User talk:Jkmstevens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] License tagging for Image:IMGP0045-1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:IMGP0045-1.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RuBee

As you might have noticed on Talk:RuBee and the deletion log, other editors had raised concerned about uneyclopedic material/nonsense in the article. The article was deleted by User:Phil Sandifer. I restored it, because I believe that addressing specific issues is better than deleting the whole article without any discussion. I initially reverted the article to original version, so that it doesn't get deleted again for the same reason. Then I made a second edit, in which I restored the version before deletion, minus two sections ("How RuBee works" and "RuBee Feng Shui"). The two sections removed by me didn't contain any references, bordered on original research and their tone was unencyclopedic (see WP:TONE). As I mentioned in the edit summary, anybody is free to re-add these sections with proper changes. utcursch | talk 15:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Utcursch - thanks for fast reply - Not sure I agree with you about two sections.. I count 15 references to back up what is said and think what is said is quite material - for example you deleted and EDN article on near vs far field - critical to entire section
Maxwell's equations can hardly be considered original research .. can go line by line if you like.
reference to Aether was removed (377 ohms) that is an important constant right up with C speed of light and two are linked tightly - it is not original research ...
reference to loop antennas in wiki was removed - again fundamental to all induction and again far from original research ..
reference to tuned circuits was removed - again fundamental and not now in article .. not original research
Tone section I have read carefully and easy to make more formal if thats required, however this can be a difficult area for non-professionals - I am a Physicists and have taught at Penn, Columbia, and Univ of Toronto for near 30 years and find a soft tone makes easier to understand.
Might be better to suggest that in discussion sections so those of us who worked hard on this get a chance to respond before you delete ...
I am a scientists with 100's of published papers and two books - I understand original research verifiable quit well - no original research is contained in this article as it was written, and every line is and was verifiable ...
My suggestion - we revert back to original and deal with any issues point by point, line by line publically in discussion section as per WiKi rules - if you make reasonable suggested changes or can show that any of the content is "original research" we take it out - if tone needs to be modified can deal with that item by item -- but needs to be a process here .. not unilateral judgments, or Wikipedia loses all of its credability and so do you as an administrator ..
this was not a balanced well thought out process and material is now incomprehensible.. It was I believe a biased process - proof is I am glad to go over it line by line with anyone -
Is that fair ?
I have received many phone calls and complaints re your changes - this article is now incomprehensible does not make sense .....
John Stevens Ph.D.
Chair IEEE 1902.1
Like I said, I removed the content so that the article doesn't get deleted again by some other admin. Of course, you are much more knowledgeable than me, and I leave it up to you and other knowledgeable editors to deal with the issue. You might want to discuss this with Vlad Patryshev and Lurgyman63, who expressed concerns about inaccuracies/other issues on Talk:RuBee. Please be bold in editing, and in case of any editing disputes, please follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. utcursch | talk 16:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Utcursch - The talk section from both Vald and Lurgyman is perty thin - nothing focused or specific - I suspect they both have other motives (e.g Vald comment "this is crap") How do I respond ? not what I would expect from a responsible editor or administrator - I have sent both emails and asked to be specific with no response - I will revert back to old version and again offer to make any changes in content providing specific issues are raised ...

Maybe I mentioned that 17 independent companies passed this in 1902.1 workgrp including Epson Motorola, Microsoft, GM, GE LG Electronics, Bearing Point - they are now all mad at me for not maintaining site - they all seemed happy with old stuff - comes up very high on Google hits - Epson CEO in US -- was very upset - just seems like number of agendas on Wikipedia and full time to police ...

Thansk again for help

John Stevens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.46.202.162 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)