User talk:Lightoil

Inappropriate reversion of edits to Isotropic radiator

Your speedy reversion of my edits to the Isotropic radiator were intensely offensive: The changes which I made were largely cosmetic. As well, you inappropriately removed the sole substantive change that I made, which was the especially important point that all small antennas approach isotropic radiators (with the possible exception of their vanishingly narrow null points).

For the next week stop making any editorial overrides or reversions to the article. Your behavior is reactionary an appalling: (1) You presumed that an editor who chooses to edit without logging in was disruptive, without actually looking at the edits and thinking about them. You couldn't have.

(2) You wiped out all changes made unselectively; and had the profane gall to remark that the edits "appeared to not be helpful".

Don't do that again. You are grossly failing to show the courtesy that you admonish others to show you in the "be polite" request at the head of this page. 166.198.38.62 (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@166.198.38.62 Why are you not following WP:MOS adding by adding unnecessary extra spaces? Lightoil (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

However, I am apologies for the mass reversion of the app I could not just revert that edit. Lightoil (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Excuse rejected: I don't care what app you're using, it doesn't make it okay to stomp over someone else's hard-made edits, just because it's convenient for you. Shame on you!

The following is an excessively long sermon on math typesetting. I'm sorry for that, but I don't have time to make it short. The short answer is I am following the MOS, dammit! The MOS says nothing about putting in or not putting in spaces. You are complaining about me doing something that the MOS says nothing about; that's why I'm so angry at you for your false presumption that there's some kind of excuse in the MOS for your bad behavior.

Standard math typesetting used in professionally typeset publications (like high-production textbooks and mathematically edited professional journals, as compared to increasingly common author-typeset articles, which are often shoddy) always uses small spaces between distinct objects. So in this article, the symbol $\ \Delta \nu \$ is a distinct entity: The Δ is an operator, not a variable, and the ν is a variable and the operator's operand. That pair frequently occurs adjacent to a different operator-operand pair $\ \mathrm {d} \Omega \ ~.$ Extra space is necessary between the tightly paired groups to group the spoken words that they represent appropriate to their meaning.

Likewise, a frequently occurring group is $\ A_{\mathsf {e}}(\theta ,\phi )\$ which also represents a single mathematical object, the variable A with the non-variable letter-label 'e', which is itself a function (represented by the parenthetic arguments) of position given by two spherical co-ordinates in the parentheses. A little space around this block of characters represents the intake of breath before you begin speaking the whole phrase that describes it, and the pause afterward before mentioning the following groups which multiply it.

Furthermore, above and beyond the spaces used to separate off groups of symbols representing mathematical objects (like differences of frequencies and differential segments of area on the surface of a sphere), every block of mathematical symbols, every expression, formula, and individual symbol embedded in running text must be separated from any text, or punctuation that is a part of the spoken prose (and not part of the math) by a little extra space. In the special case of a period (as opposed to commas and semicolons) it has to be a little longer space. (I'm not certain exactly why. Maybe it has something to do with subscript periods being used for the sum over an index: $\ x_{\cdot }\equiv \sum \limits _{\mathrm {all} ~k}x_{k}\$?)

The MOS is at present deficient, since it does not require nor even recommend the extra space. TeX has some default spacing, but it is not a grammar-checking system. All it does is typesetting. By design the mathematician has to supply the extra spaces. A good rule of thumb is that if you chose to put a blank space into the TeX to make it more readable, then there needs to be a blank in the output too. The default is for everything to be crammed together as tightly as possible. The rendering engine has absolutely no idea whether Δ is an operator or a variable; same for d . Needless to say, that makes the math in the article painful to read: No visual guidance to separate the mathematical symbols into logical blocks.

As far as I know, the only useful typesetting advice in the MOS is to move the prose punctuation inside the math formulas; otherwise the wikitext display will possibly insert a line break between the end of the formula and the punctuation that closes off the text of the thought (the formula converted to spoken words) that the punctuation finishes off.

Regardless of the deficiencies in the MOS, it absolutely does not in any way forbid extra space. And I ask you: What do you see? Don't look at the TeX and squeal "ugh". Instead look at the rendered formulas as I've typeset them. Surely it's not perfect, but look at it: I claim that you have to recognize that it's easier to read, better rendered the way that I've typeset it. The article is not for people who already know this stuff, it's for people who are picking through the math trying to work out what it means for the first time. It's an educational crime to force them to mentally apply the typesetting that's missing in the math without the standard mathematical microspacing.

166.198.38.62 (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@166.198.38.62 I was talking about this edit [1] the spaces aren't necessary. Furthermore, no need for a wall of text in your reply. Please edit properly. Thanks. Lightoil (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the introduction picture on the tripleS

First of all, there is no need to revert back to that photo:(File:230217 tripleS (트리플에스).jpg) because it is CLEARLY an AI-generated high-resolution restoration image. Please enlarge the photo, those faces in the picture are distorted, obviously it is not an accurate real photo. Can't you see that?

Secondly, that's why I replaced it with a more accurate and real photo: (File:TripleS.jpg), also this photo has no copyright issues. However, it seems that you are treating my edit as improper behavior. Fiona098aaa (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)