User talk:Ray Van De Walker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Article Licensing[edit]

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.


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

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 | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Rigging1.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rigging1.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 13:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rigging1 is from the out-of-copyright 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica; I'll try to put it back eventually, with an acceptable attribution. It's a professional illustration from the age of sail, and deserves to be here. Ray Van De Walker 18:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for uploading Image:GeophoneDisassembled.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECUtalk 21:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The disassembled geophone was from an amateur seismography web site in Deutschland. The creator gave permission, but apparently the robot didn't read the attribution, or something. Ray Van De Walker 18:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:All hexayurts web dimensions.png[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:All hexayurts web dimensions.png, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:All hexayurts web dimensions.png is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:All hexayurts web dimensions.png itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The web site with the image placed itself entirely in the public domain. The inventor wanted everybody to use it, without any thoughts of IP. The inventor later placed it in wikimedia himself, see below. Ray Van De Walker 18:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Pioneer 10[edit]

Hi, way back in 2003 a few edits where made to an article that has in the meantime been merged with Attitude dynamics and control by a non-registered user which may be you (I apologize if it wasn't you). Somewhere in these edits, the claim that Pioneer 10 used (small) solar sails for attitude control was inserted. The only confirmation for this which I could find on is this, and it is more a mention-in-passing and doesn't seem very reliable as it is in a general text on solar sails written by a student. Where did you (if you did indeed make this edit) get that information from? Thanks in advance for the answer. Icek (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to add that the text on is from May 2006, so this student may well have used Wikipedia as his source. Icek (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I referred to the wrong spacecraft. It should Mariner 10, not Pioneer 10. I did not make it up because I was not aware of the problem they solve before I read about it. The fuel problem with attitude jets on long duration missions is that the vehicle slowly wobbles, first one way, then the other, with the speed of the wobble set by the minimum correction burst on the attitude thruster. The vanes provided a control with a finer thrust that can be used to damp the wobbles, eventually halting fuel use for long periods. I do remember that it was a cheap experiment, and the mission engineers were surprised at how useful they became for reducing fuel use. Ray Van De Walker 02:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. For Mariner 10 this makes a lot more sense, as it is always pretty close to the Sun. Icek (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of the PDP-8 article[edit]

Hello! I did major edits of the PDP-8 in October (mostly fleshing out the instruction set and memory management) and now I see you've revised the introductory sections. I've done some light grammatical editing but am going to do heavier editing to your additions to Sec.2, Description:

  • I'll move the last two paragraphs into the next section (new Sec.3.1, "Latter-day implementations")--deleting the first sentence; you might want to re-insert the distinction between system-on-a-chip and CPU-on-a-chip
  • I'll delete the third-to-last paragraph. Non-re-entrancy, the problems it creates, and the use of ROM for code were already discussed in Sec.8.3, Subroutines, and I think the statement that non-reentrancy is the "largest single reason why the PDP-8 has remained out of use" is too categorical. (The need to shoehorn code into 128-word pages is right up there.)
  • And, in the previous paragraph, I feel that implementation details, including design decisions, for the PDP-8/S, are way too detailed for this introductory section, and maybe for this entire article, but I won't touch it at this point, except to delete the sentence that mentions the Link register, which was already mentioned in the previous paragraph.

--Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PS--I hope you'll edit this article further. You make statements like: the PDP-8's "continuing significance is as a historical example of highly-optimized computer design." Well, John McCain's campaign might be a historical example of virtuoso political decision-making, but the rest of the world isn't in on that and there is scant lasting evidence of it! I feel you are trying to document, at the start of the article, the good decision-making of the engineers and wonder whether this is relevant to the average reader. Cheers. --Spike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike-from-NH (talkcontribs) 14:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IEC 61334 an Power line communication[edit]

I notice your contributions at IEC 61334 and was wondering if you are aware of the article Power line communication. I am not quite sure how these standards work or how these subject are related, but you might want to consider a merge, redirect, or adding a paragraph at in the section entitled "Standards organizations" in Power line communication. Jon513 (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:All hexayurts web dimensions.png[edit]

File:All hexayurts web dimensions.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:All hexayurts web dimensions.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:All hexayurts web dimensions.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File:95307main fig4m.jpg is now available as Commons:File:95307main fig4m.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Island 3[edit]

I noticed you are the one adding the criticism section, and I have asked for a reliable source for it since it sounded really exotic (3mm thickness space habitat design that sustains 30 metric tons of its weight by chaining to other spheres?) I am sure that you have a source for it before you added that in, and you must have left it out by accident or absent-mindedly omitted to add it. Please discuss about it there, thank you. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* I did the calculations myself, assuming Eglin steel. I supposed that makes them original research, but the math was so easy... Oh well.
Emm... You are talking about 3mm of eglin steel supporting an average 0.9g mass of living structures, vehicles, water and air circulation systems, warming systems and radiation shielding? Giving an average nowadays supporting mass of buildings is 750~1000kg per m^2 per floor? And the safety factor of such structure is? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 05:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The useful criticism does not turn on my calculations (who cares, besides me?). It's whether resources for habitats will be scarce, and therefore priced in a market. If so, use of resources will be minimized, and Island 3 is very unlikely to be built. A less expensive alternative that was known to O'Neil is a scheme he wrote about, a "crystal palace" (after the minimalist British Exposition building), described in the NASA studies O'Neil supervised (They used to be available in PDFs at the NSS document server). These are less expensive per square meter, because they are composites of small habitats. The small habitats have smaller hoop stresses and and therefore thinner skins, because they have a much smaller pressurized cross section (5m vs 2Km). The calculations are merely my poor attempt to estimate such a structure. The general form I was calculating is an island-3-sized cylindrical net supporting habitat "beads." Inside the ~5m habitat cylinders, floors are supported by trusses that attach directly to the exterior net, so the thin skin is not involved. The skin only holds the air in, so it's sized for a 5x safety factor for the hoop stress of a 5m-diameter cylinder at 40% of STP (using O'Neil's special habitat mix). It's not 3mm; I seem to recall it being thinner.
Well, having truss to support the structures helps but I can foresee multiple issues of this design, including fast air loss(as compared to an Island 3 2m thickness wall), HVI, radiation and such. Anyway, no source is the biggest problem here, so... —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 18:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


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 Wikipedia: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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited RISC-V, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GCC. 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) 09:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Discuss RapidIO Contribution?[edit]

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[edit]

Hi Ray, in July 2002 you changed the page Printed Circuits 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 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. Graham87 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! Graham87 04:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Emergency preparedness for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emergency preparedness 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency preparedness until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 06:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Nautical Almanac[edit]

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)

Come and join us at the Wiknic[edit]

LA Meetup: 6th Wiknic, 7/15 @ Pan Pacific Park

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are cordially invited to the 6th Los Angeles Wiknic, a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is planned for Pan-Pacific Park and will be held on Saturday, July 15, 2017 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible!

I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.