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)

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)
  • First, digital non-Foster is likely the only practical way non-Foster methods will ever be implemented in 2-D arrays (such as in mantle cloaks) or 3-D arrays (such as 3D metamaterials). Indeed, stability issues may be the primary impediment to practical implementation/use of non-Foster methods over the past 50 years, and digital methods clearly can have certain advantages. Such practical implementation issues are hugely exacerbated in arrays, and near impossible where the arrays require gradient changes in non-Foster values. Second, there is clearly a long-felt need to improve the practicality of non-Foster implementation, and digital addresses such needs. Such long-felt need is valid in patent law, ...as if somebody discovers aspiring cures some new disease, even if everybody knew about aspirin and the disease. Third, digital non-Foster does not simulate or replace an amplifier, as i am guessing you are aware. The situation is quite the contrary. Considerably beyond `just replacing analog,' the z-transform and sampling result in a new and important side-effects in the realm of stability of non-Foster. This results because the fastest digital signal is "on-oo-on-off..." or "101010..." And practitioners who have ever fabricated non-Foster circuits are painfully aware of the propensity to oscillate at extremely high frequency (GHz). Such high-frequency instability is impossible in digital non-Foster circuits because of the "built-in" Nyqvist limit of highest frequency "101010..." Fourth, once put into the digital domain, higher-order non-Foster networks may be realized in the z-domain or difference equation, and no longer restricted to negative inductance or negative capacitance, etc. Fifth, the ZOH (zero-order hold) of most practical DACs (digital-to-analog converters) greatly complicates the digital design, as treated in cited references. Sixth, a very active area of digital non-Foster researches the use of the signal processing to cancel imperfections of the system in signal processing, a function that is less practical and less perfect in analog approaches. Seventh, with regard to digital simply being a replacement of the analog amplifier, consider the entire field of "digital control systems" which could be similarly dismissed as a digital version of the field of "analog control systems." Certainly, nothing could be further from the truth, as digital control systems have considerable complexity and mathematical differences from analog control theory. Finally, the realizations of digital versions perform with uniquely subtle differences to their analog cousins, and such behaviors can have profound utility in stabilization. For instance, bilinear transform variants would have frequency-warped response, or impulse invariance variants would have aliased response, both resulting in uniquely different response from any analog implementation. Such perturbed responses can affect bandwidths, gain margin, and phase margin, etc.n and can be engineered to be beneficial to stability. For all of the above reasons, I would request that you reconsider omitting any reference to digital non-Foster, because it seems to be of huge importance to anybody confronted with battling the practical implementation of these systems. The original cited references at least make the reader aware of the digital non-Foster work being done and give the reader a starting point on this new and important approach. As noted above, you may wish to choose other references for wording. This extra info would seem to be of great service in providing community awareness that digital non-Foster is being studied to solve longstanding issues. best regards, t

172.72.195.53 (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your work may be important, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a place to report research result or provide cutting-edge information about digital realizations. IIRC, the references were to two papers by 4 identical authors at the same institution added by IP addrs from that institution to three separate WP articles. WP:COI and WP:REFSPAM. Furthermore, User:Spinningspark also deleted the addition. Also, I see the material as WP:UNDUE. If I search for digital non-Foster networks, I get papers by those researchers, papers about non-Foster antenna matching (I'll guess analog), and comments about foster care. I do not see this area as field with many proponents, so it is not ripe for coverage by an encyclopedia. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, it should be easy for you to identify other adherents. Ideally, there would be secondary sources that address digital non-Foster networks. Glrx (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. It is trivially easy to implement a non-Foster response in the digital domain. Claiming "digital Foster" as a new thing, or a grand breakthrough is highly misleading. Certainly, parameters can be achieved in the digital domain that cannot be achieved in a real circuit, but that is just generally true of all digital circuit implementations.
  2. The article the material was removed from is titled "Foster's reaction theorem", something that was discovered in 1922. Cutting edge research is hardly relevant to such an article.
  3. The subsection the material was removed from is "Non-Foster networks". A digital process, running in a DSP for instance, is not a network of any kind. It might be simulating a network, but it is not actually a network. That makes the addition a tangent to a tangent so doubly needed removing.
  4. Agreeing with Glrx, Wikipedia is not the place to promote new ideas (it is not the place to promote anything). I recall I did a gscholar check on those papers at the time and found that they were only cited by papers including the same authors. When other researchers start to take a wider interest, feel free to let us know. SpinningSpark 00:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to rebut a few technical items in case readers follow: Item 1 complaint (triviality) fails because of misunderstanding of item 3, and previously cited complexities. Item 3 is misunderstanding of a novelty at the heart of digital non-Foster circuits: they are truly digital implementations of network elements and networks, as opposed to most nearly all other "digital systems." Generally, other digital systems take some input (voltage or current) at one port, do some processing, and produce some resulting output (voltage or current) at a second port. However, the digital non-Foster takes an input (let us say voltage) at one port, and establishes the corresponding desired current for the very same port. So, in the truest sense, the digital non-Foster methods establish port impedances, not just transfer functions. The same is true for multi-port digital non-Foster. This is a very important distinction that can be easily overlooked at first glance. It is not just simulating/processing, but is truly a drop-in multi-port implementation, having impedance and transfer characteristics as any analog network (notwithstanding aforementioned differences). More coarsely stated perhaps, ...other digital systems don't ram output current right back into the very same input port where voltage is being measured. As regards item 2, it seemed appropriate to mention alternative implementation. Finally, regards item 4, the only other digital non-Foster reference is a 2015 patent by MIT on WIPO as WO2016028354 or USPTO PCT/US2015/033742 [1], published in Feb 2016. So, as you properly note, all of this is quite new. However, many new discoveries are published on wiki, such as gravitational waves (not to imply this is the same), so there may be some fuzziness to the encyclopedic line to allow newer items. best, t 172.72.195.53 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

References

FYI[edit]

1. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Burninthruthesky:. Thanks for the info. The summary is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive links
Bbb23 remarked, "This deceit has been going on for years."
I recognize all user names except LiveRail, so I've crossed paths many times. I would not have put the three together.
The explanation and the reference mess at Talk:Ignition system#Please use decent references has been on my to do list for a while. I contemplated an RSN to quiet EF's claim to his sources, but so many references were obviously poor that I thought it would be a waste of time at RSN and would not persuade EF. I figured the better approach would be to write an article about contact breakdown and then come back to the Induction coil and Ignition system articles. Part of that determination was so many well-intentioned editors disagreed with me at Talk:Ignition system that progress seemed hopeless there. It was discouraging. Some editors disagreed with parts of EF's position, so I thought they might come over, and I did not suspect them as socks. Furthermore, the topic is not trivial, so I cannot expect many to understand the technical references. A contact is an extremely cragged landscape at microscopic scale; contact metal peaks melt within a few nanoseconds; a metal bridge forms to keep the contacts connected; the bridge can explode and shower the region with metal ions. It is a fantasy world that is difficult to imagine.
I don't expect sockpuppets. At Talk:Ignition system, I did have an inkling of a single IP sockpuppet, but when I geolocated that IP to Great Britain, it seemed far enough away from EF's known IP that I discounted it. Looking back now, I wonder if most of the discussion was a socknet fabrication. An engineer GB IP 86.149.141.166 who uses modeling but misapplies an ideal transformer then abandons modeling completely when the error is identified. A mysterious book that cannot be found on WorldCat but GB IP 148.252.128.92 finds it and GB IP 185.69.145.139 retrieves it from a library but never identifies the publisher. I wonder about misdirection: mention the book is a third edition and a few minor errors in the citation could be a ruse to make the book seem real. I'll go back to believing either the book does not exist or it is so minor as to be irrelevant. What a waste of time.
The episode is an eye opener for me about socking. Pull on a few sock threads, and there are alleged socks reporting other alleged socks. The murkiness makes my head spin. It's not just some misguided editor manufacturing support for a position he firmly believes.
Thanks again for the note and your support at Talk:Ignition system. Glrx (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your appreciation. It has been a bumpy road, but the web of deception seems to have unravelled in the end. If you're interested reading about the history, I guess you'll have seen the earlier SPIs I raised, resulting in the bogus ANI thread linked above. With hindsight, perhaps I should have pinged you at some point, but I'm sure I (or we) would have been accused of some egregious policy violation if I had.
I'm not convinced either by the story about that mysterious book. I shared some more of my thoughts on that on my talk page recently. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Pomona Envisions the Future and User:Mary Cummins[edit]

Hi,

I am kind of confused by an edit that removed images and a list of sources from Pomona Envisions the Future by User:Mary Cummins, and I see that you had some involvement with the user's talk page awhile back. I don't know if you know anything about this, but do you mind looking at User talk:Mary Cummins#Pomona Envisions the Future. You are the only person that I am contacting about this, since several of the other users involved in the block, etc. are no longer contributors to WP. Thanks!--—CaroleHenson(talk) 00:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

commented at MC talk and WP:Media copyright questions; upload by sockpuppet in 2008. Glrx (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep, thanks!--—CaroleHenson(talk) 06:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Glrx. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

CaroleHenson(talk) 18:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Pomona Cultural Plan with names. Glrx (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevant images by User:LouisBrownstone

Glrx (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I can start tagging them with "Per discussion at requesting deletion, claiming a copyright violation", right?--—CaroleHenson(talk) 23:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Uh, I'd hold off. Wait for people to come back from vacation and comment at media copyright questsions. Glrx (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, re identifying with LB: In my mind, she essentially just did. But, saying so outright means that she's User:MariaKRivera and other SPs, and could result in her being blocked if there is disruptive, COI, or other unhelpful editing taking place that could take her back to SPI.—CaroleHenson(talk) 23:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The circumstantial evidence that MC = LB is very strong. The recent edit by LB adds to that evidence because rather than resolving the issue it shows a continuing unity of interest between MC and LB. Family and friends are coming to dinner tonight, so I need to focus on that. Glrx (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

Thanks, and all the best to you. Glrx (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Streisand Effect[edit]

RE: my revert at Streisand effect

Added my comments to the talk section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Streisand_effect

Notable example with references linking to both guys - each of them have notable wiki page - each of them has a dedicated section mentioning TED controversy.

What is required on your end to accept that addition?

Stefek99 (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

SE should not have a comprehensive list of every happening that could be a SE. The article needs just a few, clear, interesting examples to illustrate the effect. If every editor added their favorite example, the article would be bloated.
Discussion on the talk page has settled on a requirement that competent secondary sources call the episode a SE by name. It is not enough for WP editors to look at what happened and conclude it is an example of SE. We want a source to make the determination. See WP:OR.
The SE also has a suppression by threat or force element. Somebody is trying to suppress a work, but the heavy handedness of the suppression backfires. In the example reverted, the publisher decided to retract the stories because they had problems/did not meet required publication standards. That's not suppression; that is recalling an article that should not have been published in the first place. Furthermore, the publisher made the articles available in another area so the retraction could be discussed. That's not Streisand suing a well meaning photographer to get him to take a photo off a website. It's not some schoolboard trying get an 8 year old girl to stop reporting on the quality of the cafeteria's food. It's the publisher deciding to stop publishing a particular work that the publisher no longer considers appropriate.
Glrx (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ishihara test external links[edit]

RE: my revert that restored an external link to an Ishihara-like test website

I removed the link you reverted back, as it is obviously self-promotion, you can see it was added in this edit, you can see in the user's talk page and contributions page to check, Jjean3~enwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.180.78 (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not see this link as obvious self-promotion. I see a reasonable optician providing an interesting application that helps explain Ishihara-like tests. The optician is not selling the application but rather making us aware of it on a relevant page.
The link you show was reverted by Ronz[1]. The link was discussed at Talk:Color blindness/Archive 2#please test it with mixed results. The link was reinserted by an IP in this edit in 2008. The link has been around for 8 years. There was no discussion on the Ishihara test talk page.
Even if we concede the two editors who added the link are the author, that is not necessarily bad. Yes, there is a WP:COI. Yes, it has a copyright notice that identifies the author, but the question is whether the work is reasonable to include. The offered test is much more extensive than the Toledo-bend website test, and the test evaluation attempts to distinguish the -anopia and -anomaly types of colorblindness. After taking the test, there is a discussion of how different symptoms interpret the images. Consequently, it discusses in more detail how results from Ishihara-like tests are interpreted. That is not addressed in the article.
Yes, the link uses advertisements to support the website, but the focus is on colorblindness. The primary goal of the website is to provide information. The website is based on sources because it apparently references two tests (Wickline?).
I see WP:ELYES #3: site has apparently accurate information.
I see WP:ELMAYBE #4: not an RS but still has knowledgeable information.
WP:ELNO #11 arises because it may be a personal website, but the author claims to be an optician, and the site covers several topics appropriate for opticians.
It is a tool that runs through some Ishihara-like images, collects answers, and then provides some interpretation of those answers. It is reasonable to include in the Ishihara article.
Not an issue, but the link is also present on fr.WP: fr:Daltonisme.
Glrx (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Lee de Forest/Gill[edit]

Just an FYI, Mount Hermon Boys' School Wikipedia article lists it as in Gill, Mount Hermon, Massachusetts redirects to Gill, Massachusetts (notes "The campus of Northfield Mount Hermon School is located in the Mount Hermon section of the town."). Their ZIP 01354 is Gill[2]. Towns (such as the one I live in) have sub-sections that have a different name, not sure if there is already consensus on how to handle this. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The infobox on the right of the article says the school is in Mount Hermon.
The school's website says its address is Mount Hermon. I take that as authority.
A ZIP5 is worthless because not all towns have their own ZIP5. The ZIP5 determines which post office handles the mail. A friend of mine lives in one county, but his mail service comes from a town in the next county that is five miles away.
If you say "Gill, MA" to USPS, it returns Mount Hermon:
Glrx (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyeditor's remark[edit]

I think you mean "rollback" (instead of "rollover") in your RFA !vote. Just sayin' it because it confused me and may others. Softlavender (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ooops, I did mean "rollback". Sorry. Glrx (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)