User talk:Glrx

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13;

Please note: if you post on this page, I will post my replies here too.

This is Glrx's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 120 days

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:

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)[reply]

Quadratic

Hello Glrx. I put some quotes into the footnotes of the quadratic equation article, plus rephrased a little bit. I hope that takes care of the problem. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Talk:Quadratic equation#Quadratic formula in the lead

The record is currently a mess. User:JamesBWatson's edit removed my and some other editors' comments. I've got to paw through that to see if it is salvageable.

I still oppose your changes. I'm neutral about including the quadratic formula in the lede, but your statements go too far. In addition, I have trouble with the weight of the sources.

Glrx (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to salvage that stuff. If you get a chance, I'm wondering if you could give an example of how to present the quadratic formula in the lead that would be acceptable. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to think about that more. Focusing on the QF may be too pointed. The QF is important in applied fields and high school algebra, but I'm not sure how to rank it for mathematics in general. That's also where I have trouble with your sources: they are technical/engineering/high school texts, so their opinion doesn't give broad coverage. The QF is also something of a fluke. There are are formulas for third and fourth order polynomials, but they are rarely used. The first order is so simple that it is largely skipped over as just an algebraic manipulation. Glrx (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for accidentally removing a whole chunk of comments from the talk page. I'm not sure how that happened: perhaps I edited the wrong revision of the page by mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are one of the good guys.... Glrx (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for offering to think about whether there is an acceptable way to put the quadratic formula in the lead of our Wikipedia article about the quadratic equation. I've just assembled the following list of sources that may be useful to you.

[1]Blanton, Floyd. Modern College Algebra, p. 162 (McGraw-Hill, 1967): "The quadratic formula is the most powerful method for solving quadratics since it can be used to solve any quadratic."

[2]Li, Xuhui. An Investigation of Secondary School Algebra Teachers' Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Algebraic Equation Solving, p. 56 (ProQuest, 2007): "The quadratic formula is the most general method for solving quadratic equations and is derived from another general method: completing the square."

[3]Jahr, Cathy. Barron's How to Prepare for the Tennessee Gateway High School Exit Exam in Algebra, p. 137 (Barron's Educational Series, 2005): "The Quadratic Formula is one of the most important formulas in mathematics because it is a method for solving all quadratic equations."

[4]Heywood, Arthur. Intermediate algebra: lecture-lab, p. 235 (Dickenson Pub. Co., 1975): "The quadratic formula is one of the most important formulas in mathematics, and we will now spend some time studying many different ways of using it."

[5]McConnell, John. Algebra, p. 603 (Scott Foresman 1993): "The Quadratic Formula is one of the most famous formulas in all of mathematics. You should memorize it today."

[6]Banks, John. Elements of Algebra, p. 97 (Allyn and Bacon, 1962): "The quadratic formula is one of the most useful formulas in elementary mathematics. You should be certain you know what it is and how to use it. Many other equations can be solved by first reducing them to quadratic form."

[7]Larson, R. and Hodgkins A. College Algebra with Applications for Business and Life Sciences, p. 104 (Cengage Learning 2009): "The Quadratic Formula is one of the most important formulas in algebra, and you should memorize it."

[8]Smith, R. and Peterson, J. Introductory Technical Mathematics, pp. 408-409 (Cengage Learning 2006): "The factoring method has limited application. Only certain quadratic equations can be solved by factoring. Completing the square…can be a rather long and complicated procedure and is seldom used in practical applications. [The] quadratic formula…is the most useful method for solving complete quadratic equations."

[9]Payne, M. Intermediate Algebra, p. 289 (West Publishing 1985): "While the method of completing the square may be used to solve quadratic equations, it is more involved than the quadratic formula, and is seldom used in practical work."

[10]Davis, L. Technical Mathematics, p. 174. (Merrill Publishing 1990): "You can use the quadratic formula, as well as completing the square, to solve any quadratic equation. However, you will find that the quadratic formula is easier to use."

[11]Dugopolski, Mark. Algebra for College Students, p. 541 (McGraw Hill 2006): "Any quadratic equation can be solved by completing the square or using the quadratic formula. Because the quadratic formula is usually faster, it is used more often than completing the square."

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you are trying to go with these sources. Nobody doubts that the QF is widely used. The sources that state QF is easier/faster than completing the square seem more like a passing remark about human effort rather than a serious study about efficiency. The statement also strikes me as a bit odd because the QF can be viewed as an expression of completing the square (and if the quadratic is monic to begin with, completing the square is simple). I also doubt the need to inject such a statement in the lede. Your earlier edits to the lede were strong statements about QF's significance in algebra, and most of the sources above do not seem qualified to make such as assessment. WP wants a source that would survey the field, but the above sources are more focused on teaching the fundamentals of technical or intermediate algebra rather than surveys of algebra.

Glrx (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. When I initially looked for the QF on Wikipedia a few weeks ago, I expected that it would have its own article, given that it is one of the most well-known and frequently-used of all mathematical equations. When I found that it had no article of its own, and was instead buried deep in the article about the quadratic equation, this concerned me. My feeling was that a person who reads nothing more than the lead ought to at least see what the QF looks like, because it's an equation that every student of mathematics should memorize. I think that's a very widely held view. Anyway, I obviously have no personal stake in burying or unburyng the QF, and my only concern is good article-writing. At this point, if you don't see any acceptable way to put the QF in the lead, then I'm certainly not going to try and put it there. I did the best search through Google Books that I could. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding dead link at Dilly Knox

Hello, Glrx. I wonder what value you think it adds for our readers to keep a dead link. Interested to know your rationale. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some dead links have merely moved to another location; some pages will have been copied to internet archives such as archive.org. Tagging as a dead link is a request that those options be explored. To me, the editor who adds a link believes it is worthwhile; just blowing away a link disagrees with that editor. Given the domain of the link, it probably does say more about Dilly Knox than would be in the article. Glrx (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'm not sure I agree, but I shan't stick my oar in any further. Tim riley (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CD variations

Hey Glrx... you reverted my change to the CD article about SHM-CD. I'm not sure why: it's a real format (released in Japan) and the comment was sourced. What exactly is the criteria for why something can be included as a variation to CDs? As for the fact that you said it "sounded like an advert" we can certainly reword it if that's your only complaint. Thanks, 87Fan (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit which inserted:

Super High Material CDs (or SHM-CDs) claim enhanced audio quality through the use of a special polycarbonate plastic which allows for more accurate reading of CD data by the CD player laser head. SHM-CD format CDs are fully compatible with standard CD players.^[1]

^ Bowie Back Catalogue Due On Shm-cd In Japan, September 14, 2009, retrieved October 15, 2013

The claim in this text is the use of "a special polycarbonate plastic". That does not sound like a format change ("fully compatible with standard CD"). The performance claim also sounds dubious; CDs have error correcting codes that usually work just fine. The reference leads to a retailer. It all sounds like puffery.

The first page of Google hits is a mixed bag. Some say it's BS; others point out the bits are the same, so it makes no difference in sound quality. Some claim the plastic is clearer and more fluid but don't make any claims as to error rate.

For some reason, I cannot pull up http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/where-is-the-magic-in-a-shm-disk.271766/ and look at post 43 right now.

What WP wants is a reliable source that tells us it is important.

Glrx (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capacitance probe

Please explain to me how three companies that sell and explain capacitance probes are acceptable whilst the website www.dfmsoftware.co.za is seen as spam? Having posted a legitimate source regarding the comparison between the neutron probe and the dfm probe, you removed it under the pretense that you would expect high correlation in measurements of same property. It is not what you "expect", but rather the imperical research at stake here. And to mention the least, the correlation is not the same. There are major differences noted here. Did you even read the article, or just decide that you own the page itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNBailey911 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things going on with the article. An IP editor in co.za keeps adding a link to www.dfmsoftware.co.za for general information without focus.

Yes, the article had a list of such URLs, but none of them are particularly good or focused. The rationale that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to insert more poor links. The linked page is about advertising not encyclopedic content.

Furthermore, adding external links to the body of an article is not good practice.

The identified link that you inserted on Oct 16 (edit comment: "I felt it important to mention the difference between the neutron probe and the capacitance probe and which one is more reliable at this point") seemed to be a random comment. As I recall, the papers reported a correlation of 99 percent and were not of much encyclopedic interest. WP prefers secondary rather than primary sources. Furthermore, one paper can be cited directly without going through the dfm website. (doi:10.4314/wsa.v39i2.1).

I'm just a lowly peon here; I'm not in any sense the final arbiter of what gets include in WP. If you want the material added, then bring it up on the article talk page and get a WP:CONSENSUS for it. See also WP:BRD.

Glrx (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I flushed some of the other links because they didn't add much content.

Interwikiconflict Casting - Casting (metalworking)

Hello Glrx,

I saw that you reverted my edit about casting. I had a lot of work about this matter: There are two Wikidata items that have almost the same meaning: d:Q496098 which is about casting (in general) and d:Q10956917 which is about casting (metalworking). It took me a lot of work to discern in every language, to which of both categories each article belongs. Most languages have only one article, about 'casting'. And to make it even more complicated: those items often only write about metal casting, not about f.i. the casting of plastic or chocolate.
Then it may be clear that whatever you may do to solve this puzzle, it'll never be perfect. But the most important is the fact that there is no interwiki conflict anymore.

Now you reverted one of the many edits that I did in many languages. The result is that Casting (metalworking) refers to the german Gießen (Verfahren). And that article refers to Casting. Is that what you want?

You wrote that I didn't give an edit comment. Actually I did: '> Wikidata check'. I admit that I could have explained more. But I am resolving hundreds of Wikidata conflicts, and if I have to explain it everytime, there's less time for me to do the real job. Erik Wannee (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for working on WP. To me, your edit blew away some useful interwiki links, so I reverted it. Before reverting, I followed the links, and they seemed to be on topic.

I'm pretty much ignorant about interwikis, but the deletion just seems odd. I'm not sure that I buy into "the most important is the fact that there is no interwiki conflict anymore." To me, the most important thing is the effect on WP's readers. There were three reasonable interwiki links that your edit deleted.

I don't see a problem with specialized en.WP articles linking to more generalized articles on other wiki. Especially if I'm reading an article on metal casting, click the de.WP link, and get an article that describes metal casting.

I understand equivalence classes and agree that WikiData may need to maintain equivalence, but the metal casting article had distinct interwiki links that were not part of wikidata. It would seem that interwiki links need to handle many-to-one and one-to-many as well as one-to-one links.

Glrx (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interwikiconflict Noise Factor

With all due respect, I think the version you revert to makes less sense. The noise factor of the first receiver (F1) should be the smallest to have the lowest noise system, yet you want it to say F1 "should be the most significant." Bigger (i.e. significant) noise factors should be down the chain so they can be reduced by the gain, G, of the previous recievers. Noise Factor of the first reciever should be as low as possible. Why do you want this important point to be confusing?

Sorry for the delay, but I've been swamped.

The issue is more subtle and involved. Many of the "amplifiers" aren't amplifiers at all but rather feedlines, filters, or mixers. A short feedline may contribute little to the noise figure; a mixer often contributes 6 dB.

Your viewpoint is only true when the blocks are amplifiers, the first block has significant gain, and there is no significant attenuation in the subsequent blocks. That may not be the case. In some applications, there's a feedline preamplifier, but its job to just to make up for the following feedline's loss. If the preamp has too much gain, then it risks introducing intermodulation products in a downstream amplifier.

Glrx (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ionization energy

Thanks for doing good job looking after the article. Was curious about the reason for your revert - abbreviation / initialism is covered by sources as I indicated in my edit summary. I was backfilling IE from the dab ie, which either needed this in the article or has to be removed from the dab. As found in the dab already, and in sources, I thought important to fix the article. I was going to discuss with you but then another editor has reverted you, so if you'd like to discuss on the article talk that would seem appropriate. Regards Widefox; talk 17:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but I've been buried. I was also reverted (as you point out above). I deleted the abbreviation because it wasn't used in the WP article, and it doesn't seem to be a globally used term. The reference you cited to support the insertion seemed to be using it as a local abbreviation. If I say MI6, CIA, or FBI, many people know what I'm talking about without any more explanation. If you said IE to me a week ago, I wouldn't know what you were talking about.

That IE is on the DAB page is a bit surprising to me, but I don't see a need to contest the issue. Putting the entry on the DAB page is cheap, including IE on the Ionization energy page is cheap, and at least one other person believes the abbreviation is appropriate. It's simpler to let it stay and move on to other things.

Glrx (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exquisite components

Glrx, In PC Power Supply, you may have better expression for this. See the reference. Intel has specified the manufaturer and the capacitor to achive the same result of the setup. How to explain this without advertising? --Hans Haase (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Power supply unit (computer)

We don't have to worry about the fine details, so we don't need to get close to advertising.

Intel's diagram on page 19 makes statements such as "0.1uf - Kemet, C1206C104K5RAC or equivalent". The "or equivalent" says the actual manufacturer is is not relevant — it is the performance of the part that matters. The actual details of that performance, such as getting a low ESR, is beyond the scope of WP. WP is not a how to book.

I have trouble with File:PC PSU Noise Test Setup.svg. It's merged two grounds and ignored the differential probe issue.

Glrx (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with no advertising. The point is the specifcation defines special compontents. This is reference only.

The low ESR caps I differ. I should be declared even capatitor is not capacitor. On the one hand we should give the information if a reader goes for "do not try this at home" to prevent accidents. On the other hand, when writing about combution engines, there are 2-strokes, 4-strokes (Otto), atkinson and miller cycle, carburetors, direct injetion and it is known where these engines are used.

With the ground wire you are right. I will update the diagram. --Hans Haase (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Glrx. You have new messages at Talk:Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms.
Message added 12:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Glrx (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[1]

Archives (Index)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13