User talk:Glrx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome!

Hello, Glrx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RayTalk 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Article: Dunning–Kruger_effect[edit]

My 20 July revert of quotation inserted by Sorb78 at Dunning–Kruger effect

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 (talkcontribs) 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.
Your single insertion was:[1]
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],

References

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)
@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)

A Barnstar for you[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your much-appreciated help putting together the pages at Template:Requests for adminship by year. Thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have nothing better to do...[edit]

...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)

Wikilove[edit]

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)

Einstein's papers[edit]

Hi Glrx, I'd like to have your opinion on my proposal there : Talk:Annus_Mirabilis_papers#Doctoral_dissertation. Jean Fex (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Replied there. Glrx (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Harvard refs in footers, Marian Rejewski[edit]

Glrx (also @Laser brain:). I have come around to your point of view on referencing footnotes. Since they are primarily intended to be used for metadiscourse, and thus must mention author's names, they should be given Harvard refs. I apologize for the fact that the opinions I expressed so firmly at the time not ones I would now support.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I had a teacher who insisted that we not footnote the footnotes. If the reader is looking in a second place for more information, don't send him to a third. Glrx (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Colt 1911[edit]

Why did you revert my edits? Article isn't about original Colt M1911 really but about family of the pistols. I'm OK with getting rid of what I did but where's the logic? Thanks! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This comment is about my revert] of APS (Full Auto)'s edits.
First, I would say the article is primarily about the original M1911. Before your edits, the article was about the military weapon and some variations (A!, officer model). There's a paragraph about customizations (e.g., accessories and checkering). There was a paragraph in the design section that starts, "The same basic design has been offered commercially and has been used by other militaries."
Second, your insertions were into the WP:LEAD. "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The lead should be a summary of what is in the body. It is not a place to insert material that is not addressed in the body.
Third, the M1911 is single action. Modifying the first sentence to say that there are "rare mods" that are double-action is wrong, misleading, and poor exposition. A modified M1911 is not an M1911. Introductions should not deep dive into details.
Glrx (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Glrx. 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)

Tang test depth[edit]

According to cited N. Friedman's US submarines trough 1945, p. 311, Balao test depth was 400 ft, not 600 ft. How come you can cite source and give a different information that this source says? --Matrek (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Test depth it's something completely different than crush depth. You can't mix them. --Matrek (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You are catching me in the middle of several edits. It's been years since I've read O'Kane's book, but as I recall he did a test dive to 600 feet (design depth) during checkout because there was a war on; as an aggressive skipper, he wanted to know the limits of his boat; he had to fix several problems to reach 600 ft; that confuses the notion of "test depth". With a leaking outer door seal during combat, the sub went below 700 feet. Ordinarily, test = 2/3 design != crush. Submarine depth ratings. Glrx (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I read this book also. I know O'Kane went to 600 ft, however this depth was set by Mare Island as theoretical crush dept. In reality nobody knows on what dept her pressure hull would collapse. At least nobody who's alive. Just because of this, is always better to refer to test depth, as guaranteed by shipyard as a safe depth. Additionally you can say about safety margin, which for all US fleet submarines was officially set as 1,5 (that gives us mentioned 600ft). If you wish to answer, please answer in my talk page. --Matrek (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-Foster networks[edit]

Kindly consider restoring a deleted addition of "22:15, 23 October 2016‎" to Non-Foster networks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foster%27s_reactance_theorem&action=history

The Wiki is unfortunately weak/out-of-date because it only refers to older analog implementations of non-Foster circuits in the article: "For example, it is possible to create negative capacitance and inductance with negative impedance converter circuits."

In 2015, digital implementations of non-Foster circuits were invented, and it would seem helpful to readers to include some sort of reference/link to modern digital implementations of non-Foster circuits. Also, note that all "spam" references in 2 other related wikis have been deleted by other editors, so there is unfortunately no reference whatsoever on any Wiki pages to new/modern digital non-Foster methods.

Therefore, please consider restoring the deleted sentence and references, ...or add any sentences/references to "digital non-Foster" as you may see fit.

For further info/references in any editing you may decide upon, gooogle "digital non-Foster" for appropriate published IEEE articles.

IMO, some reference to digital non-Foster should be added to the page.

best regards, t

172.72.195.53 (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • See 152.15.236.96], whose only contributions have been to add the recent primary source to three different articles. I don't see the reference as relevant; there's little doubt that digital circuits can simulate an amplifier. Glrx (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)