![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Please be sure to scan the archive before discussing a topic that was already discussed and resolved:
Below is a list of other articles that were split from this article or are closely related to this article which may need your help. Please take a look at these articles.
The following are Red links in the Amateur radio article which are links to articles not yet created.
Wikipedia's Category: Amateur radio organizations has a listing of clubs that have their own Wikipedia article, see if your club is listed. If it is, try expanding the aricle! If it isn't try creating the article! Anonym1ty 20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
While I don't mind appropriate photos, the article is getting a bit crowded with them. Is it time for a gallery layout? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it important to depict a variety of antennas from simple to elaborate. I'd suggest an article on amateur radio antennas.-- agr ( talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Please sign your username by adding #~~~~ on a new line under the photo that you prefer, or list another photo for consideration. Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the Montreal crop is preferred 2-1. I will add it. To agr: I think a good crop of that photo would be usable in this or other articles as well. Please consider uploading it to commons. Thanks, all. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone care to pitch in on the discussion at Talk:Radio#Revisions_to_Amateur_Radio_section? A user has proposed the paragraph needs to focus on certain specific ideas. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you know that the ham radio was used in WWII — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarbyX.R. ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am an amateur radio enthusiast and think I'll spend some time on this article. I read about this 'good article' status and I'll see if I can do that. Ham Radio Microphone ( talk) 23:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking about the sections for this article. I think the article is incomplete without an 'equipment' section. I think there might be some overlap with the Modes of communication section but not that much. I'll try to find pictures of the various pieces of equipment and add it all in. Ham Radio Microphone ( talk) 01:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Those are good points. Maybe we can significantly trim the Modes section and make the equipment section very general? Ham Radio Microphone ( talk) 04:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you all think about removing the specific and detailed information and getting it general? I think the specifics could be spunoff into their own articles. Ham Radio Microphone ( talk) 23:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I am very sorry you don't see it as an improvement. I am new to this. Please be kind and patient with me. Ham Radio Microphone ( talk) 01:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I've archived material from these years in Archive 2. I did NOT add descriptions of it to the "Moved to Talk Archive" section below. Maybe somebody would want to do that. Also, I did NOT archive the "Other Articles (List)" section below. Though it seems to be old, its contents seem to be still useful. Lou Sander ( talk) 11:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The article on DXing is mainly about SWL and similar DXing, with little or no mention of amateur radio. IMHO it ought to at least have some sort of reference to ham radio. Also, I just noticed that the Amateur Radio article doesn't have any mention of DX. Don't people still pursue DXCC? I'll try to do something about these things, but my time is severely limited these days. Also, my knowledge of ham DXing is pretty old -- though I earned DXCC for my college radio station (W4AHY), and retain my call (W3BOA), and try to get to one hamfest each year, I haven't been on the air since the 1960s. Lou Sander ( talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we need better coverage of ham antennas, either through photos in this article or maybe through a separate article. Many people's only contact with ham radio is through seeing antennas, and many antennas are mysterious and unknown objects to members of the general public.
The current photo of the beam with the Canadian flag is great to have, but it only tells part of the story. Also, it doesn't show a house, which somebody has suggested should be in all or most of the ham pictures. I have limited knowledge of the current state of the art, but I think we should have (somewhere) pictures of:
I've put up a LOT of antennas in my day, but right now I don't have a single one. I know one when I see one, though. Lou Sander ( talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed from prior posts above that ChrisRuvolo has found and organized a lot of antenna photos at commons:Category:Amateur radio antennas. Some of them would fit what I outlined above. (I particularly like the Turkish ham with his antenna-decked auto.) Lou Sander ( talk) 12:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
There are several types of amateur radio software that a typical amateur radio operator will be concerned about. Almost all modern amateur radio receiver/ transceivers have embedded computers that have firmware that is executed to provide the functions and features of the radio receiver or transceiver. This software must be provided by the original manufacturer of the equipment. The second type of software is that required to control a radio receiver or amateur radio transceiver without a front panel provided. Examples of this are the Kenwood TS-B2000 and the Ten Tec Pegasus. Both transceivers come with PC software to provide the human interface for operation. Most of the current amateur radio transceivers with front control panels, and many current radios popular with short wave listeners (SWLs) have a computer interface such as a serial port, USB port, or Ethernet port. These ports are especially useful for software programs to access for satellite tracking frequency control ( Doppler tuning), station logging, operation on the new digital modes, internet and handicap access. In many cases the software adds improved or extra functions and features over and above that provided by the original design. It is for these reasons some operators are purchasing radio control software for traditional radio operations, even if their radio has a front control panel. The software should work on all Windows 32 bit and 64 bit operating systems from Windows 2000 to Windows 7 If there is a version of the program for the Mac, or Linux, that is a positive indicator about the developer's confidence and experience. A measure of experience with this software is having versions available for other target radios. Does the installation require modification of the PC's registry? If so, you will need a special uninstall program to remove it from your computer. Can you legally install the software on more than just one computer? You should be licensed to operate a specific radio with as many copies as you want. How difficult is it to install the software? Simple is good. [1] |
This content was added as an overview of ham software. But it's written as a "how to" and sourced to a QST review of a single software package. I don't feel it's appropriate to the main article. Where else could it fit? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"Hams led the development of packet radio in the 1970s, which has employed protocols such as TCP/IP since the 1980s" While there were a few packet systems that used TCP/IP (KA9Q NOS and NET early, and linux later), the vast majority of the amateur packet network uses AX.25. This includes nearly every TNC made, and the entire NET/ROM system. If only one protocol is going to be mentioned, it should be AX.25 and not TCP/IP 24.125.243.211 ( talk) 02:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
It should be one or the other, if we observe WP:CONSISTENCY. License, practice are what we have now after recent changes, for better or worse. Thoughts? -- Albany45 ( talk) 03:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The following was contributed to Linear amplifier. I think it really belongs here if anywhere. Since it is uncited I don't think it is appropriate for me to drop it in to the article, so I'll leave it here on the talk page in case anyone knows how to reference it. -- Kvng ( talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The legal power limit for licensed amateur operators vary from country to country but in the United States it is legal to transmit up to 1.5 kW peak envelope power (PEP) output, in the UK the limit is 400 watts PEP and in Canada CA, the legal limit is 2.25 kW PEP.
Should this list be in a separate article, or merged into this article? At present it's duplicated in both, so clearly one ought to go (or at least be substantially pruned).
This is a big list. By line count, it's half the screen space of the whole article. It's also a pretty obscure list:this isn't just "HF SSB morse / VHF FM", it's all the arcane RTTY and moonbounce stuff too. IMHO, that's too much list for the lead article. This is a lead article, it has to be accessible and readable by naive readers who know no more than the term "radio ham" and are looking for the first intro.
AFAICS, the original merge was undiscussed, jut done as a spur of the moment thing by one editor, with a reputation for excessive and poorly executed merges. Andy Dingley ( talk) 08:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The HF frequencies are between 3 and 30 MHz. The article described HF as "frequencies below 30 MHz," which isn't accurate, since that would imply that 1 MHz is HF, when it isn't. I changed it to read "between 3 and 30 MHz."
73, Pianotech Talk to me!/ Contribs 12:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The article was moved to Amateur service without any discussion. This is the wrong title. In the context of a document about radio, referring to the amateur service makes sense, but out of that context it makes no sense. The serving of amateurs? Inexperienced waiters serving at table? This is not the WP:COMMONNAME and out of context makes no obvious sense at all, even to one who has had a licence for 15 years, has taught for the licencing exam, and has studied the literature. Please move it back to Amateur radio. -- Nigelj ( talk) 14:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
As used in the second sentence of the lead, beginning with, "The term "amateur" is used to specify...". I agree this word is a bit too obscure to be helpful to readers. What are alternatives? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I don’t see the point of an alternative here. It’s a word that you can understand with context clues. This isn’t the simple English wiki RJS001 ( talk) 00:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Amateur radio. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday, I
added dates to the images in the article, but
Dodger67 reverted that, stating there's nothing special about the dates of the photos that they need to be mentioned.
But I think it's important to mention that the first image illustrating the article is more than 10 years old and so is the equipment shown in the image.
Are there any other opinions about that ? -- Juergen
37.24.212.73 (
talk)
11:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
SMS to IRC/IRC to SMS Via Internet Gateway Using Mobile & HT Repeaters Automated IRC Channel Propagation Using DTMF from HT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:63:C2A2:AF00:E46C:4B23:7618:BADF ( talk) 16:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to sound out the possibility of one or more articles dealing with the Internet aspects of Amateur Radio. AFAIK there are smatterings of this, for example in QSL_card mentioning eQSL and LoTW. I got into this by looking up Logbook of The World and being surprised by how narrowly it is written. (No comparisons with other services, comments on usability, etc.) LoTW and competitors are an important part of ham radio for many amateurs.
There are many directions this could go. QSL database services would be one, but you also have DXmaps, PSKreporter, etc. You have spotting services, remote receiving sites -- you might call them real-time info services. Then there are IRLP and EchoLink, D-Star, DMR, and remote base networks -- voice networks with some data/cw extensions. There is HSMM and Amprnet. Probably more. They could all be grouped as Internet Services for Amateur Radio.
Is this a useful focus? Should there be an overview article spun off from Amateur Radio? Are there some specialized topics that deserve their own pages (eg QSL services)? Or should we expand existing articles(s)? What are the key references to include? Thoughts? I might start a page, but some early discussion would be helpful. -- Albany45 ( talk) 16:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Amateur radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
In the Activities and practices section, we say, in Wikipedia's voice:
"Chasing Dx on the HF bands is a major pastime for many radio operators. Chasing DX entails superior operator attributes. Good hearing, patience, and station design is important for the overall enjoyment of this sector of the hobby. A better understanding of propagation is required for maximum enjoyment. Careful consideration should be considered by participating stateside operators as not to unintentionally interfere with other stateside operators not interested in DX. A willingness to QSL is required to participate in the DXCC award program."
IMO, this is poorly written, and claims of "superior operator attributes" are inappropriate per WP:NOTOPINION, admonitions like "better understanding of propagation is required", etc. are contrary to WP:NOTADVICE, and urging "careful consideration by stateside operators" etc. is overly US-centric and clashes with the global view of the topic reflected by the rest of the article. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Please be sure to scan the archive before discussing a topic that was already discussed and resolved:
Below is a list of other articles that were split from this article or are closely related to this article which may need your help. Please take a look at these articles.
The following are Red links in the Amateur radio article which are links to articles not yet created.
Wikipedia's Category: Amateur radio organizations has a listing of clubs that have their own Wikipedia article, see if your club is listed. If it is, try expanding the aricle! If it isn't try creating the article! Anonym1ty 20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
While I don't mind appropriate photos, the article is getting a bit crowded with them. Is it time for a gallery layout? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it important to depict a variety of antennas from simple to elaborate. I'd suggest an article on amateur radio antennas.-- agr ( talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Please sign your username by adding #~~~~ on a new line under the photo that you prefer, or list another photo for consideration. Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the Montreal crop is preferred 2-1. I will add it. To agr: I think a good crop of that photo would be usable in this or other articles as well. Please consider uploading it to commons. Thanks, all. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone care to pitch in on the discussion at Talk:Radio#Revisions_to_Amateur_Radio_section? A user has proposed the paragraph needs to focus on certain specific ideas. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you know that the ham radio was used in WWII — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarbyX.R. ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am an amateur radio enthusiast and think I'll spend some time on this article. I read about this 'good article' status and I'll see if I can do that. Ham Radio Microphone ( talk) 23:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking about the sections for this article. I think the article is incomplete without an 'equipment' section. I think there might be some overlap with the Modes of communication section but not that much. I'll try to find pictures of the various pieces of equipment and add it all in. Ham Radio Microphone ( talk) 01:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Those are good points. Maybe we can significantly trim the Modes section and make the equipment section very general? Ham Radio Microphone ( talk) 04:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you all think about removing the specific and detailed information and getting it general? I think the specifics could be spunoff into their own articles. Ham Radio Microphone ( talk) 23:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I am very sorry you don't see it as an improvement. I am new to this. Please be kind and patient with me. Ham Radio Microphone ( talk) 01:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I've archived material from these years in Archive 2. I did NOT add descriptions of it to the "Moved to Talk Archive" section below. Maybe somebody would want to do that. Also, I did NOT archive the "Other Articles (List)" section below. Though it seems to be old, its contents seem to be still useful. Lou Sander ( talk) 11:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The article on DXing is mainly about SWL and similar DXing, with little or no mention of amateur radio. IMHO it ought to at least have some sort of reference to ham radio. Also, I just noticed that the Amateur Radio article doesn't have any mention of DX. Don't people still pursue DXCC? I'll try to do something about these things, but my time is severely limited these days. Also, my knowledge of ham DXing is pretty old -- though I earned DXCC for my college radio station (W4AHY), and retain my call (W3BOA), and try to get to one hamfest each year, I haven't been on the air since the 1960s. Lou Sander ( talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we need better coverage of ham antennas, either through photos in this article or maybe through a separate article. Many people's only contact with ham radio is through seeing antennas, and many antennas are mysterious and unknown objects to members of the general public.
The current photo of the beam with the Canadian flag is great to have, but it only tells part of the story. Also, it doesn't show a house, which somebody has suggested should be in all or most of the ham pictures. I have limited knowledge of the current state of the art, but I think we should have (somewhere) pictures of:
I've put up a LOT of antennas in my day, but right now I don't have a single one. I know one when I see one, though. Lou Sander ( talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed from prior posts above that ChrisRuvolo has found and organized a lot of antenna photos at commons:Category:Amateur radio antennas. Some of them would fit what I outlined above. (I particularly like the Turkish ham with his antenna-decked auto.) Lou Sander ( talk) 12:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
There are several types of amateur radio software that a typical amateur radio operator will be concerned about. Almost all modern amateur radio receiver/ transceivers have embedded computers that have firmware that is executed to provide the functions and features of the radio receiver or transceiver. This software must be provided by the original manufacturer of the equipment. The second type of software is that required to control a radio receiver or amateur radio transceiver without a front panel provided. Examples of this are the Kenwood TS-B2000 and the Ten Tec Pegasus. Both transceivers come with PC software to provide the human interface for operation. Most of the current amateur radio transceivers with front control panels, and many current radios popular with short wave listeners (SWLs) have a computer interface such as a serial port, USB port, or Ethernet port. These ports are especially useful for software programs to access for satellite tracking frequency control ( Doppler tuning), station logging, operation on the new digital modes, internet and handicap access. In many cases the software adds improved or extra functions and features over and above that provided by the original design. It is for these reasons some operators are purchasing radio control software for traditional radio operations, even if their radio has a front control panel. The software should work on all Windows 32 bit and 64 bit operating systems from Windows 2000 to Windows 7 If there is a version of the program for the Mac, or Linux, that is a positive indicator about the developer's confidence and experience. A measure of experience with this software is having versions available for other target radios. Does the installation require modification of the PC's registry? If so, you will need a special uninstall program to remove it from your computer. Can you legally install the software on more than just one computer? You should be licensed to operate a specific radio with as many copies as you want. How difficult is it to install the software? Simple is good. [1] |
This content was added as an overview of ham software. But it's written as a "how to" and sourced to a QST review of a single software package. I don't feel it's appropriate to the main article. Where else could it fit? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"Hams led the development of packet radio in the 1970s, which has employed protocols such as TCP/IP since the 1980s" While there were a few packet systems that used TCP/IP (KA9Q NOS and NET early, and linux later), the vast majority of the amateur packet network uses AX.25. This includes nearly every TNC made, and the entire NET/ROM system. If only one protocol is going to be mentioned, it should be AX.25 and not TCP/IP 24.125.243.211 ( talk) 02:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
It should be one or the other, if we observe WP:CONSISTENCY. License, practice are what we have now after recent changes, for better or worse. Thoughts? -- Albany45 ( talk) 03:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The following was contributed to Linear amplifier. I think it really belongs here if anywhere. Since it is uncited I don't think it is appropriate for me to drop it in to the article, so I'll leave it here on the talk page in case anyone knows how to reference it. -- Kvng ( talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The legal power limit for licensed amateur operators vary from country to country but in the United States it is legal to transmit up to 1.5 kW peak envelope power (PEP) output, in the UK the limit is 400 watts PEP and in Canada CA, the legal limit is 2.25 kW PEP.
Should this list be in a separate article, or merged into this article? At present it's duplicated in both, so clearly one ought to go (or at least be substantially pruned).
This is a big list. By line count, it's half the screen space of the whole article. It's also a pretty obscure list:this isn't just "HF SSB morse / VHF FM", it's all the arcane RTTY and moonbounce stuff too. IMHO, that's too much list for the lead article. This is a lead article, it has to be accessible and readable by naive readers who know no more than the term "radio ham" and are looking for the first intro.
AFAICS, the original merge was undiscussed, jut done as a spur of the moment thing by one editor, with a reputation for excessive and poorly executed merges. Andy Dingley ( talk) 08:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The HF frequencies are between 3 and 30 MHz. The article described HF as "frequencies below 30 MHz," which isn't accurate, since that would imply that 1 MHz is HF, when it isn't. I changed it to read "between 3 and 30 MHz."
73, Pianotech Talk to me!/ Contribs 12:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The article was moved to Amateur service without any discussion. This is the wrong title. In the context of a document about radio, referring to the amateur service makes sense, but out of that context it makes no sense. The serving of amateurs? Inexperienced waiters serving at table? This is not the WP:COMMONNAME and out of context makes no obvious sense at all, even to one who has had a licence for 15 years, has taught for the licencing exam, and has studied the literature. Please move it back to Amateur radio. -- Nigelj ( talk) 14:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
As used in the second sentence of the lead, beginning with, "The term "amateur" is used to specify...". I agree this word is a bit too obscure to be helpful to readers. What are alternatives? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I don’t see the point of an alternative here. It’s a word that you can understand with context clues. This isn’t the simple English wiki RJS001 ( talk) 00:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Amateur radio. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday, I
added dates to the images in the article, but
Dodger67 reverted that, stating there's nothing special about the dates of the photos that they need to be mentioned.
But I think it's important to mention that the first image illustrating the article is more than 10 years old and so is the equipment shown in the image.
Are there any other opinions about that ? -- Juergen
37.24.212.73 (
talk)
11:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
SMS to IRC/IRC to SMS Via Internet Gateway Using Mobile & HT Repeaters Automated IRC Channel Propagation Using DTMF from HT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:63:C2A2:AF00:E46C:4B23:7618:BADF ( talk) 16:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to sound out the possibility of one or more articles dealing with the Internet aspects of Amateur Radio. AFAIK there are smatterings of this, for example in QSL_card mentioning eQSL and LoTW. I got into this by looking up Logbook of The World and being surprised by how narrowly it is written. (No comparisons with other services, comments on usability, etc.) LoTW and competitors are an important part of ham radio for many amateurs.
There are many directions this could go. QSL database services would be one, but you also have DXmaps, PSKreporter, etc. You have spotting services, remote receiving sites -- you might call them real-time info services. Then there are IRLP and EchoLink, D-Star, DMR, and remote base networks -- voice networks with some data/cw extensions. There is HSMM and Amprnet. Probably more. They could all be grouped as Internet Services for Amateur Radio.
Is this a useful focus? Should there be an overview article spun off from Amateur Radio? Are there some specialized topics that deserve their own pages (eg QSL services)? Or should we expand existing articles(s)? What are the key references to include? Thoughts? I might start a page, but some early discussion would be helpful. -- Albany45 ( talk) 16:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Amateur radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
In the Activities and practices section, we say, in Wikipedia's voice:
"Chasing Dx on the HF bands is a major pastime for many radio operators. Chasing DX entails superior operator attributes. Good hearing, patience, and station design is important for the overall enjoyment of this sector of the hobby. A better understanding of propagation is required for maximum enjoyment. Careful consideration should be considered by participating stateside operators as not to unintentionally interfere with other stateside operators not interested in DX. A willingness to QSL is required to participate in the DXCC award program."
IMO, this is poorly written, and claims of "superior operator attributes" are inappropriate per WP:NOTOPINION, admonitions like "better understanding of propagation is required", etc. are contrary to WP:NOTADVICE, and urging "careful consideration by stateside operators" etc. is overly US-centric and clashes with the global view of the topic reflected by the rest of the article. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)