User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 9

Online Ambassadorship: Want has?

Hey mate! As you may already know, Wiki(m/p)edia is doing an outreach program in which students at universities are working on articles about public policy (though the scope of the topics may expand, if I'm not mistaken). To help the students get their sh!t together, Wiki(m/p)edia has gathered together a team of fine editors (herein referred to as ambassadors) to act as mentors and content reviewers. Next semester's program is going to have a lot more students doing a lot more stuff, so we need a lot more ambassadors to help them not fail. I see that you're already {{busy}}, but if this sounds like a groovy time, check out Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit on Telegrapher's Equations

Good morning.

I have no complaints but I wonder how it is you notice such things. Do you have a set of pages that you monitor? There are so many conventions regarding wikipedia articles, that I would never learn them except that someone like you fixes them and then I try not to repeat the error. I am grateful.

I am also curious about from where where those redlinks came. I did create the table, but I didn't know about redlinks when I did, so I am quite sure that I did not use them on purpose. My best guess is that I did a cut and paste and modify of someone else's table that had redlinks. Or do they arise out of some automatic process? Constant314 (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

T-pad and Image Impedance

You apparently had something to do with the "image impedance" in the Impedance and loss section on T-pad.

The terminology section says:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The voltage transfer function, A, is,

$A={\frac {V_{\mathrm {in} }}{V_{\mathrm {out} }}}$

While the inverse of this is the loss, L, of the attenuator,

$L={\frac {V_{\mathrm {out} }}{V_{\mathrm {in} }}}$

The value of attenuation is normally marked on the attenuator as its loss, L_dB, in decibels (dB). The relationship with L is;

$L_{\mathrm {dB} }=20\log L\,\!$

Popular values of attenuator are 3dB, 6dB, 10dB, 20dB and 40dB.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that is backward. As wrttien, A >1, L < 1 and L_dB < 0 which is at least inconsistant with the statement that popular values in dB's are positive. I believe that L_dB should be positive and Loss should be greater than 1.

Anyway, I can fix that, but I cannot tell whether that impacts the Impedance and loss section or not. Annd I cannot tell if :$R_{1}=Z_{0}\tanh \left({\frac {\gamma _{\mathrm {T} }}{2}}\right)$ would need to be changed as a result of inverting the definition of Loss. There is a chance that the whole Impedance and loss section assumed the normal definition of Loss and did not notice that the inverse was defined in the terminology section. Constant314 (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right, that is a just as typo, as you have obviously already noted in Π-pad. Doesn't affect anything else as far as I can see. SpinningSpark 14:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Try to keep what other has offered you instead of the truth ?

That always cost lives, money worth I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gggbgggb (talk • contribs) 11:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for Hanoi link

See Talk:Tower_of_Hanoi#Rationale_for_my_External_Link. Regards and Happy New Year, BrandMan211 (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits on Electrical Engineering.

I note that you have chosen to revert my recent edits on Electrical Engineering mainly because you consider them to be "Anglo-centric".

By profession, I am a Chartered Electrical Engineer and Member of the IET. Although I have now retired from full-time work, I still contribute to the profession by being a member of the professional review panel for engineers applying for CEng through the IET.

I make no apologies for my Anglo-centric contributions which I made one evening from the comfort of my armchair via my laptop. In fact, I felt that the article was incomplete by not paying due regard to the UK point of view.

I am aware, having been a member of the IEEE, that this organisation does not have the same entry requirements as the IEE once did although, having amalgamated with various Institutions covering Incorporated Engineer levels (which is the level comparable with IEEE membership), the IET and IEEE are now closer in their entry requirements. However, for the CEng qualification in the UK, it is true that a Masters Degree level in Engineering is a requirement rather than the BEng and I had hoped that my edits would make this clear.

I note that you are an Administrator on the English Wikipedia and therefore must be party to ways to cope with random edits which Wikipedia seems to invite. By choosing to revert my edits, you are, in effect, declaring them to be of no value. I am not sure whether or not you are a professionally registered engineer through the Engineering Council yourself but the code of conduct for members of the profession is to respect each other's contributions. Surely you must agree that discarding a contribution made in good faith does not comply with this professional code of conduct.

DMChatterton (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

public domain

please read about public domain material. thanks. --J. D. Redding 23:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

jingoism - son, fiction cannot be verified. Info about fiction is valid.

Go ahead with your evil plans, I will publicly show your evil ways so that intelligent people can benefit.

jingoism - son, fiction cannot be verified. Verifiable Info about fiction is valid. You have insulted a fellow human being, you boor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frizb (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide a diff SpinningSpark 20:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem less than intelligent, and a little bitter.

So let me get this straight, you decided that my recent contributions were a form a spam, not reference material. Last time I checked, I have a PhD in mechanical engineering, specializing in heat transfer, and ump-teen patents on the very subjects that I left references on, including references to FREE heat transfer calculators that I personally wrote (including proprietary equations).

These various thermal calculators are used and appreciated by hundreds of users per day.

So if the Patent offices from United States, European Union, Japan, Canada, and Korea, consider my published work UNIQUE AND NOT OBVIOUS TO THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART, I would think that the likes of you, would consider the same.

So in summation, I suspect that I am at least one, if not THE most qualified person to make any comment or reference to any heat transfer Wiki page.

isofilm (talk) 21:14, 03 January 2010 (UTC)

Capacitance

Thanks for informing me about the problem. I think the template's format has been changed as well as it's properties. Before, it would show the text in doubt with a slightly colored background. I have made necessary modification so that it points now to the part that's in need of citation. Thanks again. --LaoChen (talk)20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mirror filter

Hello, I saw here that you said you created a custom search widget for Firefox that filters out Wikipedia mirrors. Is this available anywhere? I think it would help out at WP:URBLP. Feezo (Talk) 04:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I can't really remember how I set it up and it is probably not the best that could be done. But if you drop me an e-mail I will send you back the file it uses to exclude sites. It works quite well for engineering searches which is what I am mostly doing but for your purposes you will probably need to add a lot more. I found the best approach is to do a few test searches first to find the sites you want to exclude. SpinningSpark 16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Relevance note template

Hi, I see that one of your lists of interests is templates.  Would you be available to modify or help me to modify the Template:Relevance note?  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.96 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say I was interested in templates? I'm not really an expert but will try to help if you explain what you want to do. SpinningSpark 23:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To your question, here.

Here is the concept, I want to use Template:Relevance note on Talk pages.  The objective is to add this template to [Category:Talk namespace templates].

I think it best to modify the existing template, but an experienced user might have reasons to create a new template.  In favor of modifying the current template, [Category:Wikipedia articles with off-topic sections] already has 21 talk pages out of 283 total pages.

(1) Since I don't see any purpose to having a category of talk pages with off-topic content, it wouldn't bother me to just use logic so that talk pages don't show up on this category. (2) The second alternative is to create a new [Category:Wikipedia talk pages with off-topic content].

Either of these options represents technical issues that are above my pay-grade.  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.79 (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not really conventional at Wikipedia to place maintenance templates on talk page comments, and could be considered to be against the etiquette of not messing with others comments. The inline templates are not really designed for this. All the occurences of in the category that I looked at are accidental, due to parts of the article being posted to the talk page for discussion. The proper thing to do is either to politely explain to the user concerned on their talk page that there is a guideline (WP:Talk#topic) against this, or else place {{Off topic warning}} on the talk page.

Anyway, the technical answer to your question is that the relevance template is already coded not to add categories to talk pages. The talk pages which are in the category are a result of other templates which don't have this facility. SpinningSpark 01:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, instead of a template that suggests there is an etiquette issue, how about a more general-purpose conversation branch.  The point would still be to split the confounding conversation away from the on-going topic.  The first phase of this would be like relevance note and maybe trivial to implement.

Template:TopicBranch
{{fix
|link=
|title=Material in the vicinity of this tag is being discussed in a new section
|text=TopicBranch
|post-text=<span class="metadata"> &ndash; [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}#{{{1|NewTopic}}}|to]]</span>
|date={{{date|}}}
|cat=}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Talk namespace templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

  RB  66.217.117.204 (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

XXX and OOO reversed

[header inserted by RB 66.217.118.79 (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)]
Update Regards, --Flominator (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)