User talk:Light current

Please post new messages to the TOP of my talk page (but below this notice)

Greetings!

Always nice to have a stimulating but civil discussion!!

(People just wont believe I have all day and night to discuss (and edit)-- must get out more)!

---

Please use headlines when starting new topics -----------Thank you---------

---

Saying of the day: Everything in this world is free, excepting the labour of man-------------------------

Light, could you take a look at

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj and possibly add a comment, if you feel so inclined? r b-j 16:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

revert to your user page

Sorry about that, it was a glitch and was not intentional. -- Curps 08:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Electrical substation

I have started a section at this page on protection systems and substation design. Do you know anything about this topic or know anyone who does know about the topic. One thing which I am searching for is information about the Luton flashover (a very old but important substation failure).Cadmium 12:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Im not too hot on heavy current subjects (as my user name might imply!) but you can try the following:

• User:Heron location UK?
• User:Atlant location US?
• User:BillC location UK?
• User:C J Cowie loaction

Dear Light current, thanks for the advice.Cadmium 21:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

--Light current 18:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD

You marked Bodybalance as a candidate for speedy deletion, citing "advert". Please note that this is not a criterion for speedy deletion. The appropriate action would be to nominate the article for deletion. It turns out, though, that this article has gone through an AFD in the past, and thus may fall under "Recreation of deleted material", CSD G4. jnothman ^talk 07:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Catt comments moved to talk:Ivor Catt

bipolar junction transistor

I've made some changes to the BJT article and ,as you are its major contributor, I've decided to tell you. Check my changes, they may contain some errors as I'm not a native speaker. If I've messed with the article's structure in a stupid way, please revert. Thanks!

PS: My name is Afonso Silva, and I study Telecommunications and Electronical Engineering in the University of Aveiro, Portugal. If you need some help and I'm able to comply, just ask. Afonso Silva 22:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Transformer

Hi there. I have considering the structure of the Transformer article, which seems to me to have grown unwieldy over time. I am currently working on a proposed new structure, which I've placed on a subpage of my user page at User:BillC/sandbox. For the most part, it has been shunting around sections of text, though I have deleted a couple of sentences which I thought extraneous, plus one of the pole-mounted autotransformer images. For the time being, I have commented out the two circuit symbol images, since I couldn't immediately see where to place them. At the least, I think they could be combined to compact things a little. Anyway, perhaps you'd like to take a look and offer your opinions on the new structure. --BillC 18:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bill. I didnt think the article was too unwieldy but having had a look at your sandbox, I can see nothing wrong there either except I think you've chosen the wrong pic of the pole mount transformer. THe other one is more representative. I agree with removing the winding diagrams I always thought they were not very useful.

Yes, I agree. Please just change it if you think the other was better. --BillC 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So what I suggest is that you change the page to your version and see if there are any comments! We could do with a new eye looking at it! :-)

Transformer might be a possibility for driving forward as a Featured Article candidate. There would be quite a bit of work ahead, but it would be a rewarding achievement. I'll let the restructured version sit there for a little while before taking a closer look at the article, though. --BillC 23:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes we have already identified it as a possible featured article. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronics/Task_list you will see it there under featured articles proposals.

Lecher lines

moved to talk:Transmission line

Dont be so quick to tag articles

Dont be too quick to tag articles for deletiong, my article yellow tail (wine), I just begane working on. - JedOs 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for all the confusion. I wasnt able to add into the article at the time, as I had an important phone call, yellow tail (wine) . - JedOs 03:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for tagging. Just looked very empty at the time!

Removal of image from Transformer

Hi there, just a quick comment regarding one of your edits of Transformer. I note you removed that picture as redundant; I just thought I'd ask why you consider it redundant? My rationale in adding it (it was my picture) was that we had four pictures of pole-mounted transformers and only one (not very clear IMHO) picture of a small power supply transformer. Furthermore, we had little mention of multiple tapping transformers and no picture in which the transformer's windings were actually visible. Anyway, I was tempted to reinsert it but you seem to have a fairly solid editing history so I thought before anything like doing that I'd better see if you could convince me of it's redundant-ness. You'll have to excuse me if this request is amiss:- I'm somewhat new to wikipedia. Cheers,Michael Mike1024 (t/c)

I removed it becuase it did not add anything to the article beyond that which is given by the laminated core transformer photo below and was slightly confusing in that it include other parts of the PSU that others might confuse with the transformer itself. Maybe we have too many pole mounted transformers pics as well.--Light current 18:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do feel the article could do with more of a mention of multiple tapping transformers (what I aimed to provide) but I agree that the picture does show things other than the transformer. Still, there seems no point in wasting time debating this rather than working on different entries, in which improvements will be more certain! Mike1024 (t/c) 00:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing

You should use the preview button a bit more, on Electrical engineering but your still doign a good job. --Adam1213 Talk + 11:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to be more specific?--Light current 11:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

inertia

Moved to talk:inertia

Sound familiar??

I have a suggestion for minimising the amount of substandard/incorrect information appearing on the live pages. This is as follows:

Until a new user has proved his/her reliability over a period, he/she would only be able to edit the Talk pages relating to an article and not the article itself. New articles could be submitted in the same way but only go 'live' when the new user becomes 'registered as reliable'. The only disadvantage to this is that new users would be under the scrutiny of existing users and admins and may never get their 'wings'. But this is similar to the procedure at the moment in that existing users and admins try to moderate the excessive tendencies of new users and this must take up a great deal of their time. Under my scheme, at least the live pages would probably be more accurate and hopefully be more resistant to vandalism. I think also that in this scheme new users could be mentored and encouraged to edit responsibly and not have to learn the hard way (like me) by having their edits reverted and getting into timewasting arguments with admins etc. Light current 23:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that people have partially implemented your suggestions in 2 different ways:

• Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy,
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(news)#Anon._page_creation_disabled

Please keep coming up with good ideas. --DavidCary 06:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I knew it made sense!--Light current 11:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Describe

Isn't the definition already in Wiktionary? There's not much more to say about the word "describe" besides what's already on Wiktionary. --Spring Rubber 23:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought so! so its a delete!

Sorry for heading

I restored your footer, but forgot about heading. Apologies. Too much typing with wikipedia. I agree with your apparent point of view that too much garbage is coming into wikipedia, but I am more trolerant to some additions. mikka (t) 02:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Warning

If you delete other's posts again, you will be blocked from editing. Once again: this is not your personal property. mikka (t) 01:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You are vandalising my talk page and I have the right to revert these changes. Look up the rules--Light current 02:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK I was wrong. I had a tough day. mikka (t) 02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How about opening up your talk page so people can put messages there? Or are you afraid of what might be put there?--Light current 02:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I closed it because I am about to take a long break. mikka (t) 02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cutting out Pseudo-Babble

Do you leave the real babble alone?  :) Pfalstad 21:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Im a bit bored too!--Light current 21:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

AutoShare

I'm wondering: someone reacting to a speedy-delete tag that you left at AutoShare came over to Template:Car sharing and removed all the links from the template. Was this your intention? Or did they misunderstand? I think the template is more useful with the links. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to talk:AutoShare regarding proceedings there . Thanks--Light current 16:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't

If you will persist in violating wikipedia rules, you will find yourself in trouble.Please don't remove other's comments from the talk page. It is not your property.

Funny, it says it is in the rules!

Quote from 3RR:

User pages

The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to their own user page space, on the principle that your user space is yours (for project-related purposes). Exceptions to this rule-of-thumb can occur in the case of editors identified by admins, the arbitration committee, or developers, as sockpuppets, where the sockpuppet tag is continually removed from the user page by the user. The 3RR rule may be enforced in that situation.

my bolding.

So you are wrong again my friend! You should get your facts correct before accusing people of errors.--Light current 02:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

--Light current 02:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

With top posting I am giving you a slack, although this creates inconvenience for other people. mikka (t) 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Whats a slack? If you dont like my talk page dont post on it. simple!

I am postig on it not because I like or dislike you or your page. mikka (t) 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Well dont!

Kara Ada

You improperly labelled this article as "empty". Please read the policy WP:CSD carefully. The island exists. Buy yourself google. mikka (t) 01:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Very short articles fit in to speedy deletion esp those with no links and incorrect spelling. What do you mean BUY myself google?

PLEASE read the policy WP:CSD carefully Very short articles is not among criteria. Google is a tool to verify whether the thing in question exists. Islands, villages, hillocks are all valid subjects of artciles. mikka (t) 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As I see from this talk page I am not the first one who warns you about your wrong understanding of "speedy deletion". mikka (t) 01:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell me what this means then:

This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It is an empty or very short article providing little or no context.

If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself.

Administrators, remember to check if anything links here, the page history (last edit) and any revisions of CSD before deletion.

You obviously dont know your rule from your conventions!!--Light current 18:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The article in question said it is an island in an aegean sea. Also the rule says "Google may help in determining context, though, and allow for the article's expansion.". Peace. mikka (t) 02:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with mikka, an island in the aegean sea is necessary and sufficient context (except to Americans with no classical education). But mikka, you must not place a "naked" {{empty}} tag here - the page appears on CAT:CSD and I have to waste time fixing it. -- RHaworth 03:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry again. Apologies to you and to Light current. My brains are melting today and I am acting as an asshole. mikka (t) 04:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed!--Light current 17:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't change wikipedia rules

By making convenience for yourself you are creating inconveniences to others. mikka (t) 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It not a rule. Its a convention. I am not conventional. if you dont like my page, dont post on it.

--Light current 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect tag

Hi Light Current, I just wanted to leave a quick note -- you incorrectly tagged an article of mine (Majesty (band)/Temp) with a speedy delete, reason: "incorrect hdg format." The page I created was for the copyvio process -- see Majesty (band). I noticed you did this on a couple of other articles, so I just wanted to make sure that if it wasn't just an error that you realized some pages are actually supposed to be titled like that. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not realise this and I apologise. So if they have /Temp they should be left is that right?--Light current 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Light current,

I am trying to discuss things and I am also trying to incorporate the best of your changes into the article. Evidence of the former is illustrated by the fact I made a comment on the talk page directly before I updated the electrical engineering article. Evidence of the latter is illustrated by the fact that the article has changed significantly since you first started editing it. If you keep a close eye on your writing, you can change this article for the better but if you just make rough adjustments to the article based upon your feelings they are going to be lost in subsequent updates. Try spacing your edits out, making them small, seeing if there's a concensus and then moving forward with the next edit.

Cedars 01:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

THats what I did last time - you reverted with no discussion.--Light current 01:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

autoshare thank you

Thanks much for your patience with me. You're a great asset to the encylopedia! Tedernst | talk 00:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ur very welcome! --Light current 00:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Xuqa

I believe Xuqa is notable, as it is a direct competetor to facebook & myspace, both of which have wikipedia pages. The website has over 360k registered users, in about 2 months time, which is much more than facebook had at that time. Can you explain to me why you believe the stub entry is not notable? Noah 23:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Social networking is not really a suitable topic for WP. If facebook & myspace have entries, they shouldn have.

I believe that social networking stubs do have a place in WP. Please see social networking, myspace, facebook, xanga, livejournal. The fact that those pages have been around for many months now w/ no challenges goes to show that they do in fact have a place here on WP. Unless you place the 'speedy deletion' tag on all those other social networking pages or get someone to collaborate your opinion, then I really do not see how your argument can have merit. I mean that in the most respectful way possible. Noah 23:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok remove the tag if you can defend page's inclusion.

Thank you. Noah 23:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Does this ring any bells?

New article pages and unregistered users

Im not sure if this should have been split into 2 proposals, but I'm sure someone will tell me if it should.

First, I have found it a little strange that when clicking on a red link, all users are immediately presented with the (somewhat dangerous) opportunity to create a live page. Only when the live page is created is the associated talk page created. Now I know this gives WP immediacy, but in the case where an editor has not quite got all his ideas together, there is the high probability that a substandard page will result in the first instance and probably be a candidate for speedy deletion and possible derision by readers.

1.The first part of my proposal is that when a red link is clicked, the first page to be created is the talk page relating to the subject. The article page should be created later (via a box on the talk page). This would give editors the opportunity to discuss a page and get it reasonably correct before exposing their work to the world. This could save a lot of future time-wasting edit wars if there is a general consensus before creating the live page. Editors only seem to get really fervent/worked up about stuff on live pages (rather than talk pages!)

2.The second part of my proposal is related to vandalism and general quality of articles. I propose that unregistered users can create 'talk' pages on new subjects (No harm in that) but they should not be allowed to create or edit live pages. Live page creation should only be done by registered users from a pre-existing talk page. I feel this would tremendously reduce the vandalism problem.

In short I feel these proposals if implemented, will save admins and other users a great deal of toil, tears and trouble in the future hopefully without putting off new users too much. We would need to say that another benefit of registering is that they can edit live pages instead of just the talk pages!!--Light current 02:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29"

This page was last modified 03:59, 29 November 2005. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details).

Aerial glorious

What in blazes is "no refs" and since when is it a criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks! -- Perfecto Canada 22:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It my new criterion based on recent events!--Light current 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi Light current,

I really do not want to be banned, I really want to work this out. It is okay for you to place an AfD tag on the page just please do it in the correct manner (so I can oppose the deletion).

I have added an extended note on the issue to the page please feel free to edit it to present your viewpoint.

Together I am sure we can work things out (I will not be editing for the next 5 hours).

Cedars 03:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please add new comments to the bottom of my talk page.

How to nominate an article for deletion

Hi Light current,

There are three simple steps to nominate an article for deletion, you can read them here. If you follow the three steps your AfD tag will not be removed until the users of Wikipedia have reached a decision on the matter. Otherwise the tag will be removed as there is no point having an AfD tag that cannot be acted upon. If you want me to remove the tag, do nothing and I will remove the tag in a few hours. If you want to keep the tag, please follow the steps given here. If you need further assitance, please visit the helpdesk it is specifically designed to provide new users with help using Wikipedia.

Thanks for your time,

Cedars 05:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please add new comments to the bottom of my talk page.

RfD of electrical engineering

Hi Light current,

I noticed you tagged the electrical engineering article with a redirect for deletion notice. But the page is not a redirect and there is no entry for it on the redirects for deletion listings so I have removed the notice.

Sincerely,

Cedars 02:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please add new notes to the bottom of my talk page, cheers.

Hi Light current,

I noticed you tagged the electrical engineering article with an article for deletion notice but did not create an article for deletion page. I have therefore removed the AfD notice.

Cedars 04:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes to electrical engineering

Hi Light current,

I have read the discussion while I was away - I like the previous version of the page better. I am not satisfied that this new version has majority support. Please let us keep the previous version of the page until the electrical and electronics engineering page is up-to-scratch. Not even mentioning the content, particular things that could be improved include getting rid of bad formatting and the redundant "[edit]" text, fixing citations, fixing length, etc. The previous version was proof-read many, many times - I have a feeling this new version hasn't beeen proof-read much at all. I should also remind you that previous version has already been endorsed in this survey. I am going to revert to the previous version of the page shortly.

Sincerely,

Cedars 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Light current,

I took time-out because I felt there was no way I could productively contribute to discussion without getting unnecessarily upset. However, before I left I did outline my viewpoint very clearly here. I am honestly happy to compromise, but redirecting to an article which even by the most superficial standards is not up-to-scratch is not what I believe to be a satisfactory compromise. I honestly do not believe I am being any less pragmatic than you - although I really am willing to settle on the right compromise. I will copy these comments to the electrical engineering talk page so that other interested parties have an understanding of why I, like others, am reverting.

Sincerely,

Cedars 13:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at guidelines on article ownership. I believe you're feeling that your contributions to this article make you the "owner" of it (supported by edit summaries such as "revert my version", emphasis added). Also, you have deleted the lead section of this article. Please see guidelines for lead sections to rebuild it. -Scm83x 00:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No I dont belive I own it- Im trying to improve it and make it an NPOV article. But I believe that User:Cedars believes he owns it by reverting all my edits without disscussion. I have altered the lead section to reflect the true position with regards to the differnces in terminology regarding electrical and electronics engineering.--Light current 01:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Regardless of who thinks they own it, the lead section has been deleted. The lead is the part of the article that goes before the table of contents. It used to, and probably still should, read something like:

Electrical engineering is an engineering discipline that deals with the study and application of electricity and electromagnetism. Its practitioners are called electrical engineers. Electrical engineering is a broad field that encompasses many subfields including those that deal with power, control systems, electronics and telecommunications.

Electrical engineering is sometimes distinguished from electronics engineering. Where this distinction is made, electrical engineering is considered to deal with the problems associated with large scale electrical systems such as power transmission and motor control where as electronics engineering is considered to deal with the problems associated with small scale electronic systems such as printed circuit board design and very-large-scale integration. ^[1] However for this article electronics engineering is considered to be a subfield of electrical engineering for the purposes of this article (see note).

See WP:LEAD again, and take a look at a lead section from a featured article like today's featured article, Yuan (surname). -Scm83x 01:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I see what you mean. I have rectified this now. Purely an error on my part and not intended- just a slip of the mouseLight current 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your changes to EMD E2 reverted

Dropping you a note here that I've reverted your changes to EMD E2. I couldn't see any way in which they improved the article, I'm afraid. Simply splitting off the first sentence into a tiny lead paragraph and putting the rest into a 'technical information' section made the article look really ugly. If you think it needs such a section and split, it will require a good deal of rewriting of article text and not such a quick hack-job. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed it needs rewriting- I just thought I would give it a push. I havent time to do it tho'!--Light current 17:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Privacy policy

Reverting electrical engineering

Hi Light current,

I ask you to please not revert the electrical engineering page again. The survey at 6 to 1 clearly indicates that your proposed article does not have popular support - it is rare for a poll to be as decisive as this. It would be sad to see this matter go to mediation or arbitration. In considering your next course of action, please consider that other people have put a lot of time into improving the electrical engineering article. By changing the article, you are changing their work. Please also try to look at this objectively. However you feel your work has changed the article for the better - there is now an explanation of the distinction sometimes adopted between electrical and electronics engineering in the lead and there is an electronics engineering article. It may be best for you to keep working on the electronics engineering article and then revisit this issue in a week's time. If you need to contact me please feel free to use my talk page.

Best wishes,

Cedars 00:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ten zillion flies must be right! But I will not revert the electrical engineering page back to my version. However I am most unhappy that you have fiddled the election result by bringing the poll to an early close--Light current 02:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Re Electrical/electronic engineering

It seems to me that the comments included with the votes should be considered as part of the survey. I don't think it is intended as an up or down vote. If we confine our comments in the voting area to short statements in our own numbered paragraph, other voters may be more likely to understand and respond to them. C J Cowie 01:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry CJ I dont really understand what you are saying here. What is an up or down vote?--Light current 03:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You made a comment as to what we are voting on. I think that some confusion may have been introduced by your adding the suggestion 1 & 2 headings without referring to them under the voting headings. I modified my vote by adding to my comments in my numbered voting paragraph. I would like to suggest that you do something similar. I don't know much about this survey/voting process because I have not searched wilipedia for an explanation nor have I any previous experience. From the little that I have seen, we are not exactly voting for one thing as opposed to another (up or down) but we are indicating a preference and offering comments. The process seems (I hope) to be intended to chart a direction for compromise. C J Cowie 13:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No indeed, the vote is an up or down thing. If version 2 loses, the page gets put back exactly as it was before I started changing it. At that time, we will need to start over again.--Light current 18:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Making things difficult again?

Why make pages difficult to read with multiple indents?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs)

The indentation level indicates when one comment is in reply to another comment. There are different valid indentation styles, but please don't mess with other people's comments like that. See Wikipedia:Talk page#Formatting, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, etc.

Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~, so we don't have to load up the history page to figure out who wrote it and reply. You should know this stuff by now. — Omegatron 02:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Five Stages

The five stages of theory acceptance:

a) Its not true, it cant be true

b) It might be true, but it has no importance.

c) It is true, but has no real meaning

d) It is true and maybe its important

e) I thought of it first

Trumpet

Hi. Just recently you edited the article trumpet. Sadly someone (anon. vandal) had deleted a lot of content from an earlier version. I reverted to that version (excluding your edits). I hope that you will come back to the article and contribute to the present version. David Björklund 19:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, no problem thank you!. Ive realised whats happened!

Relativistic Electromagnetism

Just saw your reply to my posting a citation to the source of much of the material in your sandbox. Actually your sandbox is in public view: it is indexed by Google, and that's how I found it. I am the author and copyright owner of the material you copied. I have no problem at all with your copying it as long as you include a reference to the source. Please either put the citation back or delete the material. Thank you. Daniel V Schroeder

Follow-up: Thanks for your explanation and for putting the citation back. I'm glad you like the material that you've quoted. Sorry if I didn't handle this situation correctly at first--I did the best I could to figure out the right protocol, but WP is pretty confusing in some ways.

By the way, I looked at the Relativistic Electromagnetism page and while I don't have time to read the whole thing carefully or edit it myself, I will make one comment: Purcell deserves a great deal of credit for bringing these arguments to the attention of physics teachers and students. Some of his pictorial arguments may even have been original. But the basic idea of using relativity to relate magnetism to electricity goes all the way back to Einstein's 1905 paper. It would be interesting to research the history of these arguments between 1905 and 1963. Anyhow, it's probably misleading to imply that Purcell was the first to do anything like this. -dvs

Thanks, Daniel for replying. Im glad you're happy. I agree that Purcell needs agreat deal of credit here and I will try to oblige. I think we may even have an article on him already on WP. I agree with the Einstein connection of course but putting electromagnetism into a form a simple engineer can understand --- well thats different again!! The main importance of this approach, to me anyway, is that it avoids the Maxwellian approach to EM that may folks find a bit hard to swallow/understand (esp displacement current).

BTW, I know its a bit audacious of me to ask, but would you mind if we used some of your excellent figures describing Purcells approach in our article?? Thank you for your interest in, and understanding of, our world wide knowledge expansion project--Light current 01:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Stuff earlier than this has been archived to User talk:Light current/Archive#1

Wiki Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Light current, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ragib 06:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)