User talk:PetesGuide

Callsign
Did you get K6WEB by luck of the draw, or is that a vanity call? It's a good one either way! I'm jealous of K9DOG, personally... 73 DE N0ZAP --Mdwyer 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

QN Signals
Hi, I'm looking into some of the open copyright issues. I see that all of the issues identified on 4 July are resolved except for one.

I see that you removed the notice from the article page, and removed the comment from your talk page with the edit summary "deleted resolved bot content", however, I do not see where it was resolved.

My guess is that the bot is mistaken as to where the information came from. I think it is more likely that it came from the ARRL Operator Manual. I'll also note, with puzzlement, that the source identified by the bot is older than the operator manual which suggests there is a still older source somewhere. You may have some insights on that observation.

The operator manual is subject to copyright although copyright issues when it comes to lists can be tricky. We have an editor with substantial expertise regarding copyright issues and lists, although she hates that subject so I hope we do not have to involve her.

Can you tell me if you took steps to resolve this documented somewhere? It certainly like to review them. If you simply dismiss the bot as being in error please elaborate.

As an aside while I am not a ham radio operator, my father was: W1TWJ. I'm somewhat surprised I can still remember this call sign as I don't think he used it in the last 50 years.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I dismissed the bot because I believed it to be in error and my use of the list in line with the list related copyright issues, though I am not an expert. I'm new to this particular process in Wiki, so please correct me or guide me in correcting any mistakes. Here's some additional background. The ARRL was not the original author. However, the original author is deceased, so determining his copyright holding may be difficult.


 * I did neglect to document my reasons for dismissing the bot, so am fuzzy on what my thinking was.


 * If needed, I will contact the ARRL and obtain copyright permission, but I'm also interested in learning the proper process with respect to such lists. Thanks!-- Peter K. Sheerin 03:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In general, we are concerned when a long stretch of text exactly matches a copyrighted stretch of text (we also care about close paraphrases but that's not an issue here). In many such situations, there is a way to write the text in original language which picks up the key themes but does not infringe upon the copyright. However, lists pose a particular challenge, as it may not be easy or even appropriate to rewrite the text. Thus, both computer related bots, as well as humans will see substantial overlap between a copyrighted source and a list in the Wikipedia article. In some cases, such as a list of the best restaurants in an area, the creation of the list may involved creative aspects, and the list should not simply be copied. On the other hand, no one can copyright a list of the US states, and it is highly likely anyone making such a list will be exactly copying someone else's list.


 * Where the line is drawn can be tricky and (albeit reluctantly) is an expert in the area.
 * For her benefit, the article is QN Signals, and the issue is the prominent table in the article and the close match to the table on this site


 * That book was copyrighted in 2007, although the discussion on that page notes that the signals are not original with this book but were created in the 1940s. It is my opinion that the list of codes themselves are clearly not a problem, but it is hard to imagine that a list of codes without the explanation would be helpful and it would not be trivial or even advisable to rewrite the explanations. Therefore, I think it is accepted usage, but it is gray enough that I hope Moonriddengirl weights in. If specific permission were obtained from ARRL, that would clearly resolve the issue, but I hate to request this if it is unnecessary.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I queried the ARRL and the radio group that created the codes (QMN), and have this initial response from the ARRL: "QN signals are not copyrighted by ARRL. I believe they’re public domain. Let me know if you need any other information." So at least the ARRL is not asserting copyright ownership. I am still awaiting an answer from the QMN net group that originated the codes. I would also be interested in Moonriddengirl 's comments with respect to these questions: 1) For the other Q Signals, which are defined by an arm of the United Nations (ITU-R) and codified in international agreements and the law of the sea, are they automatically in the public domain as are many U.S. government works? If needed, I would be happy to research the international agreements to see if there is any language there relating to copyright. 2) Since these codes are intended to convey precise meanings with limited time and bandwidth, changing the words in the definitions even slightly could cause their meaning to be changed, thus countering the purpose of the codes and potentially causing other problems. How do the Wikipedia rules deal with this case?
 * Thanks for checking with the ARRL. I agree with your reasoning in the second to last sentence; that's exactly the concern I would have about trying to rewrite them. You asked a good question about UN documents seem to recall that some are copyrighted but frankly I haven't worked with many. I suspect that Mooonriddengirl may know this off the top of her head. I'm feeling much more comfortable now but would still be happy to hear from her so I'll just leave this until she has a chance to look at it. She is very busy so might not happen right away.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, PetesGuide, User:Sphilbrick. :) I apologize for my delay; I'm afraid I didn't pick up this ping. :/ The United Nations at this point still does not license its content compatibly with Wikipedia - they are surprisingly strict about this. I understand there may be talks underway about altering this. However, content that is codified into law anywhere should be public domain in the United States. If there's any kind of reference to that, all uncertainty goes away. :) It seems that these guys were published in a DARA/QMN Bulletin - anybody seen one of those? Do they include a copyright notice? If not, they're public domain. (Or at least the original set are.) Even if they had a copyright notice, they'd be public domain if the copyright had not been renewed.

As a general rule of thumb, if the material could not be modified without changing the meaning and the content was under copyright, we'd generally link to the original and talk generally about the item. For instance, if we could not reproduce the lyrics of a song, we'd talk about the song and link (if possible) to a legally licensed version of it. However, it's often possible to alter language without altering meaning. This is similar dilemma that the courts addressed in American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans (), where taxonomic classifications are found to be copyrightable. In one specific example selected to demonstrate the creativity, the Court noted:

The same would likely govern material here. For instance, one could say: "QNE* Calls for the attention of the entire net. QNL. Notice that the message's recipient has low net frequency." (I assume one could say that. I don't know what any of this stuff means practically. :) But I think the point holds true.)

That said, I am not saying this content is under copyright. I'd need more information to meaningfully weigh in on that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As someone who knows precisely what all this means, if a prose rewording of the definitions removes the issue (without having to dig through the copyright history of the signals), I can certainly do that. Crow  Caw  22:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And I have done so at User:Crow/sandbox, if this resolves it. I'll be offline shortly, so feel free to take whatever action is appropriate (copy onto live article, or speedy my sandbox). Crow  Caw  23:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Crow! Implemented and attributed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Approximate measures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jigger. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies
Didn't mean to revert you but to view the diff. Thanks for your edit. Doug Weller talk 05:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Coordinated Universal Time
I have removed some of the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www1.bipm.org/cc/CCTF/Allowed/18/CCTF_09-32_noteUTC.pdf, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Turning pages into redirects
Hello! Just a friendly heads up that when you turn a page into a redirect (like at Camlock (fluid fitting)), you should remove all the other content from the page. Thank you for doing that though, I've been puzzling over what to do with that one for awhile, so I'm glad someone with the technical knowledge took some decisive action. Cheers! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! This was my first redirect in such a case, and I wasn't quite sure, and couldn't tell with a cursory glance at the documentation. I'm going through all of the fire hose couplings in some detail, looking for specification sources, etc. I have a hunch that I'll find the article should really be called Camlock, because all of the information on that page is specific to that connector. If that's the case, do I rename this article to Camlock, or make this article a generic stub pointing to Camlock and the one other similar design I've found, that isn't the camlock design?
 * I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It might help if you linked the articles you're talking about so I can see? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of System 32 (furniture)


A tag has been placed on System 32 (furniture), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. JHCaufield - talk - 23:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey! Can you please clarify why a translated article from the German Wikipedia is tagged for speedy deletion? I believe I followed the procedures for translating and marking it as such correctly. What did I miss? Also, I was unable to find any button labeled "Contest this speedy deletion"; can you clarify where this appears, because following your directions I do not see it. And I'd like to assure you this is not spam. I believe that this is actually an international standard, and am trying to locate said standard. I have corresponded with the cabinetmaker who posted the statement of having read the international standard, and he spent several hours trying to locate the documents from 1946, but was unable to, though I'm pretty good at sleuthing these things out.

Peter K. Sheerin 00:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
JHCaufield - talk - 22:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Signatures and edit summaries
G'day Peter

thank you for your contributions.

But I noticed that your edits to a recent RM (this one for example) don't link to your user or talk pages in the signature. These links are very helpful to other editors, see the guideline at wp:signatures which reads in part A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page.

Of less importance but I think I should mention, your edit summaries are often too short to be any use. I know this is common, but a few more keystrokes would be helpful IMO. TIA Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note about the signature. I actually thought about doing that yesterday, and visited that page, but left slightly confused deciding against the effort to decipher the meaning of the page. First, four tildes is listed immediately under "Preferred option". Second, it shows in the table that the resulting code is Example (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC), but when I went back to look at the source after submitting comments, it clearly was not. After that discrepancy, with still 80% of the article to go through, I gave up.
 * Question: is that example actually the default code, and I must have edited my custom signature years ago and forgotten?
 * Also, thanks for the nudge on edit summaries. If you look at most of my contributions, other than the last week of editing various phonetic spelling alphabet articles, I think I'm generally better. Just going through the sheer mass of content in order to find sources for all of those unsourced alphabets, and add the missing ones, made me a bit sloppy. How's this signature? PetesGuide, K6WEB (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's better but only the user page link works for me, the talk page link is bolded but not wikilinked. Have you modified it recently using Special:Preferences to put in your callsign? Andrewa (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * can you do me a favor? Can you look at the US Navy table on this page, on a mobile browser? On iOS i'm seeing an extra completely empty column on the far right. Doesn't show up in the desktop browser read or GUI edit pages, and I can't see any obvious bugs in the table formatting. Allied_Military_Phonetic_Spelling_Alphabet PetesGuide, K6WEB (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have no Internet access other than computer-based browsers. There is no mobile coverage in the bush where I live, we are dependent on satellite and copper cables. (And they want to remove the copper cables. I've been meaning for years to get an amateur licence myself. My late father was an amateur and keen echolink user even when in the city.) Andrewa (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I tweaked my signature; I think having the comma after the wikilink without the nowiki tag cause a problem. But even with the code below, I can't get the talk link to work. What am I doing wrong?

PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 23:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

because it's "minor"?!
I hope you're not in the habit of making pointless, disruptive reverts like this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but your change changed the meaning for the worse, and you had marked it as a minor edit, which hides it from most people watching pages for changes, and makes your edits appear to be (even if they are not meant to be) subterfuge. The minor edit feature is meant for very minor changes that most people won't notice and aren't substantial, such as deleting extra whitespace. "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." See Help:Minor_edit. PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Rationale
Hi PetesGuide, sorry about this, but I think we need a neutral RS for controversial stuff like that. Please revert me and open it on the article's talkpage if you think there's evidence that they could possibly be considered reliable for data, such as that, which supports their single-issue cause. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Torx
Are these not Torx? https://www.amazon.com/Screwdriver-Pentalobe-Smartphone-Electronics-Disassembly/dp/B0725PP7Z7/ref=sr_1_8?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1519060838&sr=1-8&keywords=5+point+pentalobe If not, then shouldn't the page still have a section for Pentalobular Drives? They're quite common among phone tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcjme (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC) - Ah understood. I must've missed it considering the guide doesn't organize by shapes. I see the Pentalobe section now. Helping end world sexual repression. (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, pentalobe drive is not Torx. To my knowledge, nobody knows who holds the original specification for this drive system.
 * Which article are you talking about? The most obvious one already has a section for pentalobe: List of screw drivesPentalobe
 * Please put new sections on people's talk pages at the bottom, below all existing content (you can use the "new section" button to do this without editing the whole page).
 * Don't forget to sign your additions to talk pages with a string of four tildes. This automatically inserts your Wikipedia ID, a link to your talk page, and the date/time stamp of your addition. This is preferred to having an automatic bot do it for you sometime later (if ever).PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 17:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

An image tip for your 'Vehicle Spotter' article
@User:The Navigators Thanks for the thanks. I noticed you're working on a page for vehicle spotters, there's some images of UK hand signals for directing vehicles vehicles that might be of interest to you. The PDF file has descriptions of what the symbols mean in detail.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 02:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC) P.S., I was a huge fan of Emergency! as a kid, and even had the plastic toy kit with the helmet and megaphone. Still trying to find out which episode had one of the crew teaching the other how to coil cords properly, which he learned coiling ropes on a ranch.PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 15:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank's so much! Please take a look at User:PetesGuide/Vehicle spotter to see how I incorporated the images you pointed me to. Do you have any other suggestions for this article, or where to research it further?

Thanks for "Thanks"
Hi PetesGuide. Thanks for the "thanks" on my 1-character edit on article "Metrication in the United States". It's the FIRST time I've received "thanks' for a Wikipedia edit, so I'm feeling "tickled". Artpitkin (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Morse prosign for $\overline{RRRRR}$
Hi, I undid your undoing of my edit in Prosigns for Morse code because I assume it was a misunderstanding on your side. The situation is as follows: the morse template is limited to 10 symbols, so the $\overline{RRRRR}$ prosign (which uses 15 symbols, .-..-..-..-..-.) could not be made using this template. This was noticed by in this edit, who tried to fix it and eventually made a workaround in this other edit which did not look quite right (notice how the lengths are wrong), leaving the previous use of morse &lt;!--commented out--&gt;. My edit simply replaces that with what would come out of the morse template IF it could generate more than 10 symbols (which it can't); I was not removing the use of that template since it was already removed here. —Cousteau (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

External links in signatures
Hi. I noticed you've got a link to your personal website as part of your signature. Please note that this is contrary to policy (WP:SIG) and should be removed. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I hate to be a pest, but I also notice that your username is also contrary to policy (WP:CORPNAME) because it's promoting your personal blog. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank's for the reminder about the external link. Have been meaning to update that for a while. As for the username, I looked into this in detail when I went back to it after using my full name for a while, so that I could conduct activities contrary to CORPNAME on my blog. However, I later decided against that, and changed the name back. My comments in the change request were to that effect, and the change was approved by an admin. I'm just an individual, not a company.PetesGuide, K6WEB (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:NOAA Weather Radio stations has been nominated for discussion
Category:NOAA Weather Radio stations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

MURS
No problem on the MURS edit my friend, I'm a ham too and was just discussing license by rule with someone right before reading the page. - 73 de NT2C

EldergeekPrime (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Radiotelephony IPA notation
Hi Pete, long time no see! I saw your post at User talk:Maczkopeti, but since Maczkopeti seems to have gone low-profile, I figured I would fill you in a little on IPA and pronunciation until they return.

As you pointed out, ICAO's description of pronunciation is an embarrassment. It is clear they didn't consult a linguist or even a linguistics undergrad. The biggest problem with their respellings is obviously that the value of each letter or letter combination is not defined. (See our respelling key for comparison.) This presents a problem especially in " ROW ME OH" and "FOW-er" – is it "ow" as in "cow" or as in "low"? In both words it seems to represent that of "low", which makes it even more perplexing because then they can just use "oh", which they do in a bunch of other words like " BRAH VOH" and " ECK OH", and even in " ROW ME OH" itself. Another baffling choice is the apparent use of English orthographic conventions. IMHO, using common but orthographically anomalistic words like "key", "jew", and "you" are better avoided especially when "kee", "joo", and "yoo" wouldn't at all be ambiguous. They use the digraph "ck" in " ECK OH", "KEH BECK ", and " ECKS RAY" (but not in " FOKS TROT") even though the "c" is a silent letter (and somehow "6" is "SIX"!). They use double letters in " DELL TAH", " WISS KEY", etc. even though phonetically English prohibits the same consonant from occurring twice in a row within the same word. "SEE AIR RAH" would indicate [rr], which again is impossible. It should have been "SEE AIR AH" (or "SEE ERR AH", which better accounts for dialectal differences). " OSS CAH" is the only instance in which "c" represents a /k/, whilst "cah" isn't even a word so "kah" can be just as easily read.

The numbers are worse. Ought one to pronounce "ZE-RO" as or  (or )? Is "SEV-en" or ? Is "NIN-er" or ? And what about the "r" there? If all syllables are emphasized as in "DAY-SEE-MAL", one cannot know which syllable to emphasize! "TOU-SAND" could be interpreted as, , , , , or , if not more. But did they really mean /s/ and not /z/? In intervocalic positions like this, [z] is more common and easier to pronounce than [s], so if this is to accommodate foreign speakers, it's not really helping—in fact it's hurting.

Once you start taking the IPA into account, the situation gets way more chaotic. There are competing conventions of IPA for English and ICAO's transcriptions largely seem to be based on EPD's original scheme and Kenyon and Knott, so there's nothing wrong with the fact that they don't always resemble Wikipedia's IPA for English per se, but boy is it a mess. There is something wrong in almost every row, so I go from the top.
 * [a] only appears in [ˈælfa] and [ˈbraːˈvo]. In most conventions, "a" in IPA for English usually represents the TRAP vowel (BrE) or the LOT/PALM vowel (AmE), which are more commonly represented by "æ" and "ɑ", respectively, but "æ" and "ɑ" are also used in the table, so this makes no sense.
 * In "Bravo" and "X-ray", only the first syllable is stressed in respelling while both are stressed in IPA.
 * In "Charlie", "ar" in respelling corresponds to IPA [ɑː], indicating a non-rhotic pronunciation – then why not use "ah" as you did in "Oscar"?
 * In "Golf", the respelling and IPA clearly don't match. The IPA should be [ɡɔlf] (BrE) or [ɡɔːlf] (AmE) if the respelling is taken to be correct.
 * Only in "Hotel", a long [oː] is used in an unstressed position, even though "oh" or "o" at the end of a syllable in respellings elsewhere corresponds to IPA [o].
 * The syllable divider [.] is used in "India", "Juliett", and "Romeo", where two syllabic vowels are found consecutively with no consonant in-between – then why not in "Sierra"? (Rather, the divider in "Juliett" is redundant because the stress mark serves as a divider anyway.)
 * [ə] is found only in "November" and "Papa", even though the schwa in native English words seems to be replaced by [ɑ]/"ah" elsewhere. Also, it is represented in respelling by "er" and "ah", respectively. Again, if you're indicating non-rhotic, why write "r" in the first place? And don't use the same digraph for different phonetic values, especially within the same word!
 * In "Tango" and "Yankee", we see [n] where [ŋ] would have been more appropriate.
 * In "Uniform", although the respellings seem to be giving the choice of either pronouncing it with a consonant at the beginning or without it, the IPA transcriptions differ in the third syllable too. Taken verbatim, [ˈjuːnifɔːm] and [ˈuːnifɔrm] are acceptable, but [ˈjuːnifɔrm] or [ˈuːnifɔːm] are not. ([ˈuːnifɔrm] is the only transcription where a syllable-final [r], i.e. a rhotic pronunciation, is indicated in IPA, which is yet another inconsistency in itself.)

So, as you can see, ICAO's recommendation for pronunciation is an utter mess full of inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies, so much so that it is simply impossible to translate it into proper IPA or respelling with a pre-defined key. I suspect the transcriptions have been intentionally simplified to some extent, but a transcription is useless without a pre-defined value for each letter or letter combination, especially when coupled with so many inconsistencies. They say "In order to eliminate wide variations in pronunciation, posters illustrating the desired pronunciation are available from ICAO", but I highly doubt the posters are eliminating variations at all. Nardog (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.
Hello ,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.
 * RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Coaxial power connector edits
Hi I noticed that on the page Coaxial power connector you made this edit -

"IEC 60130-10:1971 defines five DC power connectors.

· Type A: 5.5 mm OD, 2.1 mm ID (with optional screw lock)

· Type A: 5.5 mm OD, 2.5 mm ID (with optional screw lock)

· Type B: 6.0 mm OD, 2.1 mm ID

· Type B: 6.0 mm OD, 2.5 mm ID

· Type C: 3.8 mm OD, 1.1 mm ID

· Type D: 6.3 mm OD, 3.1 mm ID

· Type E: 3.4 mm OD, 1.3 mm ID"

I have looked at the actual standard IEC 60130-10:1971 and it does not define Types A to E. I'm wondering where these Types came from? Are they a common reference outside of the standard itself? Thanks Ga Rick Lee (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have a technical issue and don't have access to the files on the computer I used for researching that addition (wonderful paranoid microsoft security issue moving the HD to another computer...grrr), so can't verify what I added, but in looking at the TOC in the preview (https://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_iec60130-10%7Bed1.0%7Db.img.pdf), I find an entry for "I E C Type Designation" on page 7; what types do you see described there? . I see usage of these types in this document: https://www.mangoo.org/fileadmin/FILES/Sendea_Tools/Issue_x_Repair_guide_v2_EcoNotes_final.pdf. I also find numerous references to one in particular in various spec sheets, like this "IEC 60130-10, Type A, 5.5/2.1 mm" from http://www.qubits.at/datasheets/laser/laser_modules/cw520-01_rev3.pdf. So I don't think my addition was in error, but am continuing to look for a more verifiable source. PetesGuide, K6WEB (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello PetesGuide! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of ICS 219 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ICS 219 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/ICS 219 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)