User talk:Gah4

Subpages

Twisted pair

Please respond SpinningSpark 20:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh revert

According to the articles I see, the Intel Core processors are x86-based, not IA32. - Denimadept (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

x86 is the name for the instruction set architecture of the 8086 and its descendants. IA32 is the 32 bit extension of that architecture, and, as far as I know, the name preferred by intel. I am not quite up to going through all of wikipedia and changing all the x86's to IA32, though. The naming gets more complicated at 64 bits. The AMD x86-64 was adopted by Intel as EM64T and later Intel64, as IA64 is the Intel name for the architecture of the Itanium processor. Gah4 (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If IA32 isn't based on the x86 set, I stand corrected. - Denimadept (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have me confused. IA32 is the Intel name for what most people mean when they say x86. Gah4 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Emitter coupled logic

Would you please provide a citation to support your assertion that IBM's ASLT used ECL? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In "IBM's 360 and Early 370 Systems", p.108: "Circuit switching times of 4 to 5 nanoseconds were attained with ASLT through the use of current switch emitter-follower circuits and higher-density packaging." There might be other references, but that is the one I have here. Gah4 (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More details are in "IBM Journal of Research and Development", Volume 11, p. 69 (1967). The PDFs used to be freely downloadable, but now they require an IEEE subscription. Gah4 (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please add the citations to the article. There is no requirement that sources be accessible on the web; printed journals or electronic journals that require a subscription are fine. But I can't add the citations because I'm not the one who read the articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tape speeds?

Gah4, I think your note about tape speeds might have come to me in error. I don't know from tape speeds, and I don't remember saying anything about them anywhere. Best wishes, Kotabatubara (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IBM System/360 Model 20, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Register. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counting

The waveform is sampled at $\mathbf {N}$ equi-spaced points in time $n=1,.......,N$

I suppose some people haven't used Matlab and don't know that they have to start with 1. Or Fortran 77 programmers. Yes it is nicer to start at zero, but the FFT doesn't care. Gah4 (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply: BCD (character encoding)

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. I just thought the sentence read better without "code", as this is used throughout the article and it sounded repetitious. Feel free to change it back if you don't agree. Peter Flass (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PDP-11 architecture

You have a valid point. But can you add back an example or two from that handbook? Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply: re Properties of FFT data

Thank you for your comments on my additions to Fast Fourier transform. I am content that they should be moved elsewhere, if that is a general opinion.
I have no strong feelings on the matter but, personally, I think they should remain where they are for two reasons. Firstly, I do not think that an FFT article should be just about algorithms. I suspect that some people who look up 'FFT' aren't interested in algorithms, butterflies, etc., they just want to know what an FFT is and what it can do.
Secondly, although FFTs and DFTs are closely related, some of the added notes apply specifically to the FFT. Whereas the frequency data in the complex FFT is cyclic, the data in the DFT is periodic, and is displayed not only about zero frequency, but about fs, 2.fs, 3.fs and so on. In addition, the output of a DFT (but not an FFT) can be in analogue form, where it is especially useful in providing an approximate solution to a transform, by numerical methods, when the integral is hard to evaluate analytically. Regards D1ofBerks (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Mask

Thanks for your comment! If you check the diff between my edit and the previous one, you'll notice that I didn't actually add any information: I actually removed information.

So the sentence you mentioned is not by me, and I won't be at all offended if you wish to delete it ; )

InternetMeme (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed tag in the twisted pair article

Greetings Gah4, I noticed that you are struggling with the Citation Needed tag in the twisted pair article regarding delay skew. The problem is not with SpinningSpark but with whomever put the tag up in the first place. When they do that, they are supposed to make an entry on the talk page as to exactly what needs a citation. They did not do that. Well, there is an entry, but it does not say clearly what needs a citation.

The way forward is to go to the talk page and make a new entry specifically about that paragraph. I have just done that. You can go there and say why you think the Citation Needed tag should be removed. The best case for removal would be by supplying a citation to a reliable secondary source, like a book published by a respected publisher. SpinningSpark is simply preventing the removal without a reason.

Cheers, Constant314 (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The problem is that some people seem to put in random Citation Needed tags. I put in a request for a Citation Not Needed tag, but I don't think we have one yet. One that I haven't figured out in this case, or in general is, does the tag apply to the specific statement, (that something is difficult) or the subject that is being discussed. That is, direct or indirect addressing, in CS terms. I can know that something is hard, without knowing how to do it. Gah4 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your interest in this discussion. As I now noted in the Talk page, there is another Citation Needed tag in the same section that I believe does need a citation. In many cases, it should be obvious enough that a citation is needed, and for those cases it doesn't bother me if there is no discussion in the Talk page. As they say for patents, "One knowledgable in the art" should know. The problem, to me, is that someone can in a few seconds add a tag that takes us many hours to work on, for no practical purpose. (That is, so far we don't know that anyone does what the tag I removed is attached to, even after many hours working on it.) There needs to be some process for faster removal of tags that really aren't needed. (Likely along with the paragraph attached to.) Gah4 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Cores

I see your point, but I still think it was correct that multiprocessor machines that didn't use multicore processors aren't described as such. "Core" means more than just "processor". It's assumed that processor means something that's standalone, which cores aren't. "Core" implies that there is sharing of something such as an L3 cache or a set of memory controllers. So to describe a processor as "single-core" doesn't make sense (and I think that the literature would simply just describe such processors as processors). Re. the use of modern n-core terminology to multiprocessor that predate multicore processors, I agree it sounds strange. And if it's of concern, I looked at the diff and I'm sure I didn't change the description of any entry that shouldn't have been changed. L9G45AT0 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC

Signed Number Representations

Ah, thanks for the reminder. I forgot about that, I haven't taken comp sci but for the early courses required for engineering. I should've checked more thoroughly because part of my decision was based on that not only was it no where else in that article but it wasn't on the two's compliment article anywhere either. Anyway, good save. Penitence (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it could confuse others, so it should be explained somewhere. Gah4 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kodak Tri-X

Have you a source for this film being discontinued? - Denimadept (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I just changed the formatting, I didn't add it. I think you are right, so it shouldn't be there.

I started discussion on the talk page. But note that the film now is 400TX, which isn't the same as old Tri-X. There are even different development times. Gah4 (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All films change over time. If they're still calling it TX, which was the type pre-exposed on the film, then it's still Tri-X even if it's a different formulation. I don't know what the photochemists who worked on the film would say, but the name "Tri-X" and "400TX" is marketing. Tri-X has changed speeds over the time, but the basic concept remains the same. It's a fast B&W film requiring very simple processing. - Denimadept (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gah4. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.^[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.^[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Sign of R in Ohm's law

I have hatted the discussion with you on the coupling coefficient talk page as it is really tangential to the issues there. We can continue the discussion here. You wrote

This is obviously not true. If you use V=IR, and change the sign of one of V or I, and not both, the sign of R changes. I suspect, though, that people try harder to define V and I such that R is positive.

Let's take this example (please excuse the ugly ascii art)

         I
    o---->----|
              |
              |       /\
              _       |
            |  |      |
            |  | R    | V
            |  |      |
             -        |
             |        |
             |        
    o--------

By Ohm's law, $V / I = R$ . So far so good. If I define $I$ in the opposite direction then I have to write $V /(- I) = R$ because $I$ is no longer the current going into the resistor relative to the direction $V$ has been defined in. This still results in a positive value for $R$ because $I$ will take on a negative value when $V$ is positive. A similar results is obtained if the voltage is defined in the opposite direction. To write $V / I = R$ for these situations is simply wrong. Ohm's law is not the ratio of any old voltage and current, it is the ratio of the applied emf and the current driven by the source. That is, the current has to come out of the source and in to the load. The fact that you obtain a negative result is itself enough to show that that is wrong because it is unphysical (before you point it out, I am aware of negative resistance, but that is a different thing from Ohm's law). SpinningSpark 12:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much doubt that you understand. Yes, as you note not counting negative resistance, the result has to be physical. The case that I am indicating comes when you first write down the equations, and then put in the values. If, for example, you write a problem in matrix form, you might find that there are negative values in the matrix, though the resistance is positive. In your ascii art, if I ask for

V / I

then the result is

"-R"

, a negative number representing a positive resistance. Gah4 (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you define a matrix in a random way, then of course you can get negative values, but that doesn't mean that a matrix element actually "represents" a positive resistance. You have just gone and defined something that has no physical reality (but obviously it is related to the physically real quantity). When we set up the matrix for a two-port we always define the currents in a consistent way – going in to the port. A one-port is an even simpler case of that (a resistor by itself is a one-port). Following this rule will always give the correct sign for the port driving point impedance. A result that contradicts Joule's law, conservation of energy, and the third law of thermodynamics just has to be an incorrect result. SpinningSpark 15:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xerox Alto and Category:Retrocomputing

Of course the Xerox Alto is a historically important machine, but is that what retrocomputing means? It's a vague term; usually the definition is somewhere in the vicinity of old computer hardware that people keep running for nostalgia reasons or develop for as a hobby. The Alto doesn't have much hobbyist support, as far as I can tell. Dgpop (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It happens that I know some of them. The http://www.livingcomputermuseum.org has some actual machines, and some emulated machines, connected up to 3 Mb/s ethernet, through a bridge to the Internet. In its prime, the Alto wasn't produced in large numbers, but was very popular with those who had one. As I noted, it was one of the original GUI machines, but also where Ethernet originated. There are two emulators, SAlto, and ContrAlto. All the software was released to the computer history museum, which makes it much more useful for retrocomputing, but that was only a few years ago. I put a note in talk:Retrocomputing about it. Gah4 (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SHA-1

Please see Talk:SHA-1#.22Announced_an_attack.22_vs_.22performed_an_attack.22. Smyth (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punched card citation

The IBM 1401's card reader could be used in Column Binary mode, which stored two characters in every column, or one 36-bit word in three columns when used as input device for other computers. However, most of the older card punches were not intended to punch more than 3 holes in a column.----------- this sentence is probably correct, and refers to machines such as the 514, not keypunches -so it need clarification. IBM didn't generate more than 3 punches/column thus no reason to build machines for lace cards- repeated firing of all 80 relays wasn't anticipated ------

The multipunch key is used to produce binary cards, or other characters not on the keyboard. -- Here's citation; ---- IBM OPerator's Guide, 22-8484-3 1955 Type 24 Card Punch, page 18. " Multiple digits may be punched manually in one column by holding the space bar down while the keys are depressed. On some machines, a multiple punch key is supplied for this purpose".....Enjoy, {{citation needed|date = March 2017 73.71.159.231 73.71.159.231 (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.159.231 (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools' Day

You don't seem like the type who would do something like this for no apparent reason. Makes me wonder if your account has been compromised. -- ChamithN (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PL/I(F)

I don't disagree with your edit, however I believe that in the compiler as distributed the phases were linked as overlays, so loading one overlayed the previous. Actually there were at least two layers of overlays, so there were main overlay phases and subphases that were also overlays of each other. I think it was a usermod to link the compiler as one executable without overlays. Peter Flass (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having not thought about this in detail for some years, I believe it uses LINK, LOAD and/or XCTL to do what IBM calls dynamic overlays. That is unlike the static overlay used, for example, by Fortran H. As well as I know it, again it is many years, with LINK the OS decides which to keep in memory and which not to. In 44K, I suspect that each one overwrites the previous, but with more memory it doesn't have to. (The article describes this along with the ability to run in 44K.) I suspect that you understand LINK better than I do. They are all separate load modules, maybe 100 of them, not just a single load module with overlays like Fortran H. Gah4 (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it some more I believe you're right. It pretended to be overlays. Once you got to larger memories and could putbthe modules in LPA I believe it ran much faster. Peter Flass (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does LINK and LOAD and DELETE. In some cases, it keeps the disk address for a module, to speed up access. Some might be only needed once, and so are DELETEd. Yes LPA should speed it up. Without them in LPA, I don't know how it does it. It sounds like it knows if it is small memory, and does things differently. What I forget is, with LINK, when the OS removes them from memory and when it doesn't. Gah4 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gah4. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

discontinued - continued.

Hello, Gah4. You have new messages at Nczempin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

aho corasick algorithm page

Hi again,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matannnn#patterns Mathematically speaking, a word is also a pattern, but I think using the word "pattern" in the context of introducing aho-corasick is quite almost wrong or misleading.

I'm new to Wikipedia talk so sorry if my message here is posted against convention (the UX here is kind of IRC age quality...).

Matan

(you forgot to sign your message with four tildes)

As well as I know it, the convention in CS is to call it a pattern, and the field is called pattern matching. Word is a special case of pattern matching. The problem I was working on when I learned about Aho-Corasick uses DNA sequences and not words of human speech. The problem is general, though often used for actual words. More specifically, look up combinatorial pattern matching. Gah4 (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of Electricity Discussion Invitation

Greetings Gah4,

Hazyj and I are having a discussion about this topic on my talk page. Feel free to join. It is the last topic on the page, right now. Constant314 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electric charge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "produces"

Thanks for "produces" heat in electric current -- better than "releases", which was there before. My longer version simply attempted to make the mechanism clear - but no problem with the shorter one.Sdc870 (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FM invention

Hi... You reverted my change on the grounds that Armstrong invented "wide band FM" which is significantly different from Idzerda's invention. I disagree that it's significantly different. It's the same transmission scheme; wide vs. narrow is a difference in degree, wider bandwidth makes for greater signal quality at the expense of increased spectrum occupancy. But it's FM either way. In addition, as I noted in a comment on the FM modulation article where that same comment was made, I disagree that what Armstrong invented is specifically wide band FM. His earliest patents are clearly narrowband, given that they describe (in a somewhat muddled way) a modulation index near one. Paul Koning (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed the text so that it says that Armstrong invented wide-band FM, instead of just FM. Since wide-band FM is what we call FM today, it seems significant. I didn't try to trace back whether Armstrong knew about Idzerda, which might matter for patent rights. Greater signal quality, as far as I know, is the reason Armstrong wanted FM. I suspect that he didn't know about capture effect, though. The increased spectral width dilutes the effects of noise. Could Idzerda have invented wide-band? I don't know. Find some references about it. This was about the time that the ability to work with frequencies high enough became available. Discuss on the talk page (maybe you did) about this. I suspect, though, that a lot more sources credit Armstrong, even if they are technically wrong. (I have lost many discussions where I knew something was right, but the popular sources disagreed.) It would not have been politically popular to put a wide-band FM signal in place of the AM band. That would reduce the number of stations by a factor of about 20, besides forcing everyone to throw away their radios. Note that the initial band that Armstrong used was taken away, making the radios of early users worthless, but those were much fewer than outstanding AM receivers. As well as I understand it, though I didn't try all that hard, Idzerda relied on existing receivers detuned to demodulate his FM. But the FM advantage as we know it, was already lost. But discuss in talk to see what the consensus says. Gah4 (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note in addition that the page mentioned is FM broadcasting not Frequency modulation. Wide-band is specifically what is used in the former. You might see about changes to the latter. Gah4 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have some answers to some of the issues you mentioned; I'll bring them to the article talk page. On spectrum occupancy, remember that Idzerda was running what appears to be the world's first commercial broadcast station (starting 1919). So greater bandwidth was hardly an issue yet. He used existing radios; FM can be received (without the noise benefits, however) using slope detection.

As for popular sources, maybe, but that's not the Wikipedia way supposedly. The historic record is quite clear about what Idzerda did, for one thing he has both Dutch and US patents (from 1922 and 1927 respectively). The interesting question is what the differences are, and -- if it can be learned -- whether they knew of each other's work. So far I see no evidence that they knew. Paul Koning (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that many things are invented just a little bit earlier than they should have been. Before the technology was quite ready. Wide band FM below 1MHz might just not be obvious enough, and the available tubes likely didn't go high enough. Armstrong was specifically trying to reduce noise, and believe that a whole new system would be viable, along side the AM broadcast band. It is almost surprising today, to consider that the ancient technology AM band is still around. Why not dump it, the same way as analog TV was dumped? Exactly why Armstrong came up with wide-band, and Idzerda didn't, I don't know. Maybe you can find some WP:RS to explain it. It does seem that it might go into Frequency modulation, though you should probably discuss it in the talk page there. Gah4 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Search

Special:Search.

-Moxy (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring discussion re. User:FF-UK

Hello Gah, I thought it best to let you know that I have reported User:FF-UK for edit-warring on Mains electricity by country (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FF-UK reported by User:CplDHicks2 (Result: )), but really this is encompassing all of his past behaviour. Please comment as you see fit. Thanks. CplDHicks2 (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have had various disagreements, and some have done sock-puppet investigations. Otherwise, I don't know. Gah4 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've always been a peacemaker, Gah, which I appreciate; you don't have to comment if you don't want to. I just wanted to let you know that the discussion is there. :) Cheers, CplDHicks2 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have had some disagreements with you, too: [1] for example. Statements like As such I removed them, and they will stay removed. Isn't especially conducive to working together. Gah4 (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gah4. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double !vote

In the discussion at Alkali metal, you have changed your !vote from 'neutral' (timestamp 07:49) to 'oppose' (22:14). This may be confusing and contradicting. I suggest for clarity, you make clear below the first post that your !vote has changed, possibly with a reference to other posts. You could write, like:

~~Neutral~~ changed to Oppose, see posts below re Dirac66. ~~~~ [rest of first post unchanged here]

-DePiep (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since they were specifically not votes, I wasn't worried, but I will change as you say. Gah4 (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copylink vios at IEEE 754

Inserting WP:COPYLINKs can get you blocked from editing. Earlier editors, such as Dmcq have already opined that the link violates IEEE's copyright. Glrx (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd certainly count links to the standard as that, they want to be payed for their copyright work and it should not be distributed for free. However I don't know if access to the working party drafts are supposed to be restricted, I think they may not be. People pay for the proper up to date standard rather than something which can differ at odd places from it. I believe Vincent Lefèvre is a participant in defining the IEEE floating point standards, he can probably check to give the definitive answer. Dmcq (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Vincent Lefèvre, I heard it from David Hough, 754r@ucbtest.org, who is, or at least was, the chair of 754WG. I sent e-mail to the address on the SOA for ucbtest.org, and he replied. I also wrote to Kahan, but no reply from him. I suppose I could ask for a signed and notarized statement, but I don't think he would be too happy about doing that. Gah4 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal for the authors to share a copy of the drafts even if IEEE claims exclusive copyright on the final version. As with preprints of academic papers, the authors often place a copy on their personal website but it's better to use an institutional repository for durability (the curators also check copyright status). I see he published as Oracle employee though, so he probably doesn't have one such repository and would need to use either a wider repository like Zenodo or arxiv or the institutional repository of some university co-author. Nemo 06:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that ucbtest.org is owned by either David Hough or 754WG. It looks like its purpose is to distribute IEEE754 test suites, which I suspect gave its name ucbtest. Sun used to have places to distribute public software. I don't know if Oracle kept up with that. Zenodo used to be on the blacklist, rumors are that it isn't any more. Gah4 (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Gah4,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Gah4,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For contributions to technical articles ~Kvng (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Gah4,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A conundrum for you.

Following our discussion on units: I have put this here because it is completely irrelevant to the talk page discussion.

Which is heavier: a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?

Answer tomorrow or earlier if you answer and I see it. 86.164.61.122 (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about this one a long time ago, I believe in high school years, but had to look it up to see. From troy weight: The British Empire abolished the 12-ounce troy pound in the 19th century, though it has been retained (although rarely used) in the American system. If you read in more detail, the US Troy ounce has the same value (weight) as the British Imperial Troy ounce, but I don't believe the same name. That is, the US version isn't Imperial (in name), but just Troy. So, OK, the pound of feathers is heavier as long as you are in the US, or maybe your gold is more than 200 years old. Thank! Maybe there should be Fun with units! Gah4 (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You got it! The troy system is still very much in use, so the pound of feathers is heavier. All precious metals are still weighed in troy pounds and ounces in places that do not weigh them in grammes (and there are quite a few metric countries that still weigh gold and silver in troy weight - Switzerland springs instantly to mind). I even have some electronic scales that weigh in both avoirdupois ounces and troy ounces (and troy pennyweight). I have little doubt that these same made in China scales are sold in the US, so they will weigh avoirdupois and troy ounces equally differently in the US.

Incidentally, not so well known is that explosives were also weighed in troy pounds and ounces unless you had a large enough quantity in which case you had to revert to avoirdupois tons as there is no troy measure larger than the pound. Nowadays, metric countries weigh them in metric units. 86.164.61.122 (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

Hi Gah4, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at lighting-related articles. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC

Proposed deletion of Color Developing Agent 4

The article Color Developing Agent 4 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Qono (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Color Developing Agent 3

The article Color Developing Agent 3 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Qono (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danger of IPv6

So, why did you remove chapter "Danger of IPv6" from IPv6 article?

[1] This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.

[2] Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

[1]

[2]