Talk:IEEE 1902.1

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is a space for IEEE 1902.1 debate and imagination. Be creative!
The article as been created in line with other IEEE article so that it can be a good reference for students and give a very precise resume of the standard.This standard is not available free of charge, so this article is also useful. Other information [1] exist in Wikipedia but it has subjective explanations on scientific analysis and is directly associated with the unique supplier of this technology. This other article (RuBee) is also too extensive to be merge with this neutral resume of the standard.
So it is not complex if you compare this article with for example the IEEE 802.11a [2], but it is true that lacks an introduction. Students from electronics and data communication will find valuable this article as the information is not available in this neutral format on the Internet.
Disclaim: I am not working with this technology or in a firm producing and selling this technology. I have knowledge in this field from my Master in Electronics. I have mentioned the unique firm selling this technology in the article because it is quite a peculiar situation. This reference as been suppressed by a robot. Brrr... A clear violation of the 1st law of robotic... I have been hurt!
Additional citations: there are no additional work on that field in the world at the present time... sorry. But, I'll see what can be add...

It looks better now ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pghislain (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after copy editing - includes my opinion on the merge with RuBee[edit]

Hey there, I'm a Copy-editor that goes by the username of Meteor Sandwich Yum, and I decided to fix up your page.

Instead of just removing the "needs cleanup" tag and going on my way, I thought I'd specify what I did and did not do:

Did:

Edited for grammar, spelling, and clarity
Removed redundant (unneeded duplicate) sections or tidbits

Did not:

Mess with the "merge proposal" tag

I'd like to say that this article is much more coherent, understandable and concise than RuBee. There is a lot of overlap between the two articles as far as information is concerned, but it seems like it would only remove the usefulness of this article if we merged it right now into that article (which has Conflicts of interest, most importantly, along with three other cleanup specifications).

This article is good on its own, at least until the other article is improved.

And nice job writing this, Pghislain! I removed so much information, it was just too much :) It told about reserved frequencies, it gave equations, and listed the different radio frequencies around the world. Above and beyond! Sorry if I ever sound snarky or impolite in my comments.

So this is where I'm going to leave it.

meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on the notice send by meteor_sandwich_yum[edit]

Dear meteor_sandwich_yum, I subscribe all your changes and thanks you for the correction of my lousy English. I have just see your notice today has I have been very occupied. The RuBee is a commercial product line implementing the IEEE 1902.1, that's why there should be 2 articles. I am now more available, if you have some ideas about some missing articles, I'll be glad to work on them. You were not impolite at all and we always try to find words to express our-self, sometimes it is difficult, the importance is the overall message that was meaningful. Pghislain (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Right now I think I'll re-write RuBee a bit before deciding if a merge would be suitable. Can't decide yet. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge declined meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]