User talk:Splash/Archive16

; Archives
	Archive to end 1st August 2005; 17th August 2005; 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC); 26 September 2005; 22 October 2005; 19 November 2005; 5 December 2005; 3 January 2006; 20 January 2006; 5 February 2006; 4 March 2006; 23 March 2006; 3 April 2006; 29 May 2006; 1 August 2006;

Destabilized

I wish you would have told me before you reverted me, rather than after. Ral315 (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have respected your decision a lot more; that's all. I'm bold, but I don't mind being reverted- it's just a personal thing. Ral315 (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rayleigh fading

I have been thinking about this for some time...in Rayleigh fading, where you have the model distribution

p_{R}(r)={\frac {r}{\sigma ^{2}}}e^{-r^{2}/2\sigma ^{2}},\ r\geq {}0\ \ \ \ (1)

I wonder if it might be better to define say, $\Omega =2\sigma ^{2}$ , and set this quantity as the reference total power? After all, the radial distribution arises from the summation of two Gaussians, so, I wonder whether it is necessary that both of these components contribute only half of the total. What do you think? --HappyCamper 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to check with a textbook on that... -Splash - tk 16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your suggestion is the version that Proakis uses directly in the relevant equation (14-1-23 in my 3rd Edition). I wanted to avoid introducing a dummy variable of $\Omega$ because it seems to obfuscate things rather. It is a condition of the Rayleigh distribution that the two constituent variables have equal variance (Proakis, p. 45), but I'm not quite sure what question you're asking in that regard.

In eq. (2-1-128), Proakis uses the equation that I preferred in the article and I have just checked my mental arithmetic on that. Using the gamma-function-based expression for $\mathbb {E} (R^{k})$ (eq. 2-1-130), I am missing a factor of 1/2 in my definition of $\sigma ^{2}$ so that it is really:

\sigma ^{2}={\frac {1}{2}}\mathbb {E} (R^{2}),

whereas using your $\Omega$ as Proakis does later, drops the factor of 2 in exchange for an amended PDF of:

p_{R}(r)={\frac {2r}{\Omega }}e^{-r^{2}/\Omega }\ \ \ \ (2).

I'm not sure which representation I prefer. Now I look at it again, I realise that really there is a dummy variable either way: I was just thinking in terms of $\sigma ^{2}$ being a variance, when it isn't for the Rayleigh distribution anyway (it is just the variance of the two underlying iid's). The tradeoff is in a slightly non-standard representation of the PDF (2) versus the standard in (1). I think for simplicity I prefer (2). So we should change it, then, right? In any case, the article as it stands is wrong, so I'll just dive in I think. -Splash - tk 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet

JianLi (talk · contribs) seems to be making some similar edits to this sockpuppet group. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

José is Fluid (talk · contribs) might also be another sock. --CFIF (talk to me) 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. A simple check of my IP address and my user contributions (which significantly predate the AFD discussions) will confirm this. JianLi 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not convinced that you are. -Splash - tk 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jose is Fluid on the other hand, almost certainly is. -Splash - tk 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this mean his entire talk page gets blanked?! You all are acting a little peculiarly. Can you explain what this is all about? What is this supposed sock master doing? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, he is sock puppeting, that's what sockpuppeteers do. I have taken to blanking his talk pages because he uses them to hold conversations between his socks backing up his case on whatever his issue du jour is; you can find the previous, minimal, entries in the history if you have a need for them. He uses sockpuppets in the classic manner: he uses them to back himself in AfDs (sometimes carefully choosing both side of the debate), he uses them to to back himself up on talk pages, to engage in edit wars avoiding 3RR etc. It is not peculiar to stop him from doing so. If he would only edit benignly like everyone else, there would be no problem. -Splash - tk 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Aren't you supposed to be getting more proof - like checkuser or something - before eradicating the user from existence? Just curious. From reading WP:SOCK, it seems like we're supposed to be a little cautious with such cases. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People can change IP's, plus, how can a new user know so much about Wikipedia and how it works, along with requesting deletion of TV-personality articles right off the bat without being a sock? --CFIF (talk to me) 21:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't need to trouble checkusers for obvious sockpuppets, which these are. I've done lots of reading and studying on this before blocking each and every one of them. Have you done any before telling me what I should be doing? -Splash - tk 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this is causing far too much trouble. I'm quite keen on bringing a resolution to this perceived problem, and here is something that I expect to nip the problem at its bud. I finally got a chance to go through every single edit of José is Fluid's account. Even if it is not a sockpuppet, I agree with the permanent block 100%.

2nd edit to Don Bell (reporter) is adding a speedy.
5th edit to Lanisha Cole is adding a speedy.
6th edit to Mother nation is adding a speedy.
7th edit to Paul Boland is adding a speedy.
8th edit is a request for investigation for Splash and CFIF

After that, a number of harmless edits are made to articles, alternating with occasional posts to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation.

Qualitatively, the amount of disruption and lost time editing Wikipedia this handful number of edits caused is more than enough to warrant the block. --HappyCamper 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HappyCamper, thank you for the civil response and attempt at explaining. Splash, rather than exalting yourself above anyone who dare question your suspicious behavior, you might want to start up an abuse page on this puppet master so we can avoid unnecessarily nasty exchanges like this. If one exists, make it easier to find. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An 'abuse page'? They are routinely a bad idea, unfortunately, since they give the sockpuppeteer a sense of legitimacy ("how many accounts can I get on it?" "Did my latest account make it?" "How long before this account gets added?" "Does my abuse page have more entries than X?" "How do I compare to WoW"?" etc). You can question my behaviour naturally, but when you call it suspicious in the same breath, you imply that I am acting underhandedly or for ill reasons; which is prejudicial to put it mildly, no? -Splash - tk 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANI question

Hi Splash, Regarding this ANI entry, can you stop by and explain the criteria by which you banned those sockpuppets? Although I would personally be willing to assume you had a good reason without further investigation, the offense isn't obvious from the banned users' contribs, so I think the question being asked is a fair one. -- SCZenz 23:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a pseudo-edit-conflict, I just wrote a reply, though it's not quite as detailed as you asked for; writing a paragraph on all 36 puppets would be more writing than remains in my PhD thesis! Regards, -Splash - tk 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this. As I just said on ANI, I think this issue has now been reviewed plenty. -- SCZenz 00:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<relief>Splash - tk</relief>00:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification I don't want you to think that I'm calling you a liar or anything of that sort. I'm just the kind of user that likes to make sure all the ducks are in a row. It helps avoid bad feelings and questions when someone is on the receiving end of something.--Crossmr 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tea

Come by for some tea when you get a chance? :-) Something at the bottom of my talk page for you to read.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't work from a copy of Proakis - it actually came from a set of derivations I had found after reorganizing my notes. --HappyCamper 01:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to say keep up the good work! I think you understand the ideals here as well as anyone and we're lucky to have you here fighting for them! 216.43.238.69 16:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! -Splash - tk 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plase

plase read the "holdon on Wikichat and mabe revive it! - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JosephK19 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#BetacommandBot_expansion_of_task

I have raise a few qustion you need to answer. You seem to be ignoring them. thank you for identifying a bug about category redirects i will fix, that but please respond to the questions your are ignoring. The issue of what needs to be excluded has been raised and i am working on that if you look at User talk:Betacommand#Cat Exclustions you will see that. we had a discusion on IRC and im headed that direction shortly to see what cats they are using. any furthur help in making the exclusion list will be helpfull. But please respnd to the issuse i have brought up. Betacommand 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^repost

User:Splash I object to your to how you have handled this situation you are going against Wikipedia policy (empty categories older than four days are subject to deletion), and you inability to read.

This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. It is a category that has no items whatsoever in it, it has been empty for at least four days (CSD C1).
Please Remove this notice if at any point this category is no longer empty

is how I marked the categories ‘‘‘NEVER’’’ did I list it for deletion or attempt to speedy it, all the bot did at this point was state 'This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion'. Regarding the fact that the categories are key elements in series of categories show some proof that there are guidelines to keep them and that they are exempt from WP:CSD#1. Also please show some consensus about keeping them that has more than four editors. That is NOT a consensus on Wikipedia. I am operating per Wikipedia:deletion policy. Please show me some guideline or policy that exist to back up your personal opinion, and the uncalled for hostile bordering on rude behavior you have show in this discussion. Betacommand 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

may I quote your own words And I don't understand your WP:RFBOT post about "my previous post" this comment shows that you missed the above comment because you said next since your points A-E were i)not questions and ii)I dealt with those of them that needed any kind of a response already given your comments I assumed you must have missed the next post I made and only saw the following comment. Given this I decided to show you my "my previous post" because you obviously missed it. I am not insulting you. you however have been hostile, rude, disrespectable, and threatening to use your admin powers to block my bot. you have raised some concerns about exclusions to the bot I have attempted to identify those, when I asked you for what my bot tagged inappropriately you have stated only those about redirects and categories that are key elements in series of categories you have not given positive input only hostile anti-bot statements that you have yet to back up with anything except your personal opinion which is counter several other users. Betacommand 04:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ati3414 at photon and 3RR

He's at it again - you might want to check his behaviour out. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

A portal created recently by Mallimak (talk · contribs) - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

Thanks. --Mais oui! 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Mais oui!

I am nominating Mais oui! for blocking. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at: Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment by Mais oui! (Please also pass this message on to anyone else you think might be interested in contributing.) Thanks, Mallimak 01:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pair of you should stop spamming people. Noone will pay you any serious attention if you do that. The notion of "nominating" someone for blocking is also something that will not likely be taken particularly seriously. -Splash - tk 01:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded here:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_by_Mais_oui.21

Thanks. --Mais oui! 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of protection from Meathead AFD

"don't use protection preemptively". Just curious Splash, but did you look at the first AFD and count the staggering number of sockpuppets there? Once the forum echoingthesound.org realises protection is down, all hell will break loose again. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 06:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports flops

You closed an AfD in April on the List of sports flops article. As it was Keep, rather than No consensus, how long after a Keep decision is it reasonable to AfD it again? I was just about to AfD it, as a fairly blatant piece of WP:OR, when I saw the blue link to the old discussion. It is still totally unsourced. --Mais oui! 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Didn't realise that the name had changed: that might be useful to know! :) --Mais oui! 13:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sprotect you removed on Freemasonry

I'm assuming it was due to a lack of awareness of the situation surrounding that article, but I'd just like to point out that since your removal of sprotect, we have had about six instances of vandalization from a user who is on LTA and banned by ArbCom for vandalizing Freemasonry. In short, there was a very good reason why Freemasonry was on sprotect for "a crazy long time." MSJapan 12:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for bringing Baseband back from the brink.

do you mind if i upload a slightly different and a little more colorful drawing to illustrate it? i think it should have both positive and negative frequency, no?

i'm struggling with another editor regarding the presentation in Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem and i linked to baseband in it. r b-j 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rbj. Yeah, Baseband was a bit of a nightmare before I did something about it. You're of course welcome to upload a more colourful image (although generally, I find that if the colour is key to explaining something then the explanation isn't good enough). But baseband signals begin at 0 Hz under any common definition, so no, there are no negative frequencies. The baseband bandwidth is half the RF bandwidth (and vice versa) as the article says, and that would make no sense (i.e. be impossible) if the negative-going spectral components were also present at baseband. CERN's definition here concurs, as does a knowledgeable sounding article here. Now I know more about Wikpedia then when I wrote Baseband, I see that those links ought probably to be added to the article. I'll find the time later today. Thanks, Splash - tk 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, i'll watch your talk page, so we can have a simpler back-and-forth here. i agree with you that the definition of bandwidth is the width of the band only in the positive frequency side (which is why, for AM the BW doubles), but i think that "baseband" can mean the entire chunk from -B to +B. i think you're an EE PhD. student (judging from your figs and contribs) so i am confident that you know why we routinely deal with negative frequencies when we discuss spectrums. i.e. for a real baseband signal x(t) i think the "baseband" is all of the spectrum, X(f), and not the spectrum of this other complex signal:

(1/2)\cdot \left(x(t)+i{\mathcal {H}}\left\{x(t)\right\}\right)\

is that not true? r b-j 17:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand negative frequencies. However, I sense that you are drawing me into a conflict by proxy with User:Dicklyon, who, entirely by coincidence no doubt, has just edited baseband. I see from reading talk pages that the pair of you are conducting a disagreement which you should both not be conducting here but via peer review and in conferences, and that you should both stop. If it comes to it, I will Intervent (capitalisation deliberate) in the conflict, but I will not be drawn into it from my talk page. Wikipedia reports results that others report that others reported (it is a tertiary source). There is no place here for your, or for Dickylon's, favourite formulations or for your personal research programs or opinions. The academic and technical communities provide the relevant outlets for that. -Splash - tk 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not at all. there are people who have commented on the sampling theorem article a while back, User:Metacomet, who is no longer in WP, and User:Omegatron whom i did solicit to comment, but he hasn't responded. i prefer that you don't get involved in that or anything you don't want to. you were the person to put that drawing into baseband which i think is fine, except for not showing the negative frequencies. this has nothing to do with my discussion with Dicklyon, which BTW is softening a little (i think he has a little more respect for me and a little more respect for the process now, but that is my opinion, i don't know how he would size up our dispute now). the only reason that you were contacted by me is that i like to take a quick look at articles that i link to (and i have never before gone to baseband). it's coincidental. because of this dumb dispute (this "converse" argument Dick is making), i decided to qualify the nominal use of the sampling theorem to baseband signals in an unsuccessful attempt to satisfy his concerns (without caving in to the issue where we disagree) and because of that i looked at the article, saw the diagram, thought "shouldn't the negative frequencies be in there also? let's find out who put this drawing in." and you were contacted by me.

please don't jump to any conclusion that i wish you to jump in this dispute i have with Dick. i wouldn't try to solicit anyone i wasn't confident would support my POV anyway and i have no idea what position you would take. it's really just about the figure, and it's a courtesy call. (i imagine the creator of a figure that took some effort to make might be unhappy if i supplanted it without at least a "heads up".) r b-j 02:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement With You Is NOT Trolling

I don't know why you disagree with Urban Dictionary as a reliable source of Internet slang. I'd be interested in why. No need to be an asshole though in accusing me of trolling for suggesting it as a source. Magonaritus 20:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the article's talk page. -Splash - tk 21:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. But you did not apologize for your insolence in accusing others for being trolls because they disagree with you. I await an apology. Magonaritus 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long wait ahead of you, and those that call me assholes can expect longer waits still. -Splash - tk 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see by the other comments on this discussion page that you have an attitude problem. I guess you must be new to Wiki. You should check out Assume Good Faith, Etiquette, No Personal Attacks, Be Nice and Please Do Not Bite The Newcomers. Calling someone a newcomer a troll because you disagree with them on an interpretation of an editorial policy violates all these community guidelines. After you have reviewed these policies, you'll see how outrageously disruptive to the Wiki community your behavior proves to be. You have been officially notified. Whenever you're ready to let go of the ego and apologize, let me know. 66.208.54.226 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, adding UD as a source to an article, having it removed and then trying to shoehorn it in by adding it directly to the list of reliable souces has all the hallmarks of someone who is playing around. It appears that you weren't adn that you actually do think that Urban Dictionary is a good, reliable source. Whilst you're wrong on that point, I'm sorry that my comment upset you. Now are we done? Good. Although, in my inexperience, I'm intrigued of what I have been officially notified? -Splash - tk 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help

I humbly hope that this is not a violation of any Wiki community practices (I haven't done enough dutiful reading yet), but I want to thank you for the talk on the Slang page. I have learned much by being prompted to think more (I realize that I have a ways to go yet). Now I'm off to study more. While most likely minor (though inconvenient) to you, it has increased both my understanding and enthusiasm. Sincerely, thanks. -Sh33p - tk 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found another spotteddogs sock

Lost Knob (talk · contribs) --CFIF ☎ 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFIF has accused me of being a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg [1] which apparently is his favoured tactic when he comes up against people who disagree with him, despite the vandal not being active for around a year. I have since removed his vandalism from my user page. (See this unilateral removal of the speedy deletion nomination on the Paul Dellegatto page: [2]) This user seems to have some anger management problems and apparently seems to brand those who are in disagreement with him on television topics sockpuppets of this old vandal. Lost Knob 18:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously a sock of someone if you know my history. --CFIF ☎ 19:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CFIF. If I use your logic User:TV Newser is a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg because he seemed to mention this as part of your pattern of bad behaviour there and apparently he knows your history and has made television related edits. In case you didn't know all your editing history is preserved on Wikipedia, so your bad behaviour from the past can come round to bite you in the ass and mind you me, when I saw what he had written I wanted to see what kind of person would do such a thing and looked up what you have done in the past. CFIF, you seem to make assumptions without any evidence or research. You could have handled this in a civil manner, but chose not to. Lost Knob 21:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, User:Lost Knob, you are obviously a sock puppet. But whether you are Spotteddogsdotorg, I'm not yet sure. Thus, I'm not yet sure if you are using the sock abusively (though judging from your history, you're not a lot of fun to have around), so I'm not going to block you as a sock. Yet. -Splash - tk 20:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet, but I guess me telling the truth just makes me guilty. Lost Knob 21:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also could be a sock of Displaced Brit (talk · contribs), as the user is seen calling articles up for deletion "bloody" and calling my tagging of possible sock puppets my "favoured tactic", similar to edits Displaced Brit makes [3]. --CFIF ☎ 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess all the millions of people who use the term bloody and use proper English spellings are all sockpuppets as well. I found all of the articles that I nominated for deletion using the Random article feature, as I find it fun to use it to see what comes up. It just happened that several came up that seemed worthy of getting rid of. CFIF, perhaps you should look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles again and note where it says If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later.You also may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I assumed good faith until I learned of your past behaviour on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CFIF page. I shall be taking a time out, and I suggest you should do the same. Lost Knob 21:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found what appears to be ringleader of the Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet ring

I am firmly convinced that User:Mr. Scott Brown is the mastermind behind the User:Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet ring as I have confirmed that the tvnewstalk.net user nyviewer owned the domain name and has had a run in with the same person who used the name MrPhillyTV, which is identical to the name of User:MrPhillyTV, who is a Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet. Apparently, according to those who I talked with and at User:Mr. Scott Brown (which is laced with all sorts of personal attacks) this all was drawn out of a newscast tape trading deal that somehow went south. The behavior of the Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet matches many of the patterns seen over on the tvnewstalk.net website of MrPhillyTV/Scott Brown and appears to have been an attempt to somehow get some sort of revenge due to the botched tape trade. I have marked User:Mr. Scott Brown as a sockpuppet, and hope that you can take the needed action. TV Newser 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. That's interesting, indeed. I'll add that account to my to-watch list. While its only edits are to its userspace, though, there is no need for me to block it. But thank you for the info. -Splash - tk 14:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in league with him?

Why did you delete the request for comments against CFIF? Are you in league with him/her as well? I demand you undelete it forthwith! Displaced Brit 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]