| Revision as of 18:03, 1 May 2011 editWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,111 edits An article for everything← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:34, 2 May 2011 edit undoWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,111 edits old businessNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==My edit to Microprocessor article deleted== | |||
| Sir, | |||
| Could you please explain why my edit on the Microprocessor article was deleted? | |||
| Thanks | |||
| ] (]) 15:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : The essential part of the definition of a microprocessor is a "computer on a chip" - a clocked, register-based, electronic...etc. system is a very wordy and indirect way of expressing this, and isn't particularly accurate. A digital clock chip meets that definition and is not a microprocessor, for example. --] (]) 15:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you | |||
| ] (]) 15:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your recent edits to the aluminum wiring article are not NPOV== | |||
| An article on aluminum wiring should mention its primary applications. | |||
| Please stop deleting all references and citations related to current applications of aluminum wiring. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : No, my edits are to correct mistakes. Your sources are not supporting the statements you make. You are misrepresenting what the NEC says. You reference an irrlevant IEC standard, perhaps you've listed the wrong standard number. --] (]) 21:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Grrr, Grr...go away== | ==Grrr, Grr...go away== | ||
| I'm an uncivil editor, I am, I am. I might dare to disagree with you. (I might even, rarely, be right). | I'm an uncivil editor, I am, I am. I might dare to disagree with you. (I might even, rarely, be right). | ||
| Line 30: | Line 13: | ||
| : If arrogance was petroleum, the Mideast and the tar sands would be out of business. --] (]) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | : If arrogance was petroleum, the Mideast and the tar sands would be out of business. --] (]) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==Dissent is not tolerated. Or, you don't want to be the only blue baboon in the pack.== | |||
| === ] === | |||
| Wondering if you'd agree to early closure of your AfD. I don't see a consensus forming to delete the article. If someone from the ] thinks it's a historically significant transistor, it meets '''my''' criteria for tech-cruft, and if it ] it's going to meet anyone's. - ] - ] 03:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Let it run! There's still hope for few days. I surely cannot be the only editor tired of dead-end lazy "articles" like this - you might as well write an "article" about every Sparpak hanging on a hook at the hardware store. --] (]) 16:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'd always assumed that you were some sort of electrical or electronic engineer, but if you AfD'ed the 2N3055, I can only assume not. ] (]) 18:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::The preceding comment is pointless and harsh. Wtshymanski is clearly very knowledgable about electronics and electrical engineering, but has never asserted any credentials. As for the AFD, let it run. This particular transistor might be notable, along with a handfull of others, as I said in the AFD, but lots of others would not be. ] (]) 19:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It's not halfway harsh enough. For someone who might be assumed to know beforehand the significance of the 2N3055 (just how many transistors are there where you're on "first name" terms with them?), then that's just creating disruption for the hell of it. What is the ''point'' of this AfD? Is it a protest at article quality? A common move, often effective, but still ]. If it's a sincere attempt to delete something for not being notable, than that can only be explained by a charitable assumption of naivety and editing far outside one's sphere of knowledge.] (]) 19:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with Edison. Wtshymanski is anonymous like most of us. His personal credentials are irrelevant. We should focus on whether the article in question clears the bar for ], not trying to guess what other editors do for a living. ] (]) 20:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm like the rest of you lot; a 15-year old with time on his hands because he lives in his parent's basement (or indistinguishable from the same). Let's have an article on "1/4-2 x 3/4 inch bolt" and its ilk. Lazy articles written by people who won't crack a book serve no purpose in an encyclopedia. There's also 300,000 asteroid articles that I'd cheerfully blow away because they have zero content, but that ship sailed a long time ago. (3.8 million articles, 1.9 million of which are robotic rubbish.) Yes, we all have fond memories of '70s magazines where thick-fingered hobbyists were encouraged to coat a 2N3055 with solder while building some power supply or stereo amp - but outside that cozy little pocket, what significance does any particular part number have in the outside world? If this transistor is so important to understanding the world around us today, why did it take an AfD for anyone to pay attention to the article? The point of the AfD is to get rid of parts-list-cruft on the Misplaced Pages ( a very large windmill and Sancho is a long time bringing my spare lance). | |||
| :::: Disruptive? To edit is also to cut out. Not every parts list item is an encyclopedia topic. Misplaced Pages's data storage may be indefinite, but human editor time is in short supply. | |||
| :::: Editing outside a sphere of knowledge? The Misplaced Pages model disparages subject knowledge. | |||
| :::: If you have to explain during the AfD just what sort of thins is a 2N3055, maybe, just maybe, the thing has not enough notability outside the cozy little world of hobby electronics to make it a stand-alone topic for a general encyclopedia. --] (]) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I agree with all of your points, I just don't see that this article falls within them. | |||
| ::::: "Parts catalogue" is wrong, we agree. Each of these transistors / articles needs to show independent notability. I admit, I don't (personally) know the relevance of the ] (never knowingly used one, don't have any on the shelf). This is different though, it's a '''''2N3055''''' after all, one of the few transistors that ''is'' individually well-known. There's nearly forty years of history behind this one particular transistor. Others of comparable note would be the ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (and their complementary partners). | |||
| ::::: "Lazy articles" is a problem, but it's not helped by AfD. It's certainly not helped by wasting the time of the people who might be working to fix it if instead they have to faff around pulling them out of AfD instead of doing useful stuff instead. ] (]) 22:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{{outdent}} If we can't maintain an article, we shouldn't have an article. If you can't feed your dog, you shouldn't have a dog. Some of these partscruft articles have not had a substantive edit in 5 years and still have no more than the Digi Key description (and that's precious little). If it's such a famous transistor, there will be references for it; and no, the RCA parts catalog isn't an independent reliable source. Thanks for listing the other parts, by the way...I'd forgotten about the European style references. I'll check those out and see if they give any "who, what, when, where, why, how" information - I'll be pleasantly surprised if they do. --] (]) 23:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't agree with your principle that 'If we can't maintain an article, we shouldn't have an article.'. That's equivalent to deleting articles that are in a poor state, and that doesn't scale, articles have to start somewhere. A better principle might be that we don't keep articles that don't see any significant traffic. Point of fact, this article actually has a ''fairly'' , so it doesn't seem that this article is pointless, just badly written. I also think your 'anti parts list' idea doesn't work very well either. Clearly, if any part is notable, then we need to have it; is a Space Shuttle Solid Rocket booster not a part? Yes, and it's notable.] (]) 23:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's notable if it has independent reliable sources. This deletion discussion is about some transistors, not rockets. --] (]) 23:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: So transistors aren't significant in everyday life? I've got a lot more 2N3055s in this house than I have rockets (and I have a lot of rockets). ] (]) 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The criterion isn't significance, it's ], a word being used in a specialized Misplaced Pages context. --] (]) 01:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, exactly. We don't just pick out all components of things in all catalogues everywhere and add them individually with their own article, but if the notability of an individual component can be shown, as seems to be here, then ''we do give them their own articles''.] (]) 00:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : ''If we can't maintain an article, we shouldn't have an article.'' Wrong. See ]. | |||
| : Topics are notable, not the current editing state of articles. We shouldn't have poor, trivial, articles, but we move past them by going ''forwards'' to better articles, not by deleting an article that might be trite, but still isn't incorrect or inappropriate. Personally I even support ], but these articles are nowhere near that level. | |||
| : I'm just surprised that you can't distinguish between a 2N3055 and a transistor that is real, listed but ''really'' isn't noteworthy. ] (]) 23:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you're aware of another parts list entry that should be reviewed as a PROD or AfD, please nominate it. --] (]) 01:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I phrased that quickly and badly; what I should have said was "If an article cannot be sourced, it shouldn't be kept.". --] (]) 01:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Thank you=== | |||
| I just want to say thank you for your recent deletion nominations and your continued support for holding articles to the (very clear I may add) GNG guidelines. I have continually found myself frustrated in other areas (namely military history and fictional characters) by the very same problem you address in your WP:PARTS essay. I find it frustrating that some people seem to want to totally disregard GNG in cases related to their area of expertise and I know it's tough to take a stand sometimes, so thank you. ] (]) 00:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm often frustrated by parts-list articles. We will have, for example, "articles" on every size of flashlight battery that say nothing you can't read in any random battery catalog. Its hard to do research on humdrum items like individual transistor types, and really, how significant is any given type? Perhaps in the "train-spotter" sense there could be an article written as to why a particular type was thought to be necessary, what company originated it, what issues it was supposed to solve better than competitive types, what market share it gained, when it was introduced, when it was dropped from manufacturing by most companies, etc. - but realistically, that's never going to happen on the Misplaced Pages; the sources are buried in 50-year-old company archives that are inaccessible to amateurs and that wouldn't be citable in Misplaced Pages anyway because we don't do original research on primary sources. Until somebody writes the 1-volume "History of Your Favorite Spare Parts", the topic is useless here and we'd be better served by a table of some common transistor types. Even that will be tough to get going - the electronics project has been around for years and has yet to get ] up to GA status, let alone FA. And this is a topic that is on the projects "high priority" ranking and has been there for 5 years. There is no realistic way an article on 2NXYZ is ever going to improve. --] (]) 01:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::What amazes me is how personal the comments can get. It's just a transistor! ] (]) 01:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: See above about not being distinguishable from basement-dwellers. Normal people don't write encyclopedias. We may not have anyone like ], but that road runs past a lot of our houses. --] (]) 01:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's the same phenomenon that tends to give us amazing articles on military history, computer programming and many other subjects popular with people that spend a lot of time online. But it's disheartening to see so many people in favor of throwing GNG totally out the window.. I've been considering bringing this to the village pump in fact. I think it might be worth a deeper look as to whether policy needs to be changed here, either way. I would definitely support your WP:PARTS article being put in main essay space at the least. ] (]) 02:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We'll see if WP:PARTS has any legs; if these transistor parts list entries get removed, then I suspect this is an encyclopedia and not the NTE replacement guide. I don't know that it's a popular point of view, though you'd think that now that we have mumblety-million articles the pressure to add filler articles on every diode, asteroid, and wide space in the road would be off. --] (]) 02:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well control has to start somewhere. The problem I've been seeing is that the fact tendentious groups of fans prevent consensus for the deletion of fancruft in fictional series results in what I call the second-order pokemon argument: "if we have a list of GI Joe characters that don't even exist surely we should have an article on this obscure transistor." This of course results from the other great fan argument "we should have this (unsourced, entirely OR, entirely in-universe) list to prevent creation of 100,000 seperate articles on the same topics." The combination effect is that the bar is set stunningly low where notability and requirement to use non-trivial sources is concerned. ] (]) 04:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not just a transistor. That would be like suggesting deletion of the ], saying it's "just a computer". Notability has never been a serious issue here. ] (]) 04:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, it's not like suggesting deletion of the 360 article. Amazon.com still lists screen after screen of . Here's . I don't think those lists look at all the same. ] (]) 04:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So, I exaggerate. Still, it's in lots of books, and is among the most popular and influential of its class, not just some random part. The analogy holds. By the way, I have that book ''IBM's 360 and Early 370 Systems;'' it's pretty interesting. ] (]) 07:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === transistors and stuff === | |||
| You ought to try some book searches before suggesting deletion of stuff you know too little about. ] (]) 04:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Where's the notability? Lots of people updating my talk page speaking of the fame of the 2N3055, but no-one has put any citations into the article. --] (]) 04:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Have you even looked at the article recently? ] (]) 06:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: We have stricter standards for a garage band to get an article than for random spare parts. Why is this so? It's because otherwise the encyclopedia will be overrun with trivial articles. Is there a historical analysis of where these parts come from, why they were made, who invented or first manufactured them? What was the market share? How important was this part to the semiconductor industry? You might as well write about individual sizes of machine screws. --] (]) 05:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Perhaps those who know a great deal about a particular diode or transistor could share some of their knowledge of the importance of the device to the world outside hobby electronics books and first-year electronics problem examples. --] (]) 05:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure about the etiquette of risking turning a talk page into AfD part 2. But please dicklyon, assume good faith. Many of these articles do not provide assertions of notability. Frankly some of them I would have speedied as A7 (no assertion of notability). If multiple 3rd party sources do not exist, then an article is invalid, end of story, period. full stop, some of these articles have been minimally sourced for years. ] (]) 06:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree they need sources to establish notability. My point was that if he wanted to help, he could look for those sources (per ]), like I've done this evening. They're easy enough to find. Instead, he has assumed that "parts" should not have articles about them (see his ] essay draft), so hasn't bothered to check whether these particular parts are the epitome of their classes. As a deletionist myself, I do always "make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist" first, to avoid wastes of time like this. ] (]) 06:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Sometimes helping a group means not succumbing to groupthink. Nothing like nominating an article for deletion to set off an improvement drive. We'll see if the present state of 2N3055 saves it - many of the others have not had even this much improvement. --] (]) 14:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::* So what's you point here? That the articles are inherently bad (the "parts list" argument) and so they should be deleted anyway, even if superlative? Or the "article quality" argument, where you prefer to AfD and delete articles rather than encouraging their improvement ]? Or is it your "unsourcable" argument, because databooks are too SPS / COI, the hobbyist press is too unreliable and the IEEE is too "obscure"? You seem to want to have it every way, and you change your reasoning according to who's asking the question. ] (]) 14:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Then I will repeat again my initial unvarnished position: if all a parts list entry says about an electronics part is the parameter list from some unreferenced data sheet, that part list entry must go. I'm only slightly beginning to be persuaded that the 2N3055 inside its own fandom is notable enough to justify an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia - I don't see fans for the other parts rallying around them. Anyway, it's no longer up to me to weigh in on this, we'll see what happens in a few days. --] (]) 14:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: So (again) what's your point? Does ''"if all a parts list entry says about an electronics part is the parameter list"'' mean that they're inherently non-notable, or that the article is too poor to fix other than by deletion?<sub>''(sic)''</sub> You claimed there was no coverage and when coverage was pointed out, you claimed that it wasn't reliable. When the IEEE was cited, you claimed that their journals were too obscure. Now if the article content is expanded, will you then switch from decrying it as just a parameter list and claim that anything with a part number can't ever be notable. | |||
| ::::: Despite your co-nominator's comments of "Tick tock!" (the clock is running), this is not a contest to see who has the most patience, or indeed how much further time of other editor you can waste. The scatter gun appproach of nominating many articles over a single point is an effective way of diluting debate, and not surprisingly most commenters have chosen to focus on a single article. It is not a question of counting fanboys, nor for that matter your comparison of other editors to a psychotic murderer. ] (]) 15:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} I'm at a loss to say anything that advances the discussion further. Nearly all parts are not notable. --] (]) 16:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Who is saying anything differently? ] (]) 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :It sure sounds like a lot of the support boils down to the basic ] phenomenon: ''"B..B..But you don't understand. This part was important. I had one!"'' ] (]) 16:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Again, I can't advance the discussion usefully. I've shot my bolt and I'm beginning to repeat myself - repeition is not argument. --] (]) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} The 2N3055 is definitely a notable part within the electronics field. But it's a little tough to find the needed references. If someone had bothered to write a history of transistor types, someone like Tracy Kidder perhaps, I could well see the 2N3055 being lauded as "made practical a number of designs that formerly were too expensive to build." But I doubt there's been a lot of writing along those lines, except in poor quality sources like blogs. | |||
| <br/>This makes me wonder (not for the first time) if some room couldn't be found in, or alongside, Misplaced Pages for what amounts to "lore." I've seen altogether too many people trying to add what amounts to their personal recollections on such things to WP. Of course their material was deleted under the usual onslaught of "OR", etc. And of course such stuff doesn't belong in WP's main namespace. But suppose there was a parallel namespace or project or something called "wikilore" where such non-RS'd things could go? Linked from WP namespace, just the way Wikitionary and Wikimedia entries are? Or is there already something like that that I just haven't heard of? ] (]) 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::That sounds like a job for Wikibooks. I don't know anything about that project, but I've often seen recommendations to take someone's epic essay there instead of putting it here. --] (]) 21:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Component article deletion === | |||
| I've just deprodded the last couple of articles you proposed for deletion. Please ''don't'' AfD them just yet until some consensus has been established as to what constitutes notability in this area. I've raised the issue at ] asking them to intervene and attempt to unify these debates: the current arrangement is nothing more than chaos since discussion are taking place on too many fronts simultaneously. ] (]) 15:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I disagree. If the PROD is contested, these must be added to the AfD discussions otherwise they will be ignored as all the other parts list entries have been ignored. --] (]) 15:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not arguing with that: I'm simply suggesting ''not yet''. Hopefully we can coem up with some general principals out of all these AfDs which can then be applied to other parts, rather than going through the whole merry-go-round simultaneously on dozens of fronts. I actually agree with you in many cases but I'm not prepared to actively monitor 20 different discussions at once. ] (]) 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: If not us, who? If not now, when? The electronics project has been around for at lest 6 years - how many GAs or FAs have come out of it? It's not a slam on those editors, it's generally the case that Misplaced Pages articles aren't very good. Monitoring a dozen AfD discussions is no harder than monitoring 1600 articles for vandalism. I'm wary of general principles, since they seem to be applied inconsistently; inevitable given our editorial model. If I try to make a "class" argument for deletion of parts lists entries on a general basis, some Wikignome will hit me with ] or similar in-jargon. --] (]) 16:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: There is no hurry to make an encyclopedia. What's your rush to have it all done and perfect right now, or it isn't worth ever being worked on or finished at a future time? I see nothing wrong with topics of minor interest just sitting idle. | |||
| :::: If quiet vandalism to large compendiums of sizes and parameters is your big concern, that can easily be remedied with a notice at the top of the article that anyone planning to use the data for important purposes should get secondary validation and check the references. ] (]) 12:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} Parts lists and substitution manuals are not encyclopedias. An encyclopedia does not have parts lists in it. An encyclopedia serves an entirely different purpose than a parts catalog. Parts list entries do not belong in an encyclopedia. I cannot explain this any more clearly; we either agree on what is an encyclopedia, or we have no common basis for communications. --] (]) 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * You keep repeating yourself - yet who is arguing in favour of keeping articles on topics that are mere members of a parts list? The opposition to deleting ] etc. are that these are examples of the few that have something ''more than'' this. ] (]) 14:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ** Yes, I do. I keep getting the same objections said by different editors and I'm never sure who's read what. Every AfD I've nominated in this batch was a contested PROD - so someone out there thinks that parts lists entries belong here. There was no referenced source for notability of the 2N3055 before this last weekend aside from various purr words in hobby books; I haven't looked today, hopefully someone has dug up something more credible than a passing mention in Joe Blough's TAB book "How to melt solder for the electronics hobbyist". We'll see what consensus says. --] (]) 14:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *** I assume you mean that "every AfD was first PRODed", implying that at least one other editor also supports your position. So I checked: Those were just the first two I looked at. ] (]) 15:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **** It's the exact opposite. What I said,or thought I'd said, is that every nomination I made for a proposed deletion had the tag removed by someone else before I nominated the article for an AfD. If someone removes the PROD notice, presumably that means an editor opposes the proposed deletion and is in favor of retaining a parts list entry. I apparently have confused "tagging an article for proposed deletion" with "deleting an article after proposing its deletion". --] (]) 15:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *****Removing a PROD doesn't ''necessarily'' mean they're in favor of keeping, just that it doesn't meet the PROD criteria and deserves to be considered at AfD. ] (]) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}Would I sound frustrated if I said something like "It's entirely in keeping with the traditions of Misplaced Pages that the criteria for a PROD tag are more minutely observed than the criteria for notability." Process over content, always. I've had a half-dozen PROD nominations that have resulted in deletions in the last week, all for lack of assertion of notability; so, experimentally, it seems to be a valid criterion for deletion. (Oh, wait, here it is under ]: ''Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)'')-- User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] (]) 16:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Group behavior === | |||
| Saw your comments mentioning the personal attacks. So frustrating, especially the politics of it, that they're so okay, never criticized, from the majority, if large enough. But even the smallest hint of such a thing from the minority, misrepresented willy-nilly in the worst possible light, is pounced upon immediately. If you really are one of only a small number of holdouts, it ''must'' be because you're mocking the whole rest of us; there simply ''can't'' be another reason. I sort of chuckled when I saw your remark that an AfD is not a vote. Okay. Well, you go with that if you think that's how it works. The Afd for a ] was another one where I was clearly on the wrong of history. And even if your nomination succeeds, it can sure be ]. (If you look at my edit count, you see I'm quite a newbie.) | |||
| And of course it goes on everywhere. ] is my recent poster child. Notice how two editors have stomped out of the room because even though no one agreed with their revisions to the first paragraph (they didn't even agree with each other), the real problem is that ''someone'' (guess who) is a big meanie. Now the page is just stalled because everyone understands that no good deed shall go unpunished. | |||
| My other pet peeve is the constant fascination with trying to figure out ''who somebody is''. What part of, judge the content, not the editor are they missing? Twice now I've been the subject of outing attacks. In the most frustrating case, which I concede also gives me insight into what it feels like to have your page questioned or deleted, I had written most of ], then started writing ]. I concede it didn't start out very good but I was working on it, 'till one day I found it deleted summarily as spam, following an outing attempt. In offline correspondence with the admin, a military officer, his whole argument boiled down to, I think I know who you are even though you've never identified yourself anywhere on WP and that's good enough. It had nothing to do with the content of the article, which he was unwilling to discuss. Another editor rescued it, promising to examine it but there it sits ]. ] (]) 17:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : The good thing about a first AfD is that it can be re-nominated after a while, if the problems with the article really are fundamental. I was pleased to see a little bit of notability for the 2N3055 but I still think it's way too specialized a topic for a general encyclopedia. If you're the best insurance salesman in Idaho, you don't necessarily get an article here, even if the Idaho Insurance Association calls you the "grand old man" of insurance. Similarly, even though the 2N3055 is notorious among electrical engineers of a certain vintage, it's doubtful that anyone in the Real World has heard of it. (Oh no...now I've jinxed it and the "2N3055 in Popular Culture" section is coming.) | |||
| : It's always better to focus on edits than people, anyway. Supposedly we're making an encyclopedia here, this isn't supposed to be a social networking site. | |||
| : If I were more concerned about keeping my real world identity a secret, I wouldn't have chosen this user name. Even in the dial-up days, if someone wanted to know who I was, it was just a matter of looking me up in the phone book. I stand by my public postings. --] (]) 18:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Certainly. Wasn't this part number a recurring plot element in both ] and ]? ] (]) | |||
| :::Well, there's at least ] in which an electronic spare part was the McGuffin, but that was a ], not a semiconductor, and they never gave us the part number. --] (]) 21:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ], or, "Parts List Items in Popular Culture"]] | |||
| One thing I have to give you credit for is that even though you argued to delete the page, you right away began to pitch in to help make it a better article after the decision was make to keep. I don't know how much other people notice such things, but I do. Good on ya. ] (]) 20:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, I'm still typing in stuff off data sheets, but no-one else has given us the *dates* for these parts. At least using the TI data sheet dates I can show the youngsters that they aren't likely to find relevant resources on-line; the Web is *made* of 1N4148s. TI was listing 1N400X diodes as early as 1966- I wasn't kidding that the interesting source material is locked up in 40 or 50 year old files. An article on "development of silicon transistors" would be a better way to present this. --] (]) 20:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Voicing concern === | |||
| I am somewhat concerned about the pattern of some of your edits. I propose you slow down and ensure you are acting according to consensus. | |||
| In the case of the electronic parts that you mass-nominated for deletion, it is clear that consensus has been against you. I note that you revisited most of the articles you previously nominated, tagged them for notability concerns, and then appear to have pared them down as far as you could. Clearly that goes against consensus. | |||
| I have just restored the article ] which you pruned, left for a bit, then changed to a redirect. There was no consensus to do that. | |||
| Sarcastic comments such as this may be borne out of frustration but they are not helpful. And if they are borne out of frustration then I suggest that you consider the advice at ]. | |||
| ] (]) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm sorry, I thought this was an encyclopedia, not the Radio Shack catalog. Whatver happened to ]? Why are spare parts articles sacred cows never to be changed? We expect higher criteria of a garage band to get an article in Misplaced Pages, I don't see why the common detritus of technology needs to be exhaustively and redundantly described when all the data is already in a table. I tagged the N battery as a suggested merge, heard nothing, and proceeded to merge it. If we had to clear every single editorial change through the Wikimedia Foundation, it would take a long time to get anything fixed around here. --] (]) 21:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Regarding ], which you have reverted again, please read the process at ]. Discussion is required on the talk page and consensus needs to be reached. Given that you do not have consensus for the merge, I suggest you try proposing it correctly, or take it to ]. ] (]) 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've restored the article once more, on general principles. ] (]) 06:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}It would not be AGF of me to speculate here on what that principle is. I have proposed all these fossils get displayed in the same case. --] (]) 13:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I have been concerned about the pattern of Wtshymanski's edits and talk page comments ever since I first saw the behavior pattern on ]. There appears to be on ongoing pattern ] and ] problems. ] (]) 21:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest. WHat does this suggest? I disagree with you. That doesn't necessarily make me wrong, crazy, or a menace to Western civilization. I'm blunt. I don't have patience for nonsennse and I expect most editors also don't have time for nonsense. And I don't think this is supposed to be a parts catalog. --] (]) 21:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hey, which articles do I own? Maybe I can sell them. Wanna buy a used Misplaced Pages article? Only 15000 edits and it gets over 140 page views per 30 days. Ideal for the young editor just starting out, or someoen who'se downsizing. --] (]) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a serious concern here. As one veteran editor recently remarked about your tendentious and disruptive behavior, "This is not the working atmosphere we're supposed to have to put up with. This editor's behaviour is intolerable." Making jokes about these legitimate concerns and posting sarcastic replies is not helpful. ] (]) 11:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Do you really see it that way? Making the payroll this week is a serious concern. Blood in the toilet bowl is a serious concern. Going blind is a serious concern. On the other hand, we have the Misplaced Pages, the home of Pokemon trivia and parts lists. --] (]) 13:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I really do see it that way. Could you please stop being flippant for a moment and have a serious talk about your behavior? Multiple editors have told you that you are making it hard for them to do their work. Your point of view concerning what should and should not be in Misplaced Pages is just that - your point of view. When you push your own point of view instead of following Misplaced Pages policies on consensus and civility you make like difficult for everyone else. Why are you acting this way? What is the payoff for you? ] (]) 14:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} Flippancy is a natural reaction to an absurd situation; if you run across a roomful of people rubbing blue mud in their hair, your options are to join them or to giggle. Listing individual random spare parts as Misplaced Pages articles is an act of such surreal triviality that I no longer can assess what is a logical response to the situation. I have tried, by and large, to confine my expressed opinions to the editorial content itself; if others are uncomfortable defending this editorial content as a valid part of the encyclopedia, well, that's their own issue and we all have different strategies for making our ways through life. I have noted the odd personal attack; this says more about the attackers than the attacked, ] again shows the poverty of the argument. Misplaced Pages policy on garage bands is that they have to have some external recognition of their notability no matter how many demo tapes they've mailed out. I don't see appearing in a dozen parts lists alone as being sufficient coverage of a spare part to warrant its distinct inclusion in this august and serious enterprise; the ] I begin to see has enough of a fanbase to barely qualify among all the Pokemon and locomotives, but the others are absurd. I don't see individual sizes of battery as being notable topics of discussion, especially at the incredibly superficial level of scholarship nearly every Misplaced Pages article gets (for ever FA there's *thousands* of pieces of bot-generated trivia). --] (]) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : ], you misunderstand that Wty doesn't own articles. He owns several complete categories of subject matter, and articles related to those subjects may only be allowed to exist at his discretion. | |||
| : As a professional engineer, Wty knows what is best for Misplaced Pages's technical articles. His sarcasm and dismissal of your opinions merely reflects his academic and technical stature on the subject. | |||
| : Remember, if an article about some technical subject is not ] transformed into a well documented, referenced, and storied history in a matter of days after creation, then the article should ] be allowed to exist in any partial or incomplete form on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| : (50+ year old Canadian electrical engineers can be stubborn about their passions, I guess.) -- ] (]) 15:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: If there is a purpose to this project (and I'm not sure that's a given, either), I sincerely do not believe that purpose is served by "groupthink" and acceptance by "consensus" that often seems to be little more than bullying. As for passions, twiddling Misplaced Pages is more of a pastime - actually the activity it most resembles is cleaning a toilet bowl with a stream of your own urine. The achievements are momentary and transient, and the process is disgusting. The simple-minded joy of seeing a particular sticky bit of fecal matter washed away is all that matters; and you just know similar blobs will be soon be left by the next "contributor". --] (]) 16:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: So in essence you are following ] to the fullest extent, in that consensus by other editors should also be ignored. Only you know what is best, only you are the authority to be consulted to determine whether a device is worth documenting or not, and only you should get to decide what technical articles are allowed to exist. Alas, this is not Wtypedia. ] (]) 17:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Rather, I'm looking at the "indiscriminate collection of information". Parts list entries are still not encyclopedia articles, which is the point of my nominating a bunch of parts list entries for deletion. Or had you forgotten what started all this? Look at the rather lame arguments put forth to retain odd diodes and transistors and tell me if you find any of them really compelling. --] (]) 18:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| Yes. We get it. You don't like what you call "Parts list entries". We went through this when you wanted to delete ]. Consensus was against you. Deal with it. You don't have to explain your dislikes again and again. Everyone involved has heard them many, many times. What ''is'' of concern is the fact that you keep claiming that your dislikes are justification for ignoring Misplaced Pages policies, disruptive edits, and comments which seem designed to annoy other editors. ''Even if you are 100% right'' about what belongs in Misplaced Pages, that does not excuse your tendentious and disruptive editing across a range of articles. This is about your behavior, not about whether you are right about what Misplaced Pages should contain. ] (]) | |||
| : And yet, people keep prompting me to respond to them. It's like people are seeking my approval, or something - very strange. Since I don't remmeber (and, really, don't care) who I've already briefed on my reasons, and since people apparently don't read what I've posted to others, I repeat myself. Parts lists don't belong here. I can hardly be called disruptive, I've recently added sourced facts to several of the parts catalog entries, which is more attention then they've gotten from some of their more strident proponents in years. Disagreement is not disruption, and I've yet to see a good arguement for keeping parts list entries in the encyclopedia. --] (]) 21:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look a bit farther up in this thread. I expressed concerns about your behavior with no request for another rehash of what you think should not be in Misplaced Pages. You responded by claiming that your opinion about what you think should not be in Misplaced Pages justifies your bad behavior. It doesn't. This has been explained to you before. So can we please discuss your behavior instead of getting back on your parts catalog hobbyhorse? | |||
| ::BTW, the fact that you make good contributions (and you do) does not exempt you from the requirement to follow Misplaced Pages standards on civility. ] (]) 00:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Contributions? I can't even get rid of the trash around here. What contributions? Reverting "poo" several hundred times is a contribution? If you don't like my behavior, there's all kinds of Wikiprocesses you can invoke. --] (]) 03:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| These edits, to and , after seeking, and failing to get, consensus for merge () go beyond the pale. I strongly advise you that if this kind of thing continues you will be facing sanctions. It's not worth it; move on. ] (]) 21:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Whatever happened to ]? I tagged'em for over a week, I had one objection to one merge, no specific objections to the other merges, I merged 'em (notice I took the tag off ] in view of its huge number of hits...an encyclopedia is the wrong place to look up spare parts, but 30,000 people made that choice in the last 30 days), and now I see my fan club has reverted these two edits. What's the problem? When did these become sacred uneditable articles? Do I have to clear edits with the article owners first? --] (]) 21:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: WP:BOLD does not allow you to ride roughshod over consensus, nor is it anything more than a guideline. You misrepresent your merge proposal: you had two responses, both disagreed with all three merge proposals; there was no mandate to proceed with the merge (again) yet you went ahead anyway. ] (]) 22:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Transistors and ] === | |||
| Hello, Wtshymanski. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:WQA-notice--> Thank you. Enough's enough. ] (]) 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Not to use IEC === | |||
| Please do not accuse editors of vandalism when they edit with consensus. The consensus on WP:MOSNUM is to not use IEC. Please continue to debate on the MOSNUM talk. Please do not just revert. . --] (]) 17:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : It's vandalism when one misquotes the MOS and persist in edits that damage the article. Behavior such as this can result in a rangeblock for a whole bunch of IP addresses. --] (]) 18:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: I have not misquoted MOSNUM. My edits have consensus and improve the article, your edits do not have consensus and are just reverts on my improvement edit. I have asked MOSNUM to clarify. Will you accept the consensus of MOSNUM? ] (]) 18:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IPs are part of the ISP HTTP proxy and I cannot help that the IP keeps on changing because it is dynamic.] (]) 18:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, you have misquoted. No, your edits don't have consensus and damage the article, you can't ask a web page anything, and if ytou read MOS:NUMBERS you find that this exact situation is called for. Don't worry about the IP hopping, the admins here can blck a whole range of IP addresses as easily as a single one. --] (]) 18:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Three revert rule === | |||
| Please read this about the . ] (]) 04:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Sob. Sob sob.=== | |||
| Apparently I'm a "stuck up engineer who's full of himself". Sob. I haven't been so deeply wounded since I was called 4-eyes on the playground in 1968. My self-esteem has been dealt a mighty blow by this insightful expose of the deepest layers of my psyche. I'm crushed. --] (]) 18:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I keep waiting to see when the other technical editors decide all this ] is not fun anymore. | |||
| : But it's nice to know you watch my user page. Share the love. ] (]) 21:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm blushing. I'm not used to being hit on. Beauty is a curse. --] (]) 21:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === April 2011 === | |||
| ] Please stop your ], as you did at ]. Your edits have been ] or removed. | |||
| * If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
| * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
| Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being ].<!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> ] (]) 06:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please stop your ]. If you continue to use talk pages for ], as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-chat3 --> ] (]) 07:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please do not ] legitimate talk page comments, as you did at ]. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be ]. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Suggest warning the user on his talk page rather than deleting his comments.<!-- Template:uw-tpv2 --> ] (]) 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Speedy deletion templates === | |||
| I wonder if I could ask you to not use a custom speedy deletion template when you are in fact basing the nomination on one of the ] such as blatant advertising. What happens is that those nominations go into ] which tends to get a lot less attention than ] or the other more specific categories, so they tend to sit there substantially longer before being handled, and the unspecified category is only supposed to be for deletion noms that do not fit squarely into any of the established categories. There are easy to use automated tools such as ] that make nominating articles through any of the various processes quite simple and even notify the article's creator automatically for you. ] (]) 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Someone must be watching - at least two articls have been deleted already this afternoon. --] (]) 21:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, they get addressed eventually, but we have specific templates for a reason. It's not a rule or anything, it's just simpler for everyone, including you, to do it the proper way. I notice you used "db spam" as an edit summary on some of these nominations. All you have to do is type {{tlx|db-spam}} on the article to properly nominate it as spam. ] (]) 22:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: And people say Misplaced Pages isn't bureaucratic! I've been here for years and I'm still learning the cantrips and incantations. The important thing is that these articles are getting off the dead-end list, either by linking, by merging, or by deletion. --] (]) 16:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Lame merge proposal === | |||
| I know you don't like the ] article, but if you want to suggest a merge, at least make it to a category that these devices would fit it. Devices in TO-92 and lower-dissipation packages are not power devices. ] (]) 18:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : More correctly, I don't like any of the parts list articles. The Power MOSFET article starts off with a picture of a batch of surface mount SOT devices next to a matchstick - 200 mA is "power", isn't it? You can switch a bulb with a 2N7000? (Isn't that one of the reasons its a hacker-friendly part?) --] (]) 18:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I removed the merge tags again, after pointing out there that the manufacturers call the 2N7000 a small-signal switch. If you have any other places you want to merge it instead, now's the time. ] (]) 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| In , where you more interested in restore one half of the failed lame merge proposal, or in removing the connection between the devices mentioned? I can't decide which part to fix first... ] (]) 01:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Nevermind, I just notice that the merge proposal was a new and different one; different horse, not again beating the dead one. I just undo the other fuckage. ] (]) 01:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The observed behavior pattern seems to be trying every possible method to delete articles. He tried mass AfDs but found that he needed consensus. He tried speedy deletion nominations for reasons specifically named as not being grounds for speedy deletions, but found that the reviewing admin didn't accept them. He tried prods with some success on obvious candidates, but found that the articles he really wanted to delete kept being unprodded. Now he is exploring using merges as a method of getting rid of the articles he wants to go away, and is showing a definite tendency to follow policy and seek consensus. | |||
| :In my opinion, all of the above are OK '''IF''' he follows Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and he appears to be getting better at following them. He hasn't made any recent sarcastic personal attacks, he stopped asking for speedy deletion for invalid reasons, etc. Fast learner. It looks like the behavior is converging on seeking the article deletions he wants without policy violations. This is a Good Thing. ] (]) 02:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::And do you have an opinion on the "other fuckage"? Is that a Good Thing, too? Or just collateral damage in his campaign to stamp out articles he doesn't like? I don't mind him using normal processes, but when it's done in a way that appears to be arbitrary or stupid, like wanting to merge certain small-signal transistors into a power transistor article, it tries one's patience, knowing that this guy is not as stupid as he is acting. ] (]) 02:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::These are poorly-conceived, poorly articulated articles and need to have more context to explain to a reader just why anyone would care about a particular part number. I have never made personal attacks - I'm only interested in getting rid of bad articles. Splicing together a half dozen parts into one article does not seem a well conceived notion or a basis for building a strong article. The correct way and simple and non-dramatic way to get rid of these articles would have been a successful PROD for lack of notability, but evidently that process isn't dramatic enough. No-one has explained why a 200 mA transistor used to drive hammers and lamps isn't considered a power device. No-one has explained what random list of parts should be listed as friends and relations of the 2N7000 - for example, the cited reference lists the IRF 510 or some such part and this isn't on the 2N7000 article. Is there a logical reason to have all these random parts listed aside from them all appearing on the same page of "Scanners for Dummies"? Why not list all 11 pages of parts in the ARRL handbook, then? I look forward to a rational explanation of how we go about building these articles, aside from the principle of ticking off Bill. --] (]) 03:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Re: "''I have never made personal attacks''", ] (]) 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Those aren't personal attacks. He hasn't singled out anyone, he appears to be griping about lax standards. ] (]) 20:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} I'm a little slow, eh? For the life of me, I can't see how any of those are personal attacks. Could you tell me who's being attacked and how in each of those. At least one of those diffs specifically comments on the difference between a disagreement and a personal attack. I've lead a sad and battered life and I don't even notice personal attacks unless somehow they are...personal. Though someone did call me a dumb Polack here the other day, but it was an anon IP so I gave it no never mind. --] (]) 20:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : They are "impersonal attacks" on the general editorship of Misplaced Pages. Your opinions of the typical editor (anon or otherwise) and the quality of Misplaced Pages are pretty clear from your (former) user/talk page revisions over the years. There's no need to rehash it in every edit comment. | |||
| : Generally the problem is ], and a lack of ] in various sniping edit comments. | |||
| : If you think Misplaced Pages and most editors here just suck that bad and keep on sucking that bad, go edit ] like I suggested before. They would love to have more editors that demand high quality referenced and vetted articles, though alas, you will have to identify yourself in all edits. ] (]) 05:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your frank disclosure of your views. --] (]) | |||
| === Double redirects === | |||
| A bot will fix all that automatically. ] (]) 05:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Do we really call the rectifier diodes the same part number as the 10 watt Zener? --] (]) 05:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === AN/I === | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 17:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Given that your contributions are currently under scrutiny there, edit warring at ] is perhaps not wise. ] (]) 18:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your concern. I appreciate the detailed scrutiny each of my edits is getting from the ad-hoc review committee, and I only wish equal effort was spent on improving the many very weak electronics-related articles on the Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 18:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for your concern about improving weak electronics-related articles on Misplaced Pages. On the AN/I page I have suggested a proposed remedy that will, I believe, leave you free to improve them while blocking you from your other activities that require other editors to spend time dealing with your behavior instead of improving electronics-related articles. I hope this helps. ] (]) 02:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can't control other people's behavior. If they choose to dwell on keeping weak articles, that's their issue, not mine. I look forward to equal effort being spent on improving these weak articles instead of following me around Misplaced Pages, but the history of these articles suggests that won't happen - once the scapegoat is gone, I suspect interest in improving parts-list-entries will vanish since there's no way to improve those articles, as I've pointed out. | |||
| ::::For example, I notice a recent change revolved around changing the hyphens in an article from one style to another. This doesn't address the unreadable opaque text, technical flim-flam, low level of factual accuracy, or the inherent lack of notability of a random selection of registry numbers. | |||
| ::::Also notice the low level of verifiability of the assertions on what actually is a particular JEDEC or Pro Electron number; we have had articles blandly asserting that a whole zoo of part numbers are the same as one JEDEC registered type. I wouldn't be assuring myself I was contributing anything meaningful to an article if all I was doing was changing hyphens; and ordinarily I have at least as high a capacity for self-congratulatory self-deception as anyone else. | |||
| ::::I wouldn't also make ethnic slurs or engage in Internet "stalking" of an editor just because he disagreed with me on the Misplaced Pages; maybe I suffer a lack of imagination, but I really don't care enough about other editors to try and follow them all over the Internet. I also don't care enough about other editors to use obscene language to describe their work; again, perhaps a defect on my part. I also lack enough interest in other editors to watchlist their contributions and vet every one of them; this seems to be extraordinarily pointless since the thing that matters is the contents of edits, not who's making them. My practice is to look at diffs, not user IDs - for all I care they can all be anonymous IP numbers. It's unfortunate that weak parts list articles are being kept on the Misplaced Pages, and that there's not enough interest in improving electrical and electronic articles to at least the accuracy and comprehension level of a first-year university course. I very much doubt my presence or absence from working on electrical articles will make any difference to their generally appalling low level of accuracy, width or depth; certainly the last 6 years has made no difference. Observe that even by the low levels required to pass the FA beauty contest rules, that none of the electrical articles are in the running for even "good article" status. Certainly an article about one model of diode or transistor is not going to become a good article - because no-one off the Misplaced Pages is writing about one part number, either. Observe that the main visible activity of the electronics Wikiproject is putting banners on talk pages - has anyone seen any articles promoted to GA? I suggest the attention arising from my recommendations for deletion of the dozen or so parts list articles that have so excited a tiny proportion of the Misplaced Pages editors has actually marginally improved only one of the articles, while leaving the others at pretty much unreadable random parts list entries. And yet when I point out that notability means multiple independent significant sources and all we have are parts list entries from "Scanners for Dummies" books, somehow I'm the villain. Curious place, this. --] (]) | |||
| :::::If multiple people who don't know each other all have a problem with your behavior, perhaps you should think about what the common factor is. ] (]) 12:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You want articles to be instantly perfect. There is no requirement for that. Only you are demanding that articles be perfectly and deeply sourced, immediately. Access to source information may change in the future, to make some topics easier to document and discuss. There is no rush on our part, so leave "incomplete parts list" articles alone. Misplaced Pages does not operate according to YOUR timetable. | |||
| :::::It's hard to figure out how to get this across without sounding blunt or apparently attacking you, since it has been repeated several times now, and you just don't seem to acknowledge it. ] (]) 21:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} No, I'm not expecting articles to be instantly perfect; I don't think I've ever said that and I have seen many articles gradually improve over years. But I don't think articles should be started that are inherently deeply flawed in conception, and that, in principle, cannot be developed into good articles. There's difference between notable subjects that we can be reasonably confident have (accessible) sources, and product literature that will not have any sources. These random diode and transistor articles have no sources and so there's no way to grow these articles. The resources that an editor would need to improve these articles don't exist, outside of dusty files in the basements of whoever inherited Westinghouse and GE and Motorola and Fairchild and Texas Instruments files ( and Siemens and Mullard and Thomson in Europe, same problem, other side of the ocean). These would be primary sources anyway, and so unusable or usable with great restrictions on Misplaced Pages. Notice that these semiconductor articles have not improved in some cases for years - even the flurry of attention they briefly got during the AfD drive resulted in negligable improvements (I added as many refrenced facts as I coudl find and I still don't think there's an improvement). It's got nothing to do with schedules, and everything to do with picking sensible topics on which to write encyclopedia articles. You can research "Development of commercial silicon transistors" because there's accessible literature. You can't research the "Binford 6100" because the files that used to belong to Binford Semiconductor got shredded after 30 years of the company being sold to one M&A firm after another. The other problem is persepective - it's a part number! It's trivial! None of the semiconductors in the group I nominated for AfD was unique - none of them enabled new systems to be made, they were all pretty much interchangable commodity parts. A third problem is the lamentably lazy and useless clutter that does collect in these articles instead of an encyclopediac treatment of the subject. We can't do a proper treatment, we can't get sales figures - we can't tell the reader who made the part or when it was introducted - we can't even copy the data sheet numbers right, nor tell the reader why the numbers are important. Nor do we show comprehension of what a JEDC registered part number actually means. Encyclopedias are summaries of knowledge, not exhaustive listings of every abandonded bus stop in Hong Kong or every shoe size ever worn by Academy Award winners. These are misbegotten terrible topics for an encyclopedia article and ought to be deleted. --] (]) 21:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Frequency== | |||
| There ought to be something in the lead about frequency and its relationship to color and sound perception. I can't tell you how many audio-related pages link to this page for the sole purpose of having that relationship explained. I know it's gone over later in the article, but if it was mentioned in the lead, readers would at least know right away why they had been directed there. Also, I don't think it would be as helpful to just suggest everyone link to the Physics of sound section, since it assumes one has already been briefed on the physical characteristics of frequency. | |||
| Let's discuss how this can be done on the talk page.--] (]) 16:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Wtshymanski. You participated in ], which was closed as delete. The closure was contested at ]. Originally closed as "o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has been amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at ]. ] (]) 08:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh no. I'm not going to stick my hand into that wood chipper again - after seeing who wants the article saved. Far be it from me to play "deletionist" and advocate for fewer articles. --] (]) 14:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: 8-) That wouldn't be me would it? I admit I read the article and was poised to delete it, because I hate the idea of this product. However they did convince the IEEE to write seriously about it, and according to our rules here, that saves it. I doubt you like this any more than I do, but that's how it falls this time. ] (]) 17:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is shamelessly promotional. Yes, it did appear in Spectrum (how did that happen?) but the whole point of asking for reliable sources should be more than just saying, okay, as long as the article appeared somewhere that usually exercises good editorial control, that's enough. This is an article, that ''if you simply read it'' cannot possibly be considered to be reliable and balanced. It's advertising being passed off as a legitimate review. ] (]) 17:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Here's a heretical notion. Maybe not every single thing that gets published anywhere in the world needs an encyclopedia article. Of course, if that was the criterion for inclusion here, we'd have to substitute judgment for rules and the whole system would collapse. This is a fundamental limitation of the editorial model here. --] (]) 17:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yes, it's a limitation of the model we've developed. If the worst thing it forces upon us is an article about an obsolete interpreter, then I can live with that. ] (]) 17:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :{{outdent}} That's just one of the things the editorial model creates; hardly the biggest problem, of course, as long as storage and bandwidth are cheap and accuracy isn't required. --] (]) 18:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:34, 2 May 2011
Grrr, Grr...go away
I'm an uncivil editor, I am, I am. I might dare to disagree with you. (I might even, rarely, be right).
B*ching and moaning
- Edit warring
If you parse "official" narrowly enough, you can make it mean anything you want...though it helps to have an admin hammer to make consensus. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Manitoba
Oh thank you, I was *so* worried I wasn't going to have permission from some anonymous person on the Misplaced Pages to have my own opinions.--Wtshymanski (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- If arrogance was petroleum, the Mideast and the tar sands would be out of business. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)