User talk:Ray Van De Walker

Article Licensing
For the record, I consented for all my work here to be GPL when I began contributing. I see no need for a creative commons, or other license for my own work.

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Tuyau
Hi Ray; Tuyau sounds really cool, and I want it to exist, but after a lot of searching, I can't find any references to reliable sources to back it up, so sadly it looks like it fails to meet the verifiability policy. Accordingly, but somwhat reluctantly, I've started a deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Tuyau: if you can add references to reliable sources, that would be great, and would save the article from deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is definitely a mistake. The correct term is trompe.  I added my vote for deletion. Ray Van De Walker 07:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've speedy-closed the AfD discussion and deleted the article. And thank you for introducing me to the trompe -- it's such a beautiful example of a simple but sophisticated machine with no moving parts apart from air and water. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss RapidIO Contribution?
Hi Ray,

Thanks for your interest in RapidIO. I've posted a comment in the talk section of that page about your addition. Please take a look - I'd like your feedback and opinion.

Cheers, Barry Wood Chair, RapidIO Technical Working Group --Barrywood568 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A page move (?) that you made a while ago
Hi Ray, in July 2002 you changed the page from an article into a redirect to a new page you created at Printed circuit board. I know it was a long time ago, but do you remember if your new page was based on the article at the "Printed circuits" title? Here are the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Printed_circuit_board&diff=130321&oldid=130306 changes you made]. It's just that I recently history-merged the "Printed circuit board" and "Printed Circuits" pages, and Spinningspark queried this action, noting the significant differences in the link above. See the discussion at my talk page and at Spinningspark's. Do you have any thoughts on whether the history merge was a good idea? If so, please reply at my talk page. Graham 87 11:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally approve of history merges so that past texts of a merged article are fully available to naive editors such as myself. The article about PCBs seems adequate on first reading, and leaving it alone is a respectable option.  The sections are not balanced. It spends a lot of time on construction techniques and very little on design, but this may be OK because a consumer view of the process is pretty mysterious. I vaguely remember some historical information about design that has apparently been removed (I didn't look for it, and it might be entirely in my head). The article ought to have links to competing methods of electronic assembly (e.g. terminal construction and wire-wrap), so that people don't think it is the end-all. Ray Van De Walker 23:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll leave it then. However, there's a problem with your signature; it doesn't contain any links to either your user or talk page, as required by the guideline. To fix this, go into your preferences and uncheck the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup ...". Thanks! Graham 87 04:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edits to Nautical Almanac
Your edits to Nautical Almanac are promotional in nature and unsupported by reliable sources. Who says the Nautical Almanac is the most widely used, or most authoritative? I do not believe your claim that there are any legal restrictions on printing almanacs. I have reverted your edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Kind of you to tell me. I do hope you restore it. "Most widely used" does lack citations. However, my navigational training books do not mention anything other than almanacs from this source (I admit that some recommend using the Air Almanac, but it's from the same offices). Also, I don't think any practical navigator would use anything other than the AA and NA. (reasoning follows in a bit) About the restriction: In fact Her Majesty's almanac office maintains a copyright, in part because the information is indeed safety-critical, and the US Almanac authorities of the naval observatory are prevented from claiming a copyright by US law. When you read the copyright, please note that it carefully covers the tabulations of actual astronomical data, but not prefaces, etc. This copyright is not secret; It's in every authorized copy. Google books can easily show it to you, though not the reason for it, which is obvious to every navigator: An unauthorized copy's tabulation could have a transcription error during typesetting, and that could cause a preventable navigation error and accident at sea with loss of life or property. The authorized commercial publisher (there is one in the US) has that right due to an agreement to publish only photographically reproduced pages. Also, their editions carefully document that their edition is both authorized and photographically reproduced. Only a fool would use an unauthorized almanac to navigate at sea. Also, I have read that some persons mistrust the commercial edition and only purchase the GPO's edition. (I remember words something like "false economy") That issue, the care with which it is produced, is exactly why knowledgable people trust it. Would you buy a ticket from someone navigating by an unauthorized NA? Best wishes. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I used the contact feature at the Government Printing Office website and received the following information from T. Brooks:

Here are the figures you requested for distribution of Publications.

Astronomical Almanac, D 213.8:, item number 0394 o Selected by 554 Federal depository libraries o Last shipped out in February of 2016

• Nautical Almanac, D 213. 11:, item number 0395 o Selected by 429 Federal depository libraries o Last shipped out in May of 2016
 * Not as good as knowing how many copies were sold, but this is a hint that the Astronomical Almanac might be more popular than the Nautical Almanac. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Facts always trump theory. Great research! Please include it! Ray Van De Walker (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Power-line communication, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Power meter. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited I²C, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I3C.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

June 8, 2024
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)