User talk:JA.Davidson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, this is JA.Davidson's talk page.

JA.Davidson will probably reply on this page to messages left here unless you indicate you would prefer otherwise or you look like you might need the notification or if the discussion is actually happening elsewhere. Please add a new section to the end, and don't forget to sign your message using ~~~~. Thanks. -- JA.Davidson 8:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

JA.Davidson is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Archives


Please start any new discussion at the bottom of this page

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, JA.Davidson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

Hi again JA. I fixed the reference at Coherer. You can find info about references at WP:FOOT and WP:CITE, and even, WP:CITET. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I could have looked that up but I am so lazy today (and every day!) I did move the ref to what I hope is a more strategic point. John 21:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connection quality is improved, not lowered.

The sentence previously said that the resistance was lowered, which means the same thing as improving the connection. — Omegatron 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not adament about it, I would just like to make it assessable to laymen. I think improved connection is clear to more people than lower resistance. John 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rereading the sentence, I don't think it previously said R was lowered. It would have to be reworded to say that, but should it? Granted, it is technically correct (and more precise) to say R is lowered, but laymen just don't get it. Since this is the lead article, I vote to make it as layman assessable as possible. What say you? John 16:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"The resistance ... is lowered by increasing the surface area of the electrode in contact with the earth"
I don't care either way, I was just saying that there was nothing wrong with the original. There's nothing wrong with your edit, either, though "improving the connection" is less specific than "lowering the resistance". — Omegatron 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually you were right in one interpretation of the sentence. Problem is it had 2 interpretations. I tried to fix that, still retaining the layman orientation, since you appear to be good with that. Thank you. -John 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moving Crystal Radio Receiver

{{helpme}} Can someone move Crystal Radio Receiver to Crystal Radio? The term "receiver" is not used with Crystal Radio. I created Crystal Radio article and redirected it to Crystal Radio Receiver, which was a mistake. Now I can't get rid of the Crystal Radio article so I can move Crystal Radio Receiver to it.

There we go, moved. Hope that's what you were meaning :) Brian | (Talk) 03:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You did it! Thanks. John 05:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify:Radio Waves

Hay, I didn't add the wikify tag, It been there for ages, but by the look of things it needs splitting up into chapters/subheadings, then a lot more content added. personally, I would suggest merging with Radio Frequency. Eŋlishnerd(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look at it and see what I can do. John 04:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COMPUSEC cleanup tag

Hello, I listed a few things, as well as a quick rationale, regarding the {{cleanup}} tag on COMPUSEC, at Talk:COMPUSEC. -- intgr 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transistors in diode detection

Why do you oppose that section? It is based on a normal literature source, "Radio" was the leading radio amateur journal in the Soviet Union. The original article contains the measurement data. You argumentation ("vague ideas") does not seem convincible for me. I am returning the text back again. Audriusa 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Audriusa, Someone asked me what it meant and I couldn't figure it out. I asked someone else smarter than me and they couldn't either. So if you add it back, please write it so it is easier for people to understand. If people don't understand, you don't get your point across.

If you intend to imply that a transistor in reverse bias to zener is a better detector than a comparable diode in comparable bias, then I think I can convince you otherwise. But I could not understand what you intended to imply. Thanks. John 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Computer science

Hi! Just noticed that you've signed on to WikiProject Computer science, and wanted to welcome you to the project. If you haven't done so already, please stop by the project talk page to see what's going on right now. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the maglev theory,

Id like to discuss further, I still don't quite understand why it doesn't work in reality.

Can we talk in real-time? my msn is nick_d_m83@hotmail.com

Nick, I emailed you twice.

[edit] Talk page order

John, please add new comments in talk pages to the bottom. That way future readers can grasp the flow of discussion. Melchoir 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Melchoir, thanks for that guidance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JA.Davidson (talk • contribs) 18:42, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] misinterpreted tone?

In your comments on Talk:Antenna (radio), the tone I'm reading from you is along the lines of "nothing in this article is important, it should be reduced to one paragraph". Your comment "Do we even need to address antenna models?" sounds an awful lot like "Do we even need to talk about antennas?". I'm sure that's not what you really mean, so I must have misread between the lines. Your vague aspersions on the article are just not constructive. As much as I'd like to use your comments to improve the article, they just aren't helping me any. --ssd 05:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ssd, There are three reasons I made that statement, and neither were intended to suggest we don't need to talk about antennas, nor suggest a one paragraph article. You are indeed reading the wrong tone. I believe my reasons are supportable:
I see a distinction between antennas and antenna models. I view antenna models as a means to gain information about antennas, and I view an antenna encyclopedia article as presenting (perhaps to laymen) the information gained from the models, but maybe not the models themselves.
I think the Antenna article is so long as to be unreadable. In my estimation it is almost 200K, twice the size of articles recommended as definitely needing spliting into sub articles, see WP:Size.
The content is very esoteric for an encyclopedia article. I try to view an article as providing information a person would go to an encyclopedia to see. There are a lot topics that need to be covered (in layman terms,) like how antennas are used and how they work that seem poorly covered to me. In my opinion, the article has grown with esoteric technical niche sections that only a text book should be trusted to provide. Just because we know something doesn't necessarily mean it should be written in this article; I suggest we be judicious and selective if we are to produce a good article.

[edit] please, mediate Magnetic monopole discussion

At Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Emphasis_here_is_to_the_symmetry.21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.230.53 (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MLS Certified OS

The assertion that LSPP certification does not imply MLS functionality is misleading. Clearly this protection profile is primarily focused on MLS, and is roughly equivalent to the Orange Book B1 in terms of functionality. However, there is now a newer and more robust Medium Robustness for Multilevel Security Protection Profile that has been approved for Common Criteria evaluations. Solaris Trusted Extensions is scheduled to receive its LSPP certification in about a month. At that time I plan to update the paragraph to clarify that it an MLS system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfaden (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that is misleading. What can LSPP enforce on users when it is implemented in an OE that relies on the users to voluntarily cooperate with LSPP? Just because a CC certification can be performed doesn't mean it makes sense. I think LS PP implemented in an MSPP compliant OE makes sense, because MSPP may be able to prevent LSPP from being bypassed, or simply ignored. However, LSPP implemented in a CAPP compliant OD makes no sense at all to me. John (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:NBS_120_Set.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NBS_120_Set.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, then 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, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I scanned the image from an NBS Circular 120, and cleaned it up with Photoshop. John (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see User talk:MECU/Image FAQ #2. MECU≈talk 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not delete the image. Apparently the deleting admin agreed with me. Please contact them to request undeletion (the first step is to contact the deleting admin). If you can be proven, then prove it with information, not statements that "it can be proven". MECU≈talk 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


How can we recover the image?
An admin can restore the image. Again, talk to the admin that deleted it at User talk:hmwith. Remember to sign all comments on talk pages (even your own) with ~~~~ MECU≈talk 21:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)