User talk:Glrx

Welcome!

Hello, Glrx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ray^Talk 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Cathode

Hello, I made the revision on cathode where the section was deleted. You stated the following, and if it's correct then I agree with you the deletion was misguided:

The above argument is confused about cell potential. To first order, the cell potential does not change whether charging or discharging; the designation of the positive and negative terminals does not change. In the Daniell cell, the copper electrode is positive and the zinc electrode is negative. The direction of the current does depend whether charging or discharging, so the designation of which terminal is the anode or the cathode changes with the mode.

However, it also means that the article could use the additional information of how a terminal is defined as positive or negative (or was originally). As the difference in definitions between (+) and (-) vs cathode and anode will make it more clear as to why there's a difference.

Therefore I made the following change at the end of the intro: The reason that the cathode can change designation (+) to (-), is that the terminal the cathode changes designation when the current changes direction while (+) and (-) do not. Take the Daniel electrochemical cell: as a galvanic cell the (+) copper is the cathode while zinc (-) is the anode, if it were elecrolytic (+) copper would be the anode and zinc (-) the cathode.

I think it would be preferable just to state the definition of (+) and (-) so it can be compared to the definition for cathode an anode, but this is the best alternative available to me (as I can't find how (+) and (-) are defined).

And thanks for correcting me!  :) Finniganawakens (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC).

Reed-Solomon Codes

Hi Glrx, and thanks for your efforts on Reed-Solomon codes. However, I want to point out that you removed a concise description of how RS codes essentially work, namely by oversampling a polynomial. Even though that statement could have been expanded, it was clear. The text you added describes RS codes from the point of cyclic codes. Furthermore, what you essentially say is that an error can be detected if the received code word is not divisible by the generator polynomial, which is... trivial from a coding point of view, but does not provide the casual reader with any insight. Furthermore you lead the reader to believe in a tight connection with CRC codes, while the actual connection is with cyclic codes. Last but not least, it is actually true that RS codes were not implemented in the early 1960s because of their complexity—it _might_ have been possible to actually implement on some hardware, but nobody did it back then. As far as history tells, RS codes were not implemented until Berlekamp came up with his efficient decoding algorithm together with Massey, after which they were implemented in the Voyager 2 space probe. To summarize, the description that you have given is better placed at cyclic codes, and mathematical descriptions, if added, are better placed in the Mathematical formulation section. Cheers, and keep up the work! Nageh (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just checked your latest edits. :) So let me follow up to my previous comment. The very basic idea of RS codes is to construct a polynomial over the k message symbols and evaluate it at n > k points such that the polynomial defined by the n points is overdefined. The receiver, after finding out erroneous received points, can then use interpolation to recover them. I think so far it applies to both original and classic constructions. How exactly these points are created, and how decoding is done, can be explained later on in the article. But in both cases sample points are transmitted, and certainly not coefficients (at least that can't be true for the remaining n-k values). As far as I can see the different lies therein that in what you describe the classic view the source symbols are taken as coefficients in the polynomial, and then this polynomial is evaluated at n points (created by a generator of a finite field) and their values transmitted. I'd have to look up the details, which I'm too lazy to, but so much just as a hint for the moment. :) Nageh (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

reply

Hi Glrx, and thanks for your efforts on Reed-Solomon codes. However, I want to point out that you removed a concise description of how RS codes essentially work, namely by oversampling a polynomial. Even though that statement could have been expanded, it was clear.

I disagree that it was clear. Although RS arrived at their code from a an oversampled polynomial viewpoint, that statement is not clear but rather terse. Furthermore, the oversampled view doesn't comport with modern usage. The modern g(x) viewpoint makes s(x) disappear and lets the error correction focus on just n-k syndromes rather than interpolating polynomials. I reworked the introduction to follow the RS development after your comment, and now I'm unhappy with it -- it lead me into the same trap that I was trying to fix: describing stuff that distracts. I fell into restating the history. The goal should be to explain the code and give insight into how it works. The modern implementation is the BCH viewpoint and transmits coefficients and not values.Glrx (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The text you added describes RS codes from the point of cyclic codes. Furthermore, what you essentially say is that an error can be detected if the received code word is not divisible by the generator polynomial, which is... trivial from a coding point of view, but does not provide the casual reader with any insight. Furthermore you lead the reader to believe in a tight connection with CRC codes, while the actual connection is with cyclic codes.

I mentioned the CRC processing to build an analogy. I deleted it, and now I'm sorry I did. It also gives context for error correction algorithm using the roots of g(x).Glrx (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Last but not least, it is actually true that RS codes were not implemented in the early 1960s because of their complexity—it _might_ have been possible to actually implement on some hardware, but nobody did it back then. As far as history tells, RS codes were not implemented until Berlekamp came up with his efficient decoding algorithm together with Massey, after which they were implemented in the Voyager 2 space probe.

I don't understand this comment at all. I deleted a clause that claimed the digital hardware was not advanced enough at the time and left the clause about no practical decoder. The reason the codes were not implemented is because the decoding algorithm was impractical (even on modern hardware) for a large number of errors. If there were a practical decoding algorithm in 1960, there was hardware to do it. Your statement agrees with that assessment, so what does it want? Does it want to keep the inadequate digital technology clause because it may have been possible to implement impractical algorithms in 1960 hardware?Glrx (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To summarize, the description that you have given is better placed at cyclic codes, and mathematical descriptions, if added, are better placed in the Mathematical formulation section. Cheers, and keep up the work! Nageh (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

reply (2)

Consider my first post canceled, I wrote it spontaneously. However, my second post should have been more clear.

Ok, first, it is still a common introduction to RS coding that it works by oversampling a polynomial, and this is true no matter whether you use classic or original encoding... how it is implemented in practice is another topic.

Second, I have already explained that it doesn't make sense if you say "coefficients are transmitted". You cannot sensibly transmit more than k coefficients of a polynomial of degree k.

Regarding the CRC analogy, the CRC is a cyclic code, and a correct analogy would refer to cyclic code upon which BCH/RS codes are based.

Please ignore my comment on insufficient hardware capability - I was nit-picking.

Last but not least, would you please refrain from implying that it was my fault that you wrote the text in the for you unsatisfying way you did?

Nageh (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

reply to reply

Ok, I checked the references, obviously I was only recalling the original understanding of RS codes. I apologize.

What I suggest is to move the introductory text on original vs. classic RS codes further down, into section Definition, which could be renamed to Introduction. Subsection Mathematical formulation and Reed–Solomon codes as BCH codes could be integrated into the two views, possibly covered in subsections Original view and Classic view. Remarks should go as the last subsection. Please note that Reed–Solomon codes as BCH codes denotes f_i as the coefficients in BCH code notation. By a slight reformulation, some statements could be generally given. Note [4] applies to RS as BCH codes, and I don't see why this is a requirement for the original view. Note [5] is correct if you replace f(x_i) by f_i, as defined in Reed–Solomon codes as BCH codes, and in fact can only be valid for such constructions (i.e., the classic view).

In the lead section, I would propose a very simple introduction, such as:

In Reed-Solomon coding, source symbols are viewed as coefficients of a polynomial P(x) over a finite field. Whereas the original idea was to create n code symbols from k source symbols by oversampling P(x) at n>k distinct points, and at the receiver use Lagrange interpolation for each possible k-size subset of the received n values to recover the closest match, this does not lead to an efficient decoding algorithm. The concept was soon replaced by viewing the RS code as a cyclic code, and instead deriving the code symbols from the coefficients of a polynomial constructed by multiplying P(x) with a cyclic generator polynomial. Wesley Peterson devised an early decoding algorithm for this classic view of RS codes. A practical solution was eventually found in 1969 by Elwyn Berlekamp and James Massey, and is since known as the Berlekamp-Massey decoding algorithm.

Sorry again, and keep up the good work! :) --Nageh (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Harvard references

Hi, you added references to Berlekamp 1968 and Massey 1969 to the article. Could you, please, put the complete descriptions of what they refer to to the section “References”, so that it is clear what they mean? Thanks. Svick (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Svick (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OFX and QIF Pages

Hi - you removed my edits the pages above, however, the links that I placed in the external links section are relevant to the titles. I am not sure why you believe it is a spamming effort on my part. Nepaluz (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Help

I noticed you undid my contributions, Why? If you look at "Export Hacks for QuickBooks: exporting to QIF" above, they have the same kind of solution and a link to "XL2QIF Excel macro" And in References you have all links to similar websites: ▪ Official Specification ▪ How to parse online bank QIF with sed ▪ Python script to convert QIF to RDF. Look for def extract(path). Script provided by SWAP. ▪ Perl module to parse and create QIF files. ▪ GnuCash QIF format notes ▪ Online QIF to CSV Converter ▪ .NET QIF API What is wrong with adding my solution? Besides I am giving it for free to help people with same problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcellovani (talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your additions in Quicken Interchange Format were an advertisement for your code. Your contributions do not explain the Quicken Interchange Format -- which is the topic. The references that you cite have not insinuated themselves into the main article. Many of those references offer detailed information about QIF and could easily have been used as source material for the article. Someone seeking more information about the format could find more information. I haven't checked them all, but following a few links offers shows that they offer information and even source code. Your link does not offer information; it offers a service. It doesn't matter that it is a free service, it is still advertising rather than content. I'm pretty sure you understand that point. The Online QI to CSV Converter is a questionable link that probably should be removed.Glrx (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts about Wikipedia and original research

Thanks for your comments on my thinking! I'll post a reply within the next days, currently I'm a little bit busy. Nageh (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing?!

You reverted one of my edits on 20 June 2010 to Demurrer. Are you even a lawyer?! Any competent attorney is aware that in most tort actions, the plaintiff generally wants to get in front of a jury and razzle-dazzle the jury into awarding gigantic punitive damages, while the defendant wants to keep as FAR away from the jury as possible. Only in certain commercial transactions does it make sense for a plaintiff to move for summary judgment in their favor, in which case they need to use a demurrer to knock out defenses in the answer and thereby limit the defendant's ability to manufacture a triable issue of fact. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Litz wire

Fix Litz wire.

Explanation?

You reverted all my edits to B-tree? Why? Your edit summary said, "Intervening edits well meaning but with technical errors about rotation of entries." I'm not sure what you are reffring to with the phrase "rotation of entries", though I can believe my improvements in the sections "Deletion from a leaf node" and "Deletion from an internal node" might have included some technical errors. After all, my edit summary for the former was: "Rewrite (based on my understanding of the cryptic prior version & the article overall. I think this is right, but if I made any errors, I apologize; please correct.)" However, "please correct" is not the same as, "please throw away all my work if this isn't quite right in all details." I was kind of hoping if someone found errors, they would /fix/ them, not revert to the old version which others wrote long ago on the talk page was practically incomprehensible.

Anyway, I really would like to know what is wrong, because I initially came to this page to learn about B-trees (having plenty of knowledge about other kinds of trees, linked lists, sorting algorithms, file systems, etc.)

But more than that, I am flabergasted that you appear to have reverted all my edits without reviewing them separately, trashing even the little grammatical ones that couldn't possibly have been degradements of the article in any way! Can it be so? Maybe you'd like to look back and make a more selective and more conservative rejection of my changes.

I think I'll reinstate some of them myself, now. I'll leave "Deletion from a leaf node" and "Deletion from an internal node" in the sorry state I found them in (twice now) until some consensus comes to the matter.

141.158.233.114 (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your edits contained technical errors. I don't think it is appropriate for any editor to submit material that he is unsure of and then ask others to correct it.

I looked at each of your edits, and I did not think that they were appropriate. That's why I reverted all. I've left some of your reinsertions, but I'm unhappy about them. A filesytem is a database, so the in addition comment is technically wrong. Grammatically, I prefer the active voice. I also prefer conciseness.

Glrx (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Power Factor

Glrx: You undid my addition of a link to the Power factor page and gave no explanation as to why you did this. Wtshymanski then removed the entire section I added. I have added to my user page but Wtshymanski has not been willing to respond. I am new to contributing to Wikipedia pages and am trying to learn the ropes quickly. I appreciate the spirit and goals of Wikipedia and do not want to degrade their mission. I am a physicist who has probably spent more hours over the last 30 years designing and experimenting with active power factor compensation than anyone else. I have founded 3 companies that design, manufacture and market this equipment and am currently the CEO of one of these companies so conflict of interest is definitely a possibility here. I am a recognized expert and innovator on this subject and was recently asked to give a presentation at EPRI's annual conference which took place in Quebec last June. My work is mostly a labor of love as I am genuinely trying to contribute to solving the world's electrical power problems so that we evolve into something that is more sustainable. To do this, my companies have to become very successful financially and that has certainly been the case with Heart Interface, Trace and Xantrex (now Schneider) which all just reeks of conflict of interest. However, the world has changed and power factor, which used to be a more esoteric engineering subject, has become something that is effecting most people's lives in ways they don't understand. Understanding this, by people with no engineering background, is a legitimate function of Wikipedia. Although the grid is a complex mix of loads, each load, by itself, consumes some small amount of power and creates some small amount of transmission loss in the entire system, including the windings of the massive grid generators and transformers. The grid has to pay for all of this energy and the losses so you can see that low power factor loads cost the grid more per kWh to provide than do high power factor loads. With the massive migration to CFL lighting and the great abundance of computer power supplies the grid is having to absorb increased costs which they ultimately pass on to the customer. There are some articles about this that appear in EDN and EETIMES and other engineering publications but the general public is generally not aware that this is even an issue yet they are the ones who are buying and installing these low power factor devices. Since they are ignorant of the issue they do not create any pressure to address it. So, if they somehow hear that it might be an issue and don't even know what "power factor" means they might go to Wikipedia. If all they get is a very technical, engineering and very correct and precise article, they will most likely not even read it. So, what might seem redundant to someone educated in electronics, might be the only thing that a non-engineer even reads. What are the guidelines to adding external links and references at the end of the article? Please respond. Heart141 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is same material as Talk:Power factor#Power Factor for the Modern World. Glrx (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Genetic algorithm

Hi

In the interests of averting an edit war - There has been mucho discussion on the talk page already so how do you see the matter as progressing ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

At the current point in time, I don't see a consensus. Do you see one?

My position (and I believe it is also OF's position) is that KB's work is not prominent enough yet. Quite simply, KB is engaging in self promotion. This case is not about a neutral editor adding the GFH to the article.

It is my understanding that KB is the sole proponent of his research. Although he gave citations to his work by others, those citations did not show acceptance (authors are not adherents let alone prominent adherents). I found no other references that use the term GFH that KB coined. I have not found any secondary sources that address his work. His GFH has not yet gained acceptance or controversy. He does not have significant stature to support the view.

KB's viewpoint is not currently held by a significant minority. It is a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority, so it does not belong in Wikipedia. It does not have weight. I disagree with your notion that the dissertation committee should be considered adherents.

The discussion, with ample pushing by KB, has wandered away from what an encyclopedia should say to a narrow, almost legal, interpretation of isolated sentences. There are various WP policies concerning coverage of a topic. KB reads those policies narrowly to argue for inclusion. His basic argument boils down to a PhD thesis is peer reviewed and published and therefore WP:V so it should get a reference. OF's talk page went into that argument. A commenter raised the more apt WP:UNDUE. I do not see KB's argument as persuasive at all. Theses do not get the same peer review as refereed journals. There haven't been secondary source reviews.

I fear that many editors did not comment on the RfC because they were scared off by KB's argumentative posture. GA has 192 watchers but few commented. Look at the length of the discussion on OF's talk page. KB won't let go. That discussion made me think long and hard about making any comment. I've been ignoring KB's entreaties because they are just openings for argument. That's not what a RfC should be about. It should be other editors commenting freely about the proposal.

WP:SCOIC states that "Once you have presented your case, it may be best to take a back seat and minimise your participation in the discussion, to avoid any perception or accusation of undue advocacy or pushing an agenda." KB's "sharp" advocacy speaks for itself.

KB has a significant COI that should not be ignored. I believe he is too close to his work to offer a reasonable perspective.

KB's edit history of the main article does not show neutrality.

The proposed edit is premature and should not be made.

What do you think should happen?

Glrx (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok first of all lets just say that attacking me is not really constructive. Your comment "I disagree with your notion that the dissertation committee should be considered adherents." is way off the mark and quite honestly a little ridiculous. I never said they were adherents - I stated quite clearly that "The people that are included on the dissertation committee are pretty notable though"

I will respond to your comments when a suitable period of time has passed - maybe an hour or two so that you can re–read the posts and make sure that you can respond in a less aggresive manner as this seems to be in a knee-jerk rather than constructive mood. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay but a broken van at work left me stranded there overnight.

The COI is not really an issue. I think that it should be included but more as (the parts in "" are for wording to be decided later):

"An explanation of the paradox of "these problems of unexplained" results has been put forwards by the theory of GFH by Burjorjee. "brief explanation of no more than 20 words but it remains to be seen if this is accepted by the "GA community""

I think that would give no more undue weight than it deserves.

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. COI is an issue, and it seeps into KB's edits. Without a secondary source evaluation of the GFH, the material does not belong in WP. Who are the prominent adherents of GFH? For a viewpoint to be included in WP, it should be easy to identify them. If the GFH is not being accepted or at least evaluated by others in the field, then why should it be in an encyclopedia? Glrx (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Glrx, in the interest of resolving this issue, are you willing to enter into mediation (WP:RFM)? Please reply. Keki Burjorjee (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Glrx. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Citations

Hi, A general question, these fancy multi-line citations like in Beta encoder, what do they buy? It seems to me they make the text hard to edit. What do they buy for you guys - several people do them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation macros buy several things. First, they make the format of citations consistent across articles. Second, they help highlight missing information in the citation. The beta encoder article's citations are missing author, title, and volume information. What, exactly, is the Mathematical Review citation? Third is a chance for automation. If some text is labeled as a citation, then a bot can process it. Glrx (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the 3rd advantage, namely bot automation. The 1st advantage does not do much for me, but I guess some people like that. I added the Googlebooks link to that anyway. I think the future is in Gbook links. Anyway, I wish the bots would make the thing on ONE line, not several, becaus eit makes teh text so hard to edit afterwards. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-29/Genetic algorithms

I have offered to mediate this. Please indicate your acceptance or lack on the mediation page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why I'm not acceptable to you? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sort page edits

I contacted the author about using these to augment the lack of implementations (in general languages) on the sort pages and he gave his permission as well as adding a notice to the original page. I would appreciate the edits being rolled back. 108.27.89.177 (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I rolled the edits back because the source issue has been resolved. Please post back here if you have additional concerns. 108.27.89.177 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't need multiple versions of the same algorithm. I'm also tempted to roll back selection sort because I don't like the promotional aspects of the GPL. The algorithm is trivial. Glrx (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The algorithm may be trivial however there is currently no actual code listing. Would you suggest another license other then GPL? Also you rolled back the insertion sort however there are two implementations there, one in Pascal and another in straight pseudocode. Shouldn't the Pascal one be pruned off then? 108.27.89.177 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the bad JS implementation of selection sort; it didn't follow the text and it was unstable. I'm not going to favor one programming language over another. One good, clear, implementation should be enough. The GPL requires attribution, and attribution for trivial algorithms sounds in promotion. Glrx (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it could be described as unstable. There are languages where the implementation will be more clear then others. 108.27.89.177 (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The JS selsort imp was not a stable sort. Glrx (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuing this, why are now all the sort page links removed? Is there a reason for this mass deletion of them? Are they not applicable? Josh Kehn (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Toroids Pictures

I put the pix in the public domain. Thay can be used anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Constant314 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Toroidal inductors and transformers, Changing Citation Style

I'm just curious why you changed the citation style. I'm always looking for a better way to do things; that is why I am asking.

I hate generating a new reference that is the same as a preceding reference except on a different page; that is why I chose the style that did. But if I could accomplish the same thing with a different style I'd be glad to adopt it. Constant314 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there isn't a great way to do citations; different methods have strengths and weaknesses.

I took your references and converted them to {{Citation ...}} macros. That enforces a uniform style on the citations; it also helps identify missing information. See WP:Citation templates.

For frequent citations to authorities at different page numbers, Harvard citations are useful. The Harvard citation macros (sort of) hyperlink to the Citation macros (they can also link to Cite macros if the ref field is done right). In technical articles, I use parenthetical inline citations with {{harv|Author|2010|p=13}}. To some readers, inline citations are a little annoying. IIRC, you were putting the citations in footnotes, so I kept your method and used the {{harvtxt ...}} variation to fill in the footnote text. See WP:Harvard citation template examples.

Multiple citations to the same page are also awkward. They can be handled by giving a

<ref name="unique name">

. That way only one reference line is generated for similar citations. The drawback is the user must maintain the linkage. If the reference with the information is deleted, then the info is lost for the other citations. That's a reason to avoid using a ref with name="identifier" when it is only used once - if an editor is going to delete a named ref, then he's supposed to fix its other uses. If the ref doesn't have a name, then the editor doesn't have to worry about it.

Glrx (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hash tables

Could you explain how keys in a hash table are still subject to out-of-bounds errors? It would also be useful to define "well-dimensioned" (well-sized?).

138.16.3.129 (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Hash table

In two ways. First, the index into the table must not exceed the bounds; often met with a modulo table size in the hash, but the programming consideration must still be there. Second, one cannot keep adding entries to a finite table -- at some point there's no more room (the logical equivalent of an overflow).

Well-dimensioned is not precise. When the table is full, there are lots of collisions, and that means the access does not take constant time. Generally, a hash table should perform well when it is half full. Some can perform well at 80%.

Glrx (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well I was thinking in the key-space; the hash function makes sure that the hash of a key can't be out of bounds in the array backing the hash-table. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.3.129 (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"jk blog links"

Glrx- Is there a issue of sorts with this page?

Baltar, Gaius (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

See edit history of Sorting algorithm for 9-10 October 2010. Links to his blog were also removed on other sort pages. Discussion at User talk:Josh Kehn#Your sorting links. Glrx (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is the sort page is political? I just found it on stackoverflow.com. In order to include this link what do i have to do?

Baltar, Gaius (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to include the links, bring the subject up on the article's talk page. Supply links to the existing discussion. State why you think the links are appropriate for WP. I'd like to see your argument why WP should tolerate links that hang a user's browser or denigrate the use of IE. Glrx (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will do that.

Baltar, Gaius (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Quadratic equation edits

I was just wondering what was wrong with adding the method to get from the quadratic equation to the quadratic formula in the section quadratic formula. I believe that, in spite of the fact that it's a derivation, the majority of people would still look in the section quadratic formula rather than derivations for this information. (I'm assuming here, though, that most people who need to look up the quadratic formula would not know it's a derivative of the quadratic equation. I'd also suggest adding in that section something along the lines of, "The quadratic formula is simply a derivative of the quadratic equation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.109.242 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Such a discussion belongs on the article talk page -- not here. The material was already in the article, and the detail was not needed at that point in the article. Glrx (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Growler37 and external links

They should have used an edit summary to explain what they were doing. It turns out that http://www.beaconworld.org.uk is nothing more than a redirect to http://www.beaconworld.fotopic.net/. Other than photographs they don't appear to have any information on NDB's NAVTEX or Differential GPS. On the other hand the http://www.ndblist.info/ site does seem to have information on all of those. Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology for undoing your edit.

I apoligize for undoing your recent edit on impedance matching. I was in the middle of a huge edit; it kept getting bigger and bigger, and although I tried to merge propperly, I did not see your edit.

Please have at now.Constant314 (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's OK; I've been there.

Changed Z₀ to Z_S because the xline might be the source or the load.

BTW, naming refs for Harvard citations is usually not needed. For non-Harvard citations, naming the ref means all the details of the citation need not be repeated. For a Harvard citation, it's no big deal to repeat the author/year. Furthermore, the page number usually changes from citation to citation, so named ref often used just once. Harv citations are often going to the specific page (i.e., they point directly to the cited material rather than pointing to an entire chapter).

Glrx (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So instead of

<ref name="Feynman1515">{{Harvtxt|Feynman|1964|p=15_15}}</ref>

just use

<ref>{{Harvtxt|Feynman|1964|p=15_15}}</ref>

?Constant314 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Why write the page number twice. There's no good all round system. Harvard citations are effective when there will be many citations to the same reference but at different pages numbers. Moreover, there's no reason to add "name=<id>" to a ref if that citation is only used once. Glrx (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you changed Z0 to Zs in the formula for the reflection coefficient, where Zs is understood to mean the source impedance. But in entire remainder of the section I use Z0 as the transmission line impedance. I'd rather use Zc for characteristic impedance, but the original article used Z0. So I propose to put it back like I had it and then add it back like you have it a little further down and call it a generalization. Constant314 (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The xline might be on the source end of the interface, or it might be on the load end (eg, a transmitter). Furthermore, when transmission lines are used for matching networks, there are often many different impedance levels. Z₀ is the usual notation for talking about just one impedance level (and more common that Z_c). To put a fine point on it, how would you describe the reflection coefficient when connecting a 50-ohm line to a 75-ohm line? Or vice-versa?

Although I applaud your efforts, I'm leaning toward reverting your last impedance matching edit.

Glrx (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me try with Zc and see what you think.Constant314 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am doing the specific example of the transmission line driving a load. I think it might get confusing if it is too general. But how about this: I make it clear that I am doing the transmission line to load interface and and a paragraph about the reflection coefficient at the source. Also, the first place reflection coefficient is introduced is a link to a more general discussion of reflection coefficient, so maybe I can stick to the single specific case? Regarding the 50/75 interface I would probably use Z1 and Z2, but I might use Z50 and Z75. Constant314 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have intention of expanding the section I added about the source end, but I am burned out for today. Do whatever you think will make it better, if you wish. Constant314 (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of EL on IPv6

You reverted my EL contributions to the article on IPv6, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why, since your brief note did not explain.

• IPv6 Act Now operated by RIPE
• Test your IPv6 connectivity operated by Jason Fesler, Senior Principal Architect & IPv6 Evangelist at Yahoo

Your only comment was Questionable links. Added content? Diagnostic appropriate?)

With all due respect, considering the standing of the sources, I fail to see why these would be questionable. Considering also the urgency of migration to Ipv6, this is a current issue requiring action on a broad front in the industry, I feel it is highly appropriate to include links to reputable sites that provide practical help on migration from IPv4 to IPv6. At the end of the day, readers want to know what, if any, changes they need to make to their systems, and these links are to resources to help them do just that.
Enquire (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You are reversing the burden. It's your burden to justify your insertion of the links. There are guidelines for including an EL. Why do you think the ELs are on topic and appropriate? It is not my burden to explain why the links should be removed.

The IPv6 article is about the protocol suite. What IPv6 is, why it was developed, how it differs from IPv4, etc. The article has some detailed explanations and is supported with authoritative references.

The content on ipv6actnow.org is trivial. What vital information does the site supply about IPv6 that is not included in the article? (EL links are supposed to cover information that should go in the article but hasn't been included yet.) Furthermore, the thrust of the website is about converting from IPv4 to IPv6, and that is not the subject of the article. How to adopt IPv6? How to deploy IPv6? How to implement IPv6? How to plan for IPv6?

The test-ipv6.com link is similarly off topic. How to test IPv6 installations is not the subject of the article. The article is WP:NOTHOWTO guide about how to transition to IPv6. The EL is also an unneeded advertisement for Jason Fesler and Yahoo.

Don't confuse subject matter about a topic with how to do it.

Glrx (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Contested speedy deletion

re CTERA Networks

Respectfully, I contest your proposed deletion. This article topic is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." . This company is the topic of a chapter in "Cloud Computing Bible" , as well as articles in industry publications as ZDNet, VentureBeat, CRN, CTOEdge, Datamation, The Register, Network World, Channel Insider, LinuxPlanet, Small Cloud Builder, Network Computing, MSP mentor, etc. The article cites plenty of reliable sources independent of the subject. I invite you to look at my contributions list for yourself and see that I am a genuine editor, not a spammer. Frankly I have no idea what's wrong with the article, but I would be happy to collaborate with you on improving it, if you believe it needs improvements. Let me know if you accept my offer to collaborate. Marokwitz (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are many references in the article, but the references that I examined appear to be reworked press releases and not independent secondary sources. I also see passing mention rather than significant coverage. Furthermore, narrow publications are not given much weight.

Your other contributions are not at issue here. I did revert your Tape drive edit because it did not appear to have a WP:NPOV. The edit implied tape failures. I did not find the ref'd work, but I found other references to it that quoted the failure rate was only 60% and that the dominant reasons for restore failures were not tape failures but rather configuration errors or operator error. (FWIW, I am not pro tape.)

The article reads like a company brochure.

You should contest the speedy deletion on the article's talk page.

Glrx (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources that I collected are certainly and definitely not reworded press releases. That's not true - they are reviews of products, a book on the topic of cloud computing, and interviews by respectable publications, reliable *secondary* coverage of the company. Among the 20 or so sources, there is a single press release cited. I would be happy to collaborate and resolve any issues that make it read like a company brochure, although personally it does sounds neutral to me, and uses similar wording as other technology company articles on Wikipedia. I think you are being unfairly harsh on me. Marokwitz (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Quicksort

Hello Glrx. I was adding the information about the compiler to get accross the point that I added in just now. Let me know what you think. I just figured out what tail recursion was and I didn't understand it until I read parts of Sedgewick's paper. Specifically I didn't understand until I read the exact sentence I copied into wiki that you erased. I am hoping that my summary of the idea is closer to what you find appropriate for the article. I think it will help newbies understand. Nathan (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll applaud the effort, but I don't think the addition helps much. To me, the implications of tail recursion suggest as much, but those implications are not obvious to the casual reader. The subsequent (existing) comment about iteration confuses the issue (why speak iteration when QS is explained recursively; an iterative version still needs a partitioning stack, and that stack must have tail recursive management). Mentioning iteration is a monkey wrench. Your comment about the call stack addresses a piece of the issue, but also requires the reader to understand something that isn't clearly stated. The article doesn't say why adding to the call stack is an issue. Without RS's trick, the worst case call stack can be n deep: a bad partitioning at each level of m-1 and 1. With the trick (and tail recursion), the call stack is only log n (even though there are still O(n²) calls). Glrx (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Asking for your review of an article I composed.

Hello Glrx,

First - thank you for your latest undoing of my edits. They were done in good faith, and your explanations in the edits helped me to understand better what to do in the future.

Secondly, recently I composed my first article, and I would be happy for your inputs on it:

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

Best, Talgalili (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Z3 argument

I will raise this point at the History of computer hardware article and perhaps some of them can talk to you instead. It is just wrong to go on edit warring against something which is written in black and white in a better venue without asking there. Dmcq (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrea Doria

Hi, I've reverted your good faith reversion to the Andrea Doria article. Whilst the Italian Wikipedia is not a WP:RS, the links were not being used as references, but as interwiki links to the articles on the Italian Wikipedia where no articles exist on the English Wikipedia. This in in accordance with WP:LINK. See also H:ILL#Inline interlanguage links which explains this fully. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I took out the links because they only offered text in Italian (eg, no images), the individuals' significance was covered in the English WP article, and a misunderstanding about foreign links. The links still seem a little odd to me. The right step seems to be link to stubbed en.WP articles that point to the it.WP articles. Anyway, thanks for reverting me. Glrx (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

LISP and Usenet

I removed that link too myself, but after some thought have reconsidered. Lisp well pre-dates the WWW, and the Usenet group is a long established "official" place for Lisp. If you read the top of ELNO, you will see that it makes exception for official sites. This is pretty much a long-established official site pre-dating the Web. Yworo (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I also note that WP:OFFICIAL specifically states "website or other Internet service", which anticipates this situation. Yworo (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If you want to bring the link into the article, then open a discussion on the talk page to gather a consensus. How would such a link improve an encyclopedic article? What does it say that the article does not? Glrx (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

S/PDIF

You removed a quote in a reference. I add this quote for as a reference and not as a howto. This is a really a "hidden" statement. mabdul 01:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why should a "hidden" statement be added to an article? How does the quotation help the average reader understand the topic? The quotation is primarily of interest to those who want to connect different interfaces -- ie, those that want HOWTO information. I have no problem with the reference as a source. Glrx (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary precision

Please state the reasons that you removed the references for arbitrary precision after 2007 and only kept the original 2 references (without publish year)? Wiki said Please help improve this article by adding reliable references after 2007. The new papers cited reflect recent development and applications of arbitrary precision in scinetific and engineering fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.128.221.62 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The refs in arbitrary-precision arithmetic were removed because they were not used / cited in the article. They are after-the-fact additions that were not used to compile the original article and do not have inline citations pointing to them.

The notice at the top of the article is not asking for references after 2007. It states that in 2007 the article was marked because its text did not have inline citations to references. Nothing requires those inline citations to be post 2007.

Wikipedia is not a how to do it manual. WP:NOTHOWTO One of the references (one that appears to have a conflict of interest WP:COI with the editor) is a how to exercise for a class. Some other references appear to have little relevance to the main article; the article is not, for example, interested in FPGA implementations.

Glrx (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Ms. Glrx, (1) Are you the editor of the page of arbitrary precision? (2) The papers written by academic researchers published in conference proceedings and journals as in the new references are very helpful to the wide reader in the world. (3) The texts can be edited, too, to reflect why those papers are necessary for readers with scientific and engineering backgrounds. Please read through all the papers before you brutally deleted them. (4) You seem to have a bad history of removing other people's editing, violating the value of Wiki. (5)I strongly object you being an editor if you are. Have not authored any journal or conference papers in the subjects of arbitrary precision? If not, please leave space for other experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuehwang (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall Problem.

Hi! Just wanted to mention that your edits to Monty Hall problem have really helped the article. Good work. Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just edited the intro again in an attempt to simplify Gerhard's addition. Glrx (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Glrx: But please consider that the host, knowing about the actual location of the car resp. of the three objects, in intentionally showing a goat, offers an overall probability to win by switching of 2/3, whereas the "uninformed" host in opening just "a" door, and indeed coincidentally by chance discovering a goat, already has reduced the probability to win by switching to just 1/2 only. This is true even if he actually shows a goat indeed and not the car. I clearly named the peculiar reason for that, but you deleted that reason. Nevertheless this peculiar reason should be shown "somewhere" in the article, helping the reader to grasp also that misty fact. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

MHP

Hi - I've drafted "combined solution" sections previously, see e.g. [1] (in the show/hide section). Several times I've done this Martin hasn't seemed to truly object. Is this more along the lines of what you're thinking? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That draft is not what I have in mind. It does not explain the solution methods, the language is awkward, and the presentation is confusing. It's trying to say too much too fast. Glrx (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not even close enough to be a starting point for collaborative editing? If not, then perhaps I'm misreading your response here. In any event, I encourage you to keep working on the article in a WP:BRD sort of way. IMO, one of the main problems has been folks have been too timid about making changes and only suggesting changes (not even specific changes) on the talk page (and then becoming discouraged when others have not unanimously supported their proposed changes). As long as most changes are not simply reverted, actually changing the content and allowing others to successively modify your changes (iteratively) is a much more productive approach. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of it as a starting point. I don't think you're misreading my main thrust. On the contrary, you appear to understand my position better than most.

I agree with your too timid comment, but there's good reason for people to be timid: there's a tremendous amount of material on the talk page. Each side of the dispute also extends a lot of deference to the other side; it's a detente.

I intend to do some slow edits. That means I will move stuff around without patching it. The patches would create a string of edits. I will offer reasons for the changes, but you've already called me on a move. I see how that turns out on the talk pages.

Glrx (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Compressed Air Batteries

Hello Glrx,

Please read carefully our answers to each of your points and let us know as soon as possible how we can resolve the problems you have raised.

This article was proposed for deletion by Glrx (talk • contribs) on 2011-06-04 with the comment: Article is about a Pnu Power product and sounds in advertising. The sources quote employees and company press releases without their own evaluation, so the sources are neither independent nor secondary. The compressed air battery is not notable. The compressed air battery is really a component of the company's uninterruptible power supply. The product is about a small variation on the design of a large scale UPS: instead of storing energy in a flywheel or standby battery, the energy is stored as compressed air. It is not clear that the compressed air battery UPS merits coverage in the UPS article at this time: WP:UNDUE. The main editors, User:Johnhutch and User:Goodwinaj, have ties to Pnu Power and therefore have a WP:COI.

1. Article is about a Pnu Power product and sounds in advertising

The article is about Compressed Air Batteries - their principles and application. Pnu Power is the inventor and only manufacturer of Compressed Air Batteries, so mention of the company is unavoidable and valid (cf Wiki entry for the iPad or Dyson (company)). It is written in an informative and neutral style.

2. The sources quote employees and company press releases without their own evaluation, so the sources are neither independent nor secondary.

The information supplied is factual and open to independent questioning or challenge. We make no apology that the authors (John Hutchinson and Andrew Goodwin) are employed by the company - just as, no doubt, the Wiki entries for the iPad or [[Dyson (company)] were authored by company employees or associates.

3. The compressed air battery is not notable.

The evidence suggests otherwise. It is very much notable as a new technology for generating electricity, as a direct replacement for conventional batteries, with lower carbon emissions and maintenance requirements. The fact that it is a new technology is proven by the granting of international patents. Its effectiveness is proved with its adoption by companies including National Grid in the USA and UK. The use of a scroll compressor/generator to generate electricity is an entirely new application of scroll technology. This may be compared with Sir James Dyson's application of industrial vortex filtration technology to a new type of product i.e. the bagless domestic vacuum cleaner.

4. The compressed air battery is really a component of the company's uninterruptible power supply

This is rather like saying 'a car battery is really (only) a component that starts the engine and runs the electrics', as if that was unimportant. Whichever type of battery is used in a UPS system, it is an essential component. Compressed Air Batteries are indeed used as components in large UPS system. They are also used as standalone UPS/backup power sources in smaller applications, as a direct replacement for conventional batteries. It is worth noting that this year's Japanese nuclear disaster resulted from a failure of battery backup systems.

5. The product is about a small variation on the design of a large scale UPS: instead of storing energy in a flywheel or standby battery, the energy is stored as compressed air

We fear there is some misunderstanding here. Please read all of the references that are included with the article. A Compressed Air Battery is a major variation in the design of a large scale UPS. Not least, Compressed Air Batteries have no moving parts in standby mode, whereas flywheels must be kept spinning and consume significant amounts of power in standby. The potential for Compressed Air Batteries to reduce carbon emissions in this application alone makes them notable.

6. It is not clear that the compressed air battery UPS merits coverage in the UPS article at this time: WP:UNDUE

We disagree. Compressed Air Batteries as part of UPS systems are a new technology which are generating a great deal of interest from engineers and specifiers internationally. Pnu Power has just received an order for a large UPS system for a data center operated by one of the UK's largest financial services companies, seeking (among other factors) to reduce its carbon emissions. We should be in a position to name the company within a few weeks.

7. The main editors, User:Johnhutch and User:Goodwinaj, have ties to Pnu Power and therefore have a WP:COI

If this condition was applied universally, many Wiki entries would have to be deleted. At this stage of the development of Compressed Air Batteries, the main source of information about them unavoidably resides within the company that developed them. We have simply provided a factual account of how Compressed Air Batteries work, how they have been developed and their potential applications.

In conclusion, we strongly believe that Compressed Air Batteries represent an important new technology and are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. We would welcome you suggestions for further editing.

Yours sincerely,

John Hutchinson Johnhutch (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhutch (talk • contribs) 09:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Perfect Sort / Triangulation Sort

Is a kind of un-algorithm. It simply triangulates from what data is so far sorted (discouraged / takes extra time). But implemented (see code) it shows shows some surprising benefits. Is sometimes referred to being "a sort in which data becomes available for streaming rapidly" (and formidable multi-field). Some books refer to such a method but I haven't seen it one of them code it or compare it's benefits. Interesting for just that. Enjoy. User:Sven nestle2/Perfect Sort / Triangulating Sort

You need to cite WP:RS for this algorithm. Who has evaluated this algorithm? Also watch out for WP:NOR. Glrx (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me Glrx did you have time to see my corrections yet?

*** I've completely rewritten please look ***

I am trying to provide a good topic. Please say if there is any reason to hold it back. (for example: did I not explain triangulation?)

I'm sure the claims I made are correct. I'm sure the theory is old (ie triangulation) yet simply collated and furnished. As to its "value compared to other sorts" maybe you'd like to research it :)

Note I really don't mind your input in the matter I'd rather enjoy it.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. "~ the reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge ~" I don't see many of the sorts you list req. to show source. Wikipedia:No original research. "~ that includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources ~". I'm sure I didn't make any unfounded conclusions nor say much or any theory. Triangulation is old hat I wouldn't say "origional". Yet I believe the properties (rapid output easy debug high speed) are interesting to see (as well as a rapid recursion removal lesson). Yet I do see allot of sorts posted make claims about handling things that infact most sorts handle if tweaked to do so.

By the way the sort was incl. in a copyright early 90's but as I said it's GPL'ed now. (called "radix_nr" but I won't go into the theories why since maybe I shouldn't :)

But that's parsing hairs. The original post was bad and I'm not sure if you've looked at the new post.

Thank you, John H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven nestle2 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The above is essentially what is on talk:sorting algorithm. The discussion should happen there. Glrx (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

ok thanks I'm new to wiki arbitration (talk • contribs) 17:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Streisand effect

As a result, the Revere article has become much longer, and much better sourced -– a version of what Wikipedia users call the “Streisand Effect,” which is described as when “an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely.” [2]. CallawayRox (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But Sarah Palin has not been trying to hide or remove her Paul Revere comments, so it cannot be an instance of suppression leading to wider publication. -- Glrx (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Front-side bus

Hello. Not sure if you are familiar with the policies of Wikipedia:Silence and consensus and Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. It is sad to see you suggest dispute resolution, instead of participating in the discussion. Hope you reconsider. Generally making civil arguments based on evidence is more helpful to collaboration than acusations and threats. W Nowicki (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Where have I suggested dispute resolution on this matter? I explained my edits in the summary. You want to add material; the material has been challenged; it was not reinserted by another editor; if an editor wants to insert challenged material, then he opens a discussion on the talk page. You've now opened a discussion. Glrx (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your complaint on my talk page included:

You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. [3]

The issue had already been discussed on the talk page and nobody objected to my proposed compromise. I mentioned the talk page discussion in my edit summaries. W Nowicki (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Van is capitalized when it starts a name"

Not Vincent van Gogh. See first line of Japonaiserie (Van Gogh). William Avery (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If "van" starts the name, then it is capitalized: "Van Gogh". If the "van" is medial, then it is not capitalized: "Vincent van Gogh". If you look in the article, you will see plenty of "Vincent van Gogh" and "Van Gogh". Glrx (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Jensen's Device

Hello, I saw that you have reverted one of my edits. Would you mind explaining a bit more why? Although having examples in several computer languages would probably not be appropriate for the Wikipedia article, I think a link to the rosettacode is precisely what the reader would need to grasp the concept thanks to a version in his/her language of choice. I found it very relevant, especially given that the Wikipedia article is not that long and detailed. Note that I do not have personal interests in rosettacode.org. Alkarex (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That was a long time ago. Linking to other wiki's is not usually encouraged; wikis are not WP:RS. You agree that WP should not be a code repository. It also is WP:NOTHOWTO. Those are basic problems with rosettacode. Generally, WP wants external links to have encyclopedic content that the article does not yet have (yes, there are other reasons to include external links). In addition to all of that, most of the rosettacode code examples do not use Jensen's device; instead they simulate the device in languages by passing non-lexically scoped functions. In many ways, that butchers Jensen. Glrx (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

IGES

Hello, Glrx … I noticed your recent edits to IGES regarding ISO 10303 (STEP) … I was involved with the IGES Project for over a decade, and was responsible for STEP's use of Wirth syntax notation instead of Backus–Naur Form.

Anywho, I'm curious as to your experience in CAx interoperability such that you would know that IGES and STEP should be linked, and how you came to the article on IGES (this time) in the first place?

Happy Editing! — 70.21.17.51 (talk · contribs) _{18:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)}