User talk:Pcuser42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

File copyright problem with File:Ba 552 at Parnell.jpg[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:Ba 552 at Parnell.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Scotty McCreery[edit]

I can't talk any sense into that user so I'm not even going to bother. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My point is that instead of edit warring, use the discussion page to reach an agreement. That's what it's there for. Remember you can be blocked for violating the three revert rule. pcuser42 (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This I'm aware of. I didn't just get here. But I'm not even going to bother trying to work things out with that user. I don't have the patience for the type of person he/she is. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I just re-read this and it sounds rather rude. I'm terribly sorry. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
If you were aware of the 3RR, then why didn't you go straight to the talk page as soon as there was a dispute? pcuser42 (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I just didn't cross my mind. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:DXC's 5304 & 5391[edit]

I've put a note on his or her page asking that they provide citations for the claims they're making. --LJ Holden 23:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cheers. pcuser42 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Christ's Church[edit]

I do beg your pardon! I thought I was correcting a modern camel word, like iPhone or MacBook. I had no idea that the cathedral used a spelling different to the city. It'd be about 28 years to the day since I first clapped eyes on Christchurch, and never stopped loving the place. Haven't been back since 2009, and kind of dreading my return. Hearing that the Stone Chamber of the OPGB had been destroyed near broke my heart. Anyway, thanks for the correction. --Pete (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I only learned this recently through Wikipedia as well, lol. The cathedral's own article does use ChristChurch so it must be correct. pcuser42 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I checked the cathedral's website as well. I was astonished to find I'd made a error. They aren't consistent in usage, but the main headings use "ChristChurch", so there it is. --Pete (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits to NZR AB class page[edit]

Scotty: NZR AB classHave deleted preserved AB locos as it has been doubled up with a graph further down the page. Recently I wrote a page for NZR FA class, but it seems to have vanished into cyber space.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pricey1267 (talkcontribs) 23:14, 1 October 2012‎

I would have kept the section as it provided more detail than the table could provide - note the NZR JA class article does the same thing. pcuser42 (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DXC 5520[edit]

The DX's were all numbered back when using the 2/9/7 algorithim. Based on that the next in the sequence after 5517 would have been 5523 - it matters nothing whether its a DXB or DXC. When 5045 was renumbered for some reason the algorthim for the DXR's (5/7/3) was used instead. So 5(x5)+7(x7)+2(x3)= 66 leaves no remainder when divided by 11. So the number is 5520. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclgnd99 (talkcontribs) 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The TMS checker on the NZLocos Yahoo page disagrees with this, as does the instructions for calculating a TMS check digit. pcuser42 (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's some screenshots from the program, with DXR5520 (invalid), DXB5520 (valid), and for reference, DC4381. pcuser42 (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect... the TMS checker on the NZLocos page only validates those numbers that have been used in traffic in NZ since TMS was introduced. For example using the DC sequence both 4882 and 4968 would be valid numbers in the sequence, but because neither has been used in service they dont display as 'valid' numbers. Also, the checker doesnt recognise '8022' on its own (minus the 'DXR') as a valid number because that unit wasnt in service as a DXR in 2003 when this checker seems to have been built. And as further evidence against this checker '5310' for example shows as valid, but neither 'DXB5310' or 'DXC5310' does. So - all the DX's were renumbered in 1980 using the 2/9/7 algorithim. Using this the number that follows 551(7) is 552(3). For whatever reason this didnt happen when 5045 was renumbered, and they used the algorithim for the DXR's instead; and that - as noted above - generates a check digit of 0 when applied to '552'. I'd even ventured that the fact that 'DXB5520' shows as valid is a later addition to the list of valid fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where you're getting your methods of calculating TMS check digits from, but you do so by:
    • expanding the number (ex. check digit) to 6 digits by adding 0s if necessary (e.g. DC0438)
    • converting letters into 2 digit numbers based on their position in the alphabet (A= 01, etc: the above would become 04030438)
    • multiply each digit by increasing powers of two, and add the result
    • divide the result by 11: the remainder is the check digit
Following this process, as the TMS checker does, DXR5520 is invalid. The program can validate any number but only comes up with the "class not known" error if the number never existed, although this can be customised now. pcuser42 (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply.... All I've done is apply a 'background' algorithim to each class that calculates on the first 3 digits only (or uses '30' as the first number in the case of the EF's) and generates the correct check digit everytime. Only difference is that the numbers used vary for each class. However what I have worked out is that both my reasoning, and the one behind the calculator you have explained actually give correct answers. The variation comes from the insertion of the 'B' into the sequence, which adjusts the number from 5523 (if it was prefixed DX only like all the others) to 5520... so, i'll concede your statement in the article is correct. Guess that they must have really manipulated it to get '8' as the check digit for the first DL loco then to keep the Chinese happy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclgnd99 (talkcontribs) 08:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of the DLs, the class was reclassified from DK partly for that reason, so DL 9008 was a very happy coincidence! pcuser42 (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows RT Edit War (sigh)[edit]

Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on Windows 8.) Tuntable (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting those edits!! Rocketrod1960 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User warning[edit]

Thank you for your very polite advice. Do you think I should revise the message I put on the vandal's talk page, as per your advice? DocRuby (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. Since the vandal hasn't had a warning yet, use the Level 1 template. :) pcuser42 (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)



You've probably noticed I've been making some edits here and there to articles re: transport in Auckland. I don't plan on doing anything too drastic as I don't consider myself an expert on the topic. You seem far more knowledgeable than I on the topic, so please, feel free to go ahead and make any changes you see necessary to my contributions (esp. if they're inaccurate!).

Thanks, JoshuaWalker | Talk 06:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your edits, especially to the AT HOP article - that needed redoing!
As for "expertise", mine is mostly with the rail network so that's where I tend to edit. :) pcuser42 (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


Thank you Pcuser42 for informing me that I can use the Sandbox to view potential changes to Wikipedia articles. I regret that my methodology had the potential to negatively impact other Wikipedia users. Because I was attempting to test Wikipedia's protocol to protect live articles, I could not use the Sandbox. I will not again do anything of a similar nature.

My test revealed that an anonymous user has the ability to alter frequently accessed articles within Wikipedia. I currently understand that the sources and revision history of an article can be used to help determine its merit but I do not know how to convince my communications professor that my sense of trust for technology articles(USB) is well placed.

How can I convince a third party (non-programmer) of the validity of a Wikipedia article without directly comparing the article to known trustworthy sources?

--IP 2601:A:5380:29:A948:9962:1E9D:F980 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:5380:29:A948:9962:1E9D:F980 (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)