Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by STBotI (talk | contribs) at 18:06, 7 October 2007 (USSLongIsland-in-camo.jpg may be deleted!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dowd

Hi. I'm not sure Dowd belongs, as the reference is to existing engineers. --Epeefleche 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Epeefleche, I hadn't gathered from context that the list was to be only existing engineers. Since this is an encyclopedic entry and not a job listing, I don't see a problem with including those who've passed away.

I split the list off to its own heading and added some more famous engineers. Binksternet 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It referred to notable engineers. Dead people are no longer engineers; hence the reference was to existing engineers. Nothing to do with a job listing -- if I'm not an engineer, and am not on the list, if that is what you are suggesting. It looks cumbersome to me the way that it is presented, but if no one else objects I won't.--Epeefleche 06:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest deleting the redlinked ones, or creating articles, as if they do not have Wiki articles they are not of note.--Epeefleche 09:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks are just Wiki articles that haven't yet been written.  ;^)-- Binksternet

Often because the person is not notable. If a non-notable article is written, it is speedily deleted, resulting in a red link as well. Unless someone plans to write articles that pass the speedy delete test in the near future, I would delete the red links as lacking indicia of notability.

Am moving this to audio engineering talk page as it may interest others.--Epeefleche 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Audio restoration

Nice job working on Audio restoration. I had cut out some spammy stuff, but simply didn't have the knowledge to bring it up to quality standards. It is one thing to 'understand' the process in general, and quite another to have the level of expertise needed to add some really good content. You additions breathed some new life into the article, and I just wanted to say thanks. Pharmboy 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the 'thank you'... ;^) Binksternet 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Horn loudspeaker

Ah, well, it would still be original research. We'd need a secondary source that discusses what you want to add in order for it to be properly supported. An encyclopedia rarely covers extremely new technology not yet covered in secondary sources. GlassFET 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

P-38 Lightning References

Hi Binksternet, your 1991 Bodie edition is exactly the same as the 2001 paperback reprint. Thanks for adding some very relevant references. FWIW Bzuk 01:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Noise reduction mess

What's up with this awkward split you're in the middle of, leaving the article history behind? Was there a discussion some place that I missed? It seems to me that if a split is agreed on, then the original article should be kept or moved. It is always improper to copy the contents of an article to a new place, leaving its history disconnected from it. In any case, I'm not so sure the split is worthwhile, since the techniques of noise reduction for audio and for images are not so different. Dicklyon 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to retain/move the history of the original (audio+image) noise reduction page? My intent was not to lose the history but to separate audio from image as the English was convoluted in the attempt to corral both subjects into one page. It's still convoluted in the two splits but (as you note) I'm in the middle of my plan. There was no prior discussion--I looked at the Noise reduction Talk page and found virtually nothing; nobody was having a dialogue and nobody was in the middle of edit wars. It looked like nobody was home. Next time I'll throw the idea out for discussion before I jump in and start shoveling text this way and that! Binksternet 04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do it by moving the existing article to one or the other of the new split names. But for now, let's just back out the split and call for a discussion. I'll show you... Dicklyon 04:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, show me. Thanks. Binksternet 04:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. See the split proposal at noise reduction. Your new articles are changed to redirects until we resolve this. State your plan at Talk:Noise reduction and wait a few days for other opinions. Dicklyon 05:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That was fast--I was worried you'd be spending more time fixing the mess than I spent creating it. I'll throw out a plan. Binksternet 05:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Ram (Ship)

I don't know much about naval rams myself, but I do think those two articles should be merged. I would suggest merging Ram (ship) into Naval Ram. I'm going to put a proposed merge tag up for these articles. Parsecboy 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Shakes the Clown

The films list box for Adam Sandler is included because he is in the film, and as a general rule actors do not have box lists, but because of Sandler's role as a producer and co-producer he does have a list, which also lists his films. You give the example of "best boys and catering" having film nav boxes which is a little glib, as there are no such boxes. It is unlikely that all the other actors will ever have nav boxes because it is not general practice to have nav boxes for actors, however they may one day be a Bobcat Goldthwait director box like these, which will take the boxes on Shakes the Clown to two maximum, I do not see how this impedes the article, it provides a useful link to Sandler's other work. If you want to create a Bobcat box then I could point you in the right direction but to suggest that the only route is to overload the page with 30 actor nav boxes, or remove the Sandler box, is a bit glib. As I see ti there is nothing wrong with the article at the moment, although the actual body of the article could do with expanding to give a more structured article, such as a seperate plot and cast list. Darrenhusted 15:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll put creation of a Bobcat box on my "to do" list. Thanks for the information. Binksternet 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okey dokey. It was relatively easy since Bob's only directed two films so far. Maybe someday I'll flesh out the box to include writing, acting and TV. Binksternet 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Oughta is now a word but okay. I won't edit your very incorrect grammar again.--Angel David 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Once grammar is incorrect, can it be very incorrect? Just curious... Binksternet 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that could only happen with ain't...but, you know what I mean.--Angel David 00:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Overtones

Thanks for you comments. Feel free to reword the cringe bit. Just a phrase to reflect what really happens if the guitar is not set up right.

Kevin aylward 11:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I took out the cringes. ;^) Binksternet 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Hyphy

I didn't write it. I just move it to a new section. So feel free to modify it. Chris! _{my talk} 23:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! Binksternet 15:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust

It is quite acceptable to delete talk by banned users and their sock-puppets. Indeed, your restoring his comment just violates the ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked for the WP guide regarding deleting talk page entries made by banned users who have set up a second account to get around their ban and I don't see it. Do you have a supporting reference? Binksternet 15:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding. The user is blocked. What do you think that means? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

See this. One could argue that, in reposting his comment, you violated this but I am willing to let it drop. He has been blocked indefinitely. Anything he now writes on Misplaced Pages is a violation of the block, and gets deleted, period. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There it is. Thanks for locating the reference. I hadn't seen it on WP:Banning policy or Blocking policy pages. Binksternet 15:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Shumann Resonance

> You wrote that the ninth overtone to 7.8 Hz is ~60 Hz.

Ah, that should be 'eighth' overtone, or nine times the fundamental freq. And they should call it a "resonance mode," not a resonance. Except for the first one, the experimentally measured Schuman frequencies are about 6.5Hz apart, which authors put down as due to the spherical geometry of the cavity. I'm still looking for a paper I read awhile back, where researchers measured that overtone as 59.9Hz, and discovered that the North American power grid was pumping some radio waves into the overtone, which allowed them to pick up 60Hz signals hundreds of miles from power lines (and presumably at any other spot on the Earth as well.) --Wjbeaty 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Let me know if you locate the paper. I'm editing the Schumann article in anticipation. Binksternet 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dan Dugan

Hah! You will see those adds were both a very long time ago. I also created a Dan Dugan page at that time and it became extremely controversial because of his radical opposition to the Waldorf School, which eventually completely overshadowed his audio work in his article. Dan got into a huge editing war there against Waldorf advocates who branded him a nut and he ended up getting the whole article removed per his request AFAIK. So..... nice try but it isn't going to happen soon Charlie Richmond 02:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rough business! Thanks for the info. I didn't realize Dan himself pulled the plug. Still, it doesn't seem right for him not to have a page. Binksternet 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rubber bus on Light Rail

I realy don't understand how a Bus with big-broad rubber tyres can role within 1435 mm (light)railtrack. A BUS is certainly not a Tram, nor LRV, nor Metro or whatever Name you will give it. Buses are only (public) Transport Vehicles, no Rail Vehicles. Please don't REVERT mij Delete...... Gr. from Holland, ing. D.A. Borgdorff, P.EL. Eng (retd.) +> 86.83.155.44 12:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the illustration showing how buses can be adapted to rail use? Buses and trains both have wheels--it's simply an engineering problem. Or do you have a financial interest in making sure buses are never modified in this way? Binksternet 18:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

SIGINT

Thanks. Still a lot to do, and I may have to backtrack on FISINT, which covers too much -- and also mixes both SIGINT and MASINT. Looking at your interests, perhaps you might want to put in something of voice identification under COMINT? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it but no promises. ;) Binksternet 02:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also look at either "National Means of Technical Verification", or, as I messed up and am waiting for an admin, "National Technical Means of Verification". I moved some of the FISINT there, and also simplified FISINT. More material is in SIGINT requesting comment. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:USSLongIsland-in-camo.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:USSLongIsland-in-camo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 18:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)