User talk:Peter Seligman

Say Hello

Welcome; please say hello (note - you might want to RIGHT click on that, and open in in a new tab or something - and when you get there, please wait a few mins for a reply) Chzz ► 05:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi, Peter Seligman. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 05:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Peter Seligman/test.

Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

-- Chzz ► 05:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

Your submission at Articles for creation: Scope Laboratories (January 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This is simply a business listing and what would be expected from the company's own website, but Wikipedia isn't involved with that here; what establishes notability is major independent non-local non-PR news.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Scope Laboratories and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Scope Laboratories has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Scope Laboratories. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Scope Laboratories (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are 'independent of the topic - all sources so far written by the company

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Scope Laboratories and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Peter Seligman, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Scope Laboratories has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Scope Laboratories. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 18:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Scope Laboratories (January 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

See previous comments and address before re-submitting

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Scope Laboratories and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Peter Seligman. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Scope soldering iron, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Also, your draft. — Jeff G. ツ 10:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeff. I was not aware of these issues. I freely admit that I am the son of Richard Seligman who died 20 years ago.

This article was originally written by Doug Butler. When it was brought to my attention I noticed a major omission. The article mentioned only one person, Bruce Small who I had never heard of and who played no role in the development of the Scope soldering iron. I thought it would be appropriate to mention the actual inventor of the iron and the background to its development. I also added references to to patents involved and information as to how the product got its name. Does Wikipedia prefer to have information posted by people who don't know the details? Peter Seligman (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies on published sources; a statement that can't be traced to a reputable publisher is deemed Original Research and may be deleted. Doug butler (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project ideas

Hi PS. Do you have an interest in other iconic Melbourne tech companies? I'm thinking BRS (Byer Recording Systems? record cutters, transcription turntables, tape recorders); Rola (wire, loudspeakers, and took over Byer tape recorders c. 1965) and BWD Electronics (oscilloscopes) spring to mind. Doug butler (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definitely BWD. I had their oscilloscopes and MiniLabs - and still have some!

I knew John Beesley who worked with us at Cochlear on the Bionic Ear in his retirement, after he sold BWD. Peter Seligman (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier article BWD Electronics was deleted. I've put in a request for a copy of that article and hopefully the deletion discussion, and see where we go from there. Doug butler (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BWD was a prominent manufacturer of electronic test equipment in Melbourne Australia from the mid-1950s to the 1990s. The instruments were considerably more affordable than the big names such as Tektronix and Hewlett Packard but they were of high quality and well designed. The main line was oscilloscopes, but a range of other instruments was made, including the MiniLab which was a combination of power supplies, an oscillator and amplifiers. These were very popular in teaching institute because they had everything needed for lab experiments in one box. BWD Electronics was founded by John Beesley, Peter Wingate and Bob Dewey. Their first premises were in Auburn Rd, Auburn. In 1966 BWD employed around 80 people and moved to 333 Burke Road, Gardner until 1972 when they then moved to Miles Street in Mulgrave. Wingate and Dewey’s interests were bought out by Bruce Owen. In 1977 BWD released the 880 Powerscope, an oscilloscope designed for looking at mains power. That oscilloscope subsequently won an Australian design award. Beesley had a knack of spotting a need for a product. When he saw an unearthed, Tektronix oscilloscope propped on a cardboard box and being operated by a broom handle, the concept of the Powerscope was born. This instrument, which has the capability of being able to safely make measurements on three phase power circuits is still manufactured today and is marketed in Europe with the Siemens badge. John Beesley remained involved in the company until 1989 when, in his retirement, he went to work for Cochlear Ltd. part time. He died suddenly in 1997, still working at the age of 72. Peter Seligman (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC) References Beesley obituary: Electronics Engineering, Vol 31. No 4, April 1998 Australian Patent application: Instrument for simultaneous display and measurement of multiphase power line waveforms. 18 April 1977 Articles - advertisements: Electronics Australia, Nov, 1972, pp.40 Electronics Today International, Oct, 1976, pp.19 Electronics Today International, Feb, 1977, pp.26[reply]

I once had one of their true dual-beam CROs, originally part of an Australian-made flame spectrophotometer. Gave it to a bright young apprentice who moved on to better things (for her) than electronics. A great instrument - not super fast but sensitive and rock-solid synch. Doug butler (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually I still have one of those oscilloscopes. I've lent it to a friend who still uses it.

Re the earlier BWD article - I remember it had the same problems I had with the Scope article Peter Seligman (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pending request with the responsible admin, but to date no reply.

PS. I recently saw a BWD on HMAS Otway at Holbrook. That's the one on Commons. Curious that it has a PMG asset register tag. Doug butler (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just found Radio Museum article https://www.radiomuseum.org/dsp_hersteller_detail.cfm?company_id=12570 which includes catalogue https://www.radiomuseum.org/dsp_multipage_pdf.cfm?pdf=bwd_catalogue_no7~~1.pdf

I had no idea they built a screen storage scope. Had to be better than the Tektronix model :) Doug butler (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And a good little article on Everipedia https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/BWD_Electronics — an August 2016 mirror of the WP article, since deleted. Doug butler (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw those other articles too. Would you like to resubmit an article based on my bit above? I can add a picture of my 540A oscilloscope, a Minilab and also a picture of John Beesley. Peter Seligman (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. Irene Mitchell can wait till I come back from taking a photo of her plaque on St Chad's church. Here's another idea: Can you rig up the necessaries to photograph a 3:1 Lissajous on a BWD CRO to replace https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lissajous-Figur_1_zu_3_(Oszilloskop).jpg that's being used for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation#Lissajous curve logo article ? Doug butler (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can do that - and generate the two sine waves using the two BWD Minilabs that I happen to have! Peter Seligman (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe the original article was scratched — it must have had a ton of hits — just come from an old and very interesting BB discussion on the 881 Powerscope, frequently referring to the WP article ! :Never mind, this is now. And I once turned down the offer of a bound collection of RTV&H — how useful it would be now! Doug butler (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! My first use of the {{outdent}} tag. Found it in Help:Talk pages along with other stuff I didn't know. Doug butler (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC) And check out this collection of circuits and manuals: https://www.kevinchant.com/bwd.html Doug butler (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More on Beesley at https://maker.pro/forums/threads/rigol-1052-dso.241837/ Quite unusable of course being a blog but interesting. Possible these guys were working for Edward Both when they decided to start BWD and got a legup from Both to manufacture pen recorder amplifiers in 1956. Only a hunch. Doug butler (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BWD Electronics

The portrait of Beesley is a decided asset to the article, well done! As is the pic of the CRO, though some sort of waveform would be an improvement over the free-running trace, and as it's not taken under adverse conditions like that grubby ill-lit one I snapped in HMAS Otway it could be better lit and more square. But I'm nit-picking; it's a good and useful record. What's the panel behind Beesley? I can't make it out. If it's something interesting, make a mention in the caption, otherwise cropping the portrait to a head-and-shoulders would be an improvement. Again, this is just friendly constructive criticism and can wait indefinitely. The article needed to be improved with more factual information and citations, citations, citations. It's nice that they employed a hundred or so people, but that won't interest anyone in Sydney, let alone Seattle or Stockholm. The Prince Philip design award would, if you can find a reference (preferably away from those enthusiast magazines I've plundered already). A decent library could help find good articles in Electrical Engineering journals. Even an article in the Mulgrave Messenger. A bit hard for this poor drudge in Outback NSW but you can do it. Happy Hunting !! Doug butler (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice picture, interesting, top notch. Put a copy on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation talk page and see if you can get consensus. Doug butler (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Your edit to BWD Electronics has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what has been deleted or what was copyrighted. I only added my own photos and some text recently. Peter Seligman (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa removed slabs of text identical to (your) Beesley eulogy, which they found in an internet archive. Be sure your sins will find you out :} . Anyhow, no harm done, but it's a lesson. Easiest to rewrite. I left a little note of explanation on their talk page. Oh, and no need to add a blank line if you're indenting. Lots of users do it, but it's WRONG. Doug butler (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the text has previously been published elsewhere online, we can't host it here unless it's released under a compatible license. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]