This page has archives.Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot IIIif there are more than 4.
Glad to see a ham editing
I've now watched working engineers, advanced degrees, using WP as there first search for technical information. Then off to IEEE. I've decided to devote some time to making relavent articles technically correct. It's great that you're doing the same, it would be good to get more hams involved. I recently moved and haven't joined a new club, but I'm wondering if you have contacts that also may be interested. I'm working on some other senior engineers I work with, but so far no takers- the start up ramp to understanding the WP ecosystem is a barrier. Any thoughts/experience?
I also joined clubs only around a year ago after I moved to Arizona. For local clubs, there is the arrl club listing https://www.arrl.org/find-a-club. Here at least, though, many clubs do not use the listing. A lot of sites will just pop-up on google, but I made my current club contacts mostly via joining an ARES-affiliate emcom group and learning about more relevant local sites to find ham meetups and affiliations. For example, the most comprehensive listing of local nets is just on some ARC's website. As far as contacts that edit wikipedia, I have none. For hams on wikipedia, there is WP:WikiProject Amateur radio. I'll probably contribute to some of the articles listed here once my current non-technical CT articles are up to snuff.
On the wikipedia barriers, my recommendations are three-fold: 1) tell them to join the wikimedia discord server and ask questions of experienced user Wikipedia:Discord 2) tell them to ask questions at the teahouse at every opportunity WP:Teahouse, 3) tell them to edit lower-traffic articles, the higher the traffic (even in technical areas) to the article, the more likely edits are to be reverted, and there will also likely be some weird rules for some mean people to cite when mistreating people.
Hadn't heard for a while on superregen. Anything I can do to move this forward? WhaleFarm (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Do you think the technical aspects are solid at this point? I was just waiting for your sign off/giving you space. Pietrus1 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
I thought I was waiting on you, but no problem. I spent my WP hours usefully, I'm pretty happy now with superhet, and some Vietnam war articles I though belonged.
I think it is technically correct. For an audience of engineers unfamiliar with the area, it's a good start. For an experimenter who saw a DIY article and wants to know how it works, it's about the right amount, may get them interested in diving further.
The next step deeper, which would be getting into sampling theorm, non LTI theory, would be a really big step, and probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia. That rabbit hole is probably a PhD thesis if you were to do it service.
So I'm happy with where the technology is.
the only area I have a question for you is on the further reading. The citations I used were very narrow, maybe a page out of a book. Some of these books would be ideal for the reader that wants to know more. Is there a way you would rather see that done? WhaleFarm (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Seems like we were waiting on each other. It happens:).
Regarding the further reading section. Wikipedia does not want further reading sections to include links that are in the article already per WP:Further reading. Though note, that is just an essay. For a GA, you must scrupulously follow just this per WP:MOS/Layout#Further_reading: "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. Publications listed in further reading are formatted in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list. This section is not intended as a repository for general references or full citations that were used to create the article content. Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links."
As far as what I would rather see done on the superregen article in particular, I would love to see more presented on more-recent solid-state superregen developments. I received precisely zero education on this topic in university, despite having been through graduate school on an RF-adjacent topic. It stands to reason then that very few, even those who are not PhDs, are knowledgeable on this topic.
> That rabbit hole is probably a PhD thesis if you were to do it service.
If I'm going to add anything in the future, it would just be found via google scholar!
I'll take another look at the article when I get a chance.
Edit: as far as the deeper things go, it can be appropriate for a wikipedia article. There are extremely technical articles that have gotten through GA, but it is probably best just to present the basics in my opinion.
The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list.
On a practical note, the Tom Lee book is a must have for anyone interested in RF because it actually teaches the background. It also happens that he believes that the superregen is a great teaching tool (as do I). I use it as a reference, a page here and there. Now given that the references section is moderatly long, and it isn't used in total, is that legitimatly withing the MOS?
On the semiconductor age and optical, I'll go back and take a look at some point. I've seen some papers at IEEE, I also know of some work on using it for occupancy sensors in automobiles. I'll see what I can find.
The story of Armstrong and how he analyzed what he observed is also a possible extension. The licensing by RCA, and then abandoning, and why. This all plays in to the very complicated story of why the gain came with some distinct liabilities, and it took decades before the undertanding caught up with the observations. WhaleFarm (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Elliot Rodger peer review questions
Hello! I noticed that you asked me a question in the peer review section of the Elliot Rodger talk page. That was roughly 20 days ago, and the peer review appears to be closed, but nevertheless I wanted to answer your question.
A main source for the article is Rodger's so-called "manifesto". Numerous reliable, third party references act as the source for this information, but essentially these are reports coming directly from the manifesto. Since information from the manifeto is unchallenged opinions, I felt that extreme caution ouught to be applied when reporting on anything deriving from that source. Unfortunately, there are more than a few instances where any stray thought that rodger had has been included in the article. For instance, Elliot describes in the manifesto his experiencing what can best be described as nothing more than sibling rivalry. I don't think I could name anyone I know who grew up with siblings as experiencing 24hours a day 7days a week peace and serenity with those siblings. Sibling rivalry is de rigueur for many families, but because Elliot made an inordinately large deal about it in his manifesto, that fact has been reproduced in the Wikipedia article with undeserved urgency and import.
In an admittedly unfair comparison, I mentioned the Unibomber article on Ted Kazinsky, who similarly held extreme views and wrote a lengthy manifesto. That article is FA level quality and doesn't spend nearly as much time discussing the Unibomber's manifesto as the Rodger article discusses Elliot's manifesto (and needles to say, one of the req's for FA is completeness of details). The size of the Rodger article when compared to the unibomber article is not even close, all that despite the fact the the Unibomber lived far longer than Rodger did.
And finally, I felt that the Rodger article spent more than necessary time discusing the incel subculture, despite there being a more appropriate article on incels. Including that information I felt negatively impacted the article's neutrality, as it spent more time discussing the joy Elliot's fans have taken in his actions than the pain and suferring felt by his detractors and victims by those very same actions. Regards, Spintendo 19:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! Pietrus1 (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
The 2026 Core Contest has begun!
The Core Contest has begun! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes. Although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue working on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings or prizes.
We are now about a week in, and it's worth sharing some issues we judges have noticed in the past:
Understandability is extra important for big topics like these. Avoid jargon when possible; give context (and of course, citations), even for things that seem obvious; and always consider the age-old adage from Iridescent: "would a bright 14-year old with no prior knowledge of the topic understand this?"
Take a global perspective whenever possible. If you're writing about someone from France, consider looking at recent, high-quality sources in French. Amid language barriers, consider the careful use of an online translation tool or *shudder* a language dictionary.
Plan, plan, plan! Make an outline, a draft TOC, or some kind of gameplan. Big articles are a different beast, and it's worth figuring out structural and logistical aspects early on.
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
An extra ham sandwitch for you!
It was a pleasure, and productive, to work with you on the superregen. I'm glad that you found the subject interesting. WhaleFarm (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! I learned a lot from that article. Thanks for making it. Pietrus1 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
