be represented".

Cordialement. LPFR 07:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your images

I've looked at the images you've made and they look like they were made in some kind of vector drawing program, but you've uploaded them as bitmaps. Would it be possible for you to upload them in vector format (i.e. SVG) instead? // Liftarn

As far as concerned, I had not done anything with that image, after you tag it the image in public domain. You can discuss with Liftarn about the issue. There is nothing wrong with that copyright, but it would be better if you upload the image in SVG fomrat instead of png. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 03:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical communicator vocation?

I noticed your name on the list; I've asked some vocational questions at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians/Technical Communicators. Any input you may have would be very much appreciated! --J. J. 15:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yes, I know several EE's that can write. One even helped found an alternative newspaper in Blacksburg, VA and now works full time writing for the United Paperworkers, after coming to the union's attention for his coverage of the Pittston Coal strike :)--Beth Wellington 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:20050924 Operation cease fire.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:20050924 Operation cease fire.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Nv8200p talk 03:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not delete this image? It is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. Please link the image from a relevant article or move the image to the Commons if you would like to keep it. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commondreams

FYI: Talk:Common_Dreams_NewsCenter#Removal_of_information Travb (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] test

test

[edit] Civility

Please be WP:CIVIL. This isn't William M. Connolley 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref thanks

Thanks for fixing that ref mess. I'm not allowed to. (SEWilco 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] user images

Instead of uploading the same image of yourself on many projects, have you considered uploading it to commons: so you can use it on your userpage on all projects? If you do, please make sure to put it in [[category:Wikimedians]]. Happy editing. Bawolff 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] framing merger proposal

Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 14:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/g/r/User_talk%7EKgrr_d525.html"