Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:13, 31 August 2014

Welcome!

Hello, Reify-tech, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wizard191 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Some comments / ideas regarding Coaxial power connector article

Hi,

I stumbled onto the Misplaced Pages article, Coaxial power connector today and enjoyed it very much. I notice it is relatively new and you seem to be the only content contributor so far.

I'm still pretty new at this, so I'm not even sure whether this is the right place to respond, but here goes... I did not originate the article Coaxial power connector, and I haven't traced its edit history back to the beginning. I stumbled across it while looking for something else, but found the article to be full of useful info. Many months later, I consulted it again, noticed that it needed some work, and rolled up my sleeves for my first major Misplaced Pages project.Reify-tech (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to make a few edits in the article but thought I'd list some suggestions here for you since you obviously have spent a lot of time on this article and are probably much more knowledgeable - and more willing to spend time / energy - than I am on this particular topic.

First, I'm a big fan of this kind of article myself (don't ask me why) - Technical standards (or lack thereof) in different areas of our daily lives - especially electronics / consumer goods. And I think this article is a great / comprehensive introduction to the particular topic of these kinds of power connectors. My comments / suggestions are more related to Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding "how" articles should be written - particularly Misplaced Pages guidelines on original research, verifiability and neutral point of view.

I hope these suggestions are useful and taken in the spirit offered. Best regards. Pugetbill (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. This article needed a lot of work, once I got into it. Many glitches, inconsistencies, random errors, and gaps. Most of the items you flag were in the original article as I came upon it, and I did not feel comfortable removing them immediately, preferring to work first on other things that needed improvement. As noted on the Talk:Coaxial_power_connector page, I've already relocated the material on "Universal power supplies" to the article AC adapters, and plan to delete the redundant material from here. (The AC adapter article itself needs a lot of work, and I've started in a bit, but that's another story.) I haven't done the deletion yet because I'm not sure whether or not anything from that section should be left behind, or whether the whole thing should be removed, and what kind of pointer should be left behind.Reify-tech (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you can read German. Your help in figuring out DIN 45323 power connectors would be much appreciated. What the article needs is a better explanation of what applications these DIN connectors are intended to address, and where they are likely to be encountered or used. Still better would be locating an official or unofficial translation of the standards, or a useful gloss on them.Reify-tech (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Try to avoid personal opinions / predictions (even when relatively 'benign' / harmless / obvious) unless quoting (and citing) an independent source (book, newspaper article, etc.). There are certainly many gray areas and this is often a "judgement call." For example, many "facts" (like "Paris is the capital of France") do not require citations because verifiability is "assumed" / is not controversial. But many opinions typically require an independent source for verifiability - or can be left out of the article entirely:

"...Many different sizes

...It is quite possible that new sizes will continue to appear and disappear. The most likely reason for a new size is that a particular manufacturer wishes to discourage use of third-party power supplies, either for technical reasons or to promote use of their own products, or both..."

Some comments (like this one directly addressing the Misplaced Pages reader) should not be in the main article but could be placed in the article's Discussion page:

"...Standards

...There are probably other "standards" in use as well; readers are invited to contribute their observations on the "Discussion" page corresponding to this article."

Many "How to" or "advice" statements in the current article seem out of place in an encyclopedia article. The statements are "true" and generally "good ideas," just not particularly "encyclopedic" as written:

"...Locking and retention features:

...a feature intended to prevent accidental disconnection. Its presence or absence should be carefully checked when distinguishing very similar sizes and variants."

"...Universal Power Supplies:

...Nevertheless, care should be taken if more than a few watts are supplied to a product, even at low voltages, since a malfunction could still start a fire. Thus, an internal fuse, circuit breaker, or thermal limiter may be useful in a powered product, even when a safety-certified external power supply is used."

"...it is prudent to record the specifications of the original power supply in advance, to ease replacement if the original is later lost."

"Careful labeling of power adaptors can also reduce the likelihood of a disastrous mixup which could cause equipment damage."

"...Comprehensive listing of DC coaxial connectors

...Great care should be taken when specifying connectors for these applications, to avoid severe equipment damage or even fire, due to the higher power carried by these designs."

Pugetbill (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. And apologies for my confusion. I see now that when I first looked at the "View History" tab in the Coaxial power connector article, I only saw / looked at your entries (the latest ~50) and I jumped to the (false) conclusion that it was a new article with you the only author. Don't know why I assumed those were the only entries - I should have clicked through to see earlier entries. Again, my apologies for jumping to conclusions.

As for reading the German DIN standards, I was also curious about DIN 45323 and had tried to find a copy or German reference to the standard but all I found was advertisements for connectors / cables / parts for sale that claimed conformance to DIN 45323 - but provide no particular history or info on the connector or its typical / original intended application. I tried both the German and English Google search pages. Even the German DIN site itself returns no result when you search for "45323" or "DIN 45323." Neither does it show up on the German Misplaced Pages article "List of DIN standards" (Liste_der_DIN-Normen). I suspect it may be a standard that has been retired / superseded by something newer??? But I haven't been able to find anything that references a newer / similar DIN (or EN... / IEC / Euro) standard.

Example of connector & socket:

• connector spec sheet (pdf link)
• socket spec sheet (pdf link)

Best regards,

Pugetbill (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to IBM Selectric typewriter

A very nice set of additions. With strong references! Thank you! Jeh (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! It's nice to be appreciated! Reify-tech (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Category Pratical Jokes

Hi. I noticed you added more information to the practical joke list. You may have noticed that there is a discussion on Talk:Practical_joke#Well_known_practical_jokers. I am very interested in what you have to say about the need for such a list. I didn't realize this before, but I believe that the lists are redundant with the Category Practical Jokes Blackwidowhex (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the existence of the other listing, which I was not aware of. The list in the Practical_joke#Well_known_practical_jokers article now gives some idea about why the person is notable (e.g. "full time" prankster vs. film actor but also a prankster, etc.), which is why I annotated the list. The other listing you mention "only includes persons who would be notable for their pranks alone". For example, Richard Feynman, George Gamow, and Camille Paglia are primarily known for other achievements, and don't merit inclusion in the listing, but their pranking avocations are noteworthy.

I think the lists only partially overlap in function, and are not redundant, but that it might be a good idea to put mutually cross-referencing pointers in the two lists, so readers (and editors) of one listing are aware of the other listing. Perhaps the article listing should be renamed "Examples", and focus more on notable "non-professional" pranksters, and point to the more-comprehensve listing of "professional" pranksters known primarily for their pranking? Also, the latter listing is completely unannotated, giving the non-expert reader no clue where to begin, and should be made more reader-friendly.

Anyway, I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, but I do think that notable people who are also pranksters should be listed somewhere, and not completely ignored in favor of "full-time professional" pranksters, which certainly deserve their own (preferably annotated) listing. Reify-tech (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Anybody can make a practical joke; I should not have to be an expert on the topic to know that. There are no sources that note those people as pranksters. I'm sure they were a lot more fun than I am, but that doesn't make them better pranksters than I. Blackwidowhex (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to argue a lot about this, since I'm not a great fan or practitioner myself. But there are sources, if you follow the links to the articles about the persons listed. Read the articles, and you should find verifiable documentation on their notability for practical jokes (if not, just comment them out until someone sources the backup info). Nobody is grading anybody on practical joke quality, just notability. I don't make the rules, I just edit here sometimes. 8^) Reify-tech (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Greenspeak

Greenspeak is not a bad section topic, per se, and, in an edit summary and talk page postingig, it has been explained and re-explained why the initial attempt at the topic was not up to standards. Nonetheless, that clear rational has been ignored or unacknowledged by you, and a baseless charge of a hidden agenda -disguised as a suggestion, was made. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My, my, you're quick to pounce! Your vehemence is impressive in trying to suppress any mention of an aspect of Alan Greenspan's career for which he is well known, and which Greenspan himself has acknowledged repeatedly. Why the obsession about purging any and all references? Reify-tech (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the issue, your crummy sources are. Present credible sources with make for a better approach. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Tips on engaging objective discussions

Hello Reify-tech!

I appreciate your stopping by the Lightning_rod page the other day and providing assistance and recommendations. I have indeed set up a user front page as you suggested, User:Borealdreams.

As I've known all along, I've entered a boiling cauldron in this discussion,

Over and over I dispute his positions and edits due to his repeated violations of Wiki Pillars #1 & #2, Objectivity and Non-Promotion, discrediting his rational using his own words clearly violating The Pillars.

Any suggestions on how to engage others who are willing to approach this topic from an objective position?

p.s. I hope I did this correctly by posting on your page.

Borealdreams (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The great majority of his edits have actually been a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, though some fellow editors have found his brusque or sardonic comments style a bit off-putting. All I can do is to encourage you to adhere to Misplaced Pages policies and etiquette. Whatever you do, avoid getting caught up in an "edit war". I have seen some usually reasonable (or at least tolerable) editors get blocked for brief periods because they became exasperated with another editor's real or perceived stubbornness. It's best to not take various minor slights personally; remember that an annoying editor probably treats others the same way they treated you. When there's a head-on dispute, it's best to have *several* reasonable allies, and to avoid doing anything rash, no matter what the provocation may be. All kinds of people from around the world have found their way to Misplaced Pages editing; it is best to focus on doing good, verifiable work, and to ignore petty annoyances and rudeness, whether intended or not.

p.s. "Benjamin" Franklin; "eluded", not "alluded"

Reify-tech (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

Hello Reify-tech, I noticed the promotional tag that you had placed on the SOM page, and tried to remove the 1) blatantly inaccurate info and 2) promo material that someone added. Could you take a look + remove the promo tag if you agree with the edits? I should note that I work at SOM, and am not the original author of the article. Thanks. Kmsom (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the promotional tone and doing some factual updates. SOM's many accomplishments speak for themselves far better than the superfluous and embarrassing puffery somebody tacked onto the front of the article. There's still plenty of room for improvement in the article itself, which was rated C-level quality. But I see you have been making gradual improvements, and encourage you to continue. Working at SOM does not disqualify you from editing the article, as long as you maintain a neutral tone and focus on verifiable and notable factual information. -- Reify-tech (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI about wikilinks

Just noticed something very minor with your edits to the Red Line article. If you're wikilinking to something followed by a parenthetical part,, just use the pipe - and no text - after the destination and it gives you the first part. For example: ] gives you Red Line. It's not a big deal, though I have a habit of fixing them when I do copyedits so as to make wikitext a little easier to navigate. Pi.1415926535 (talk)

Cheers!

Thank you, whoever you are! I didn't know that particular shortcut, and will happily use it from now on. -- Reify-tech (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, that was me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

About your request for image of a roof-top cooling tower

Hi, Reify-tech: Here are 3 photos of roof-top air conditioners that may be what you are looking for:

• File:Industrial air conditioning unit (DFdB).JPG
• File:Roof Plant On Auckland Warehouse II.jpg
• File:Loop Shopping Centre Exterior I.jpg

They were all found very easily in Wikimedia Commons. Pick one and place it in the Cooling tower article. But PLEASE use only one of them. In my opinion, the article already has too many images (22 of them). mbeychok (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The last photo was close to what I had in mind, so I've used it. I had already searched Wikimedia Commons, but for some reason failed to find the photos you discovered.

Apologies for the slightly delayed response; I've been offline most of a day. I think you've improved the lede, the reason I had tagged it was that I felt it didn't summarize the article that well. I was too tired to rework it, so I figured somebody else could do it, or I would come back later and work on it myself. I think the article is much improved in its clarity and Wikilinking to related topics.

Thanks for responding to my call for assistance! -- Reify-tech (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Film capacitor

Note: this discussion has been transferred to User talk:Elcap/Film capacitor (which will be talk:Film capacitor soon).

Hi Reify-tech, maybe you remember helping me for better English with “Capacitor plague”. Now I wrote a new article "Film capacitor" and put it under "User:Elcap/Film capacitor". This article is not only a translation from the German Misplaced Pages article (]) but have a lot of additional informations especially written in respect of new information. May be I am an expert of capacitors but not of the English language, that is the reason to ask for help in grammar, wordings and so on. Please have a look at my draft and may be you have a little bit time to make a good English article out of this. (I ask "SpinningSpark" for the same) Thanks for helping. --Elcap (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at your draft, and it looks very comprehensive. I will be happy to help polish up the translation, to the extent that I have time. I assume that you've checked the English Misplaced Pages for existing coverage of the same topic (I did a quick search, and found nothing). In any event, I'm sure your material will be a notable improvement over the existing coverage. -- Reify-tech (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a lot of editing, and probably reached the halfway point, or further. Some questions:

1 - I can't figure out what "a.m.o." means (in most browsers, use ^F to search the article for this)

2 - Is it possible to change the text labels within some of the diagrams?

-- Reify-tech (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Following your excellent copyedit, I didn't see any reason for the article not to go live and have moved it to Film capacitor. Regarding the above, after some searches it appears that a.m.o. is short for anodic metal oxide.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! I'm still working on it! I'm afraid the article will be forked into multiple versions. Could we hold off on release until it's somewhat more finished? -- Reify-tech (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well sure, I can move it back, but articles can be worked on in the mainspace. Why would people fork it? Anyway, I don't ever want to get in the way of anyone who's doing the heavy lifting so I'll go do it now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Reify-tech, thanks so much for all your assistance. I just ask Fuhghettaboutit to move this draft now to a "Wiki" (because I have never done it before)

It would be better to discuss all future questions on the film caps discussion page. (where I have written a.m.o.??) And shure, if you want to change some descriptions in the drawings I easily can do it. But somebody have to tell me what. Maybe it takes a little bit time (holydays now). --Elcap (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A copy was taken without warning when I was in the middle of extensive editing over the entire article, and later written back over my edits, effectively reverting them. Then User: Elcap edited further, unaware of my work that was lost. Thus, I can't simply revert back to the version that was overwritten. which would discard his work. Somebody will have to examine each change and merge them together by hand, or just abandon my last round of work, or Elcap's work. In other words, the article is forked.

I stopped work when I suspected the article was forked, and couldn't get back until now (was out this afternoon and evening). I don't consider the copyedit sweeps finished, as there are major sections that have barely been touched and are still in rough shape. I was going to finish the first sweep in maybe another day's work, then ask Elcap and anybody else interested to review things before rolling it out. A premature rollout is just asking to be tagged all over for problems I know are still there, and which I was in the process of fixing. The fact that the abortive rollout hasn't been noticed by other editors or readers is due to the fact that it isn't Wikilinked yet; those links should be put in after there is a decent article in place to link to.

Since English isn't Elcap's native language, what I've just written here may not be entirely clear. I suggest that we discuss things and figure out what we're doing, before taking any further unilateral action. I'm feeling discouraged and tired at this point, and am going to sleep. -- Reify-tech (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. No copy was taken. It was moved exactly for the reason of preserving the edit history, i.e., not cut and paste anywhere and then moved back at your request above. Nothing has been forked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha! I see what happened. During the interval between your last edit and my move, you were making edits and you saved them to the old name where the article was no longer located which edit was then deleted upon the move. I have fixed it, undeleting that edit into the history (the edit of March 25 at 14:41) and reverted to that version. Nothing's lost. Please continue!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Whew! I've finished an initial copyedit sweep, and the article is now ready for review and further revision. I suggest holding back its release a couple of days, to allow User:Elcap and interested others to do any last-minute editing before public rollout. I have used the tag template {{elucidate}} to flag items that I couldn't figure out immediately on this first pass, so I or somebody else can go back later and find them quickly in the Wikisource code to resolve them. I think most of these items can be resolved by Elcap, or by referring back to the original German version.

Once a stable and consistent terminology, spelling, and style have been settled upon, the labeling text inside some of the diagrams should be revised, probably by Elcap, since I think he originally produced them.

Thank you for your patience in waiting for me to finish the heavy editing. We should try to loosely coordinate with each other, to avoid WP:Edit conflicts (really, "edit collisions"), and edit only one subsection at a time (when possible), to reduce the likelihood of a collision. I'm going to take a rest break now, and let other editors have a look at the article. I hope you like it. I've definitely learned a lot from reading (and editing) it. -- Reify-tech (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Once you think it's ready (and I may take a quick pass tonight), this is an excellent candidate for a DYK, which rarely gets articles this comprehensive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about nominating the article for DYK, but you've made an intriguing suggestion here. Maybe the "hook" could be, "Did you know... that metallized film capacitors have a "self-healing" property which allows them to automatically clear away internal short-circuit faults, and to resume normal operation within fractions of a second?" The article subsection pointed to had better be in tip-top condition, including good pictures and sufficient inline citations to verifiable references. The rest of the article should be at least in acceptable condition.

I followed the 2 existing refs from the "Self-healing of metallized film capacitors" section (one needs to be slightly updated already), and found more interesting info, including diagrams of "safety film" metallization patterns, which I had not seen before. Clearly, even this well-written subsection could still use improvement in references, and perhaps even in content.

If we really want to go for it, the article does need further finishing and polishing before we release it, since public release starts an automatic 5-day maximum limit on eligibility. This rule implies that we should spend time in advance getting the chosen subsection(s) and the overall article into as good shape as possible, then release and nominate it, and be ready for a 5-day sprint to respond to any questions or suggestions for improvement from the panel of judges. As to when there's a consensus that the article is ready for release, we ought to hear from User:Elcap, who did most of the original writing in German, as well as other editors working on the article. -- Reify-tech (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting hook and by the thinnest hair under the 200 character recommendation limit for DYK (count tool here). Yes, the information for the hook must be cited in the article using a reliable source with an inline citation. I think the rest of the article is already in fairly decent shape, and quite acceptable for DYK, though I am not saying there could not be much more done by any means. I've done many DYK nominations (mostly my own articles, but probably 5 or so others) so if you want me to do the nomination, that would not be a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I've finished my complete copyedit sweep of the entire article, and appreciate other editors standing aside while I worked, to avoid "edit collisions". I consider this initial phase completed, and invite other interested editors to work on the article in tandem with me. I will try to stay out of other's way as I edit within sections, and expect other editors will try their best as well. The article is in much better shape now, but still needs a lot of work before rollout, if we want to try for DYK as discussed above. --Reify-tech (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles get more attention when they're in the mainspace. Since you're done with your main copyedits I really don't see any reason it should not be moved. DYK does not require articles that have been through a peer review and FAC, but is for new articles. I think the article is quite sufficient for DYK, with much thanks to you, so long as the section the hook information comes from is cited. Do you oppose a move to the mainspace?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm undecided at this point. I'd like to hear from User:Elcap, who still seems to be making significant technical additions to the article in spite of being on vacation. I don't think he has yet expressed interest (or disinterest) in going for WP:DYK. At the least, I'd like to hear his opinion on whether the "hook" is appropriate, and the section it points to is technically correct and fully referenced. Also, I'd feel more comfortable with the article if Elcap had a chance to look at and resolve the open issues I flagged on my copyedit sweep through the article. Last but not least, I have no idea what kind of connectivity or inclination/ability to respond quickly Elcap may have while on vacation. Elcap does point out (below, in next section) that his ability to respond quickly is impaired while he's away from his home base in Germany. If he's like many writers I know, he would be best equipped to respond from home, with all his familiar reference works and notes at hand. I wouldn't mind getting DYK for the article, but I have little experience with responding to a nomination, and the 5-day timeout sounds a bit intimidating without Elcap (who apparently wrote most or nearly all of the original article in German) being able to fully participate. --Reify-tech (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Section headings

Note: this discussion has been transferred to User talk:Elcap/Film capacitor (which will be talk:Film capacitor soon).

The Misplaced Pages Manual of Style recommendation on "Section headings" (MOS:HEAD) says:

• Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)

Following this recommendation, I removed the many redundant "film capacitors" references in the section headings, except where they were necessary for clarity. I'm not going to be doctrinaire about this, but I do think that following the Misplaced Pages guideline does result in a better, more readable article. --Reify-tech (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Elcap, I haven't reverted the section headings, out of respect for your previous work. With your consent, I'm willing to remove the multiple redundant "film capacitors" wording again. If not, I'll set this issue aside until other editors voice their opinions. Please look at the Wikisource code items tagged with "elucidate", and see if you can resolve whatever issues I found confusing on my initial sweep. If the terminology and spelling in the text are acceptable, the diagrams need to be relabeled to be consistent with the text. I can generate a more-specific list of proposed diagram changes, if you want. --Reify-tech (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Wikis, The section headings are not a question of Wiki rules but of logic thinking. It is not the polymer film have influence to an electronic circuit but the capacitor behind. Otherwise we have to cancel all advanages of the relevant capacitor in spite of electronics in this section. Not a good idea. If now the name of the capacitor is to long and not good "readable" it is not a problem of the author but of the technique behind. And please have a look to the article "Types of capacitors", it is very important to use the correct capacitor names te eleminate the "Kuddelmuddel" now is written in the English Wiki --Elcap (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• • By the way, I now spend my holydays "on the sunny side of the world" (Fl). If you want that I read your corrections and change technical parts in spite of my 40 years experiances with capacitors (if required) than you have to give me more time than only 5 days. End of April I will be back at home in Germany.

Elcap, I'm not fully convinced regarding the section headings, but I defer to your opinion on this. As I hope you noticed (above, in previous section), User:Fuhghettaboutit would like to immediately release the article to Misplaced Pages mainspace, and to nominate it for WP:DYK status. I would like to hear your clear opinion on how finished/unfinished the article is, and whether you could respond quickly to any requests during the 5-day maximum limit on eligibility, once a nomination is submitted. Fuhghettaboutit and I both think the article stands a good chance of attaining DYK status, but I'd like your opinion on whether to go for it now, or to continue working on improvements and to go for it after you've returned from your vacation. Best wishes! --Reify-tech (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• • And a second question. Can we copy this discussion to my user page? --Elcap (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion that we move further discussion of the article User:Elcap/Film capacitor to User talk:Elcap/Film capacitor, it sounds like a good idea to me. I haven't done such a move before, so I'm not quite sure how to do it (do the logs have to be moved/copied too?). User:Fuhghettaboutit, could you do the move, or still better, point me to info on how to do it, so I can learn how? --Reify-tech (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I could do it as a move, but it would be messy and is unneeded (it requires administrative tools, and is a bit complicated if inexperienced (I've done a few thousand moves and numerous history merges, splits, swaps and the like as I've spent much time implementing requested moves). For transfer of a discussion like this, we would just copy and paste it there, providing copyright attribution in the edit summary by noting where the information came from with a wikilink, e.g, "transferring relevant discussions from ] and ]" This is similar to the copyright attribution requirements of a merge. See also Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Most users don't even bother (or realize there is something to bother about) when moving discussion from talk pages (though they should). Anyway, if you're interested in the mysteries of history tinkering, see Misplaced Pages:How to fix cut-and-paste moves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Some closing remarks from Elcap

Note: this discussion has been transferred to User talk:Elcap/Film capacitor (which will be talk:Film capacitor soon).

I found the time to read the actual version once and made some smaller remarks. Now I Think, the article is better than the German one. In the German Wiki the power capacitors do have their own article but for the English version I want to underline the common relationship between the “film capacitors for use in electronic equipment” (heading of the generic specification 60384-1) and the power (film) capacitors. Out of my feeling now you can move the article to the “wiki”. But please inclusive our discussion here on this user page.

If you want to change some descriptions in the drawings please feel free to ask me. Sorry that I did it not in inkscape but I do not master tis software.

Once again, thank you so much in helping to correct my German sounding language into English. I gave you a nugget, you polish it. By the way, the German article got the award “Lesenswert”. Kind regards --Elcap (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Reify-tech, now I am back again in the northern part of Germany, cold - but spring is coming fast. If you found any mistakes in the drawings, please let me know. But otherwise I think, the article film capacitors now can be mooved. Regards --Elcap (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I will read the article from beginning to end once more, looking for continuity, consistency, and clarity. I had held off doing this while we were focussed on cleaning up the details. It's easy to miss minor or major problems due to "over-familiarity" with an article one has been working on. A top-to-bottom fresh read is well worth doing. I hope you enjoyed your vacation. Spring has come very early to Boston, with temperatures as high as 60°F over a month ago. Temperature-based plants have already budded out and flowered, while daylight-hours-synchronized plants are still on schedule. --Reify-tech (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Reify-tech, greetings from lovely springtime in northern Germany. One question, what hinder now to moove the article? Shall I do it by myself? --Elcap (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Harvard Bridge

Thanks. It was a typo I went to fix and found you'd put the missing letter in square brackets. Something you should know is that Wikimarkup will treat something in a single pair of square brackets as an external link. If you want the square brackets to show, you need to enclose the whole thing in <nowiki></nowiki> tags, like . Thanks for the assist! - Denimadept (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Meetup address corrected

Hi Reify-tech, tonight's meetup is at 33 Harrison Avenue, not 33 Harrison Street as was listed on the event page and meetup.com. Both of those are now fixed and I've sent an email to the Boston mailing list, but I wanted to let you know here in case you happened not to catch those other fixes. Map: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=33+Harrison+Ave,+floor+5,+Boston,+MA+02111&hl=en&geocode=+&hnear=33+Harrison+Ave,+Boston,+Massachusetts+02111&t=m&z=16. Best, Emw (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Boston Wiknic

	Great American Wiknic - Boston
	The Second Annual Great American Wiknic will be an opportunity for Wikipedians across the Greater Boston area to meet for an afternoon of Food, Fun, and Fellowship. Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about upcoming activities, and just enjoy a day at the park!
	Saturday, June 23 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM Boston Common	Food Fun Fellowship
Please sign up here: Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Boston/Wiknic/2012!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Meetup/Boston at 14:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

DYK for Film Capacitor

Hi Reify-tech. Please see User talk:Elcap#DYK now?. Regards,--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Reify-tech! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Misplaced Pages are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

only a question

Hi Reify-tech,

maybe you remember your lot of work correcting the article Film capacitors. Now I closed another project and I kindly would ask you, if you want to help in grammer and writing mistakes. But it is a lot of work, please before say anything, have a short look at this revised article: User:Elcap/Types of capacitor.

Kind regards and greetings from wet and dark wintertime in northern Germany. --Elcap (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Jury rig

Jesus H Christ, does deleting an IP editor's entirely unsupported additions to an article require a full Support/Oppose voting process now or what? Kolbasz (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool down, it's not a dire emergency (Template:Citation needed#How to respond to this tag). Anyway, this one time I interrupted what I was doing to add a citation to Jury rig.

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism should stay, if someone adds a citation needed tag. Check. Also, your citation doesn't mention anon's original research and instead merely echoes what's stated further down in the article about jerry-built. Kolbasz (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to get into pitched battle over this. The IP editor's work was an incomplete Good Faith effort, not true vandalism. Anyway, I just took another look, and I think that you have improved the article much better than my quick fix. A somewhat less peremptory tone in communicating with other editors would make it much easier for everyone to contribute constructively to improving Misplaced Pages. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Electric double-layer capacitor

Hi Reify-tech, I saw, You put a remark "introduction to long" to the EDLC article. I just (since 4 month) write this article complete new, following the German article. If You wat, please have a look at User:Elcap/Supercapacitor. Finishing this article I think the introduction is even to short. Greatings --Elcap (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been very busy with other projects (offline), so I haven't had much time for Misplaced Pages work. I'm not sure how much time I'll have in the immediate future, so I'm reluctant to make any commitments or promises. I'll take a look when I have an uninterrupted period of time to work on it. I hope your work has been going well. Reify-tech (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you're wellcome ever you spend a little time. And, to be honest, the introduction indeed is worth to be shorten. Regards, --Elcap (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Soldering article

Hi! You appear to have blanked the page accidently. I reverted your edit using STiKi. If i've made a mistake let me know. Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 09:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look around, and I can't find the issue you're referring to. I checked my edit history, and don't see any recent large deletions. Anyway, if I did inadvertently blank an article, thanks for repairing it! Reify-tech (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking again a bit later, I see that Soldering might be the article. I did do a mass delete (49,744 bytes), but this was all duplicated content added by an IP editor. Please double-check to make sure I'm not mistaken. Reify-tech (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

MIT

Should include C. W. Eliot as a faculty member who later headed "another school" <g>. We should have the "Wright Flyer" incident - as the Great Lawn was the only American exhibit site for it for many years due to the Smithsonian claims, and the Wright Brothers Wind Tunnel was partially funded by Curtiss-Wright and some of Orville Wright's friends in the 30s (he attended the dedication). Also the Naval Architecture ship model museum.. Also the MITSFS library which, IIRC, is largest of its kind. And, of course, the MIT connections to other technical schools (some of which were basically founded by MIT). Lastly, how can we omit Tom Lehrer? Collect (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of interesting sidelights to leaven what otherwise could become a boring, straightforward narrative. Some of these items probably ought to go into related articles (see the infobars at the end of the article) to keep the main article from getting too long. Your trimming of excess words seems constructive for the most part; my only concern is whether you are saving some of the material (and citations) and moving it into other appropriate articles, rather than losing it altogether. Reify-tech (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A lot is simply not important - the ship models are a great museum (I assume you are at the Tute?), and a lot is now declassified (the "secret" labs underneath the Great Lawn, etc.) The Wright material is, however, of substantial significance as it relates to MIT and the history of aviation (the first MIT wind tunnell was well before the Wrights). Tom can easily be tacked on to notable faculty without too much trouble, I am sure (MIT shared him with Wellesley!). And do not fret - I have a huge amunt of MIT material if you would like - just not the energy to add it all in myself <g>. I think most of the Psych department research has now been declassified as well in case you want to note the cognition experiments etc. The Nutrition and Food Science studies ended up being a basis for NASA diets. and the MIT Rocket Society (founded 1953) is famed in NASA lore for its solid fuel. Why it is ignored in the model rocketry article is weird. And Doc Edgerton kept a loaded rifle outside his lab! Collect (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Reify-tech; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Beanie

		The Original Barnstar
		For your insight and effort in reconciling differences across international borders and facilitating understanding between people who wear "beanies" and those who prefer "beanies" —sroc (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! It's nice to be appreciated, especially from the other side of the earth. I actually spent several weeks Down Under during the 1990s, and had a great time there. Aussie blokes have great sense of humour. G'day, mate! Reify-tech (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And we love to have a dig (make a pejorative joke) at ourselves, too! Looking forward to heading over to North America sometime soon myself. I'll be sure to pack a beanie. —sroc (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Large copy-edits to MBTA-related articles

Hey, you're very good at copyediting, and I've appreciated the work you're done on MBTA-related articles. Would you mind taking a look at the recent edits by this IP user to a couple articles about the T? They've made some extensive copyedits which strike me as tightening the wording too much, but I wanted a second opinion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but may not get to a detailed perusal for a day or so. The Green Line (MBTA) edits look mostly benign in a quick cursory glance, but I share your concerns that ihey might go a bit too far. Cutting every single non-essential word will leave the articles very desiccated, boring, and unmemorable, as if written by a simple computer program following a rigid formula. Reify-tech (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've waded through a detailed comparison of Green Line (MBTA) before and after edits by the IP editor in question. While many of the cuts were beneficial, or at least "mostly harmless", a number of them go too far, and impair the readability and clarity of the entire article. Some general observations:

• The repeated removal of the word "station" reduces clarity. For example, "service to Boylston" is less clear than "service to Boylston station". While it can be argued that "station" is redundant, the phrase could also have meant "service to Boylston Street", "service to Boylston, Massachusetts", "service to the Boylston neighborhood", etc.
• The repeated reduction of "Green Line" to "line" reduces clarity, and sometimes can be ambiguous.
• There seems be a general aversion to repeating the names of things, instead substituting shorter pronouns like "it" or "they", etc. While it is usually possible to figure out the antecedents of the pronouns, some of them appear ambiguous, and forcing the reader to remember or search for the antecedent interrupts the overall flow and readability of the writing.

In many cases of marginal ambiguity, it is certainly possible for the reader to puzzle out what the writer meant. But this slows down and impairs what should be free-flowing and easy communication of facts and ideas, and their relation to the interests of a reader. An article should be more than a dry catalog of minimally-connected facts, which give no hint of why the reader should even care about them.

What is harder to put a finger on is the effect on the entire tone of the article. While the more laconic style may be thought to be "more professional", I think it is also more off-putting to the general reader. The tone is very much like the terse, endlessly detailed catalogs of British rolling stock published in fine print on thin paper in the 1950s, when paper and ink were still scarce and expensive. Partly, this parsimony is a question of style. But the MBTA is located in Boston, not the UK, and I think that Americans in the 2010s prefer a less formal, less elliptical style, even at the expense of a few hundred extra bytes of computer storage.

Misplaced Pages policy is to place the interests of the reader ahead of the preferences of the writers. I don't like sacrificing readability, clarity, and even some pleasure of reading, on the altar of what was viewed as high style in years past.

I'm not sure what to do about this. From examining the logs, the IP editor seems to have a mission of paring down as many bytes as possible from a large number of railway articles, mostly in the UK and Commonwealth, but also in the US and elsewhere in the world. Re-inserting the unhelpful deletions is going to be a lot of work; certainly, removing them must have taken a while. From the User Talk page, it is apparent that he (or possibly she??) has been repeatedly warned against obsessively overlinking calendar dates, and consistently declining to provide any edit summary. The vast majority of edits have been deletions, with rare and minimal exceptions. In spite of consistent activity since 2009, this editor has spurned repeated invitations to register for a permanent account, and appears to avoid engagement of any kind with fellow editors.

I think that we will get minimal (or no) response from this reticent editor, and may have to infer responses from whatever behavior is visible. I have not researched the reactions of other editors to the roving IP editor's changes, or his reactions in turn (if any). I have the impression that he makes a single pass through an article, and does not return to contend with other editors, but wanders off to whittle away on the next article. Thankfully, the IP editor seems to know better than or is loathe to engage in edit warring. Some digging through edit summaries (say, for New York, San Francisco, or Chicago) should reveal how other editors have reacted, and what they have done. We New Englanders are hardly the first to encounter this lone meandering editor.

Before asking, with due respect, that the IP editor restrain or modify his paring instincts, the other active editors here would need to establish some kind of (at least informal) consensus on some stylistic conventions. There has been a largely unwritten consensus on the style of the MBTA and New England transit articles, and most editors new to the topic seem to adopt and adapt to the local conventions. But perhaps a brief page-length "style guide" may be in order, claiming no global applicability, but adopted wherever there is a local consensus to do so.

What do you think? Reify-tech (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Pi.1415926535, I think your recent revert of Park Street (MBTA station) was very justifiable, in that the overall balance of the reverted changes was negative. Though the original prose could still be tightened a bit, this was not worth the drastic cuts which noticeably impaired the effectiveness of the article. Cutting a few superfluous words was definitely not worth changing how well the article communicated, for example in the section on Accessibility. We'll just have to watch for the sporadic appearances of the "Phantom Parer"; fortunately (s)he does not return after making a single pass. Reify-tech (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Interesting exchange, have you been to these places too? Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit, and Misplaced Pages:Recent changes patrol, these would appear to be places that NEED you! ;-)
Just adding this here as the Helpdesk conversation just got archived, think that they might interest you, had a quick wander through recent changes too, interesting. CaptainScreebo 17:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Your submission at Articles for creation

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

Please check a page's history before tagging it

Hello, please check a page's history carefully before adding a tag like {{no lead}}. You added such a tag to Landfill, but the lead section (among other things) had previously been removed in vandalism by Loganm61 (talk · contribs). Graham87 03:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Rust gallery

I like it. That's even better. I will change my junkbox and use that way from now on. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia New England next meeting

We're looking at holding the next Misplaced Pages:Meetup/New England soon, possibly on Saturday July 20. Do you think you could possibly help with a space for that? Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Lovely to see you again :) Next time, with banners and projector! – SJ + 01:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Mottainai for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mottainai is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mottainai until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Edcolins (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Misplaced Pages Library Newsletter

Your recent editing history at NEMA connector shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Misplaced Pages Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Misplaced Pages edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page. Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You're invited to the Peabody Essex Museum Edit-a-thon Spring 2014

On May 3rd, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts will be hosting a Native American and Chinese Art edit-a-thon from 9:00-5:00 pm. You are more than welcome to attend, as there will be free food and drink, and an outing afterwards. If you are interested, please sign up here, as we would love to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Ed Rodley's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England

As you may have already heard, the Misplaced Pages community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows: May 21st at Northeastern University's Snell Library, in the Digital Scholarship Commons on the second floor May 22nd at Brown University's Rockefeller Library, in the Digital Scholarship Lab June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Misplaced Pages for the first time. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I stumbled upon one of your edits and had a look at some of the rest of them. You expand articles in a meaningful way, revert vandalism, interact with civility, and always seem willing to help others. Thanks for your excellent editing! Magnolia677 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

hello there, plz add this:

in willis tower article before the line: "The Willis Tower was the first building to utilize Khan's bundled tube structure. This innovative..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.12.219 (talk) 2014-07-25T14:06:40

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to Mangle (machine). I do not want mangling forgotten. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)