User talk:Lindosland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Lindosland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Bushytails 02:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weighting curves

Hi, I see a comment 'that was a lot of work'. Are you commenting on my work recently (yes it was!), or the fact that I replaced your work (I worried about this a bit).

The most work went into creating Equal loudness contours, Fletcher-munson curves, and Robinson Dadson curves Lindos1 Lindos2 . . . Lindos5, but I've been keen to get these available in scalable vector form. Now I'v done it, there seems to be a problem. Every day, one or two graphs are not loading onto the pages (random?)yet the files are there, and just re-saving the text page without change restores things till the next time. Any ideas why? I've flagged this on the bugs page, but no answers. Maybe .svg files all suffer this problem (I now see they are not common). --Lindosland 01:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that mine was a lot of work.  :-) It's ok, though, as long as yours is accurate and it seems to be consistent format as your other ones.
Yeah, SVG support was only added like a month ago. Try refreshing your cache, purging the image page (I'm not really sure what this does), or changing the px size of the thumbnail a little to force the server to regenerate it. — Omegatron 01:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah I just realised you added your 'alternative version'. I do admire the way you generated your curves, but find that I constantly want to read off values, and the accuracy is only as good as can be estimated from the graph (Ideally I would add a table). Adding the log frequency scale, which your graphs don't have, makes for more accurate reading, and of course vector form means they can be blown up big.

  • Wow, no sooner written than I get a reply. I've only been doing Wiki for a few weeks in ernest, but it's taking me over, and forever surprising me! Yes, that's helpful, and I'll try those things (later, it's 1.50am and I must go to bed). I got hooked into writing most of Noise this evening, which was flagged for attention. Amazing how many terms you can Wikify in an article like that and see come up blue!.
Yeah, it would be trivial to add the extra gridlines or output SVG, but the SVG rendering of gnuplot's output looks pretty poor (compare Image:waveforms.png vs Image:waveforms.svg for instance) and my PNG is 1600x1600, so it can be blown up plenty big.  :-)
And yes, WP is super addicting.  :-) — Omegatron 02:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stoddard picture

Can you post the source of the Stoddard picture to the image description page? (Book, website, whatever)? All images on Wikipedia not created by their authors need to have explicit sources listed or else they are deleted after 7 days. I'm pretty sure that image is no longer copyrightd (I'm pretty sure it was published at least as early as 1921) but it is good to have these things in writing. Thanks. --Fastfission 00:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animation

Well done, thanks! I'm sure we'll continue cleaning up all this, there are quite a few sub-pages that still need some work (Animated cartoon being one I created, the only one with a timeline of animation styles.) -- Janke | Talk 16:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you, I've been working away in the hope that it would be appreciated! I've just finished applying the Root page concept which I invented for Noise and realised would work well here. There's now a description of what this is about at Root page, as of an hour ago! I've applied it to some animation pages, but many more need the root page link adding in the first line of the 'See also'. By refering every page back to the Root page, and listing all derivatives on the root page people can readily see what work has already been done, and avoid duplication. It would be nice if you would now help spread the word on the Root page idea and help put the links in place. --Lindosland 16:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Root pages @ the village pump

FYI I posted a wee pointer to Wikipedia:Root page and the MfD listing at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Root pages and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Root pages. It will be useful to get this out to a larger audience so it can either prosper or sink :) Thanks/wangi 01:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Root page vs Wikipedia:Root page

I've had my bot go through all instances of Root page in Wikipedia and change them to [[Wikipedia:Root page|Root page]] (looks the same:Root page). I have also deleted Root page, it's not really appropriate to link to the Wikipedia namesapce from articles. Hope that's what you wanted. If not, let me know and I'll change them back.--Commander Keane 21:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure - this was troubling me, and was why I didn't put Root page in the Wikipedia namespace myself to start with! I realised it could be done with a piped link, but dislike the extra complication for editors when redirect makes it easier. Is there any reason why it is not appropriate to link to the Wikipedia namespace from articles? Are you saying that Root page should not be in WNS? Is there any reason not to leave the redirect in place too? It fooled me when I just tried to look at Root page by entering the shortened form into search! --Lindosland 21:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Wikipedia has two operating modes:
  1. To provide a working encyclopedia (seen in the article namespace)
  2. To provide infrastructure to improve the encyclopedia (seen in the Wikipedia namespace)
Root page, which is in the article namespace, is for an encyclopedia article. It should be blank, ready for someone to come along and create a new article.
A reader shouldn't have to deal with the inner-workings of Wikipedia if all they want to do read an article. This is why a redirect from Root page to Wikipedia:Root page is inappropriate.
Having said that, I see that Revert redirects to Wikipedia:Revert. So I guess you can (or ask me if you like) make the redirect, even though I think it's unprofessional and confusing for readers.
Also, don't worry about editors having trouble finding your new guidleline. It's obvious (with a little experience) that it will be located at Wikipedia:Root page.
I'm not sure about this but I tend to think the redirect is best, and as you say, there is precedent. I don't understand your comment 'A reader shouldn't have to deal with the inner-workings of Wikipedia if all they want to do read an article.' Root page is just a phrase used as a label on a page. It will rarely be clicked on - only when readers wonder what it is and click to get an explanation. Redirecting into the Wikipedia namespace seem quite alright to me, its not as if every Root page is reliant on this path to work in some way.

You might like to look at my other suggestion, which I have just put up on Wikipedia: village pump (proposals) for 'MetaCategories'. There I guess I am redefining Wikipedia as one of several MetaCategories, the others being Book:, Film:, Song:, Standard:, etc in the first namespace. Does that make sense to you, or do you see any inconsistancy there? --Lindosland 23:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

How did I make a mess of your watchlist? By listing lots of entries? That's ok.
It seems that the redirect is used in lots of cases, despite my grievance with the idea. So the redirect is ok. What is not ok is using the "shortened form" as you call it. You must use the full link [[Wikipedia:Root page|Root page]]. Reasons:
  • By using the "shortened" from you stop someone from creating a real article at Root page, since lots of incoming links will have to be fixed (by a bot prorbably, which is a waste of editor's time and messes with your watchlist as you noted)
  • When someone rolls their mouse over the "shortened form" in most browsers, the incorrect URL (http://en.wikipeddia.org/wiki/Root_page) will be shown in the lower left corner of the window. It's better that readers see that it leads to the Wikipedia namespace, so they realise the concept is not real but just Wikipedia bureaucracy
  • Redirects can be trouble. They use a bit of server resources and also, if the page Wikipedia:Root page moves (say to Wikipedia:Root pages) double redirects will be created which will have to be fixed (again, probably by a bot, lighting up your watchlist)
Do you agree to use the full link now?--Commander Keane 10:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
YES, after due consideration I agree. Please note that, following a suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Root page, which I agree has a good basis, the preferred term looks likely to be Wikipedia:Summary page. In due course you might use your Bot to change this. Although I've now re-worded the page to use this term, I have left it where it is for now to avoid breaking links from other discussion places. I have created a dummy page Wikipedia:Summary page though, just to get the links in my text to turn blue. --Lindosland 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Noise

Lindosland, it's common practise to give a reason, either on the talk page or in the edit when reverting. I gave a valid reason for removing the root page header - WP:ASR, which is an accepted guideline. Thanks/wangi 22:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I nearly gave a reason, which is that I don't feel the root page matter to be resolved yet, and since this page is quoted as a demonstation page I think it should remain up until a decision is made there. I'm thinking more about aspects of summary style before answering. --Lindosland 22:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
In which case if it must be put back can I ask you read through WP:ASR and take heed of it's concerns - wrap the text in a {{selfref}} (doc/talk) template. However I don't think the line adds anything - the article can, and should, stand without it. Thanks/wangi 22:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, read that, and I note the reasons. The truth is, I'm not sure where to go next. I dislike templates (too bold and get in the way). I dislike the big templates in some serial style articles, and note that others do to. But I still think Root page offers things that are needed but not covered by serial style. I need to think more about the optimum solution, as I am not keen to challenge serial style, which has clearly had a lot of effort put into it. --Lindosland 22:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material in Bates method

See Talk:Bates method. You can put this section back, but first you need to provide sources that show that its major assertions have already been published by a reputable source. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about spam-blocking

I'm sorry about that, my email host apparently has overzealous spam blocking. The level was set to "low." I've now turned off spam-blocking and would appreciate it if you'd try to send email again. I'd also appreciate it if you'd let me know exactly what error message you got the last time. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Root page

The concept of Wikipedia:Root page has been abandoned. There are other ways to indicate that an article is important, such as article series templates etc. Linking it prominently from eye, ophthalmology etc may also achieve the desired success. JFW | T@lk 14:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hub page

copied from talk:hub page

I had no intention of sneaking in this idea. Not knowing any better, I just made a page called Wikipedia: Hub page and introduced the notice on a couple of pages a few weeks ago because it seemed like the best way to deal with the problem of large subjects (like electrical engineering and electricity). How is this different from your approach? No one has commented on my hub page notes until today.

I am of course willing to abide by the rules for new ideas if Im aware of them and am happy to discuss these ideas on talk:root page or talk:hub page with a view to implementing some sort of organisation on large subjects--Light current 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Root page

Hi Lindosland,

I have removed the root page template from electrical engineering. I feel that the template is unappealing and adds little but confusion to the page.

I hope you will understand.

Cedars 23:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we now have some opposition from 2 of my arch emenies: User:Cedars and User:Wtshymanski. I have crossed swords with these two in the past and Im sure they will use this opportunity to exact revenge/spite.
We must therefore gather more supporters to back our idea if it is not to be smothered at birth by these people.--Light current 00:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Great way to assume good faith. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 03:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Past experience precludes positive assumptions. Once bitten....--Light current 07:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{backlink}} syntax change

The syntax for backlink has been updated to be used like this: {{backlink|Pagename}}. Please update all instances of the template accordingly. Thanks. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've finished the change. No further action necessary. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some advice

Trying to introduce Root page has involved a lot of work trying to understand various detailed issues people have raised regarding policy and procedures, and I'm getting a bit weary of it, but would be dissapointed to see it fail after so much effort. Like Light current I really just want to get on an use it - I like writing best.

I was thinking about the implications of your proposal. To a certain extent it's useful, but I think it might be the wrong execution. I ask you reconsider what your objective is (don't marry your procedures).
Then ask yourself if there is something equivalent (link to root-type article near top of page). Then, if you see what I'm seeing, create a Noise article series somewhat like the kind at History of the United States. This I believe. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Ambush, Do you mean put the backlink in the text as opposed to standing alone like a sore thumb?--Light current 03:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Instead, put it on a "series" box on the right (see the example). You can extend it even further by adding links to other related articles, so that the number of clicks to move to the next topic is one rather than two+a scroll. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 03:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of this idea of Ambush's, Lindosland? I originally mentioned something like this in my proposal (ie navigation sidebars) but was persuaded that they are not a good idea. I think it makes the page too cluttered and distracts from the text really. it certainly takes up more room than a simple backlink. But the advantage is that you can see where you are going and what options are avail- but you can see this anyway from links on a root page. So i dont know!--Light current 03:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually its quite nice to play with. THe box maintains a constant posn on the screen and you can nav v.quickly. But again it can take up quite a bit of room. Although its worth considering! See what you think--Light current 03:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of 'series' boxes, and commented recently that I liked the idea of a box on the RHS just as in the example given here. But there's more to this than just listing pages. Firstly Root page actually states that it is about 'centralised style' - a common introduction, and a base camp for editors. Anyone clicking on Root page gets some instructions on exactly what to do, plus all the history on the talk page. The page at the top of the 'series box' has no such designation, it just appears as head of a list.
Then there is the problem of big topics, which is why I keep being drawn back to two (at least) levels of Rootpage. If Electronics has 400 articles (which it may come to have) then listing all 400 in the box, and on every page gets really messy, if not impracticable, and we tend to ignore it as its too hard to look through. The serial nature of Root links can solve this wonderfully.
Using Root page, with just 20 pages listed in any 'serial' box we get easy navigation to all 400 in a way that makes sense. Thus, finding ourselves at 'Transistor', a branch page of 'Electronics component' we might see a box headed 'Electronic component' plus a list of 'Resistor', 'Capacitor' etc (10 or 20 topics only). Going back to 'Electronic component' we get the 'wider' view of 'Semiconductor', 'PCB', Circuit, etc (again around 20 topics). As I've already said, I'd like to see this automated, so that every box fills itself out once the backlink is designated. This means that the backlink disignation needs a label thats recognisable by software to signify the Root page relationship, and I'm now using a template for this purpose called 'backlink'.
So no, there isn't any equivalent. Yes, series boxes great, but with serial organisation and only 20 or so links per box. I need to look at how these are created. So far they've seemed offputting as a bit complex to create, but perhaps we can put them to use in this new form. --Lindosland 13:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we now have some serious rethinking to do bearing in mind the objections that have been raised. if we can achieve our aims using existing Wikipedia constructs, then i feel the idea may gain more support. Im not sure yet what those constructs should be apart from the fact that I would like to be able to whizz around electronics 400 ,articles say, woth minimim mousework and eyestrain. Also as A Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronics member I am also concerned with the proper (heirarchical) organisation of pages probably under topic headings (like electronic noise for instance).
Serial organisation on a 'root' page need only go to 10 or 20 (say) sub topics. These sub topic pages could have thier own serial boxes thus giving the multiplier effect. Im not sure if this would meet your needs. Please reply.--Light current 05:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Jus t thought, Each sub page would have 2 series boxes:
  • The top one is the main series that you are in now and thro which you can nav at the top level
  • Underneath, there is another sub series box (different on each sub page of course) that allows you to navigate deeper.
Each sub sub page could have a series box if necessary. How does this idea fit with your requirements?

--Light current 06:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Lightcurrent, I favour 10 or 20 branches each leading to 'sub-pages' (though I now think it's confusing to give them any such name) each with 10 or 20 branches. From my trials so far I feel this does indeed let us 'whizz around' 400 pages or so as on Electronics. I see what you mean about two series boxes on each sub-page, and I guess that could be optional. It's so easy to go back a level once you understand the concept that perhaps its superfluous. Keep it simple we said! --Lindosland 14:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A discussion on organisation and navigating Electronics articles has just started over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics. At the momoent all the balls are in the air (ie no decisions made just suggestion) Please come and join the discussion as the more participants we have, the more likely we are to get a workable solution quickly.--Light current 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental noise

see the latest comments on the Talk:Environmental noise page. we may need a vote or final concensus on this merge idea, cheers Anlace 03:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there. --Lindosland 14:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
i have little concern for how the electronics side is managed...my issue is to have a quick way out of Noise to get you to either (a) atmospheric acoustics {eg Noise pollution and all that or (b) electronics noise articles.....HOW ABOUT JUST A TWO WAY SPLIT DISAMBIG PAGE FOR THIS...then do what you want with the electronics side and ill handle the subsequent branching on the acoustics or nois pollution side

the disamb two way split could read something like:

  • For issues pertaining to Noise pollution or airborne longitudinal sound waves go to Atmospheric sound
  • For issues pertaining to electronic Audio noise, Video noise or other Electronics matters go to (WHATEVER Lindosland, Light Current, Shift and others wish to call this).

This prevents the reader from having to sort through a long list of items unrelated to his goal. best regards, Anlace 18:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. Firstly, I think you have a wrong understanding of disambiguation. It is really for words with two totally different meanings, not categories of the topic. From Noise you easily get to Environmental noise by looking down the Branch List. Electronic noise is more tricky. My feeling is that this must be attached to either the Electronics (root page) or Noise. I would put it on Noise, as it forms one of a list of branch pages there which have noise in common. Once assigned, then I suggest putting a link to Electronic noise in the 'see also' list of Electronics. In other words I don't think Electronic noise should be part of the Electronics group of topics as it belongs more in the topic Noise, and there should be no duplication ideally. --Lindosland 18:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent page changes

Lindosland , I like what you are attempting to do on the electronics pages. However, we must be careful to persuade other editors thet what we are doing is right. I would therefore ask you to hold back a bit and see what the reaction is before doing any more changes.Thanks.--Light current 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done a lot,but I've finished now on the two topic Electrics and Noise and feel that they are in much better shape now ready for the attempted cleanup to be finished off. I am finding that the best way to work out the solution we seek is to try this out with real pages, and it's probably the best way to demonstrate the value in the idea since we are finding this so difficult. I hope not to upset anyone of course, but really the electronics pages were such a mess in places that I felt it best to try to fix some things, for example I changed a couple of names for uniformity. I've commented everything, and feel that since some of these pages have been marked for tidying up for a long time, I should be forgiven for trying to improve matters on a big scale. Glad you like it. I'm off to bed, and will then rest and take in further comments. Personally I feel this is it, pending automation.

Well, it looks v. good to me but we must see what other users reactions are before we congratulate ourselves too much. I have been whizzing round Electronics with no trouble at all! I hope others users like the system as much as I do!. --Light current 03:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! You can see why I got carried away once I got started! The navigation just makes it so much easier to see what you've got where as you try to decide where best to put things. I keep finding more and more devices to gather into the collection - ferrite bead, varistor, vacuum tube ... --Lindosland 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right in my opinion , but we must not get too carried away until we have approval from other editors, Then, we can celebrate!--Light current 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testing in the live articles

Hi Lindosland. Please don't use the live articles to test ideas. See WP:POINT. Wait until you're committed to your ideas as a permanent edit, then be bold. -- The Photon 05:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I note your comment, but have been working on this idea (with others) over a considerable period, considering many comments, and finding it a particularly difficult problem. We are at a point where the same objections are being asked again and again based on failure to grasp what it is about, and trying to negotiate every change on every page would take forever. I therefore plead that this is a special case: this is best demonstrated, rather than explained, and it is potentially of major benefit to the working of Wikipedia. I've only used two major series of article for the purpose, both of which were in need of 'cleanup', and I would not have proceded if I did not feel that what I am now proposing meets all the objections so far. Be bold it says! Reverting is easy after all. --Lindosland 11:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't test in live articles. Your test templates are confusing and seem unrelated to the article contents. --Wtshymanski 18:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you find confusing about the templates Bill?--Light current 22:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I was unwise to use the comment 'testing' since what I added is simply a navigation template fully in line with Wikipedia policy and widely used. What I was testing was the use of different templates on different pages, with the Root page|Hub page at the top for easy navigation. Nevertheless, the template stands as valid if you care not to take note of what is going on here. --Lindosland 00:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the template itself

Hi Lindosland, I don't think the navigation box idea is a bad one for the electronics area, but I don't like the idea of implying that certain topics that combine electronics with other fields (optoelectronics, robotics, ...) are somehow wholly contained within the electronics area. This is the creation of hierarchy that I've mentioned at other spots. I hope the templates can be carefully designed to avoid that.
I'll also point out some other things I see about templates like this, for your consideration.
First, templates at the top of the page seem to be favored in very tightly tied together series of articles like History of the English penny. For more loosely coupled articles, or when the number of articles is more than 5 or 10, a bigger box at the bottom of the page seems to be more common (see World War II or the "Lighting" box at the end of Laser). I dislike the example in Laser because its huge on the screen, but its basically irrelevant to the laser article. The one in the WWII article seems very appropriate, since that again is a huge topic area with many, many associated articles. I don't like the way that template is injected in the middle of the text, before the see also and reference sections.
I also noticed that not all of the article that has a pointer in from the World War II template necessarily has a copy of the template in it. For example, clicking on the Japan link in the template leads to Military history of Japan, but the WWII template isn't included on that page. There is a very compact "History of World War II by nation" template in the military history of Japan article.
You could end up with hundreds of articles in a nav-box for electronics, so the "big box at the bottom" seems like a better solution to me than the "little box at the top" of the article.
These comments aren't meant to discourage making a nav-box, just to try to throw some ideas out that you can pick and choose from to improve the end result -- The Photon 04:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Photon. I wonder if you understand what I am trying to do. Firstly I hate nav-boxes as usually applied, as I think they lose usefulness and add clutter when they get big. I realised, by experimenting, that I could make a template with both the 'Root page' and the current 'Hub' (lets call them that for now) of a three-level organisation side by side at the top, and use it to navigate in a 'serial' manner, such that 100 pages are covered by just 10 selections per box. As far as I know, that approach has not been used before, and having put it in place I find it incredibly useful, especially when trying to bring some organisation to Electronics. My fear is that people don't realise how this works, logical though it is, and think its just an ordinary nav-box to be added to add-lib. If we could just get a core of editors out there who did understand, then I think it could all fall into place.

I agree that there is a problem in making topics 'belong' to a field, but the advantages of this for editing and checking that all areas of a field are covered are so great that I still want to do this. For many pages it works well, but for others such as you mention there is indeed a problem. I'm wondering whether the way round this is to create more than one page for some topics, attached to different Root pages, but with a different slant (in many cases these already exist). Thus Photoelectronics seems part of Electronics with the slant on uses, but Photoelectrics can go elsewhere, with a full description of the physics, and of course the two can link via 'see also'. Similarly Electronic robots might go with Electronics and cover existing robots and techniques brjoadly, while Robots could be a root page on its own, branching to theory, science fiction etc. Some such pages could be little more than lists, pointing you to other areas, but by being there they would 'complete the set'. Like LightCurrent I really want a way of tying pages together to make it easier to sort them out as a collective, and to navigate easily between them. Yesterday I wanted to refresh my understanding of Semantics but when I went to the page it had no useful links to let me navigate back and forth between Meronymy, Holonymy and six similar concepts which I had been told were relevant here. Instead I got a nav-box headed linguistics, and when I went to Meronymy I had no link back and no link to the others in the series. I was tempted to introduce my system there, as it would have done exactly what I wanted, with a heading Linguistics|Semantics and then a list of the very topics I was looking for. Regards --Lindosland 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Programmable logic device

Hi! I reverted the change you recently made to Programmable logic device. I did this because you apparently had more in your paste buffer than you thought: the contents of the Digital circuits article (or some such) became melded with the PLD article.

Please note that I have nothing against your template; from what I've seen, it looks like a good idea, so as far as I'm concerned you can re-apply your edit to PLD (with a bit less stuff in your paste buffer ;-) ).

Atlant 13:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear! Very sorry about that, and thanks for realising what I'd done. I should have been pasting just one word, but it was the early hours of the morning. --Lindosland 15:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem! But I was the one who made the last edit to PLD, and my audit-trail comment was "Revert vandal", so when I saw your version had a lot more text, I had a rush of that old "Oh no, I reverted to a vandalized version!" fear, and it took me a few moments to figure out what had actually happened. ;-)
Atlant 15:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cosmic microwave background radiation

Hi, you put "back to Noise" at the start of this article. The rationale for this is inscrutable to me, so I removed it. If you would like to comment, please do so on Talk:Cosmic microwave background radiation. Thanks. –Joke 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SELF

Hi Lindosland. I've noticed that in some of your edits you've added things like "Please continue moving appropriate links from below and put the backlink template on them (see Root page)". Please have a look at Wikipedia:Avoid self-references; addressing the reader/editor is inappropriate usage for Wikipedia articles. ~MDD4696 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Root page

Noticed this edit. Wikipedia:Root page isn't a supported guideline, and will be rejected soon enough. Just letting you know so you don't waste your time/disrupt articles with Root page related edits.--Commander Keane 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to add these navigation boxes to many articles, you might take some care in placing them so they don't affect the page formatting and run into the text. Part of a good encyclopedia is good page design. Some articles have pictures, content boxes, and other illustrations arranged carefully so that they complement the article. You placed boxes in Compact Cassette and Phonograph in an apparent haphazard or hasty fashion. Please be more careful, or the additions will spark negative reactions before it can be determined whether they are useful or not. --Blainster 04:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Following Lindos reply on my page— fair enough. On pages with no image at the top, I think your navbox works pretty well. When there is an image there, placement requires more judgement, and individuals opinions will vary as to what is best. I have noticed that the Contents box self-adjusts its width, and it can be a good place to put the navbox, at least for screen sizes of 800x600 to 1024x786, which should cover typical screens today except for hand-held displays. The question which will remain is, how do we deal with a proliferation of navigation methods (categories, portals, various navbox templates, "See also" lists, etc.) I guess we will just have to keep experimenting, and probably several methods will coexist. --Blainster 19:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree about careful placement and have today placed several navboxes alongside the contents box just as you suggest, being a little more careful after your prompt! How to deal with a proliferation of methods - replace them with the Rootpage concept! I dislike big navigational boxes/series templates as they clutter the page and are too confusing to be of help. My scheme, with its nested listing, seems much neater and more effective, and now recruits the idea of the navbox and takes it further while attempting to encourage coordinated editing. Hope you will understand my reasoning and support it. Regards --Lindosland 21:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distortion measurement

Hi Omegatron. I see you have challenged the accuracy of the page I created on Distortion measurement, but you have not justified this on the talk page. I am all too aware that what I have written there is not generally understood, especially in the USA, but it is widely agreed, especially by professionals. I am in an unusual position here, because I have spent 25 years promoting 'proper' measurements, and am to some extent considered an authority on the subject. I could for example cite the prestigious 'The Audio Engineers Reference Book' by Butterworth Heineman, but then I wrote the chapter on audio measurement in it at the request of its editor, so is it fair to do that or not?! Tell me what you consider innacurate or wrong, and I am happy to discuss things (on Talk:Distortion measurement). --Lindosland 12:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for tagging it and leaving; I haven't had much time to work on things lately, but it's still factually wrong regarding distortion and harmonics produced. I'll work on it when I have some time. — Omegatron 17:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading I realised that this article was much more POV than I had realised, and remembered that I had written it for the Lindos website and had not gone through it sufficiently after transferring it. I've now had a major attempt at Wikifying and have removed the template. It inevitably retains what might be perceived as some bias, but then it is intended to balance the existing article at Audio system measurements. I've left the other template, pending discussion. --Lindosland 13:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for working to remove the bias towards your company; I'll look at it later. I understand that you don't consider some of those measurements to be "quality" measurements, and I haven't had much time to look through your ideas in depth (weighted THD, etc.) but, when interpreted properly, the vast majority of people consider those to be "quality" measurements and use them as such. Regardless, the two topics are so closely related that they belong in the same article, and splitting them is not "balance", but a POV fork. The "balance" is better if both "sides" are all in the same place for comparison. — Omegatron 17:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine, and thanks for prompting me to do it, as I want to get the balance right. While I understand what you are saying, I might question your 'most people understand ...'. Though most people are familiar with the Audio Precision test set, which tends to use the methods I condemn, it is a fact that Lindos Electronics started before AP existed (Tektronix tried to buy Lindos, and when I resisted some Tektronix workers left and formed AP - see Lindos site[1] I think Lindos probably has more test sets out there in the world - certainly in broadcasting where we have many thousands now, and I am constantly told they are the 'de-facto standard'. I give due credit to AP, whose equipment certainly does a fine job of measuring in engineering terms to super low levels, but outside the UK I suggest that such measurements are made in development more than in quality testing. Of course the 'audiophiles' don't get to see the true picture, as they are less into broadcasting and studio environments, and I would like to make them more aware of the fact that true 'subjectively valid' measurements are in widespread use. I see recent moves by other firms towards my approach recently - some of their press releases look remarkably as if I had written them! --Lindosland 17:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but plugging a specific company's method or product is considered bad form on Wikipedia, unless it's especially notable. Plugging your own company is definitely taboo, as are soapboxes, axe grinding, and so on. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, etc., etc.
I've looked in more depth at your measurement methods, and understand what you're saying about distortion residue. It certainly makes sense, but it's really just a specific variation on THD measurements, and so belongs in the THD article. Other variations on measurement methods should be included in the same way. Any attempt to measure the quality of an audio system is inherently an audio system measurement, wouldn't you agree? — Omegatron 05:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding 'balance', I understand that preferred policy is to 'fork' on controversial topics rather than weaken the content by trying to balance. I would agree that its fair to start with a balanced reference to the fact that two approaches exist, but trying to mix the two becomes confusing and I prefer to then fork, hence my fresh start with Audio quality measurement. --Lindosland 17:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, actually; forking controversial topics is forbidden. See Wikipedia:Content forking. We depend on showing all sides of an issue in the same article and using consensus and the wiki process to distill stale back-and-forth arguments in favor of a sort of overall, neutral, fact-based, well-referenced viewpoint that everyone can agree with. Individual editors' authority doesn't hold much weight here; we depend on references and third-party verifiable facts instead. After all, we've had resident "experts" on audiophile foolishness, engines that run on water, surviving on only air and light, antigravity, etc.
All that said, thanks for all your contributions so far. The noise weighting articles are much better now. — Omegatron 05:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I was wrong to copy your use of the word 'fork' for what I meant. I see that (quote from NPOV) "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." I am not suggesting evading NPOV guidlines, and I have been involved in discussions where evidence was given to me of the desirability of separating out viewpoints - so long as it is made clear than they represent only one viewpoint. We are not talking of editor POV here, but the existence of alternative 'schools of thought'. These exist all over the place. You will not find all schools of Psychiatry covered on one Wikipedia page - they are split off into Freud, Laing,and dozens of others. Nor does anyone attempt a page on Religion, and forbid the splitting off of Christianity, Islam etc! It just couldn't work.
Your reference to experts also seems wrong to me. You are referring to 'self appointed experts' but I was simply pointing out that I can give references that are regarded as authoritative but which I wrote myself!
I've no desire to 'plug my own company' (actually I don't own it now). I actually created my Lindos out of frustration with the confused state of audio measurement and have gone on to devote much of my life to trying to improve true understanding, and facilitate meaningful measurements by making equipment avilable at low cost that could make them (it used to be argued that no one used 468 weighted noise because only costly equipment could measure it, but I changed that). The opposition comes from marketing people, and I find that other 'experts' in the field all agree on this. There is no dispute among those truly involved in the subject, just resistance from manufacturers who want big numbers for their marketing folk. This problem comes up again and again in standards commitees and working groups. I see nothing wrong with trying to clear away the fog and show the true field as understood by those truly engaged in it. It occurs to me that if Medicine were to cover the 'majority view' then most of it would be about alternative medicine and herbal remedies (and even witchcraft), though medical professionals would reject most of that. This is similar. Audio is full of quacks selling 'snake oil' (like oxygen-free speaker cables)!
Distortion residue measurement is certainly not a form of THD measurement. THD is as misleading as RMS power, a purely mathematical concept that should be banished! I say this because there is no reason to suppose that audio systems generate harmonics. Digital system tend not to - in general they generate 'hash' that is at no particular frequency, and trying to pick out the harmonics and sum them RMS is just meaningless. So THD is a very special case of non-linear distortion in fact. Note that this is not just me plugging my idea. I've been involved in AES working groups and made contrbutions to standards bodies. This method of distortion measurement was included in IEC268 (though as an option) following pressure from me and others, as was the 468-weighted noise measurement (again as an option).
However, its the understanding that matters, and I'm glad you agree that my contributions make sense. --Lindosland 11:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Branchlistxx

Could you have not picked more suitable names? ed g2s • talk 20:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe, but the common part is essential for future automated creation, and the number/letter system is simple and quick to type. I would really like the name to be in a parametric form, like 'branchlist|electronics|analog electronics' but I'm not sure whether this is acceptable at present (not sure how to separate the names so as not to conflict with present parametric interpretation). I need software/template experts to help. --Lindosland 11:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, prompted by your message, I have now started a new naming system, and specified it at Wikipedia:Root page, in the form Template:Branchlist/Root/Hub (see the Talk page for my reasoning). Is that better? --Lindosland 13:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by automated creation? ed g2s • talk 14:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have described this in a section I added today at Wikipedia talk:Root page. Basically I intend that all anyone will have to do to use this concept is add a tempate of the form 'Branchlist|Rootpage|Hubpage' to a page they are working on, choosing the Root and Hub pages that they want to assign. The template will then be created (or added to if already in existence automatically as described at the talk page. No one need ever manually create the template or edit it. Any conflicts (like trying to list a hub that already belongs to another root) will be flagged up. Can you help with this? --Lindosland 23:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I processed most of the CSD's, but some of the template were in use. Please wrap template CSD's in <noinclude></noinclude> tags, so they do not mark the articles they are transcluded within for CSD as well. The templates I did not delete have been removed from CSD, please orhpan them before relisting for CSD, or list them on TFD. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 13:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I've never marked for deletion before. I am at this moment going through all affected articles and have come across one or two that I had missed in the changeover. I was horrified to see three big deletion templates on Wikipedia:Root page and then realised why and put the correct templates in place! I'm getting there! --Lindosland 13:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. To see if it is in use, go to the template page, then click on What links here in the left nav bar. Feel free to relist them after they are unused. — xaosflux Talk 14:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Noise subcategories

All of your articles on noise weighting & measurement seem to be scattered across a number of noise & sound-related categories. I'd suggest creating a new category for them but I'm flummoxed as to an appropriate name for them that would properly capture their semantics. Perhaps Category:Noise quantification ? --Hooperbloob 17:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I find that many many articles have no category or lack appropriate categories. I do not find categories very useful for searching, which is why I have introduced the Wikipedia:Root page concept, which 'ties down' a page to a central topic with easy navigation around the whole topic. Perhaps you would take a look at it - we need support to make it policy. I wouldn't bother with 'noise quantification', after all, most pages list multiple categories. The main one needed is Noise. --Lindosland 18:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Branchlist placing on page

We've had a number of comments and reversions becuase the placing of the branchlist has been upsetting the lede section and many images. Do you have any suggestions on how we might overcome these objections?--Light current 21:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See our discussion above in section "Wikipedia:Root Page" (#22). --Blainster 01:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindos links

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. AlistairMcMillan 21:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very surprised and puzzled by this comment. Firstly, I have added no links to my own private website (I do not own or control Lindos Electronics). Secondly, Wikipedia is full of external links to company sites, often of poor quality. Please specify what pages you have in mind, as I work on many areas. Lindos is a very high profile company in the area of audio measurements, and the articles on its site are very pertinent to many Wikipedia topics. The test sheet database is a novel concept, built by users, rather like Wikipedia, and hence of great interest to those reading audio topics. My personal interest has always been in improving the understanding of audio quality and measurement, and that is my role now, through my own business Lindos Developments, which does not sell anything but has income from IP rights. Perhaps you should have a go at the IPod page. That's pure product advertising for one manufacturer!!

from Wikipedia:external links - What should be linked to:
  1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
  2. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.
Firstly your user page clearly states "I am an electronics engineer, and founded Lindos Electronics in 1979." Secondly it is you, and as far as I can tell only you, who has been adding links to Lindos all over the place. Something like thirty or fourty separate pages. And it is you who created the page on Lindos Electronics. Our rules are quite clear on users promoting their own interests here. AlistairMcMillan 17:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This is most unfair. All the links I add are added because they are extremely relevant to the page. You might also note that I work many hours a day writing for Wikipedia and many of the articles you refer to were created by me, often donating material from my writings for Lindos Electronics. The fact that I founded Lindos 27 years ago does not ban me from refering to in on Wikipedia so far as I am aware. How am I 'promoting my own interests' any more than anyone else who adds links to business sites. I am doing hard work to spread much needed information about audio quality and measurement. Please stop undoing it! --Lindosland 17:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
All the content you have added to Wikipedia is much appreciated. And note I never touched or deleted the page you created on your own company. However linking to your companies website on around thirty to fourty different pages crosses the line. Please read Wikipedia:External links. Particularly points 3, 4 and 9 and the NOTE under "Links to normally avoid". AlistairMcMillan 17:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the "30 to 40". The links are to articles, and, as I have explained, a public database. Both are a major resource written by me for the benefit of the industry and the public. The fact that these are on the Lindos website should not bar them from being linked to. I think you should back off now and let others have a chance to check the links and decide. Removing the one serious test result from the iPod site, a most valuable resource, is especially mean. Have you looked at the links. If you were seriously interested in audio topics I think you would see them as of unique value. Please put them all back. --Lindosland 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but when you contribute to Wikipedia that does not entitle you to promote your company. Again please read Wikipedia:External links. Particularly points 3, 4 and 9 and the NOTE under "Links to normally avoid". AlistairMcMillan 18:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
As much as I've enjoyed reading the articles you've written, I would have to agree with Alistair on this point - appearances do count.--Hooperbloob 18:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read those references:-

  • 3 Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
They were not added to promote a site, they were added for their value as articles. Nothing suggests otherwise. Please note that I always link to the specific article or specification of relevance, never the Lindos main page or selling page.
  • 4 Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
Wikipedia is full of links to sites of companies that sell product. The Lindos site is not just for selling. A major part of it is intended as a resource for technical information on measurement, and the sections I link to are intended for education and are not about Lindos products.
  • 9 A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.
I do not own or maintain the Lindos Electronics website. I write professionally, and some of my writing is for Lindos. I have also written for 'The Audio Engineer's Reference Book' which refers to its authors as 'world experts in the field'. Note that as some articles contain sections on things that Lindos invented, like segmented sequence testing, which is a de-facto world standard, it is fair to regard Lindos as the 'official site' for these.

So I do not feel I have breached Wikipedia rules, and I do feel that I am doing a good service for Wikipedia. Given that fact, I do not feel you should be policing so many articles hastily in the way that you are. You should leave the links for others to decide their relevance to each page independantly, with discussions on the talk at each page.

How about compromise? One link to Lindos per article if you like, and no mention of Lindos in any link as it appears on Wikipedia (as I have largely done on Speakers. I really do want these articles read. They are used as a teaching resource by several universities who's professors (in Audio engineering) have recently contacted us to let us know. Lets get down to their content, not what website they are on. Of course I could move them to another website, or I could have remained anonymous like most Wikipedians, or I could get others to put up the links (as per Wikipedia above) but doesn't that seems less satisfactory than just being open about it all, as is my way? --Lindosland 20:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly... I really do want these articles read. This isn't a place for you to promote the articles you have written for another website.
Secondly would you please make clear your connection to Lindos Electronics. You say you "do not own or control Lindos Electronics", and "it ceased to be mine in 1994". However the About page on the Lindos site was written by you and dated 2001. The page full of test results is mostly attributed to you and Chris Skirrow (your son perhaps?). The articles you've said were mostly written by you. Okay, so you may no longer own the business but you do seem to be involved to some degree.
Lastly, the normal procedure for situations like this is listed on Wikipedia:External links. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included. AlistairMcMillan 00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving in on this, though I am a bit unhappy that so many other links to commercial (and less philanthropic) sites exist on Wikipedia. I now think I was misled by this fact. Linking to the articles seemed logical, since I have actually be combining writing for the Lindos site with writing for Wikipedia, and the Lindos ones can in some cases differ in POV of course. This is not important though. I do think it a pity that I cannot link to the test site database, especially for the IPod. Chris went to some trouble to find someone with the latest IPod so that we could add it to the site. I don't want to go into the details of Lindos much, suffice it to say that it is not nice to be constantly told that I own Lindos when it was actually taken from me in very painful and complicated circumstances connected with a split with my partner and mother of my children. Lindos was in other hands from 1994 until 2003 when it was transferred to Chris by mutual agreement, with me giving him the right to use IP rights which it transpired I still owned (there were legal battles). Clearly I am involved, and don't deny it, but the facts are the facts.

After 25 years in the field I now despair at the way things are going backwards with myth replacing reality in so many things concerned with audio. Chris agrees, and Lindos is very much our vehicle for trying to educate both professionals and the public back to a proper understanding. I do research in buildings in the groounds of my home, some of which feeds into Lindos. I never liked business, and always enjoyed the R&D. That is why it is particulary sad that the test sheet database results cannot be used here to demonstrate the reality of audio (we specialise in measuring in a way that allows fair comparisons). Yes, most (but not all) of the entries are currently by Chris and myself, but that is because it has not been going long. I thought of including test sheets in articles, but that does not seem nice with Lindos on the top. To me it seems better to link to them - I hate advertising. I wonder if links in the form of citations in the text would be acceptable. I could say something like 'the iPod performed well in independant tests' with a citation link added. Would you consider that acceptable? As far as I can see, the rules support that, though you might still say I am linking to a site that I have interest in! I am in a peculiar position if I cannot refer to things I was involvded in, because there are only a few people in the world heading the development of test methods for audio, and I am the only one specialising in 'subjectively valid' test methods, despite having to fight a hard battle in the face of an industry run by 'spec writers' who tell lies as part of their marketing, so inevitably it all comes back to me! If I leave it for others to write, the job will not be so well done. Any further thoughts? --Lindosland 11:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is still the problem of you placing links here that point to a commercial website that you are involved in (directly or indirectly) and content that is mostly your own creation. I'm sure I mentioned this before, but standard procedure in situations like this, is to list the links you think should be added on the Talk page of whichever article and leave it to other editors to decide whether to include them or not. AlistairMcMillan 00:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to normally avoid

Quoted from Wikipedia:External links: A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article. Please do not restore the links yourself. AlistairMcMillan 19:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I must insist that I simply do not own or maintain the Lindos.co.uk website (I have my own websites). I write professionally from my own lab and studio, and some, but not all, of what I write is used by Lindos Electronics and copyrighted by them (manuals, leaflets, articles as well as web stuff). That means that when I use such material as the basis for Wikipedia articles (as Lindos permits me to) Lindos Electronics really should get a link crediting the source, as per the rule I quoted that says specifically that 'not to do so would be plagiarism'.

Also, it seems clear to me that 'what to link to'has to be interpretted as taking precedence over 'links to normally avoid', partly because the latter is a weaker statement qualified by 'normally' and partly because otherwise the two clash in some instances. The big problem is that a respected and well known researcher cannot write articles based on his own writings, as he needs to credit the source by one rule but cannot, according to you, by another rule. He can hardly write the article and then ask someone else to credit his sources can he?

I do feel that you have made me think hard and study the rules about this, and change my views on external links generally, such that I will not in future put external links to Lindos Electronics as, though there are links to selling sites on Wikipedia, I can see the point, and I now think such links could easily get out of hand. When it comes to citations in the article though, and the matter of crediting my own sources, I stand my ground, and ask you to restore those links please. I wonder if you would object if I credited 'The Audio Engineer's Reference Book' (Focal Press) for which I wrote. It's extremely independant and reputable, but would you object to the 'self reference'--Lindosland 22:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are using it as a source then it should be cited properly using Ref tags, not inlined in the text, but as author what you should actually do is to reference the source texts from which you took the information. If it is your own original work and not taken from secondary sources, then that should not be included at all per WP:NOR. Just zis Guy you know? 09:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section ordering

I don't think it's terribly important, but you're moving References sections, so I figured I'd point out that most places say to put them after the See also section: Wikipedia:Guide_to_Layout#Standard_appendices Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Standard_headings_and_ordering Wikipedia:Section#Appendix_sections — Omegatron 06:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Fletcher-Munson curves was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 11:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot messed up page

I am now struggling to put right a problem with Fletcher-Munson curves. I was trying to get the template I put up to turn black, and identified the problem as the use of an en-dash somewhere. I tried to delete the redirect but it caused a delete template to appear on Fletcher-Munson curves and now I just don't know how to fix things and get there at all. Can you sort it out for me? I want the nav template to work without going through the em-dash redirect. --Lindosland 11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the bot make any changes to the page, (unless I haven't had enough espresso this morning) so I don't think its a bot problem. I'm a little confused, what exactly are you trying to do, fix a redirect or is there something in the template -- Tawker 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Root Page concept - help us please

I've responded to your note on my talk page. I'm sorry, but I need more time to study out the issue before voting. I'm not sure that your hard work is the correct solution, because of the sub-page structure. Please keep me informed of the status of the request. I do believe in the root page concept. -Visorstuff 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I just wanted to say thank you for all your graphs. They're really nice looking and help make the articles clearer. — Omegatron 01:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Psychotherapy: a Personal Approach was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 11:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. --Benon 11:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)#Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. --Benon 11:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The bot doesn't decide to delete or propose for deletion of anything. What happened was the AfD notice was something like 80% of the page and the removal of it looked like it was vandalism. I think a prod might be a good idea, as I'm not 100% sure if it fits. In short, Tawkerbot2 didn't propose it for deletion, it simply thought the removal of the AfD notice (being most of the page) was vandalism. -- Tawker 19:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Smail Books

I removed the Wiki links as WP isn't a directory of books. However a summary of his books would be suitable on the David Smail page. Very interesting by the way. I like what he has come up with. TimL 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re.Your Comment...

Re.: Your comment at the Mental Health Talk page. Go to Jeff Rense's Homepage, then see a article titled Mental Health Writers' Ties To Big Pharma. This explains the sudden rise of "mental illnesses", especially among children. Martial Law 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] BBC Research Department

Hi there, I'm currently working on the BBC article and trying to get it up to Featured Article status. One of the main things needed is to reference the article fully. As things stand there's only two passages that still need to be refernced, on of which is the passage on the BBC Research Department. Looking through the history I noticed you were the one who originally added the passage, so was wondering if you could help me sort out a reference (as this is particular topic is somewhat out of my area of expertise). If you could either provide a reference/references for the passage, supporting all the claims made in it, or else point me in the direction of a source I could add myself I'd be most appreciative. Any more general sources would also be useful as I'm planning to expand the section on the non-core BBC services in the near future. Finally, any other help you could offer would be more than welcome. Sorry to trouble you, but I'm sure you'd agree with me that an organisation as important as the BBC warrants a featured article. --Daduzi talk 06:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in Ronald David Laing#See_also

In your edit [2] you added very useful See Also's. But the article currently reads 'Mary Barnes - Famous schizophrenic who wrote a book on her experiences with'. But what do you think should be added after the 'with'?

  • It refers to the next line 'Joseph Berke'. Now changed to co-authored with to avoid ambiguity. --Lindosland 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)




See: [3] 

Your help greatly appreciated :-)  --Shirt58 12:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noise Figure

Hi,

I have a question and will be very glad if you can provide me an answer. My question is that why is the noise figure defined using available power gain rather than transducer power gain or operating power gain?

Thank you,--Ugur Olgun 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/n/User_talk%7ELindosland_ec00.html"