User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Just A Question

Hello, I made an edit to capacitance (I'm 173.26.201.202) and you reverted it. I don't even disagree with the action, but I also don't know the reasons for it. And since I'm new I thought it would be good to ask so my future edits could be more useful.

Thank you, --ThorFreyaSaturn (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Pegleg

Pegleg may not be a disambiguation page in its current form, but neither is it an article in its current form. Its got a dictionary definition, a list of articles in two categories people and railroads, and no references. What is it? --Bejnar (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a stub. The lede is a bit more than a dicdef, but I grant you, not by very much. There is no point trying to turn this into a dab page when the only meaningful entry is going to be a redlink which could only contain the material that is already in the article. SpinningSpark 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by only meaningful entry is going to be a redlink? I didn't catch your drift. --Bejnar (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your modified text reads;

Pegleg often refers to an artificial limb of carved wood fitted to the remaining stump of a human leg Pegleg (prosthesis), and hence, may refer to:

Pegleg (prosthesis) does not exist. None of the other articles linked on the page need a disambiguation from pegleg (prosthesis), that is, their title is not "pegleg". This leaves no valid entries for a dab page, not counting the redlink, which are not normally acceptable as dab entries either. SpinningSpark 21:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

If you would like to review Sentence spacing and provide comments, I would be happy to do the same for your Distributed element filter peer review. Sadly, I know very little about the subject matter (of the latter article). However, I might be able to help in matters of style, prose, content, and design—especially from the viewpoint of the average reader. Airborne84 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll think about it if I can find the time, but it's not really my kind of article. I suggest you approach someone else in the meantime. SpinningSpark 16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm really just looking for help in "tightening the prose" now. That's the last major comment outstanding. If you can't get to it, OK. Airborne84 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The dab finder is here and in the Toolbox in the upper right corner of the PR. I will reply there on the rest. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes the lede does seem better now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I'll give it a look int he next 48 hours. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed your message until now as I had archived my talk page just before you left it, but had not yet recreated my talk page - sorry I messed up and missed it until now. I am quite busy IRL and will look at it and reply here in 24 hours - sorry for the delay, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - I reread just the History (and Overview) and replied at the PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I closed the PR - anyone can do it. Good luck at FAC! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Since I only reread the History at the end of the PR, I will carefully reread the whole article (which will take me a day or so) and then weigh in at the FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Scheduling

I'd no sooner try to schedule any Wikipedia editors than I'd try to herd cats. I just think it's pointless documenting trivia when the bulk of the article is unreferenced. If no one else in the entire history of the article thinks it's his job to find any references, bed*mmd if I'm going to spend any time on it either when I can spend it reverting vandals and getting into pointless talk page battles that have nothing to do with growing the encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Referencing gets done one little piece at a time. It is always worthwile adding a reference. You are out of order criticising me for doing so, even if you believe it is an unimportant part of the article. I had already said on the article talk page that I had no objection to the passage being removed, so why was it necessary to get bitey with me afterwards?

You said on my talk page that "I'd no sooner try to schedule any Wikipedia editors than I'd try to herd cats" but on the article talk page you had previously responded to me with "Dig up something on PC oscilloscopes, or how sweep works, or *anything* - the article needs that much more than a side-trip down a dead-end". That reads to me as if you are exactly trying to "herd cats". SpinningSpark 07:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. I log on every day so i can pick quarrels with anonymous people. And I gave you marching orders on what you had to do next. And we're all such capable researchers that the article has gone unreferenced for 3 years. right. good thing the process is perfect, being carried out by perfect people.that makes all the tags and observations on the generally poor quality of electrical article un-necessary. Praise Jimbo! --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Distributed element filter

Just wanted to express my awe and admiration regarding this page. --catslash (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems you will need to advertise Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Distributed element filter/archive1 to suitable editors, lest it fail from a lack of response. --catslash (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not such a good idea, it will attract an accusation of canvassing. I have notified everyone directly connected with the article and left messages on all the likely wikiprojects. If not enough people out of that group care to comment, then the article probably does not deserve FA in the first place. SpinningSpark 23:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah - stupid of me. Also I was unaware of WP:WikiProject. --catslash (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on FA status for this article. Getting that star must have cost you more sweat than writing the article in the first place. It did improve the article though. --catslash (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's passed? Well what do you know, so it has! I was beginning to think there was a rule against technical articles. Thanks muchly for all your assistance with it by the way. SpinningSpark 06:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

dB

Dear Spinningspark,

I made some edits to the dB page based on the "International Standard CEI-IEC-27-3 Letter Symbols to be used in Electrical Engineering: Logarithmic quantities and units", and editorial practices from IEEE. I did not realize the hot debate regarding power vs field quantities. As far as I know, dB is clearly defined as a power level (at least in my sources, c.f. the references in my comments in the talk page).

I work with sound levels in the ocean, and the sloppy use of dB causes us a lot of headache, even within the peer review literature. I am more than happy to contribute, but I am not sure how to reach a consensus on this.

Sincerely yours, Shofus (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Only just seen this post. SpinningSpark 09:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK Nomination for Wooden Leg

Hi! I love your hooks for your Wooden Leg DYK nomination (especially the first one) but after reviewing them they both have technical problems. Please see the DYK nomination discussion for a full explanation. If you deal with the issues please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I will return to reassess the nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I could use your help

I need some advice on several different topics, wikipedia is new to me, but I'm learning, if you could email me at <e-mail redacted> so we could talk, that would be awesome.

Thanks --Cayden Ryan (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

heat shrink tubing

HI,

First off, I apologize for not logging in when I reverted to a previous version of this page.

On September 23, 2009, "Shaddack" re-wrote this page, citing several pages on buyheatshrink.com as sources for the information. Shaddack has never, nor does he/she currently represent buyheatshrink.com.

Over the past 8 months, both you and "McGeddon" have made many modifications to the page and left the footnotes and citations to buyheatshrink.com on the page. Now, all of a sudden, it's considered "blatantly commercial reference sources". I assure you that we did not solicit any links to our site within wikipedia.

That being said, if somebody takes information from a source to make a page on wikipedia better, isn't it only right to give "credit" to the source?

The current page even says now:

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)"

I personally have spent countless hours researching and writing the text on our website. As the owner of buyheatshrink.com, I'd appreciate it if you're going to use our information that we get the credit for it.

I'm going to post this on McGeddon's talk page as well.

Best, Marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buyheatshrink (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:COI.—Tetracube (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a thread at Talk:Heat-shrink tubing#Commercial links which is where this discussion should take place so all interested editors can take part. I won't be replying to you here, nor to your e-mails unless you need to discuss something in confidence. SpinningSpark 20:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Wooden Leg: A Warrior Who Fought Custer

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Text sandwich

Hi, I made two further minor adjustments to the image placement to avoid a head bump and a section overlap. Otherwise things look good. (The remaining section overlap seems unavoidable, and I think it is OK). Monitors vary, so the new arrangement might not look the same on your screen as on mine. Please feel free to revert my changes if they don't look good to you. As for re-reviewing the whole article, I'd rather not; time is short, and I feel pressed to move on. If you have any specific questions, though, I'd be glad to try to answer them. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Spinningspark. You have new messages at Tadija's talk page.
Message added 13:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tadija^speaks 13:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

n-dimensional sequential move puzzle

is listed in the "Miscellaneous" section of the WP:GAN page with your name as a nominator, but, the article is tagged since 2009 and might fit to mathematics section (just a quick thought). Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it could go to mathematics, where do puzzles normally go? I know it is tagged, but the editor who tagged it seems to have forgotten to leave some comments to go with it. Part of the reason for going to GA is to get some comments so they can be addressed and the tag removed. SpinningSpark 07:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

backstage pass

Hi S.S.,

I've received word about the capacity of the various sections of the tour (and updated the backstage pass info to match) and therefore have closed off new registrations. Thought you'd like to know as you wanted to be kept abreast of any changes. Witty Lama 09:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mechanical filter

I just realized (doing some PR maintenance) that I never made any comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mechanical filter/archive1 despite your request on my talk page. I see it has gotten a fiar amount of comment, but if you still want my feedback, please let me know and I will be glad to take a look. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alcubierre drive

As these authors proved Alcubierre drive not working and is a scientific paper, how should I insert such a scientific result in a scientific article like Alcubierre drive is? Please, consider that this is just a preprint and, probably, it will appear in a well-reputed peer-reviewed journal. In such a case, will Wikipedia sue the authors?--Pra1998 (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What copyvio is there by that paper? I can't find any of these images used in the commons. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Which paper are you looking at? The article has recently been fixed and now cites a version with no copyvio. The one with the copyvio is on Arxiv, problem is at the top of page 2. SpinningSpark 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Foster's reactance theorem WIP

For WIP, the {{underconstruction}} template is your friend :) -Roger (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No big deal, I just couldn't work out how I had managed to hit an edit conflict under an empty subhead I had just this minute created. Thanks for helping with the article. SpinningSpark 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me?

I uploaded a whole bunch of photos from Weather Report, mostly of Jaco Pastorius and Wayne Shorter. However, we do not have a photo of the drummer, Bobby Thomas Jr.. There is a photo with Bobby Thomas (left) and Wayne Shorter, (right). We have plenty of photos of Shorter, but I was hoping you'd take this photo and slice it somewhere in the middle so we'd have a decent photo of Bobby Thomas for an infobox. It is here in Commons: [1] Thanks --let me know if you are too busy. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Durer's Rhinoceros

Hi, here is the url for the BM's research page on Dürer's Rhinoceros Print. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=1344252&partid=1&IdNum=1895,0122.714&orig=/research/search_the_collection_database/museum_no__provenance_search.aspx

Good luck with generating that BM template! Noelypole (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Inerter

Now here's an interesting thing, though perhaps you are already aware of it. I thought I'd point it out to you because of this [2] mechanical filter/network synthesis presentation (though there are many other descriptions on the web). The same presentation is in this book [3] --catslash (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning to cover this in a future article on mechanical impedance analogy. But thanks for the link. What I'm not sure of is whether the inerter has any practical uses or is just of theoretical interest. I have never seen an example of it incorporated into a real design and suspect it is just too overcomplicated to be of any real use. SpinningSpark 14:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the worm-drive realization [4] is more practical than the rack-and-pinion (but not perhaps at RF). --catslash (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

One could conceive of a MEMS device using something like that. Another interesting link, and again thanks, but it would only really be relevant in an impedance analogy article if the designer actually used electrical network analogies. SpinningSpark 16:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Local copies of Commons images

Just curious why you are requesting that File:(31669) 1999 JT6 inc.svg, File:(31669) 1999 JT6.svg, File:(4953) 1990 MU inc.svg, and File:(4953) 1990 MU.svg be kept locally. As they are on Commons, and very unlikely to be deleted from Commons, there is no valid reason to keep them here. Please reply here as I'm watching your talk page. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I do that as standard nowadays. I have had some bad experiences with images being moved to Commons, Commons finds a problem with it, does not inform the project from whence it was transferred, does not inform the author (who is on another project), does not inform the article which is using the image, and then Commons deletes the image. This is all entirely invisible to an editor on Wikipedia, it does not even trigger a watchlist of the article when the image is removed. If you are really on the ball, you might spot that the image has gone redlink next time you look at the article (but why should you look at an article you have already written?) but most likely you won't even see that because a bot comes around afterwards and removes all trace that it has ever been there. Commons does not always have a good reason for these deletions; sometimes it is just that the transfer was done incompetently and information is missing. Sometimes there just does not seem to be a valid reason: I recently rescued this image which Roger uploaded in 2007 which was deleted on Commons citing copyright violation. We know this was created by Roger and is properly licenced, so how Commons concluded copyvio is beyond me. Luckily, the user is still around to confirm he is the author, this is not always the case, on the Lecher lines article I was forced to recreate the image from scratch - completely wasted effort. We only spotted that the image from Miller effect had disappeared because someone noticed the text was referring to a figure that was not in the article. I don't want to have to keep checking up on what is happening on Commons, but even if I did it would not do any good since transferred images do not get put on my watchlist there. So please do not delete those images on Wikipedia, you will seriously piss me off if you do. SpinningSpark 18:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no reason to get pissy about it. I was merely asking why you wanted the local copies kept. Perhaps we should see about creating a category for images which are on Commons, but for which local copies are requested to be kept. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

...and I was merely replying with my reasons. Sorry if I am coming across bad-tempered about it, I regularly have to answer this question, and sometimes the images get moved anyway if I don't give a strong response. SpinningSpark 17:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Filters and ADC

Thanks for the articles on filters and ADC. Really helpful.

Kilimonian (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but the ADC article is not my work (only a small part and some diagrams). SpinningSpark 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oscilloscopes

Hello. I'm not sure I understand why you left an unsigned comment of "Jusst in case you don't have it watchlisted....", regarding an edit to the oscilloscope article. Is this supposed to mean something to me? --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Foster's reactance theorem

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle

Courcelles (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ship's Chronometer from HMS Beagle

Great article of historical importance. I have a question though. The Beagle voyage... succeeded in establishing a linked chain of reference points around the globe of known latitude..., shouldn't that be 'longitude'? or is this sentence inferring something else. Driftwood87 (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I made a mistake, it should be longitude. Actually latitude and logitude would have been the goal, but in many cases the latitudelongitude would already have been accurately known, and if not, could easily be determined by any ship with a standard sextant, even without charts. SpinningSpark 13:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow - I completely didn't know about this article until you added it to the GLAM/BM page. Well done. Make sure that with any articles you add the BM-related template to it and also a category linking it to the BM collection otherwise the stats won't pick it up :-) Witty Lama 22:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Harpy Tomb

I noticed this Wikipedia:Peer_review#Harpy_Tomb. Perhaps you'd be interested in trying to get in contact with the curator of the section via the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/One_on_one_collaborations section? In the mean time, it's an unassessed article - care to give it a quality/importance rating for the BM project? Witty Lama 23:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Curatorial input is more than welcome. I have already made Andrew Shapland aware of the article by e-mail and have asked him a specific (though now probably redundant) question on his page. On the assesment request, it is bad form for an editor to assess their own articles, someone else will need to do it. SpinningSpark 17:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Harpy Tomb

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi Spark - I was hoping that you may be interested in taking part in the July 2010 Copyediting Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, there were about 30 editors that helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1,175 articles. However, we still have a backlog of over 7,500 articles that extends back two and a half years into early 2008; we're hoping that you'd like to particpate in reducing the backlog of articles that require copyediting! Any and all help in the drive is greatly appreciated, as we need all the help we can get to reduce the number of tagged articles. Copyediting just a couple of articles can qualify you for a barnstar, and more prestigious awards are available for those who extensively copyedit. Thanks for your consideration! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you block me from editing?

It says that you blocked my IP address from editing Wikipedia pages due to personal attacks or harassment. Which is the strangest thing possible because I have not edited a single page for weeks, and certainly do not remember offending anyone. Do you have anything that you can tell me about this? (1tephania (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC))

Replied on user's talk page. SpinningSpark 09:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Rectifier

hi Spinningspark, I see that you undid my edits to this article deeming the refs as spam. Maybe the Selector guide could be seen as spam, but the 'Fundimentals of Rectifiers' is a great technical reference on Rectifiers. Could you reinstate? Thanks --Lindseyrose (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The cite was a reference for a trivial, uncontroversial statement in a largely unreferenced article. Whatever the merits of the page, it does not stand up as a genuine reference: the writers of the Rectifier article did not use that page as a source. The fact referenced could easily be referenced to any number of textbooks which are always to be preferred to manufacturer's sites, except possibly where data on a specific product is being discussed. If it belongs anywhere, it is in the external links, but I won't be putting it in: my view is that Wikipedia articles should be expanded rather than linking to other people's sites. SpinningSpark 10:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Phosphor bronze —> Phosphorus bronze: Move page ?

Thank you, for correcting my spelling mistake with phosphor dealing with oxygen-free copper. By the way, I found another and bigger similar mistake at the level of the title of the following page: Phosphor bronze. Perhaps that the creator of this page was a non-native english speaking person as me.

Question: would also this page not better deserve the title of Phosphorus bronze ? Or does this copper glow in the dark ? ;-) Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that is the normal name for this alloy, see here. Although that may be rather idiomatic. SpinningSpark 20:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this very useful verification. It was worth and I am happy not to have renamed that page. :-) Shinkolobwe (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

		The British Museum barnstar
		Thanks for Harpy and Beagle! Witty Lama 00:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Can user be reported for constant writing in languages other then English on users talk pages? After being informed about multiple times? Thanks in advance. --Tadija^speaks 14:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Communicating in English is the rule here. Ultimately, it could be taken to WP:ANI but I don't think admistrator action is needed just yet. At least one of the users concerned (who has posted on your talk page) does not seem to understand the guidelines. Polite explanation and pointing out what is required should come first. Hopefully, they will start to comply once they understand. SpinningSpark 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sulmues (talk · contribs) talks in Albanian all the time on en wiki, and as he is a bit problematic user, i really don't know how to tell him that talking on other languages is not welcomed. He has been informed multiple times. Since your advice on my talk pages, i will follow your guideline, and no other language will be here. Or translation will be included! :) Can you write to him, with few words of advice? That will surly help! Thanks, all best!! --Tadija^speaks 14:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

He should see the message I left on your talk page. That should be enough. Give him time to respond and see if he changes. From what I can see on his talk page there is not really a lot to worry about in any case - it is largely in English and I don't think we need to get out the big guns over the odd Albanian greeting or other sentence. SpinningSpark 15:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

passband figure

Could you take a look at this figure? In my browser your edits show up as a single unfiltered waveform (which disagrrees with the text). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhbdel (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Click through the image to see full size and you will see what I have drawn. The png renderings less than 500px seem to need purging but I can't seem to get it to purge at the moment. SpinningSpark 20:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded it as a png, can't work out the problem with the svg, it may eventually sort itself out as it appears to be a purging problem. SpinningSpark 21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection

I would absolutely love that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by And1Viper (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

svg question

Hello. I'm looking for someone who might be able to answer an svg question. A couple of times now I have created a drawing in Inkscape and find that it renders differently in my browser (Microsoft) after uploading to wikipedia. One time there was a black square in the browser version they didn't show up in Inkscape. Another time, arrow markers were reversed. Is there a list somewhere that describes the differences and/or workarounds? Thanks.

John.Bollenbacher@sbcglobal.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhbdel (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A workaround for the black squares thing is to add a background rectangle to your drawing with a solid fill colour (which can be white). Before saving, select everything and move up to the highest level which will ensure the spurious black squares are hidden. You should be able to get rid of them entirely: first find a drawing wich does not upload with black squares even if you remove everything, then save that as your template. If you can't achieve that, the workaround above will definitely work.

I have never seen the arrows reversed but there used to be a bug in the Wikimedia rendering that caused arrows not to rendered at all. This arose because Inkscape defines the boundaries of the object not including the arrowheads and Wikimedia could not cope with that. I think this bug has now be fixed (it is definitely fixed upstream and I think got compiled in the recent GUI changes but I am not sure) but the workaround is to select the object with the arrowheads and "convert object to path". This should work for arrows that get reversed as well as ones that disappear as the arrowheads are now specifically defined as paths and do not need any interpretation from the renderer. I don't think there is any kind of list except by doing a search on Wikimedia Bugzilla. SpinningSpark 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks/question.

keserman here.you welcomed me to wikipedia a year and more ago.i have been busy since then.thanks for the welcome.i have a question for you.you reccomended some editing learning,but is there something vital to read or something i should read for good editing.the main things,i dont want to read alot,i have a lot to do on editing itself.thanks,Keserman (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

I see that Distributed element filter finally has its well deserved FA star - congratulations! Do you still want my comments on the Mechanical filter article? (I was waiting to see waht the FAC brought up in terms of comments that may be applicable to both articles). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

One thought that I had was that the new FA (Distributed element filter) would be a good model article for tweaks to Mechanical filter. DO you want me to make comments at the talk page for the article, or do you want to open a new PR? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The venue of your review really makes no difference to me, either would be fine. You are right in the comparison of DE filter to Mechanical filter, they are very much sister articles, each represents an alternate way of making electric frequency filters. SpinningSpark 09:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see Distributed element filter is the TFA for tomorrow - congrats! I will make comments on the talk page for Mechanical filter in the next few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is?! How has that come about? SpinningSpark 13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Raul picked it - see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 17, 2010 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. The FAC was especially long and complicated, I noticed, but it's great to see that it finally got through and now is on the Main Page! Ucucha 08:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for getting my filter picture on the front page! --catslash (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with getting either the picture or the article on the front page (other than writing the article in the first place of course). It would seem you can thank User:Raul654 for the précised version on the front page and the decision to use your picture in it. SpinningSpark 10:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I realize this, but you've put in a huge amount of work, and as a result I get to see this picture on the front page - so thanks. --catslash (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding a legitimate link to a legitimate magazine under Surface Mount Technology

Quit undoing the link. You are contradicting the whole point of a user-driven reference guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.159.138 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on user's talkpage. SpinningSpark 11:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, I tried several times to write a 3d response, and just kept giving up, by that time I was "out of Friendly". John5Russell3Finley (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Bacon sandwiches

I've been out all day, so I've not been involved with fixing the problem, but your example of a usage for the {{cn}} template gave me a good chuckle. Well done :-) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

surface mount technology

You are completely inconsistent in the way you apply your spam guidelines. You delete Circuits Assembly from the links, but leave two others SMTNet and SMT Magazine, which provide EXACTLY THE SAME TYPE OF INFORMATION as does Circuits Assembly. So I must gather that SMTNet and SMT Magazine also are spam links and must be deleted, which I now have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.159.138 (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review Composite image filter

I've done the GA review for this (it was easier than I expected). This will almost certainly go GA pass, but there is one outstanding issue, in that I think that where advantages/disadvantages are given, these need more clearly to be referenced. I imagine they are in the existing references? In which case those can be re-used, I'm not too bothered about exact page numbers, but they do need to be referenced.

Other than that it is a pretty nice job I think. I'll probably take the other filter one at GAN (unless someone else takes it on), but I'll leave that till this is finished so that any issues arising out of this one, you can fix it in that one too.

Please have a careful look over my copy edits (a meta-review, I suppose) since I hope I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors or subtly changed meaning.

Best wishes and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've finally got around to completing the review and have passed it. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. I'm sorry it took me so long. Si Trew (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and don't worry about the time, that's fine with me. SpinningSpark 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Abacus reversions of my edits

> Wikis (even form IEEE) and Youtube are not quality sources

In my current profession, education, many people rank WikiPedia as non-factual and unreliable; forbidding their students from using it as a source for papers. At least on the IEEE site the editors are limited to members of the IEEE, who are filtered as to educational background, and, since it's a History Site, have an interest in historical fact.

My paper includes copious notes and cited scholarly works. It puts existing pieces of an historical puzzle together. Did you read it?

The YouTube videos were generated by me and follow closely the factual nature of my IEEE paper. Together the pair constitute fair descriptions of what the structure of ancient abaci were and how to use them with demonstrations.

> and they are not in any case making claims specific to Babylonian abacus.

Again, did you read the paper or watch the videos? They both make very specific claims about the Babylonian abacus; i.e., that it can be proven to be The Salamis Tablet, and that the methods of use can be deduced from extant artifacts.

Bottom line, the paper and videos have more substantive historical information on ancient abaci and their use by the Romans back to the Babylonians, and the connections between the two, than what's currently anyplace on WikiPedia.

A lot of what IS on WikiPedia about abacuses seems to be generated by authors of abacus websites with information that is often wrong and self serving ... and sometimes plagiarized (as my info and diagrams of the Roman Hand Abacus were).

Sks23cu (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparing the IEEE site to Wikipedia is a false comparison. Wikipedia is never to be considered a reliable source for very obvious reasons. Each article is expected to independently present reliable sources for its own verifiability. It is also generally viewed here as a false argument to compare with other articles or sections on Wikipedia. There is a vast range in the quality of our articles, some are excellent, some are atrocious, and they can't all be fixed at once because there are so many. See WP:OSE for more on this principle. The correct comparison is to what the reliable source guideline defines as a good source.

While the IEEE Global History Network should clearly be given some credibility, it falls short of our definition of a reliable source. It is a wiki with no peer review of the material on the site. There does not appear to be any kind of editorial review of material submitted - although I am happy to change my opinion on this if you can tell me otherwise. The material has the same status, more or less, of a blog, which would generally not be considered reliable unless written by a recognised expert in the field. As you say yourself, contributers are limited to members of the IEEE, so are hardly likely to be recognised experts in Babylonian history, which is the point at issue. The article cites scholars of Ancient Babylonia and the IEEE article cannot be considered equal to these, let alone placed above them. I don't doubt that the Mesopotamian abacus can be shown to be capable of all sorts of things for which it was not originally intended, but then, so can slide rules and calcualtors. The question is whether the Ancient Babylonians actually did so, and I would suggest to you that we should look in the publications of historians of Ancient Babylonia for that rather than electrical engineers.

Finally, you seem to be claiming to be the author of the IEEE GHN article. I would draw your attention to WP:SELFCITING and WP:COI. SpinningSpark 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

One more thing - on the plagiarism issue. Wikipedia should not be referring to sources which breach the copyright of others and should be removed where they are known to do this. SpinningSpark 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_multiplier

The two pictures under the stacking title have their discriptions backwards i think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.179.208.36 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that? It looks ok to me. SpinningSpark 15:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

copyedit

I tried tweaking the relevant paragraph in Mechanical filter for clarity. I probably messed things up, so feel free to revert, but I hope my slight c/e helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Phew - glad my c/e was useful, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ton

Thanks for your information on this; I’ve re-drafted that bit in the article (here) can you check it for clarity, accuracy, etc? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I've replied here. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had another go at this, and replied here. What do you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Composite image filter

Yes, thanks I noticed your edits and that you'd finished, I've just not had much of a chance to review this with the consideration it deserves. I hope I'll be able to finish the review later today (I'm on UK time). I've deliberately stood back from the article while you were in the process of editing it, and not looked at it, but I would imagine you've done more than enough to address my concerns. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Prototype filter

I've am currently reviewing the article you nominated for GA status, and as you appear to be an expert on the subject, and I myself am not extremely familiar with all the technical stuff in the article, I am probably going to ask you for clarification throughout my review. I'd also like to add that if at all possible, the article should make attempts to explain the topic in a way that hopefully more readers will be able to understand without prior expertise. Thanks, Brambleclawx 21:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine by me. This year I have started writing filter articles specifically aimed at FA (but Prototype filter is not one of them, they are Distributed element filter, which got on the front page, and Mechanical filter). I have found that the only way to succeed in getting through FAC is to have them reviewed by non-experts, I can often be quite blind to difficulties the general reader may be having. I not only do not mind you bringing these problems to my attention, but welcome it.

The articles you are reviewing are older than these, and may well have a lot more wrong with them than just unexplained technical terms. I have learned an awful lot in the past couple of years about what makes a great article. I have quite a few that I wrote in my early days at Wikipedia which could be brought up to GA standard with a bit of work, but were written with blissful ignorance of the requirements. By the way, I am not exactly a filter expert, but am a telecomms professional who just saw a particular hole in Wikipedia's coverage. SpinningSpark 15:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. My first question is: do you think it's possible to either explain what "class and order" are, or link them to appropriate articles in the section "low-pass prototypes"? Brambleclawx 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that it would be better to give questions and answers on the article talk page where they have more visibility to other editors? Anyway, filters made of a finite number of discrete components are described by a rational function, which is the ratio of two polynomial functions. The order of the filter is the order of the rational function, which is the order of the highest order of the two polynomial functions (degree of a polynomial). This is generally equal to the number of inductors + capacitors used. This is (and can only ever be) an approximation to the ideal filter response. The class of a filter is the mathematical class of the polynomials used. There are a number of different ways to optimise a filter response (maximum flatness in passband, maximum steepness of transition etc) and one can't have all of these at the same time. The class is chosen for the particular feature desired. For instance Butterworth polynomials are maximally flat and Chebyshev polynomials guarantee the flatness is within predifined limits but has a steeper transition. I don't think there is a wikilink for polynomial class, but analogue filter describes all these terms quite well. SpinningSpark 16:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. All further questions will be asked on the talk page. Brambleclawx 18:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Sparky

It's me again. I try to spare you, but.. you have a better eye and the abilities for this. I've uploaded a photo for the David Gilmour article- showing him playing lap steel guitar, (placed it, even, on his page, but I think it needs some of the excess chopped off. In Commons, it's here: [5] When you get the time would you take a look and make the photo fit around him better? The pic is barely Wikipedia-worthy, but, what the heck. OK? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

May need help

Hi, I am working on reptiles. If you hve any suggestions where new species are not covered on English Wikipedia, please let me know. I also created the category .Monotypic reptile genera.

Cheers, Bruinfan12 (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Fatcud

Hi, could you take a look at User talk:Fatcud? I'm not sure, but you may have blocked this user by mistake.  Sandstein  14:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your request

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#.C3.81nyos_Jedlik_and_the_Dynamo

Hello SpinningSpark! Is this old request still open? If so, I will see, what I can do for you. Doc Taxon (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank for the message on my talk page. Yes, it is still open as far as I'm concerned although user:Edison was the primary objector to the article's statements on Jedlik. I see the section has acquired a new reference from Nature 53 1896 since I last looked. However, the insertion is from a now blocked user who was placing a lot of dubious Hungarian related material on Wikipedia. Are you able to obtain a copy of the Nature article? We need to verify that it does contain an article on Jedlik, and if so, that it supports the claim made. SpinningSpark 06:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your are only looking for Nature 53 1896 now? What about the rest? Please reply here ... Doc Taxon (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, as well as. If the nature article is genuine, it may well contain references to the source material we seek and the problem will be solved, but I strongly suspect that it will be found to be problematic given the history of the editor concerned. Full citation below. SpinningSpark 11:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Augustus Heller (April 2, 1896), "Anianus Jedlik", Nature, 53 (1379), Norman Lockyer: 516

 Doc Taxon (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)...

Can't you read the article in Google Books completely? Doc Taxon (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you try the link yourself? I only get snippet view. SpinningSpark 15:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see more than only snippets. I will send you the pages of the Google Books issue, but it's not the best quality at all. If it is not suitable I will make copies of the magazine itself, so please let me know. I will send it via wiki mail, so please check your inbox. Doc Taxon (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Simon: "Made in Hungary" as copy from Google Books, too? But I still need your email address. ... Cheers, Doc Taxon (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "tussore"

I have the following information from Les mots du costumes from Colette Guillemard (1991) (translated from French): tussor (in English tussah silk, from the Hindi tassar) is made from thread from the wild silkworm, which is also called tussah in English, the scientific name is antheraea mylitta.

So it seems that tussah is used for the worm and the material. Hence the confusion.

I also found in the atlif (THE French online dictionary) that in French, one writes tussor or tussore, the latter being somewhat outdated. Also that the word comes from the Hindi or Hindoustani word tasar, from the Sanskrit tasara/trasara meaning shuttle. They also confirm that tussah is used to name the silkworm, not only the wild, but all silkworms.

--Glafoululle des Alpes (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Insulting comments

Regarding this edit:

Hey mate, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you or your writing. I was just trying to break up the monotony of my nitpicking with a little humor, but I realize that my sense of humor doesn't always travel well through the series of tubes. I've struck and rewritten the comment in question. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I am not in the least upset. I was just not inclined to answer a question so phrased. SpinningSpark 18:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-talkback

Hello, Spinningspark. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Straw poll#Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure and Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll: an analytical perspective.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know that you don't want talkback templates here, but the target is not a userpage and thus may not be watchlisted according to your usual method. P.S., take a moment out to visit the article that I linked--even aside the discussion at hand, it's a really interesting read.   — C M B J   12:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I do have it watchlisted, and if I didn't it means I don't care. SpinningSpark 15:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! I have passed prototype filter for GA! Good work! Brambleclawx 21:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

FrescoBot fixing section links

Bug fixed! Thanks. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 22:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Geddes Axe

Hi Spinningspark,

I noticed you recently changed the title of the article "Geddes Axe" to "Geddes' Axe." While I appreciate the point you were trying to make, the correct form of the possessive would actually be "Geddes's Axe," as even though his name ends in an "s," he was still only one person. If you wouldn't mind making this change, or going with "The Geddes Axe," (another suggestion you made), that would be appreciated. Thank you! Jrt989 (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you are right. I copied the error from the source I was reading. And I have put the same error in Wikitionary - more ammunition for them to shoot Wikipedia editors with. I am not sure if Wikipedia likes titles beginning with "The", which option do you recommend? SpinningSpark 16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a title beginning with "The" would play out either, so I'm fine with "Geddes's Axe." Best, Jrt989 (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Cavendish'contribution

Hi,

First, I need to say I have'nt got a lot of contributions on Wiki and this is the first that I get undone. I am not to sure this is the right place to react... Let me also say that English is not my first langage.

Back to my contribution on Cavendish. Contrarely to what you said, I still think it is of a certain value. As a physics teacher for many years, I often found references, in all sorts of textbooks, to Coulomb's law discovered with is newly made torsion balance followed with a discussion on Cavendish's work with the same kind of machine. Many authors, by placing these 2 subjects on a consecutive time frame seemed to imply that Cavendish's work could be a spinback from Coulomb's machine. Before exploring Wiki, I had never seen any references to Michell and is own invention of the torsion balance.

Anyways, my idea was to clarify this point and make sure that if someone wanted to relate Cavendish's work to Coulomb's discoveries, mainly because of there relatedness in time, he would need to find a clear and evident reference for this assumption.

Thanks for reading and thanks also for the time you take to revise contributions on Wiki. That tool is so great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardmarcheterre (talk • contribs) 11:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Henry Cavendish article makes no claim that Cavendish invented the torsion balance. It clearly states that he got it from John Michell which is all that is relevant to the Cavendish article. Michell's article clearly states that he invented it independantly from Coulombs's discovery and is consequently credited as co-discoverer. I can't see how that is not clear to any reader. Your last sentence is particularly unacceptable, implying with weasel words that there might be some sort of plagiarism going on. At the very least, a source is required that actually postulates this. Even then, it would probably not be acceptable since I do not believe that to be the consensus of science historians. Evidence of a significant contrary view would be required before such suggestions could be made in the article. SpinningSpark 17:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyos Jedlik

You have got one of the Anyos Jedlik articles, check your inbox. Regards, Doc Taxon (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, got it thanks. SpinningSpark 18:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried once more, to send this article, check your inbox and let me know please, if you could open it better now... Doc Taxon (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You got one more article with information about Anyos Jedlik. Please check your inbox ... Doc Taxon (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: ton (100 of a unit)

OK, so it's real slang. Would it be terrible to include a citation, so somebody can believe it? 68.36.117.147 (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I think you should do just that. SpinningSpark 22:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What should I have done?

What should I do with an IP editor who refuses to compromise? Who posted information here attacking me? Am I just supposed to take their activities and not respond?

I know I was wrong and should not have done what I did. I appreciated your warning but really what should I do with things like this? Can they post information about me in violation of numerous policies? Is it ok for someone to show up here and take pot shots from behind their IP address?--Hfarmer (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I thankyou again for your measured response.

I don't intend to out the person again or to do that to anyone else.

My question is can people just post links to the website that they did slandering me by name? Two wrongs don't make a right.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't try and con me, I am not stupid, and I can read the timestamps on the posts. Your attempted outing took place days before the post at EAR. In any case outing is not acceptable even in retaliation even if the timeline had been reversed. If someone wants to edit from an IP, that is there business, it is irrelevant who they are, and you have no business trying to reveal their true identity. SpinningSpark 20:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to con you. This individual posted a personal attack against me here. Pursuant to WP:RPA a clear cut personal attack like that can be removed. right? So I have removed it, again after that person has put that back. That's what I am talking about. I am never going to talk about their identity again. I am past it, I am not trying to justify it. That said, should they have a green light to talk about mine?

I am rightly and justly chastised.

However is their bad behavior to go without any warning even?--Hfarmer (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

They have seen sense and removed the attack from the current edition. If you would remove it from the archives that would be great, but I don't expect that to happen. Thankyou for not banning me. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed that on the EAR page already. SpinningSpark 20:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with another dispute

Could you please help with this dispute over Original research. In short the IP editor in insisting on arguing her case based on a email he/she says they got from the Author of one of the papers. I have left notice at NORN since you are somewhat familliar perhaps you would like to step in. If not I would totally understand.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Equalization

Ok, but until I did some independent research, I didn't understand a darn word of that introduction, and I'm a pretty smart person. That page needs to be re-written so that people who don't already know what EQ is can, like, read it and stuff. A lot of us music fans come here for basic information about gear and recording and come up against an impenetrable fortress of geeks showing off for each other.

I'm putting my edits back without the word "audio engineer" because they are based on two separate sources, as the footnotes indicated. Specific technical information can come later in the article, as the general population is probably more likely to be familiar with some of the applications of EQ (oh--those knobs on stereos!) than they are with "passive and active filters".

Next time, please take out the offending words or add additional information. Don't revert the whole edit.

Thanks.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, next time I’ll say something on the discussion page. Don’t want to go down any “bad roads”.

While all of what you said about coaxial video cables and phase shifting may be true, here are some concepts that I, as someone who was just plain curious about eq, didn’t have the slightest notion of:

phase equalization, passive filters, active filters, digital algorithms, relative frequency, time-delay methods, spatial directivity.

I read something like that and my reaction is, “Thanks, but if I had already known what eq was I probably wouldn’t be looking it up.”

You can’t define something in a lead by listing concepts that no one other than people already reasonably acquainted with the subject are familiar with. There needs to be some link to the general public’s prior understanding.

It would be much better to talk about the uses of eq generally than to say something like eq “is the process of using passive or active electronic elements or digital algorithms for the purpose of altering (originally flattening) the frequency response”. I understand you have a lot of expertise in this area, but try to imagine how that reads to someone who links to the equalization page because they read Johnny Marr has an eq nob on his guitar.

You have a great Einstein quote on your user page. Think grandma. First tell grandma what eq is, generally, and then go into the technical details later in the article.

I think adding information about telecommunications in the lead is a splendid idea.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for sounding combative. I'll continue this discussion on the talk:Equalization page.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful edit. Maestro!--Atlantictire (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

hello

hello, i am eduardo i am writting you from madrid, spain

congratulations for your articles about filters i ussualy design all my filters with filterfree, but i will try to do something with your wikipedia articles.

currently i work in a microwave antenna

i want to make you a question. i like very much your schematics in SVG format. how did you generated them?

please, answer me to ea3ghs at gmail.com bye! eduardo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ea3ghs (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Inkscape mainly. Sorry, I am not going to respond by e-mail. SpinningSpark 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Zino's Petrel illustration

You're welcome to collapse the discussion- what good that can come from it probably already has come from it. I don't really want to discuss it, if I'm honest. I'll read anything you have to say on the matter (it'd be very intellectually dishonest of me not to do so) but I don't want a great big village pump thread with the same arguments. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion notice

Hey mate, I started a discussion at the village pump about the inclusion of links to foreign-language wikipedia articles. I believe I summarized the situation in a fairly neutral manner, but of course I welcome your input. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC

I will be glad to look at it in a day or two. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hi, Spinningspark! Regarding your TW-B-398 request, you need to make sure your web browser allows pop-up windows from en.wikipedia.org (or secure.wikimedia.org, if you're using the secure version). Therefore, that bug report is invalid. HeyMid (contributions) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Spinningspark. You have new messages at Heymid's talk page.
Message added 16:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Modem

Spinningspark

I am disappointed that you have not read the discussion on the MODEM article, and contributed to the discussion on points that you did not agree to.

Instead, you have (1) modified the article in conflict with the consensus on the discussion page, and (2) modified the notices on the discussion page.

If you want to discuss, and you want to challange the consensus, why not either (1) create a new subsection in the discussion page, or (2) contribute to the existing discussion?

Regarding ADCs and DACs: I hope that you agree that a MODEM is not an ADC or DAC. There is a reason why no DAC is called a MODEM, and no MODEM is called a DAC: that reason is that they are conceptually different things.

Digital Signals: There is a digital signal on both sides of a MODEM. Modern MODEMS take a digital signal from a USB or Ethernet cable, and convert it to a digital signal on an Asysmetric Digital Subscriber Line: ADSL. The digital signal on an Ethernet cable is a two-level base-band signal. It goes into an ADC on your MODEM, and is cleaned up into a clean two-level base-band signal which is then ENCODED, and used to generate a multi-level multi-phase digital signal on your subscriber line. This digital signal is not an ANALOG of anything: it is not an ANALOG of a voice pressure wave, of a temperature, or a speed. It is not ANALOG data.

Analog Signals: Although data can be either analog or digital, all electrical signals, including Ethernet, USB, RS232, PSK, and FSK can be considered "analog": may require analog conditioning: may use a complex or simple ADC on the input.

MODEM: A MODEM has Digital signals on both sides: those digital signals are represented by physical E/M signals on both sides. Even a simple 300 Baud FSK modem has two distinct digital states, represented by two distinct frequencies, on the subscriber line side. On both sides of the MODEM, circuit design requires consideration of noise, attenuation, gain, resistors, capacitors, and other inherently "analog" considerations.

Analog Lines: A tradional subscriber line was called an "Analog Line" because it was conditioned for the transmission of Analog Data. Specifically, it was conditioned for the transmission of an Electrical Analog of a Sound Pressure Wave. Digital data needed to be specially conditioned for transmission on the "Analog Line". The special conditioning means specific power levels and band limits. However, all digital data everywhere now needs conditioning for line requirements: USB and Ethernet are two examples where there are strict limits on the power levels and band limits.

Electo/Magnetic Signals: All E/M signals are "smooth and continuous" in the absence of infinite power sources. When transmitting digital data, the signal smoothly and continously (and noisily) varies between one digital state (any combintation of Frequency, Phase, Level) and another.

Continuous Range: The digital signals going through your MODEM cannot take a continuous range. It's just a small number of values (8, 16, or 32 for common trellis codes). The E/M Signal is continuous, as noted above, but that's true on both sides of the MODEM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Regards David Lyon Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Take it to the modem article talk page my friend, where you don't seem to be getting any support. According to the ADSL article the modulation schemes are either carrierless amplitude phase modulation or orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing. They both sound analogue to me. SpinningSpark 18:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

question re: user name colors

Hello, I have tired to find an explanation of the various colors used for user names, but cannot find one. Can you assist me ? Thank you. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC

I had actually thought of reviewing your filter, since I have a science background (doing a GA review for caesium at present). Your review of Zino's was just the nudge I needed to actually make the effort. Given that life's too short to review everything, I see no problem with a bit of reciprocity as long as the review itself is objective Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Salem witch trials reassessment

Salem witch trials, an article to which you have contributed, is being reassessed. You can see the review here. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Analogue television synchronization

Hi Spinningspark. I just noticed this edit to Analogue television synchronization. Being that you are an admin, know about electronics, and specifically know the value of an article about sync in TV signals, I thought I should mention it to you. I looked on the talk page for a discussion of this edit and found none. It seems questionable to me, but it came from an experienced editor that has been around since 2004. Just wondering if you might be concerned as I am. Thanks. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this is an editorial matter which does not come under the authority of administrators: as far as I can see, there is no call for administrative action on this. All of the material in the redirected article would appear to have been merged, more or less "as is", into the analogue television article so there is no concern over information being lost either. Have you tried asking the editor who did it for reasons and/or the location of the discussion? I seem to recall seeing a discussion on an analogue television merge somewhere, but like you I could not immediately locate it. You are right that I do have some specific knowledge of this subject, and in fact I have had analogue television synchronization on my to do list for some time. I had intended to provide some more detailed waveform diagrams and properly reference it. I also believe that some of the timing information given is not entirely accurate, a problem that will be resolved with proper referencing. From my point of view, the article could be expanded into a good article and it would be easier to do this with it as a separate article, but there is really no harm in it being merged until such time as an editor wants to do some work on it. If you really feel strongly, you can always open a discussion yourself. SpinningSpark 08:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. You're right, the info is still there and can be expanded at any time. I didn't think of it that way. I was more concerned with the action happening without a discussion, but if you saw one, then I have no concern anymore. I mainly came to you because you have a lot of experience and knowledge in the field. I haven't run across any other users that have your experience, so I came to you because you're the expert. Thanks for the help. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend a discussion before doing a merge, but it is not necessary. Any editor is entitled to be bold and just go ahead and do something without discussion. By the same token, you are entitled to revert it if you don't like the result. After that, discussion is mandatory before doing anything else. SpinningSpark 16:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert as it's not that important to me. Also, the editor's talk page says "Grrr, Grr...go away" and other similar things so I don't want to make him upset. Besides, the whole situation gave me a chance to say hi to a fellow electronics person, so that's a good thing. Anyway, thanks for the help. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that editor can be difficult to deal with, I have come across him many times before. Please don't let him intimidate you into not doing something you have good reasons to do, it is reasoning that counts here. He seems to be permanently upset with the world (or at least Wikipedia) so I don't think you are going to make any difference to that. Let me know if there is any incivility, that is something for administrators to deal with. SpinningSpark 18:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had a number of unhappy experiences on Wikipedia which explains my reluctance to engage in disussions on my talk page. If we're talking about article content, that's what article talk pages are about. What, specificially, is the problem with merging all those stubs into Analog television? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot from my point of view, except that I had plans to expand the synchronization article one day, so I might recreate it some time in the future, but for now it looks good to me. SpinningSpark 18:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		In appreciation of your generosity, help and kindness, I hereby award the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to Spinningspark. Thank you so very much for all your help. I truly appreciate your thoughtfulness. - Hydroxonium (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem witch trials. Join us!

John5Russell3Finley (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

SWT HELP!!

Dearest Spinning Spark, I need you! I re-wrote the "Local Context" section of Salem Witch Trials but somehow couldn't get my reference to work properly. I have only done one before, and thought I remembered how, and even followed the "help" instructions, but it didn't work. I therefore have typed in at the end of the section the reference name (it is Marion Starkey, The Devil in Massachusetts, which is listed as a reference on the page) and I beg you to please type in the reference code properly, so I can go back and see how you did it. Then I can continue working on the page. I didn't want to lose what I'd written, so I left it. Thank you and sorry to bother you. --TEHodson 22:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum saved me. I'm trying to get this article into somewhat better shape. Thanks for all your support. --TEHodson 00:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

decibel article

thank you Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your decibel revert

This revert was based on a misinterpretation of my edit. I wasn't changing the English variety, I was making it more consistent with what seemed to be the consensus, since someone else had been reverted in trying to make it all British. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See my reasoning on the article talk page. My revert was to a previous version, not just your edit and I fully understand you were merely following the previous editor. SpinningSpark 17:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Bacon !

Oh won't you please consider joining WP:WikiProject Bacon? :)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Participants!
• You may also feel free to add the userbox - {{User Bacon}} - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
• The Wikipedia:Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyos Jedlik 2

Dear SpinningSpark! I've got two more articles about Anyos Jedlik. If you are you still interested I will send them to you. Cheers, Doc Taxon (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please send them through, although I have not got around to doing anything about this yet, I am keeping it on my list of tasks. SpinningSpark 10:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I just sent the file by email, Doc Taxon (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

improvements again

Ping Spinningspark, with regard to this, you might be interested in this at Talk:Inverse hyperbolic function#Notation Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Have you any reason to suppose this is the same person I issued a warning to? If so, please provide evidence with diffs.
2. If you are seeking help from me in an administrative capacity, please be clear what it is you are requesting.

SpinningSpark 10:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No request intended at this point. Just wanted to keep you posted. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Converting Encyclopedic Equations to an Equivalent Circuit

Thank you for the greeting and kind offer of help.

I do have a question. Suppose there is a set of equations for an electric or electronic object (the Telegrapher's Equations and related equations in this case) that are generally regarded as encyclopedic and backed by many references. These equations would relate voltages and currents to other voltages and currents. Further suppose I create a circuit that implements those equations. Circuit theory is really just a useful graphical way of generating equations about circuit quatities, so, in a sense, my circuit is just a translation of encyclopedic knowlege from one language (mathematics) to another (circuit theory). Anyone versed in the art of electrical engineering can verify that the circuit precisesly produces the same result as the equations, yet I cannot cite a source other than my own trade journal article. Is it legitimate to post the schematic? (which I have done, perhaps prematurely, on the articles on "Transmission Lines" and "Telegrapher's Equations") Constant314 (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing is is always a problem for anything posted on Wikipedia. If it is not possible to source something, then ultimately it should be removed from Wikipedia. It is acceptable to give a specific example which is not in the source provided that the example can readily be derived from material that is in the source by an intelligent reader. For instance, an article might give as an example of Pythagoras' theorem a 3:4:5 triangle while the source only gives the general form of Pythagoras' theorem or gives a different example. However, I remain to be convinced that your addition falls into this category, but with no sources present at all it is hard to judge. At the very least, sources are required which describe transmission lines in terms of two-port network parameters, either as a circuit or a matrix form. Sources should not be hard to find which show that two-port parameters translate into a circuit with dependant sources, that is absolutely standard. Where you could get into trouble with this is showing that this approach for transmission lines is not original research. I cannot comment on the reliability of your "own trade journal" as you have not named it. Is it published and available to others outside your organisation? Is there any kind of editorial review process or is it the kind of journal that will publish more or less anything to fill up space to support adverts and/or keep their constituency happy? You need to think about how you would respond to a challenge to the verifiability of the piece, and whatever the answer to that is, it needs to be in the article as reliable sources. SpinningSpark 12:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll do as you suggest and add a source that gives the two port parameters. I could then add some algebra to demostrate that the equivalent circuit exactly produces those parameters. I intend to add a section dealing with reflection coefficients and the two-port parameters fall out of that. As for proving it is not original research, I could show that the circuit exactly reproduces known two-port behaviour and nothing else so that there isn't any novel behaviour or result. The trade journal is EE Times. I do not know what their review process is, but would assume that it is not rigorous. Here is the link http://www.eetimes.com/design/microwave-rf-design/4200760/SPICE-Simulation-of-Transmission-Lines-by-the-Telegrapher-s-Method-Part-1-of-3-?Ecosystem=microwave-rf-design

Constant314 (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

EE Times is well-known enough for it to be usable as a ref in my opinion. Obviously, peer-reviewed journal or published textbook would be preferable, as would an ad-free link, but this is acceptable, at least in this context. I do think you need to be careful not to unbalance articles not directly on the topic of SPICE simulation with too much material on that subject, there needs to be more material on more traditional methods (ie those widely reported in the sources). SpinningSpark 16:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor of EE Times says he is the only one to reveiw the article and if he publishes something that is incorrect the readers will scream and that didn't happen. But I have found a source who gives equations for the ABCD type two-port for a transmission line and can easily show that my proposed circuit produces the same equations. So, does that go into the article or into the discussion page? Constant314 (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Proofs do not go into Wikipedia in order to justify the content. Proofs are included when they are notable and included in the sources. The content of articles, on the other hand, are justified by the content of the sources. So if an average reader looking at your sources could arrive at the conclusion that a transmission line can be represented by an equivalent circuit diagram then proofs and arguments are not necessary. If that cannot be divined from the sources then no amount of mathematical proof and reasoning makes it suitable for inclusion. Sorry if that is not the unequivocal stamp of approval you are looking for, but then nobody in this anarchy has the ability to pre-approve anything. I do think this contribution is a bit borderline, but sometimes the only way forward is to do it and see who objects. You do need to add your sources to the articles, but I don't think further reasoning in the article will help - either the sources back it up by themselves or else the sources have to be deemed inadequate. SpinningSpark 14:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You've been very helpful. Thank-you Constant314 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyos Jedlik

Dear SpinngSpark! Did the two articles come in? If so, please reply to my email (Oct 17, 2010). Thank you very much, Doc Taxon (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Welcome Message

Hi. I'm quite familular with how Wikipedia works. However, I didn't edit any pages. There might be some kind of mistake. My user name is User:Iron Chef, by the way. --68.88.233.208 (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

I see that you've got your bronze star for mechanical filter. That was very sudden! - one must hope that User:Karanacs didn't press the promote button by mistake[that didn't read the way I meant it]. Anyway, congratulations and sorry for all the hindrance I provided. I trust this dispels any lingering demotivation you may have been suffering from. --catslash (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to add my congratulations for a well-deserved FA too! I was especially impressed with your patience in a long and sometimes difficult FAC. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		The Original Barnstar, given with respect and admiration to Spinningspark in recognition of all your hard work getting Mechanical filter to Featured Article. Congratulations! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you help with this?

I've uploaded numerous photos of Rory Gallagher, but need one for one of the earliest drummers in his band; Rod de'Ath. Could you perhaps slice off the other two band members and have a workable photo of him at the drum kit, so I can put a face to who he was for his infobox on his biography? The photo is this one: [6] There are plenty of photos of the other two, but although he was an instumental part of Gallagher's formative years, this man was very sickly and didn't remain long with the band- so not only is it difficult to find photos of him, but drummer's photos are also difficult. There's one other photo with this format, if you think it will work better: [7] (I doubt the last one is best because you can see so little of his face). Thanks for all your help! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you OK?

Hope you are just taking an extended break, and that no great evil has befallen you.

By your example you have inspired me to do something constructive myself and try for wiki-recognition (just DYK, not GA and certainly not FA). I'm just waiting to be shot down, but getting no response yet.

Let us know if you are OK. --catslash (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine, but I've lost my home internet connection so I am on enforced wikibreak. Thanks for the concern - and my apologies for all those things I am sure to be neglecting. 193.63.86.253 (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Danish logo.png

Thank you for uploading File:Danish logo.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Angr (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As you are taking a break, I've put a {{non-free logo}} tag on this. --catslash (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 11, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 11, 2010. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 06:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A mechanical filter is a signal processing filter usually used in place of an electronic filter at radio frequencies. Its purpose is the same as that of a normal electronic filter: to allow a range of signal frequencies to pass, but to block others. The filter acts on mechanical vibrations which are the analogue of the electrical signal. At the input and output of the filter there are transducers which convert the electrical signal into, and then back from, these mechanical vibrations. The mechanical elements obey mathematical functions which are identical to their corresponding electrical elements. Electrical theory has developed a large library of mathematical forms that produce useful filter frequency responses and the mechanical filter designer is able to make direct use of these. Steel and nickel–iron alloys are common materials for mechanical filter components. Resonators in the filter made from these materials need to be machined to precisely adjust their resonance frequency prior to final assembly. The high "quality factor", Q, that mechanical resonators can attain, far higher than that of an all-electrical LC circuit, made possible the construction of mechanical filters with excellent selectivity. Good selectivity, being important in radio receivers, made such filters highly attractive. Contemporary researchers are working on microelectromechanical filters, the mechanical devices corresponding to electronic integrated circuits. (more...)

Congratulations once again! --catslash (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Ohms law vectors.svg

Hi! I am trying to translate the english version of Ohm's law into Chinese version. I just found that the graphics file Ohms law vectors.svg is not in wikimedia Commons. Is it possible that you can move it to the Commons so that I can display it in the Chinese version? Thanks for your help!-LaoChen (talk)06:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Spinningspark is taking a long 'wiki-break', so I'll answer on his behalf. Spinningspark has views on moving graphics to Commons. It may be possible to copy this image to commons and still comply with Spinningspark's wishes by putting a {{NoCommons}} template in place of the {{KeepLocal}} on the Wikipedia copy of this image - so that this copy local copy does not get deleted. --catslash (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15