Jump to content

User talk:Dodger67/Archives/2010/October

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


Template:Disability and Disability abuse

I think you are missing the point. In most cases, each of the individual abuses covered in abuse have a short summary and a link to the relevant article for that specific abuse. But in some cases a separate article for that abuse type hasnt yet been written - such as Disability abuse. The information written on Disability abuse in abuse is just a start and is expected in time to be expanded and eventually have its own article. By having Disability abuse in Template:Disability increases the chances that it will get noticed and developed quicker. As it stands, Disability abuse is a fledgling article.--Penbat (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of the template. Articles linked on the template must at least already exist and be more than just a one-liner. The template is for high importance articles covering "main themes" - as discussed on the WikiProject, we're not letting any old junk take up space on the template. Roger (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I dont think that most people would consider Disability abuse to be "any old junk". In fact many people would find your view offensive. It has 22,600 Google hits. --Penbat (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a single sentence within an article that is not about disability as such - it isn't even a stub article yet. I'm sorry if calling a single sentence embedded in another article "junk" offends you. First create the article - then link it. If your intention is to attract contributions from editors a better option would be to post a note about it on the WikiProject Talk page. Please abide by the consensus of the Wikiproject about the use of the Template (which is an important tool created by the WikiProject to manage its articles and activities). Roger (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to AC power plugs and sockets

Are you certain that the South African 16 A plug is the same as the Brazilian 20 A plug? The original IEC 60906-1 called for 16 A, with pin diameters of 4.5 mm while the Brazilian plugs uses 4.0 mm pins at 10 A and 4.8 mm pins at 20 A. The reference link you provided doesn't mention pin diameters at all. Carolina wren (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the version that is compatible with the 2 pin Europlug. The reference was already there - I didn't provide it. Roger (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Problem is, all three versions are compatible with the Europlug. The Brazilian pair are designed so that a 10 A plug will fit in a 20 A socket, but not vice versa. Don't know how the tolerances work with the IEC 16 A and the other Brazilian plugs. If they are demanding enough, the general idea of you can't place a high amperage plug in a low amperage socket would still apply. Carolina wren (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Further research required. Roger (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

News item for tomorrow?

Armless pianist wins China's Got Talent. Perhaps other news sources have more information about him. Mirokado (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If we can find an article about it with tomorrows date on it, it would be worth considering. BTW last season's winner of South Africa's Got Talent is a deaf dancer. He was absolutely brilliant and didn't play the "crip card" at all - he legitimately beat everyone else. His performance was an awesome "medley" dance. He transitioned perfectly smoothly between styles - from hip-hop to ballet without missing a beat. Roger (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Done - see today's headline. Roger (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You found a good article for it. Well done. — Mirokado (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

the diagram in brain drain

I drew it by myself according to the written explaination to the process of brain drain. Not everything should have a citation. something could be originally-created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.90.3 (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. On WP originally created material is in fact specifically prohibited. See WP:OR Roger (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
So sorry for that! But if in WP, all the stuff have citation and are not originally-created, why do scholars say that wikipedia is not reliable? And why are we not allowed to quote sentences from WP when we wirte essays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.90.6 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Frequency control of He-Ne laser

You wrote: Can a HeNe laser's wavelength be intentionally modulated for transmitting a simple FM audio frequency signal? I'm looking at gas lasers because it cannot be done with diode lasers, or am I barking up the wrong tree? Roger (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have considerable experience with frequency modulation of He-Ne lasers. The frequency of any one mode can be varied over the 1500 MHz gain envelope of the lasing medium by changing the cavity wavelength over a total range of about 1.5GHz/473 THz = 3e-6 of its full length (thus about a micron for a 30cm long cavity). ALL of the lasing modes will be affected equally when you do that. I have done that with a laser having a partially external cavity (with a brewster window on the tube) using a piezo actuator (from a piezo beeper) on which one mirror was mounted. I have also done that on a typical sealed tube using an electromagnetic actuator pushing on the back mirror, though this requires a considerable force (perhaps a hundred grams of force for 1500MHz shift) depending on the stiffness of the tube which is held down on the other side. This cannot necessarily be done as fast as you'd like for audio and will be affected by the mechanical resonance of the glass tube. I could go on but I don't know what more you need to know, or more importantly how you intend to detect the audio FM modulated signal. If you want I can send you my personal email address if you want to discuss this further.

Hope that helps! Interferometrist (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Check again

I think you misread the diff over at WP:V. Blueboar copied and pasted the selfpub criteria into the questionable sources section directly above it. I see no need for that kind of redundancy. Gigs (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look back 1000 edits ago you'll see the same list was headed "selfpub and questionable" thus applicable to both types of sources. Roger (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The redundancy was added in only a few days ago. Did you look at it in context? It looks really silly to have the same information on the screen twice. Note that it already has an anchor to the other section. Gigs (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Good point! I'm having a bit of a D'oh! moment here. Any source "about itself" is by definition self published regardless of how questionable or RS it is. Roger (talk)

MOS:HASH

Per your reversion of my edit: can you please explain your point of view at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:HASH. I don't really see how my edit defeated the purpose of the example. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The way I read it the example is pointing out that the abreviation "No." should be used instead of the symbol "#" because the hash symbol does not mean "number" in all varieties of English. It is drawing a distiction between two different ways of abreviating the word "number", to change one of them to the full word defeats the point that the hash symbol is problematic in this usage. Roger (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Not really. If we ask people to spell the word out correctly, they can still see that using a hash is incorrect. The reason for changing this is that 'number' is used far more often than 'No.' on WP, and keeps the prose flowing nicely. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point that this guideline is about the preference of one abreviation over another abreviation. Full word versus abreviation is a different matter entirely. There are situations such as infoxes or tables where the full word just doesn't fit neatly and an abreviation must be used. Roger (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
But the example (Her album reached No. 1 in the UK album charts.) is one of prose. Besides, both options ('number' and 'No.') are listed before the examples. The other point is that WP:ORDINAL states that numbers less than ten should be written out in full. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

Disability/Sandbox has been moved to User:Dodger67/Sandbox. Cindamuse (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

May I be so WP:BOLD as to recommend a little less haste on the tigger finger and a little more WP:AGF. Your zealotry has caused me a lot of extra trouble in my attempt to set up the sandbox as explained at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Sandboxes. Thanks Roger (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No harm; no foul. In reality, the process of reviewing recent changes and new pages, calls for moving improperly placed articles to the editor's userpage. Assuming good faith, (like I know you are), I'm sure you realize that this action is one to assist the erstwhile editor rather than hinder. If you need further assistance setting up a sandbox in a different place, please don't hesitate to ask. And if you need assistance in the article on disability from the perspective of a State Commissioner on Disability with professional background speaking before the U.S. Congress and Senate Judiciary on the issue, please don't hesitate to ask in that regard either. Best, Cindamuse (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dodger, I'm responding to your claim to accuse the creator of this article of bad faith by alleging that it is a hoax without evidence is unacceptable. Well, I do not think you are right here. I tried to find some evidence from reliable sources that this airline exists at all. I didn't succeed, so I basically had no other possibility than to question the truthfulness of the content. If the editor would have acted out of good faith he/she would have added any references for the claim that the airline exists. Anf for your other one If you remove almost all the text we have no details for searching I can only remind you that all deleted text is still visible at the page history. Therefore, I restored my edit, the only difference is that now you claimed to have seen the airline (which actually doesn't count as a source) there is no more hoax template. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67/Archives/2010/October&oldid=456188079"