I do hope that you can help me come back as an unhindered editor. IRL forces me to make ''no'' edits this week. The simple fact is that I follow the MOS and if says to use a dash I use one and if it says to use a hyphen or emdash I do. (I created a chart at [[:File:Dashes.png]] that explains the difference). If you look at my most recent [[:commons:File:Wikipedia Active Editors.png|update]] I think I used the right one, but while I can change it on commons it would be silly to not allow that on Wikipedia. I will admit that many of my ''charts'' use a hyphen because it is on the keyboard, and I have no idea what the preference is of the 200 languages where they could be used. This will probably be my last edit anywhere on any of the WM projects for at least a week because I am simply way, way too busy IRL. Wikipedia has a relatively low per edit pay rate. Even if it was $100/edit I would ''still'' not be able to edit this week. Cheers. [[User:Apteva|Apteva]] ([[User talk:Apteva|talk]]) 20:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I do hope that you can help me come back as an unhindered editor. IRL forces me to make ''no'' edits this week. The simple fact is that I follow the MOS and if it says to use a dash I use one and if it says to use a hyphen or emdash I do (I created a chart at [[:File:Dashes.png]] that explains the difference). If you look at my most recent [[:commons:File:Wikipedia Active Editors.png|update]] I think I used the right one, but while I can change it on commons it would be silly to not allow that on Wikipedia. I will admit that many of my ''charts'' use a hyphen because it is on the keyboard, and I have no idea what the preference is of the 200 languages where they could be used. This will probably be my last edit anywhere on any of the WM projects for at least a week because I am simply way, way too busy IRL. Wikipedia has a relatively low per edit pay rate. Even if it was $100/edit I would ''still'' not be able to edit this week. Cheers. [[User:Apteva|Apteva]] ([[User talk:Apteva|talk]]) 20:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:08, 9 October 2016
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.
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! RayTalk 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
I am just checking to see whether you still wish to be part of the discussion on this page; I replied to your comments there a while ago but have not yet seen a response. I left it a while, as you were busy elsewhere, but I would like to resolve this before moving too far on myself. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Xyl 54: My position hasn't changed from 31 March. I don't view the Bureau Ha or Deutscher Herrenklub links as notable, but if you want to include them as {{ill}} links I won't object. Glrx (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, my apologies for the lateness of this reply.
I appreciate you haven't changed your position; the purpose of my reply over there was to point out our position is contradictory. You cannot argue that HK and BH are non-notable on the en WP (which would suggest using plain text and an inline link) while at the same time insisting the Ill template be used (which would of necessity create a redlink) Nor can you reasonably reject adding useful information (to an encyclopaedia!) that has been requested, because you personally object to the formats (neither of which has any absolute prohibition in the guidelines) to be used.
So, do you have a better way of presenting this information (one that achieves what I was intending, while at the same time ticking all your own boxes), or are you prepared to accept a remedy that is good enough, in the absence of that something better.
Otherwise it feels like you are simply reserving the right to object at a later stage, and I would like to resolve this matter as amicably as possible. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost.
I don't think the topics are notable on en:WP, so they don't need links. The article explains Bureau Ha as an intelligence front. Herrenklub seems unimportant to the Lucy article.
de:WP has not yet found that de:Bureau Ha is notable enough for an article.
Consequently, I'm for no links. I don't see the links as additions of "useful information" but rather links to irrelevant details in a foreigh language. Encyclopedias are not intended to include all knowledge.
You don't place either topic high on notabily and seem to accept {{ill}}: "As for the Herren Klub, I wouldn't have rated it any more notable than BH, (and if there's one thing the en WP doesn't need it's yet another article on another bunch of Nazis) but if we are going to redlink it I would favour the format you used above".
I've also wanted to remove the link currently in the article as a pipe from Bureau Ha (per WP:EGG), as the piped article (Swiss intelligence agencies) has not, and won't have, any mention of the Bureau; You've insisted on keeping it, despite your stated objection to EASTEREGGs.
I have also asked you for suggestions on how to link in a way that you don't object to; your only suggestion was not to have any links at all.
So, do these objections of yours extend to an intent to revert any of these links if they are put in? Because if so, we will need to get a third opinion, to resolve this (and I cannot believe this issue is having to go the full 15 rounds and then to a judges decision!) Xyl 54 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had to go back and reread the article.
By and large, Deutsche Herrenklub and Bureau Ha are irrelevant to the Lucy spy ring. The article seems to mislead when it suggests that Rudolf Roessler ran Lucy. Roessler was a mailman selected by Thiele and others to disseminate the information. Roessler was not recruiting agents in Germany or elsewhere. Thiele, Gersdorf, Fellgiebel, or others were running Lucy. Rado was running a Soviet ring and hooked up with Roessler, but it's not clear whether Rado was an open intel officer (Switzerland was full of them) or clandestine. It also sounds like the British used Roessler as a mailman to reach Rado.
None of that makes DH or BH interesting. Maybe the principals of Lucy knew each other through DH, but Lucy is still a well-kept secret, so we don't know. Roessler's ties to BH/Swiss Intell would mean that the Swiss got copies of the information, but the article suggests they were passing it to the British. Maybe the Swiss also passed stuff to the Germans.
Lucy's known successes helped the Soviets more than the British or the Swiss.
I still oppose links to foreigh language wikis. The foreign targets do not offer insight into Lucy. DH is all over the map. Hitler met principals in private but denounced in public. DH seemed to be against Marxism but Lucy benefitted the USSR. The article used a friend as a cutout to Bureau Ha. The German article on Masson does not mention BH. Masson was head of Swiss Military Intelligence during WWII, he was getting Lucy's output, so the details of the Roessler to Masson link is a minor detail. The de.WP article on Roessler equates Swiss Military Intelligence to BH and is done with it. BH was run by Hausamann, but Hausamann is not mentioned in the current article. The de.WP for Hausamann just labels Bureau Ha as a conduit, so it is not more informative than the current en.WP article. Masson, Hausamann, and BH were just conduits for Lucy's information.
You are welcome to open a 3O, but please get a good idea of what the de.WP articles say so you can tell people why the links would be important.
I see you have re-read the article, though if you think
.a) Roessler was simply the mailman
.b) Lucy was a British op to pass information to the Soviets
.c) the Swiss were passing Lucy product back to the Germans
then I suggest you read it again. (tho' if the article says Roessler was running Lucy in Germany then that needs changing, but I didn't put that there; I only re-wrote the History section. It's also incorrect that Roessler worked for Masson at Bureau Ha; that's been added since)
And there may be a lot of stuff we don't know, but what we do know is there, and is well-documented in reliable sources. If you disagree, I would suggest you find some sources that say different.
Also, you can dismiss the detail as minor if you like; all details are minor if you have no interest in a subject.
As for getting a good idea of what the de articles say, I'm well aware of that. And I've already said why I want to put the links in; there is (marginally) more information there than there is here, and more than needs to be added to this article. Contariwise, are you clear your objection isn't simply a case of not liking something?
Anyway the 3O request is in now, if you care to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry it took me more than 1 year to get back to answering your reply to my question about the goodness of fit article. I can no longer find any missing reference, but the statement that chi squared red< 1 means a model is over-fitting (although it is stated as a rule of thumb) in the article is clearly false without some assumptions. You correctly said there can be measurement error, but on the talk page I mentioned that, for instance, for the ideal gas law, the measurement error due to something like brownian motion would be very small, and chi squared red would be very near zero. For another example, dropping a stone from a particular height in gravity and measuring when it lands, would give a chi squared near 1 if you purposely give the wrong value of the acceleration of gravity (so a purposely slightly low or slightly high value of g gives a better model, but the correct value of g is an over-fit?). Maybe it is a good 'rule of thumb' for particular types of statistical models, and particular assumptions about randomness of data, but if these aren't included in the discussion then the article only makes sense to people already using a particular type of statistics, and is wrong to include in a general encyclopedia in that form. Createangelos (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To try to clarify the example, suppose someone decides to fit the distance an object falls as a function of the time, and wishes to fit it to a function of the form distance=1/2 a t^2. Here a is unspecified, they are going to make ten measurements to try to find the value of a. I'm not sure what they will say is their number of degrees of freedom, but anyway that is fixed. They will, if they do the measurements carefully, find a value of chi squared red very near zero. But if they change the exponent, trying distance = 1/2 a t^2.01, say, then since it is no longer possible to fit the parabola exactly no matter how accurately their measurements are done, they will get a larger chi squared reduced. If it is not near enough to 1, they can try d = 1/2 a t^2.02 and so-on. Eventually, the model will be a bad enough fit that they have achieved chi squared red =1. They could also get chi squared red to be 1 by decreasing the exponent using d = 1/2 a t^1.9 and so-on. So that if you know what you are doing, you can intentionally introduce errors, making the model intentionally inaccurate, to achieve chi squared red =1. Now, you might say that you shouldn't do it in this situation, where you are doing it by varying a parameter away from what it should be. But this issue certainly could arise in ways disguised, where different models of falling objects are somehow available with different exponents 1.8, 1.9, 2.0, 2.1, .. where the experimenter does not realize that this is what differentiates his models. He will choose not the best model, but one which is distorted.Createangelos (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously confused about the topic. I have commented on the article's talk page.
The ChiS_R statement is sourced to Bevington, a reliable source published by McGraw Hill; the requisite assumptions are stated.
You do not understand measurement error. After doing careful measurements, "they" should not find a ChiS_R "very near zero" even if they perform the measurements in a vacuum.
Nobody should claim that choosing a worse fit to get ChiS_R equal to one is a good idea.
If ChiS_R is less than one, then the fit exceeds the measurement variance. A fit cannot be better than the measurements, so something is wrong. That is not superstition. Maybe the measurements are more accurate than believed or maybe the model has enough degrees of freedom to eliminate some of the measurement error.
Yes, I think you are right. Since I don't know the technical definition of 'measurement error' I think that is what I was misunderstanding.Createangelos (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, I believe your indicated reason for the revert of the previous version "being good enough" does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for a revert.
Secondly, what I was trying to point out is that in the usual analysis of sorting algorithms, the distinction between comparison sorts and the rest is not as much about them being capable of comparing arbitrary items with each other. That is a given as soon as you can sort anything at all, in any way at all. The salient point is that if you have to compare them *pairwise*, suddenly your sorting power is going to be limited in many models of sorting computation. As such, what you reverted in my addition, was in fact the whole *point* of why we point to the article handling comparison sorts, in the first place.
I hope you'd reconsider your revert, and after that undo it. Or perhaps work with me, or others, to make the point I was trying to raise even clearer. Decoy (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your insertion, "and contrariwise it only relies on pair-wise comparisons", is confusing. A comparison sort relies on comparisons. There is nothing "contrariwise" about it. The Quicksort article is not the place to draw generalities about other sorting models. Glrx (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most obvious typos are often the hardest ones to spot. I don't mind at all, and I doubt Steve does either:-) (You know, I didn't name him that. The people down at Chili's Restaurant did. After his mother was killed by a car, they kept him alive through the winter by feeding him scraps.) Anyhow, thanks for the assistance Glrx. Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Next time you find an edit of which some was wrong, only undo the wrong parts. Not the entire edit. Okay? --bender235 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? So you can remain blissfully ignorant of your mistakes? You didn't take the hint with my first revert ("hyphenated pages not a range"); instead you repeated the mistake; I reverted again ("hypenated pages"), and you repeated your mistake while professing that you did not understand what was wrong ("may I ask what was wrong this time?"). Mindless. I don't want you to repeat the mistake, but I doubt you have learned anything from this episode. Your comment above suggests that you wish to continue to make errors and require other editors to fix the messes that you make. Why don't you learn not to make the mistakes in the first place? Actually look at the edits you're making and decide if they are absolutely correct before you commit. Although you may use scripts to make changes, it falls on you to make sure those changes are accurate. The other changes that you made to the page (such as http: to https:) are edits that a bot can do eventually; there's no pressure for me to do them right now; I'm happy to let the bot do it. Furthermore, I don't see why I should spend any time saving the good parts of your 2 minute automated edit campaign. Glrx (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you intentionally reverted my edits just to make a point rather than just fix mistakes. I see you understand the pillars of Wikipedia...
And just so you know: the edit that you complain about (hyphens replaced by en dashes) was done by AutoWikiBrowser automatically. --bender235 (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blowback
If you're interested, I've heard of this "blowback" phenomenon used in forensics from several different sources. The book Ballistics: Theory and Design of Guns and Ammunition talks about what happens as the bullet exits the barrel in great detail. As the bullet is accelerating out of the barrel it's followed by a pressure wave of expanding propellant, burning in an under-oxidized reaction. The expanding gas has mass of its own, therefore it resists acceleration and deceleration. At the speeds of a bullet this becomes a big factor. When the propellant comes into contact with the outside air, it finds more oxygen and flashes in a second burst. When this happens, the moving mass of propellant still in the barrel rushes out with the pressure wave and burns. This does create a momentary partial-vacuum in the barrel, creating a second surge of a tiny volume of inrushing air, which in turn burns much of the remaining propellant left in the gun. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ref; I'll track it down sometime.
There's a huge confusion about what the term means and the vigor of any "vacuum" in the barrel or behind the bullet. The wikipedia article suggests the feature is some sort of vacuum-driven "suckback" rather than "blowback", and I, being the naive fool that I am, just don't see that as a major contributor. Source definitions also vary.
The simple version of blowback is combustion products at the muzzle (and some other ports) are at high pressure and diffuse in all directions (including blowing back). A CRC Press book about GSR has pictures of weapons being discharged. The mean free path of the propellant gases is short.
A more complicated version of blowback involves gas injection into a close-by target and its subsequent rearward ejection. That can throw material all over the place -- including into a still pressurized gun barrel. One does not need a barrel vacuum as long as material has enough energy to move against the tide.
There will be an inrush around the muzzle cloud. At first (whether or not more combustion occurs outside the barrel) there will be a large volume of hot gas around the muzzle. That volume will expand until the pressure equalizes, but then it will cool and contract. A silly version is to imagine a balloon at the muzzle that captures all the combustion gases. The balloon inflates to a large volume: PV = nRT; after a time, P = atmospheric and T is still hot. As the gas cools, the balloon deflates -- but the balloon never deflates so much that it gets sucked into the barrel. At 25 liters/mole, there should be enough moles of propellant gas to fill the barrel.
There will be a barrel vacuum, but when it occurs and its strength is not clear. The combustion gases are hot. They've transfered heat to the barrel walls while propelling the bullet. After the bullet leaves, the pressure decays to atmospheric eventually (not instaneously; it takes about 8 milliseconds for a 48-inch 20mm barrel to decay to atmospheric. The gas in the barrel is hot, so it is expanded. As the gas cools, it will contract and allow outside air into the barrel. If the contraction is fast, it will be sucking in gas that was just radiated; that will be the back end of the combustion gas pressure wave (and would not be rich with other contaminants that are being blown out of the way). If the contraction is slow, it won't have the power to suck much in.
The displacement vacuum behind the bullet will be pulling material toward the bullet's path (and not toward the interior of the barrel). Near the muzzle, the gases are traveling faster than the bullet and have no trouble filling the displacement vacuum: the bullet is still getting pushed by the propellant.
Yeah, I get what you mean. So many variables involved. I see a lot of these shows like Forensic Files and so on, and it's all just standard science (collecting facts and creating theories), except they often present the theories as facts. Since it's often the cops and not the scientists making the theories, I notice a lot of "target fixation" (a dangerous habit in air combat), where the detectives work to make the evidence fit the suspect rather than the other way around.
A friend on mine showed me that book, because he is really into ballistics. I was asking him about this photo, because (being curious about supersonic flows) I wanted to know why the mach-cone was not at the end of the bullet where it should be. Instead I found out it was at the end of a thin layer of incompressible flow surrounding both the bullet and the column of hot gas behind it, which in the photo is still expanding. Anyhow, I saw your user page so I just thought I'd share that with you. Zaereth (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not into ballistics, but my father is, so I've picked up some details. Your photo answers something that has bothered me: why doesn't the propellant momentum dominate the projectile momentum due to the propellant's faster velocity? Books say propellant momentum is only about 30% of the total momemtum. Your picture shows the propellant velocity is constrained because it must push on the atmospheric wall. I'm also wondering if adiabatic expansion will cool the barrel gases below the temperature of the inside of the barrel -- so the barrel vacuum cannot happen until the barrel wall cools down. If there were prompt barrel vacuum, there would not be a "smoking gun". Glrx (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the revert of your revert, and thanks for asking for WP:BRD. I had forgotten I made the edit only a few days ago, therefore viewed my "revert" as the first one, and expected you to defend your edit first. Glad we have a discussion on talk now. -Darouet (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I spend 1-2 hours improving an article on WikiPedia and within FIVE minutes of completion you feel so utterly discontent that you have to go and revert my entire work. My rage meter is off the chart. It doesn't help when you add a comment which could as well have been written in Greek for all I know ("OR; needs source not for the quote, but that DK is related to quote"). What are you talking about? Do you even understand that people put a lot of work and time and try to do their very best to help everybody who uses WikiPedia? You are like some kind of bully when you destroy peoples' work like this. I will NEVER again try to help humanity by adding my research and knowledge to WikiPedia articles because of what you did. It's a waste of time as long as assholes like you exist.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorb78 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 31 July 2016
@Sorb78: Your rage is regrettable, but that is how WP works. Other editors may challenge or remove another editor's work.
Although you supplied references that indicated the speakers said the quotations, you did not supply references that said the quotations were related to the DK effect.
Aristotle ("The more you know, the more you know you don't know")[1], Albert Einstein ("The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know")[2],
WP requires that inserted material is verifiable. Many editors have inserted quotations that they believe are relevant to the DK effect. There have been many discussions about such insertions at Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect; for example, see Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/Archive 1#Shakespeare quote? and following. The current talk page consensus is that quotations may only be inserted if there is a reliable source that states the quotation relates to the DK effect; without such a reference, inserting a quotation that seems related to the DK effect is taken as WP:OR (original research). Notice that your message above says "try to help humanity by adding my research and knowledge to WikiPedia articles"; WP is not the place to publish personal insights or research. Glrx (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorb78: Yep, get used to it. Power corrupts, and there are plenty of Wikipedia editors who haven nothing better to do than use their power to "make things right", without really caring about the intentions of those new to Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I also find Glrx's behavior to be bullying. -- Dandv 23:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...than to keep reverting my edits that actually add to Wikipedia, claiming they are unsourced, why don't you spend that time actually going to google.com and starting to type "Janet Jackson wardrobe". You'll see how Autosuggest does ban the query. Before you tell me that would be OR, and me replying "What are you going to demand be sourced in an RS next, that the sky is blue?!", I'd like to suggest revisiting IAR—since you seem to be really fond of policies and love throwing their WP acronyms around in the faces of GF contributors like Sorb 78 (you seem unaware that to the rest of the world you may come across as a slavish enforcer of rules that were not even designed to be *always* enforced, and certainly prioritize the spirit over the letter). -- Dandv 23:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilove
I do hope that you can help me come back as an unhindered editor. IRL forces me to make no edits this week. The simple fact is that I follow the MOS and if it says to use a dash I use one and if it says to use a hyphen or emdash I do (I created a chart at File:Dashes.png that explains the difference). If you look at my most recent update I think I used the right one, but while I can change it on commons it would be silly to not allow that on Wikipedia. I will admit that many of my charts use a hyphen because it is on the keyboard, and I have no idea what the preference is of the 200 languages where they could be used. This will probably be my last edit anywhere on any of the WM projects for at least a week because I am simply way, way too busy IRL. Wikipedia has a relatively low per edit pay rate. Even if it was $100/edit I would still not be able to edit this week. Cheers. Apteva (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
