User talk:JA.Davidson

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

Hello, this is JA.Davidson's talk page.

JA.Davidson will probably reply on this page to messages left here unless you indicate you would prefer otherwise or you look like you might need the notification or if the discussion is actually happening elsewhere. Please add a new section to the end, and don't forget to sign your message using ~~~~. Thanks. -- JA.Davidson 8:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Please start any new discussion at the bottom of this page


Hello, JA.Davidson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi again JA. I fixed the reference at Coherer. You can find info about references at WP:FOOT and WP:CITE, and even, WP:CITET. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I could have looked that up but I am so lazy today (and every day!) I did move the ref to what I hope is a more strategic point. John 21:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Connection quality is improved, not lowered.[edit]

The sentence previously said that the resistance was lowered, which means the same thing as improving the connection. — Omegatron 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not adament about it, I would just like to make it assessable to laymen. I think improved connection is clear to more people than lower resistance. John 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rereading the sentence, I don't think it previously said R was lowered. It would have to be reworded to say that, but should it? Granted, it is technically correct (and more precise) to say R is lowered, but laymen just don't get it. Since this is the lead article, I vote to make it as layman assessable as possible. What say you? John 16:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"The resistance ... is lowered by increasing the surface area of the electrode in contact with the earth"
I don't care either way, I was just saying that there was nothing wrong with the original. There's nothing wrong with your edit, either, though "improving the connection" is less specific than "lowering the resistance". — Omegatron 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually you were right in one interpretation of the sentence. Problem is it had 2 interpretations. I tried to fix that, still retaining the layman orientation, since you appear to be good with that. Thank you. -John 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving Crystal Radio Receiver[edit]

{{helpme}} Can someone move Crystal Radio Receiver to Crystal Radio? The term "receiver" is not used with Crystal Radio. I created Crystal Radio article and redirected it to Crystal Radio Receiver, which was a mistake. Now I can't get rid of the Crystal Radio article so I can move Crystal Radio Receiver to it.

There we go, moved. Hope that's what you were meaning :) Brian | (Talk) 03:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You did it! Thanks. John 05:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikify:Radio Waves[edit]

Hay, I didn't add the wikify tag, It been there for ages, but by the look of things it needs splitting up into chapters/subheadings, then a lot more content added. personally, I would suggest merging with Radio Frequency. Eŋlishnerd(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look at it and see what I can do. John 04:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

COMPUSEC cleanup tag[edit]

Hello, I listed a few things, as well as a quick rationale, regarding the {{cleanup}} tag on COMPUSEC, at Talk:COMPUSEC. -- intgr 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Transistors in diode detection[edit]

Why do you oppose that section? It is based on a normal literature source, "Radio" was the leading radio amateur journal in the Soviet Union. The original article contains the measurement data. You argumentation ("vague ideas") does not seem convincible for me. I am returning the text back again. Audriusa 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Audriusa, Someone asked me what it meant and I couldn't figure it out. I asked someone else smarter than me and they couldn't either. So if you add it back, please write it so it is easier for people to understand. If people don't understand, you don't get your point across.

If you intend to imply that a transistor in reverse bias to zener is a better detector than a comparable diode in comparable bias, then I think I can convince you otherwise. But I could not understand what you intended to imply. Thanks. John 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Computer science[edit]

Hi! Just noticed that you've signed on to WikiProject Computer science, and wanted to welcome you to the project. If you haven't done so already, please stop by the project talk page to see what's going on right now. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

About the maglev theory,[edit]

Id like to discuss further, I still don't quite understand why it doesn't work in reality.

Can we talk in real-time? my msn is

Nick, I emailed you twice.

Talk page order[edit]

John, please add new comments in talk pages to the bottom. That way future readers can grasp the flow of discussion. Melchoir 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Melchoir, thanks for that guidance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JA.Davidson (talkcontribs) 18:42, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

misinterpreted tone?[edit]

In your comments on Talk:Antenna (radio), the tone I'm reading from you is along the lines of "nothing in this article is important, it should be reduced to one paragraph". Your comment "Do we even need to address antenna models?" sounds an awful lot like "Do we even need to talk about antennas?". I'm sure that's not what you really mean, so I must have misread between the lines. Your vague aspersions on the article are just not constructive. As much as I'd like to use your comments to improve the article, they just aren't helping me any. --ssd 05:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ssd, There are three reasons I made that statement, and neither were intended to suggest we don't need to talk about antennas, nor suggest a one paragraph article. You are indeed reading the wrong tone. I believe my reasons are supportable:
I see a distinction between antennas and antenna models. I view antenna models as a means to gain information about antennas, and I view an antenna encyclopedia article as presenting (perhaps to laymen) the information gained from the models, but maybe not the models themselves.
I think the Antenna article is so long as to be unreadable. In my estimation it is almost 200K, twice the size of articles recommended as definitely needing spliting into sub articles, see WP:Size.
The content is very esoteric for an encyclopedia article. I try to view an article as providing information a person would go to an encyclopedia to see. There are a lot topics that need to be covered (in layman terms,) like how antennas are used and how they work that seem poorly covered to me. In my opinion, the article has grown with esoteric technical niche sections that only a text book should be trusted to provide. Just because we know something doesn't necessarily mean it should be written in this article; I suggest we be judicious and selective if we are to produce a good article.

please, mediate Magnetic monopole discussion[edit]

At Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Emphasis_here_is_to_the_symmetry.21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

MLS Certified OS[edit]

The assertion that LSPP certification does not imply MLS functionality is misleading. Clearly this protection profile is primarily focused on MLS, and is roughly equivalent to the Orange Book B1 in terms of functionality. However, there is now a newer and more robust Medium Robustness for Multilevel Security Protection Profile that has been approved for Common Criteria evaluations. Solaris Trusted Extensions is scheduled to receive its LSPP certification in about a month. At that time I plan to update the paragraph to clarify that it an MLS system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfaden (talkcontribs) 15:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that is misleading. What can LSPP enforce on users when it is implemented in an OE that relies on the users to voluntarily cooperate with LSPP? Just because a CC certification can be performed doesn't mean it makes sense. I think LS PP implemented in an MSPP compliant OE makes sense, because MSPP may be able to prevent LSPP from being bypassed, or simply ignored. However, LSPP implemented in a CAPP compliant OD makes no sense at all to me. John (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Back on this topic, I am affraid you are wrong. Solaris 10 Trusted Extension is not an extension on top of Solaris. MLS and MAC principles are implemented but not activated by default within the standard Solaris 10 kernel (In other things, take a look at the credential informations in the proc structures as well as Solaris 10 internals). Talking about "Trusted Extensions" simply means activation of those features, implementing a real MAC policy, applied before any DAC-like policy all over the system. Saying that because Solaris 10 have a default DAC-like setting, that complies with CAPP, means that MAC criterias and MLS security cannot be obtained without acceptance by users is totally wrong. You should edit this topic accordingly. Also, Solaris 10 Trusted Extensions is now certified EAL 4+ vs. CC-LSPP. Contact me if you need more informations.Bruno (talk)

Unspecified source for Image:NBS_120_Set.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:NBS_120_Set.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECUtalk 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I scanned the image from an NBS Circular 120, and cleaned it up with Photoshop. John (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see User talk:MECU/Image FAQ #2. MECUtalk 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not delete the image. Apparently the deleting admin agreed with me. Please contact them to request undeletion (the first step is to contact the deleting admin). If you can be proven, then prove it with information, not statements that "it can be proven". MECUtalk 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
How can we recover the image?
An admin can restore the image. Again, talk to the admin that deleted it at User talk:hmwith. Remember to sign all comments on talk pages (even your own) with ~~~~ MECUtalk 21:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I did recover the image, thanks. John (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation[edit]

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics Poll[edit]

There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 01:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast Engineering and Technology Taskforce[edit]

I would like to invite you to join the Broadcast Engineering and Technology Taskforce. Based upon your areas of interest as declared in the Participants section of WikiProject Radio, I thought you might be interested in this taskforce. --tonsofpcs (Talk) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I do have interests in it and I just may join. John (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Integrated banner for WikiProject Computer science[edit]

I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 10:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I did. John (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Headphone Ref[edit]

Its probably fine to remove it, but it is still useful in my view if there is a reference there (it ultimately makes the material more credible). Do what you like. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)



You are a contributor to I would like to invite you to various meetings happening through The Open Group and other venues on MILS, MLS, layered assurance, etc. Can you provide contact information?

R.E.Hoffman (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the invitation, I did. John (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RfD request[edit]

I saw your name at the Computer security article. The RfD → Shock site could used some expert opinions that help characterize and perhaps a likely redirect target. If you have some time, please consider helping out. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look, but that is a special area I am not very informed about, so I will pass this to a colleague also. John (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brandes Superior Matched Tone c. 1919-21.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Brandes Superior Matched Tone c. 1919-21.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Spitfire19 04:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I addressed your concern, if not, let me know exactly what is missing. John (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please edit your MLS page entry : you are wrong on Solaris Trusted Extensions[edit]

Your page on MLS systems states Solaris Trusted Extension is not a MLS system. This is a definately wrong assumption you make based on three wrong hypothesis.

First wrong hypothesis says that as Solaris is CAPP compliant it cannot be MAC aware as users have to voluntarily comply to security policy. MAC is implemented but not activated by default within default Solaris 10, so default Solaris 10 security policy is DAC-likebased, therefore being compliant to CAPP. By activating the trusted extensions within Solaris 10, the MAC policy is activated and users have nothing to say about that nor about what this policy will dictate to them.

Second wrong assumption is that Solaris Trusted Extension cannot be an MLS system because networking is included in the LSPP ST. This is totally wrong, as once Trusted Extensions is activated the networking MAC features of Solaris 10 kernel are activated, including (but bot restricted to) the use of CIPSO. You are then working on a trusted networking environment, fully MAC compliant.

Third wrong assumption is that Solaris Trusted Extension cannot be an MLS system because a graphical environment is included in the LSPP ST. This is also totally wrong. When activating the trusted extensions within Solaris you do not use any more the standard graphical server. In place, you use a dedicated, fully MAC compliant graphical server from which, as an exemple and in other things, you cannot make any drag/drop or copy/paste between graphical objects of different classification levels.

Please, document yourself (Informations can be found here) then edit this post accordingly.

Solaris 10 Trusted Extensions definately is an MLS system, fully compliant to MAC requirements, certified as such through the Common Criterias, and used as such in very sensible environements.

Let me know if you need more informations or help about rectifying your content.


Bruno. Bjgiza (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Bruno:
Please clarify where you feel these assumptions are made. I could not find them. I do not disagree with your position that those assumptions are not supported, I was just unable to find where the article makes those assumptions. It seems to me the article is factual.
If the article did assume that "as Solaris is CAPP compliant it cannot be MAC aware" then correction may be needed. However, I do not believe it states or assumes that. Your last sentence above suggests to me that you feel that since Solaris is fully compliant to CAPP+, it is MLS capable. Being fully compliant to CAPP+ does not suggest MLS capability, but it also does not preclude it. So when you say "fully MAC compliant" it is not clear what it complies with, if not CAPP+. One needs to read CAPP to understand why this is. So, it would be helpful if you can be more specific about why you feel the first assumption is made.
Please clarify why you believe the second assumption was made. I would agree that it would be incorrect to assume that a system "...cannot be an MLS system because a graphical environment is included in the LSPP ST." I did not see where that assumption was made. It appears to me the point of the article is that CAPP compliance is inadequate to assure the kernel foundation is robust enough for LSPP to do trustworthy labeling. Please clarify how that relates to networking.
Similarly, I saw no mention of a claim that Solaris "...cannot be an MLS system because a graphical environment is included in the LSPP ST." Like you, I do not see how a graphical environment could detract from LSPP. So likewise, please clarify why you think that assumption was made. John (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Reply to John :
Hi john, first, thanks for replying and accepting this discussion. Here is the quote about the first assumption :

"Because these extensions are hosted by an operating system with CAPP functionality, which assumes users will voluntarily comply with security access controls,mandatory access control is beyond the capability of Solaris..."

This is wrong as MAC principles are within Solaris but not activated by default in Solaris Kernel. In the default context, being CAPP compliant does absolutely not means those principles do not exists and cannot be activated in Solaris.
It simply means that they are not used in the perimeter of a CAPP focused default Solaris ST. What does TX is activating those principles and Solaris kernel related features, so that Solaris 'TX' do not use DAC stuff by default anymore, but real labeled and multi level implementation of MAC principles for any entity on the system, at the kernel level.
So, saying MAC is beyond Solaris's capability is far being neutral, and in addition is wrong.
While CAPP certification does not prove MAC is beyond its capability, your claim that Solaris is 'certified' for MAC is false. As far as I know, the only certifications that address its MAC is CC to CAPP+ and informed people do not view CAPP+ as evidence of MAC capability. I have even heard people claim (falsely in my opinion) that cert. to CAPP goes so far as to 'prove' it cannot do MAC but I think that goes too far. MAC capability is more than just a vendor claim, it suggests the claim is supported by high assurance evidence. CAPP+ does not rise to that, MLSPP may not either. (Where does that leave us?) John (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
As well, saying :

the labels and roles cannot be enforced on users without their voluntary cooperation

is simply totally wrong both on Solaris 10 TX (for labels and roles) and on default Solaris (for roles).
If lables & roles are robustly enforced with high assurance underlying kernel mechanisms in Solaris, then Solaris goes far beyond meeting CAPP+. So again, if it is not certified trustworthy, we cannot depend on roles and lables beyond what is certified, which is too weak for MAC. I am not unfamiliar with Solaris' kernel, and I would not be very surprised if it does have better mechanisms, but they were not evaluated under CAPP, not certified in any other way I know of and therefore amount to just another unsupported vendor claim that CC was supposed to mediate.John (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is a quote about second and third assumptions :

The security target includes both desktop and network functionality which do not warrant MLS capability

TX desktop is a multilevel desktop. It cannot be said that including a desktop in the ST do not "warrant" MLS capability as it sneakly implies that multi level TX desktop is not MLS grade, thing it have designed to be from the origin.
I think that sentence is correct as it is shown, but should be deleted. I don't think it says those functions preclude MLS, it is simply not certified worthy of MAC trust. John (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
As well with the networking : TX includes MLS Trusted Networking and CIPSO protocol. So same notice than before : saying that the multi-level networking features of TX do not warrant MLS capability of TX is wrong and sneakly means TX cannot be MLS. In any way, both of those points sounds to me very far from being neutral as well.
Without MLS cert, MLS claim is empty. Vendor claims are not neutral. CC cert is, and we have to go by that, which is provides lots of nice LSPP labling etc, but not enforced by a certified trustworthy kernel, and therefore unrelaible. In fact, I don't even know why NIST allows CAPP to be augmented with LSPP. EAL 7 to CAPP would not support LSPP for MAC. This is neutral. John (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The fact that CC certifications are minimal features checkpoint on a staticly defined target make no sense in presuming the absence or non-ability of more features. If such a point have to be pointed at anyway, or if CAPP features have to be discussed, it have to be done on a CC wikipedia entry, not used to put non neutral (and wrong) points about a technology that is CC certified.
Solaris 10 Trusted Extensions definately is a MLS system, implementing labeled and MLS grade networking and desktop.
If that claim is true, then Sun can create a TOE to showcase that capability and certify it. CAPP certifiation is the wrong PP for that. Here is an example of a nutral position: "A claim that Solaris has MLS functionality that is not shown to be trustworthy by CAPP certification, but nevertheless the vendor claims it is still trustworthy, just trust us." John (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if I could make my points more clear, or if more informations are needed.
Your points are crystal clear. Are mine?John (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Bruno. Bjgiza (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Second Reply to John : (Unindenting the thread and not inlining for ease of readability.)

Where did I say that Solaris is MAC able because of some kind of certification ?

What I say is that :

And here I do not say "... yeah... just trust me..." as you suggested I would have do. I presented key resons why it was, and anybody can check this, freely and from facts by :

About CC certification, you should understand that it do not intend to be used by "evil" companies to mislead the world and pretend to unexisting functionnalities. The eventual limitations of Protection Profiles are one thing you cannot use to negate existing products functionnalities.

I do not know where you find the assertion of Sun saying "... TX is MLS and MAC able because it has XYZ CC certification". You probably misunderstood the following : " TX is MLS and MAC able, and has an XYZ CC certification". Also, perhaps reading again Solaris 10 TX Target of Evaluation would be a nice idea.

On your side, you say you are not unfamiliar with Solaris kernel, independantly of those two negations, I'm not so sure of it as you say S10 cannot be MAC able (in fact it is), certainly can not be an MLS system (while it fully complies to MLS definition), arguing all those points based on wrong technical and functionnal facts such as those I quoted previously. Another time, check previous pointers I provide you about facts.

Most of your argumentation loops around the fact that arguing lacks in CC Protection Profile, certified systems under those profile can absolutely not pretend to MLS functionnalities. This is as correct as saying : "No cars have wheels, because security certifications made on cars do not certify they have. Never beleive those evil car manufacturers that says their cars have wheels because this have never been proved..."

Your post is both un-neutral and wrong. It will be labeled as such so to extend this discussion.

Please, edit your post.


Bruno.Bjgiza (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Bruno,
I am sorry you see it that way, but I am certain that this part of the article is neutral and right. You are not making a reasonable case to change the article to say what you want.
Your position seems to be: "Trust Sun when they claim Solaris is MAC-capable and base this article on that assumption." That is quite frankly an unreasonable and irresponsible position. MAC-capability historically meant it is strong enough to protect National secrets, (and in the Trusted Solaris arena, it still does) and to trust it, there needs to be independent coorboration of that claim, done by NIST or NSA. You concede that has not happened. Even if MAC becomes less critical, some sort of validation is necessary because some manufactors will make claims that are unreliable, I have seen it in the past and it will certainly continue.
Keeping with your anology, your claim that "it has wheels" is easily verified, but what if the car has a forged steel crankshaft, not obvious to a driver or an observer, it must be verified somehow. Security is more complex than some technologies and verification takes special methods. Consider aircraft certification, would you fly a plane without safety certification from a DER? Why doesn't FAA just take Boeing's word that its all good? You may be unfamiliar with this, but the way the security world works, no assumption that companies are evil and try to mislead is necessary to justify critical capabilities be validated independently. John (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Trustworthy MLS[edit]


I've watched you delete my corrections several times, and tried to stay factual and neutral. I agree that it is critical that security capabilities are validated independently. That is the purpose of Common Criteria evaluations, which are performed by government licensed evaluation facilities, not by the vendor. Furthermore, in almost all cases where Trusted Extensions, and its predecessor Trusted Solaris have been deployed, an appropriate government agency did its own analysis to determine whether the system provided the required functionality and assurance. Because of the nature of these deployments it is not possible to cite the reports that were generated by the accrediting agency, and I have therefore not mentioned it in this article. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to verify that thousands of these systems are in use by military and intelligence agencies. Your assertion that Trusted Extensions is not suitable for MLS deployments is a statement of opinion, since the system has been accredited for such use. I'm sorry that I can't post the details on Wikipedia, but the documents are for official use only.

Gfaden (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Gfaden, I may be aware of some of the deployments you are alluding to.
Those cases you mention are assumed to have special mitigating circumstances and citing them as examples that imply broader usefulness of a product is not responsible and not neutral and misleading and I think you would agree this article should go there.
Citing cases where DAA's have approved a product for a specific application is not considered evidence that the product is useful for some other application. In fact, for some of those cases, the DAA would not do it again, given an opportunity. Some of them have caused severe losses. Each application case must prove itself trustworthy from scratch each time unless there is a public certification that is recognized by the DAA.
But don't take my word for it, simply apply basic logic and think through this for yourself (objectively without commercial motivations) and consider what you would want to protect your own information. John (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Gimbal lock[edit]

Hello. I have found your name on the physics project page. I would appreciate a proofreading and correction of my writing work on gimbal lock. I have no mechanical engineering background, and English is not my mother language. If you have not the time and say "no" I would perfectly understand that. MathsPoetry (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You did a nice job, your English is fine! But I couldn't resist making some minor changes to try to clarify it, as I have worked with gimbled inertial measurement systems (and strapped down.) This is an extremely challenging topic to discribe with words. Please check my changes and restore or fix them if I lost any meaning. John (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the corrections! The article is really much better now! I knew I was asking to the right person :-).
However, I reverted a few details. Here is why:
  • "coordinate systems" can't by "suspended by gimbals" ;-) . This is a mixture of mathematical concepts and real life devices. I have rephrased it in terms of "as if the angles were measured by real gimbals", to stress the irreality of this comparison.
  • I don't know the exact grammar rules for capitalization in English, but, if it works as in French, there is a difference between "the Moon" (the one orbiting around the Earth) (capital "M") and "a moon" (any satellite) (small "m"). Please revert this again if I am wrong.
  • The paragraph about "gimbal lock term is misleading" was written in a generic way. You made it relative to the plane example. That is fine because we are in the "example" paragraph, so I did not revert it. But this remark remains very general.
  • In the paragraph about the Apollo 11 anecdote, I have moved again a sentence, so that each remark is close to the related quote. I think this is nicer to read from a typographical point of view, and also more logical.
  • Strictly speaking, no gimbal lock occured on Apollo 11. It's the device that was supposed to prevent it that did more harm than good. The IMU froze because the safety device blocked everything. At least if I understood well the NASA sources.
Thanks so much again for your proofreading and correction work.
OK, my pleasure, and I see your points, all good. I was sticking my neck out a little too far, glad you made appropriate reverts. John (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Silicon carbide[edit]

You have restored an image which I consider dull and uniformative - there are dozens of SiC appearances, and that grainy black picture doesn't really tell much. A similar, but much better picture is at the bottom with steel production. There are already too many pictures in that article and I thought some should go. No big deal with this revert, but please reconsider. Materialscientist (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The grainy appearance is the form used for its earliest application, and discovery for detectors in early radio. Many were using this page to identify it in early radio detectors. So while it may be uninformative for some, it may not be so for others. I did not understand what you meant by 'dull.' Can you please clarify? John (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually found some very good specimens, I will try to photograph one and post it to see what you think. John (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for delay. Overload. "Dull" referred to lack of contrast (showing sample edges would help). My problems with SiC (and alike) is that it is not supposed to be black, not even green. Pure CVD SiC is clear transparent, somewhat yellowish for 3C-SiC. Thus I accept we should show what it is, but this "is" is only current poor state of art. Yes, your images and comments are more than welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, got it. I will put this on my to-do list. An article about SiC implies pure SiC, but then again, my thought was that common use of SiC includes impure SiC that some may come here to identify, generically. That includes sand paper, radio detectors and furnace slag, as well as high purity substrates. I have a pur-ish slightly smoky crystal (reminiscent of smoky quartz, and I have a clump of black crystals that reflect all colors (pretty). John (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "it really isn't redundant. It is relevant to jewelry and early detectors per our discussion on my talk page." The reason I removed it again was GA nomination. It has passed. I have no hard feelings against that image but will allow my grumpy nature to speak a bit :-) "relevant to detectors" - we've got a detector image there, "relevant to jewelry" - how ? Jewelry uses those best-quality near colorless SiC stones whose picture I want to have there (no faceting). I accept the image shows commonly used poly-SiC, but not happy with its having no sample edges and therefore would rather look for a better one on this topic than use that particular image. I consider myself an image hunter and will try to find something, but as I mentioned, your contribution is more than welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting elections[edit]

You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Phone Plug[edit]

Can u help me obtain a plug for these older fones? They were quarter inch plugs (mono) with a right-angle body in which the two little plugs on the headphone wires were plugged.

   -  Don (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Don, I can't figure out what you are talking about. Can you give me more info? I know where you can get right angle quarter inch phone plugs, but is that what you are asking me? John (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Links to Blogs[edit]

I recently added a link to a blog on security engineering: It is Hagai's Blog, available at:

You have removed it, claiming it's a commercial ad, or something along those lines.

I would like to stress that the blog is completely professional, and Hagai is an individual specialist, not a company. TTBOMK, none of the posts even mentions and product or service, let alone attempt to sell one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake, but I looked at that site and saw as much services offered ad info. We have tried to avoid those kind of links. If the site is as you describe it, and if it stands head and shoulders above the other similar sites, I would support your addition. John (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your support[edit]

Hello, I see you are an electrical engineer. I am electrical engineer myself and I've proposed a new wikiproject, Electrical Engineering. Here is the link. I would like to ask your support. Please do participate in the discussion. Thank you. Shriram (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)