Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:59, 6 August 2008

Binary Prefixes

One thing I've learned...stick to your guns. --Wtshymanski 17

47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

I came across the indecipherable text in the superheterodyne article and did my best to post a single clear explanation of how it works. You reverted it all back to the indecipherable version, with a single comment that appears to be about grammar? Please explain. Maury (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Highly tuned amplifier" I thought was even more indecipherable. The explanation left out the mixer, which is the essence of a superheterodyne receiver. The overview should explain why the extra trouble and expense of a superheterodyne circuit is justified. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then fix it, don't revert. Sheesh, now I gotta do it all over again. Maury (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How about I fix it, as you are obviously far too busy. --Wtshymanski (talk)

vacuum tube manufacturers

Hi Wtshymanski,

Thanks for re-adding the content outside the applications section. However, I would contend that information being usable and being encyclopedic are two different characteristics. Indeed, your user page lists "big dumb lists" and "wikipedia is not a parts catalog" as "considered harmful." I think the context of the article makes it clear that tubes are still being made; it shouldn't be necessary to itemize the companies that manufacture them, though. Just my two cents. Cmprince (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...possibly. I just think it's interesting (in an encyclopedia-worthy sort of way) that so many companies are still in the fossil business (and so many of them are in China). Take it out if you like, but I don't think it hurts the article. We have much bigger (and much dumber) lists that no-one seems to argue about (like List of 7400 series integrated circuits, and the asteroids list(s). --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why am I leaving Misplaced Pages?

Wtshymanski, take a good look at my user page! I believe it documents that fact that I have been a long time contributor of good articles related to my many years of engineering experience.

So why have I decided to leave Misplaced Pages? Because I have grown weary of the revisions made by unexperienced people who think they know a subject when they really don't know it. I am also weary of people who make revisions because they "know better than anyone else". In particular, the actions of one young postgrad student who calls himself Headbomb with whom it is impossible to reason because of his firm belief that he is infallible ... and that he and only he "knows better than anyone else". His attitude has finally been the last straw in making my decision to leave Misplaced Pages. I am simply tired of trying to reason with the likes of Headbomb.

Goodbye to all the friends I did make here in the past two and a half years or so.

mbeychok (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Associated acts

hi i noticed you undid the edit from the Bryan Adams page. If you notice in the discography I diligently added every associated act there 2 years ago. If you are going to delete my edit, then perhaps we need to add every single associated act from Shock to Tina Turner. Thoughts on that? Michelle1 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

on review, I noticed that entire section has disappeared! How do we retrieve it? I was on there before the discography was moved off the main page...Michelle1 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

CB radio

Would you please talk instead of reverting me? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Misplaced Pages that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Misplaced Pages articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Overhead lines...

Hi Wtshymansky.

You reverted my edit in Overhead Lines. I'm sorry, but you are mistaken with your comment you made to the revert. Please let me explain why:

• The article clearly states at the beginning that it deals with overhead line systems used to directly supply electrical energy to transprotation equipment (Locomotives, trains, trolley busses), and not the generic overhead lines that are mounted on pylons and are used to transport electrical energy from the power station to the consumer. The electrical overhead lines relevant to this article are those that hang directly over rail tracks, also known by the name of catenary lines. And even though the electrical over head lines described in the paragraph I had deleted do supply energy to catenary line systems they are not catemary lines themselfes.

• The Article section the deleted paragraph is in deals with catenary line crossings. When you read the other paragraphs in this sction, you will find that this means the crossing of two catenary lines that occur when two railway lines cross, possibly ones that use a different voltage in their catenaries. The deleted section how ever has noting to do with that, it deals with power delivery to the catenary lines. Thats a whole different subject.

If you want, you can put this paragraph into a now section. Maybe Feed lines for catenary systems. But it is totally misplaced in overhead line crossings.

I hope I could explain my reasons for deleting this section. Please let me know what you think.

tnx :) --Funkysapien (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)