User talk:Glrx

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


Welcome!

Hello, Glrx, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RayTalk 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

COI term[edit]

Hi, you made a revert at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikumaroro&oldid=640039374 giving a reason of Not relevant here; refs have COI so not independent; lede should summarize body. I'm fine with the revert, but just for my own understanding I want to ask what you mean by COI as I do not understand what it means, and it's perhaps something I should know when doing any future edits/additions in other articles. Thanks Gts-tg (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Details about TIGHAR's search for AE don't belong in Nikumaroro article, and they certainly do not belong in the lede when they are not covered in the body.
WP:COI means conflict of interest. TIGHAR organized the expedition; Discovery funded and filmed part of it. Anything that those organizations say is not an independent observation about the merits of their search or the significance of the aluminum panel. Organizations often put things in the best light for them in their press releases; those press releases are often rewritten into news stories without a critical evaluation. News outlets that merely quote what insiders say are not independently reviewing the evidence. WP wants independent and reliable sources. (It can be OK to use dependent primary sources in some situations, but not usually to substantiate an extraordinary claim.)
If TIGHAR believes the aluminum panel proves AE's aircraft crashed at Nikumaroro, then isn't its mission over because the mystery has been solved? Instead, TIGHAR is seeking donations to fund another expedition in June 2015. TIGHAR has a good story about AE and some tantalizing artifacts, but it has no solid evidence. There is a big difference between what TIGHAR claims and what it can prove. It would be wonderful if they find her plane (or some other solid evidence); until then, it is just the Gardner Island hypothesis.
Glrx (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


Union find algorithm[edit]

Hi, you reverted my changes at Union find algorithm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjoint-set_data_structure), why? doing in that way it is correctly working (the root is father of itself) and it is faster (at the next call of find method it skips one step of compression).

Kimi91 (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: This revert
@Kimi91: How does it skip a compression on the next call? If you look at the code, xRoot:=Find(x) guarantees xRoot=xRoot.parent, so it makes no difference which value is used. (My edit comment said x when it should have said xRoot.) The root of a tree has no parent, so xRoot.parent is just odd. Glrx (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Linear search may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Glrx (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Spacing in mathematics[edit]

Hi, what was your reason for replacing narrow nbsp with nbsp, in Akaike information criterion? I thought that both were acceptable under the WP:Manual of Style. Narrow nbsp looks better in the context and it is closer to the math-tag style.   SolidPhase (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Transparency (  is readable while ⁃ is not) and failure to display properly on my ancient browser. Glrx (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Very curious--which browser are you using, and under what operating system? Also, how does it display?   SolidPhase (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Morse Code over IP[edit]

re: Morse code and my January 11 edit

Hello, I think it is a bad idea to remove cited stuff from wikipedia. I understand you point regarding relevance - nevertheless I doubt, that keeping tons of sound files and irrelevant learning methods, i.e. tree representations, while removing links to something somebody could nowadays use morse code is a good approach. de dg6fl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A4Fh56OSA (talkcontribs) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Butler oscillator) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Butler oscillator, Glrx!

Wikipedia editor Damirgraffiti just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Seems that the article is good enough!

To reply, leave a comment on Damirgraffiti's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Concerning the "Gear" article...[edit]

Re 13 February revert Glrx (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In the Gear article, you reverted my description of "sacrificial" plastic gear teeth, saying "Unsourced; clutches and torque/current-limited motors are a better design choice than breaking teeth". Such designs do sound better, but evidently came about later than what I was relating, which was closely paraphrased from the words of a technician who worked on such systems (such as the IBM 3800 series of high-speed laser printers). I could supply a "personal conversation" type of source/attribution, if that would help; as well as a notation that the sacrificial design is not the current/preferred version.

Please do not just delete something that may not be wrong, but merely outdated; add the more modern information.

Silverhill (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Distillation revert[edit]

Re my revert at Distillation

Hi,

Just wondering why you thought the KLM Book was not worthy. I have about 40 published articles on Distillation - 5 in Oil and Gas Journal, 1 in Hydrocarbon Process and 1 in CPE - I would think I am what they are looking for to write on Distillation

Thanks Karl Kolmetz

Karlkolmetz (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The link to the KLM book was added three times and reverted three times at Distillation. An Indonesian IP added the link as a reference even though it was not used as a reference, and Materialscientist reverted. Then Mela widiawati inserted it as further reading; once again, Materialscientist reverted. Mela widiawati then reinserted it, and I reverted.
Neither Materialscientist nor I have the final say around here. If you want the link in the article, then follow WP:BRD and bring the matter up on the talk page. If there is a consensus to add the link, then it will go in the article.
I don't know why Materialscientist reverted the addition.
I looked at the KLM book and thought it was inappropriate for the article. The article is about distillation, but the book is Distillation Column Selection and Sizing (Engineering Design Guideline). That's a narrow aspect of distillation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a design resource. WP is WP:NOTHOWTO design and build something. Even if WP were for that, the book would belong in an article about distillation columns rather than a general article on distillation. As I stated in my edit comment, the book has some interesting details. Although interesting, I don't think it is at the right level for the article. I would think a chemical engineering text on unit operations would be a more appropriate further reading item.
KLM may be the place to go for expertise on distillation columns. That's not the issue. WP is not the place to go to find chemical engineering consultants.
The book also has problems because it does not sufficiently reference sources. (There was a footnote labeled 1 in the history section, but I did not see the source. There was a URL ref for some design advice. The text does not strike me as sufficiently sourced to be a good reference.)
The book format also bothered me; it sounds in advertising for KLM Technology because the company puts its name in large letters on every page.
The book also says "Checked by Karl Kolmetz". That suggests that you have a conflict of interest about the book. See also "Kolmetz Handbook of Process Equipment Design".[1]
If you want the link in the article, bring it up on the article's talk page.
Glrx (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)