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]

learnemc.com

re: reverts one and two

Hi, I see you reverted my removal of two external links to learnemc.com. My concern about the links is that they were originally placed by thubing who (I infer from learnemc.com/instructors) has a close connection to site and is promoting it all over wikipedia contrary to WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Just letting you know. If you think the info has value, that's fine. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your efforts. Many/most COI editors add material whose purpose is more advertising than anything else. WP needs editors to keep its balance. Yes, I think the links have value. Glrx (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Courtesy ping

Hello Glrx. Are you planning to do more with Marian Rejewski? I am not sure how to interpret your sudden silence. Thanks.• Lingzhi♦(talk) 10:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finite element method revert

re Your edit

Hello Glrx,

Indeed, it originally referred to problem (3), but this was flawed i think since problem (3) in the previous form can also be written in a form without the $M$ . --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 20:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You changed "problem (3)" to "equation (5)", but equation (5) has

M

in it; that makes the text "no matrix

M

is used" goofy. Large sections of the article are about sub-problem (3). Glrx (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that large sections of the article are about sub-problem (3). However, I do not see how the appearance of M in eq. (5) makes the text you quoted sound goofy. What is certain is that writing

\mathbf {b} =\mathbf {M} \mathbf {f}

, we can reduce (5) to (6). Hence, it is not the problem becoming simpler, but the equation. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond or correct. --Mathmensch (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the section again. In the article's text, equation 6 does not depend on

M

. Your above definition of

b

depends on

M

. That's goofy. The section defines

b

, and it is not the definition that you propose above. Your argument is inconsistent with the text.

The top of section Matrix form of the problem makes a specific assumption for subproblem 3 that the form of

f (x)

is a vector dot product; from that assumption, the section derives equation 5 with matrix

M

. Then, near your edit, it says "it is not necessary to assume [the dot product form]". That change of context blows away the assumption at the top of the section and consequently makes equation 5 irrelevant. The section then considers a "general function

f (x)

" that is not a dot-product form:

f

stays inside the integral and is not moved outside of it as an

f k

. The resulting equation 6 is not a simplification of equation 5 but rather a new derivation for the right hand side that uses a generalized

f

. It's about subproblem 3.

If the text had meant to say what you claim above, then it would have just evaluated the right hand side of equation 5 and called it

b

as you did. Instead it starts talking about a general

f

and defines

b

without a hint of

f k

. Glrx (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

\mathbf {b} =\mathbf {M} \mathbf {f}

for the special case coincides with the definition of

\mathbf {b}

in the text.

"That change of context blows away the assumption at the top of the section and consequently makes equation 5 irrelevant."

If it's irrelevant, why does the sentence compare the equation (6) to (5) ('since no matrix

M

is used')? It is at least relevant for the comparison, and hence even part of the context.

The problem does not become simpler, because in (5) we at least have a solution method by matrix theory.

BTW: I make mistakes all the time (as you can clearly see from my talk page), and even David Hilbert once 'proved' the continuum hypothesis from ZF. And despite you not going to believe me, I sincerely wish you a very pleasant afternoon. --Mathmensch (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please collaborate.

Hello Glrx,

You have reverted the article Finite element method again. Above, I have explained why the version of the article proposed by me is the accurate one. Therefore, please agree to use that version. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not explained, and you have not addressed my arguments above.

Furthermore, you do not have consensus for the change under WP:BRD. It's not my job to build consensus for the original version. Consensus is not about voting, but we are sort of at a WP:3O here: looking at the original author, me, and you puts the vote at 2 to 1.

As instructed, I have gone to your talk page and noticed that you have made several mistakes in the past. I think those episodes should make you much more careful about your positions.

Glrx (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your positions and actions are unfortunate and put a halt to any progress on the issue. --Mathmensch (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TDR Traces on Time-domain reflectometer

Great pictures. It appears that there is 18 inches of some type of cable. Perhaps you could add a description of the cable. 108.171.132.164 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bombe Simulators

RE: my revert at Bombe

You mention that there have been many Bombe simulators, but none are mentioned in the article. Doubtless worthy of a discussion there. kencf0618 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least four bombe simulators are mentioned in the article; see Bombe#External links. The mechanical copy is a much more significant project. Glrx (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tektronix

re GermanJoe's removal of ELs at Tektronix

Hello Glrx, I deleted the link, as it was added by a long-time EL spammer violating WP:LINKSPAM and WP:EL, most likely to promote their video productions (WP:PROMO). Sorry, if my initial edit summary has been a bit short and confusing - I'll keep them more detailed now. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe:

Your edit removed three links. One was an apparent Tektronix corporate link to a Chinese website, one an apparent Tektronix link to information about its 60th anniversary, and a third to a documentary published by Oregon Public Broadcasting. The edit comment was just "rmv WP:EL".

The PBS link looked good but the 60th anniversary was a dead link. I reverted because there was no explanation for the removals. I deleted the CN EL as pointless and tagged the 60th as dead.[1] I then went to archive.org to recover the dead link, but that didn't work; it just redirected to CN and went nowhere, so I deleted the 60th link.[2] That left the PBS link.

Now you've re-deleted the PBS link with the comment "rmv - WP:LINKSPAM by SPA account".[3] which seemed to be opaque as well. The article is about the company, the PBS video is entirely about the company, I've restored the video as relevant, and now you've labeled it linkspam and implied somebody is an SPA.

I crawled back in the history section and uncovered the EL's insertion in October 2012 by Guanaco55.

That led me to User talk:Guanaco55 which has a few comments about inserting PBS videos. One November 2012 comment about removing a video for passing mention states, "However, if the entire documentary was solely about the one individual, I would say that falls under a link to be considered under WP:ELMAYBE criteria 2."

The talk page also pointed to the recent Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Video spamming (PBS) where you comment that the video additions are "to vaguely related articles". A documentary about Tektronix is not vaguely related to Tektronix, which was a major tech employer in Oregon. You also state that non SPAs had added links to these videos and that "I am trying to avoid deleting legit usages as far as possible, but if it happens feel free to revert me". Others, such as Montanabw has also reverted you. Apparently several editors have found some of these videos relevant.

I am at a loss to understand your rationale for deleting the Tektronix link. You don't seem to complain about the bandwidth because you admit some links are acceptable. You say many links are "'documentaries' and 'video stories' of questionable encyclopedic value", but I don't get your meaning there. Are such "documentaries" questionable because they are shams? I've deleted infomercial links, but PBS is not in the infomercial business. PBS exercises editorial judgment. The criteria for an EL is that has material that would be good to include in the article. I'd expect a PBS video about Tektronix to have such information. Yes, it has interviews with retirees who may not matter, but it has stories about the principals, why the product was selected, and why the company happened at the right time. I delete a lot of content whose purpose is primarily advertising (such as authors plugging their new book), but I also leave in or add commercial material that has significant content. For the Tektronix link, I do not see "strong evidence for a conflict of interest".

Glrx (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the link, when you think that it contains valuable information - that point wasn't entirely clear for me in your last revert. However, I am baffled by your comment, that you don't see a conflict of interest in the user's linking pattern. Do you really believe, these links are added to improve Wikipedia just for the sake of it? I don't have to "imply", that Guanaco55 is an SPA - their edit history shows clearly that the account has no other purpose than publicizing the content of video sites. That's WP:LINKSPAM, just like adding book links from a specific publisher to hundreds of articles would be spam - even if some of the books may be related to the article's topics. GermanJoe (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day!

This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undersea cable test TDR

Hi, I can see you reverted my additions. The only point of my edit was to show that the "longest" test carried out by TDR was for an undersea cable of 580 km length. I think this is at least worth mentioning somewhere, especially that there are references confirming it, as well as a screenshot proving it? What is your opinion? --Zureks (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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