User talk:Glrx

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


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)

Morse Code over IP[edit]

re: Morse code and my January 11 edit

Hello, I think it is a bad idea to remove cited stuff from wikipedia. I understand you point regarding relevance - nevertheless I doubt, that keeping tons of sound files and irrelevant learning methods, i.e. tree representations, while removing links to something somebody could nowadays use morse code is a good approach. de dg6fl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A4Fh56OSA (talkcontribs) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the "Gear" article...[edit]

Re 13 February revert Glrx (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In the Gear article, you reverted my description of "sacrificial" plastic gear teeth, saying "Unsourced; clutches and torque/current-limited motors are a better design choice than breaking teeth". Such designs do sound better, but evidently came about later than what I was relating, which was closely paraphrased from the words of a technician who worked on such systems (such as the IBM 3800 series of high-speed laser printers). I could supply a "personal conversation" type of source/attribution, if that would help; as well as a notation that the sacrificial design is not the current/preferred version.

Please do not just delete something that may not be wrong, but merely outdated; add the more modern information.

Silverhill (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Distillation revert[edit]

Re my revert at Distillation


Just wondering why you thought the KLM Book was not worthy. I have about 40 published articles on Distillation - 5 in Oil and Gas Journal, 1 in Hydrocarbon Process and 1 in CPE - I would think I am what they are looking for to write on Distillation

Thanks Karl Kolmetz

Karlkolmetz (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The link to the KLM book was added three times and reverted three times at Distillation. An Indonesian IP added the link as a reference even though it was not used as a reference, and Materialscientist reverted. Then Mela widiawati inserted it as further reading; once again, Materialscientist reverted. Mela widiawati then reinserted it, and I reverted.
Neither Materialscientist nor I have the final say around here. If you want the link in the article, then follow WP:BRD and bring the matter up on the talk page. If there is a consensus to add the link, then it will go in the article.
I don't know why Materialscientist reverted the addition.
I looked at the KLM book and thought it was inappropriate for the article. The article is about distillation, but the book is Distillation Column Selection and Sizing (Engineering Design Guideline). That's a narrow aspect of distillation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a design resource. WP is WP:NOTHOWTO design and build something. Even if WP were for that, the book would belong in an article about distillation columns rather than a general article on distillation. As I stated in my edit comment, the book has some interesting details. Although interesting, I don't think it is at the right level for the article. I would think a chemical engineering text on unit operations would be a more appropriate further reading item.
KLM may be the place to go for expertise on distillation columns. That's not the issue. WP is not the place to go to find chemical engineering consultants.
The book also has problems because it does not sufficiently reference sources. (There was a footnote labeled 1 in the history section, but I did not see the source. There was a URL ref for some design advice. The text does not strike me as sufficiently sourced to be a good reference.)
The book format also bothered me; it sounds in advertising for KLM Technology because the company puts its name in large letters on every page.
The book also says "Checked by Karl Kolmetz". That suggests that you have a conflict of interest about the book. See also "Kolmetz Handbook of Process Equipment Design".[1]
If you want the link in the article, bring it up on the article's talk page.
Glrx (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Just checked this post. AC/DS of Afghanistan, India and Pakistan falls under WP:ARBIPA, not WP:ARBPIA. Thank you. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I got the heading right.... Half-credit? Glrx (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
No doubt, they are still WP:AC/DS Smile.svg OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


Just so you know, I removed them because the original editor added in infoboxes for the command, which only tells you about the command and does not really add to the article. I would be more than willing to add in relevant infoboxes if you want, but I do not support having the joint command infoboxes in the article, since it goes against almost every other infobox that I have ever seen on the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

re: Lake City Army Ammunition Plant and Holston Army Ammunition Plant
@Ktr101:. The military command is relevant. The articles have the word "Army" in their titles. JMC's task is to make munitions; it does that by managing government-owned contractor-run installations. If one goes to the JMC website, there's an installations maps and an installations tab. The articles don't explain the relevance of JMC, but that doesn't mean the articles shouldn't. Glrx (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Would it make more sense to put a mention into the article of what the command does in relation to the plant? The reason I objected was mostly because it would be better to have the plant have its own infobox, and then give the command its own mention below. The infobox should really just relate to the article, and having the command one there when it is possible to add a more relevant one is something that should be discussed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
It would make sense to mention the command in the article. I reverted the deletion because the JMC infobox has content. The role field, for example, is "Operate a nationwide network of facilities where conventional ammunition is produced and stored." That's one organization controlling several plants, and each plant has its own article. I'm not skilled in infoboxes, but the JMC box seems OK for now; it would be better if the infobox included a link to each installation. (That's the way the Enigma machine infobox works -- one box used in several articles.) Companies have custom infoboxes; there's a point to telling the reader who the CEO of Yahoo or GM is, but it's not clear the reader is interested in who a contractor chose to be the general manager of a munitions plant. I care who the president of Ford is, but I don't care who runs its individual assembly plants. Glrx (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Weather Vane photo[edit]

How is this "advertising"? That makes no sense whatsoever because my name/ website appears nowhere in association with this picture. Furthermore, the picture was submitted through Wikipedia Commons (Ticket#2015053110008861) and it was given the green light by two editors--Huon and ALexJFox as well as Stephen Philbrick at Submissions who all encouraged use of the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithvane (talkcontribs) 19:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

re: Weather vane revert and Weather vane revert
@Smithvane: @Huon: @AlexJFox: @Sphilbrick:
Your efforts on Wikipedia have primarily been including your artwork into several articles. WP is not a place for you to publish your work. Please read WP:conflict of interest. Weather vane; Lightning rod. Other editors have raised eyebrows about the purpose of some of your edits: Dual Freq's revert: "please don't come to wikipedia to increase visibility for your art sales."
I do not see the picture I reverted adding anything to the article about weathervanes, but I don't control content here. There are procedures, however. If you add something to an article and another editor reverts it, then you need to get consensus on the article's talk page before the content is reinserted. See WP:BRD. That procedure should be especially true for an editor with a conflict of interest.
As for the three other editors, I do not see their comments at the Weather vane article. My understanding is they were involved with the copyright permissions issue, but that issue is separate from whether a picture should go into an article.
Glrx (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd say an artist whose sole contributions at Wikipedia consist of adding images of their own work to various articles, even when they clearly don't belong or when they add little, has other interests at heart than the improvement of the encyclopedia. Smithvane, do you believe your work is among the half-dozen or so most significant examples of weathervanes, along with the very first one, the biggest one, and the one of the British Admiralty? With all due respect, I rather doubt that. All other images in that article illustrate the text, based on reliable published sources. And for the record, I did not encourage use of those images beyond the one at the Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe, which serves to illustrate the modern museum's exhibits. Huon (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
If I may clarify my role in this issue: I acted primarily as an OTRS agent, reviewing and verifying the permission request providing the license for the images. In most cases, I simply carry out the task and move on. In a few cases where a photo is particularly striking or if I have some connection to the subject matter I’ll often make a comment. In this particular instance I had recently read a biography of Nichola Tesla so I commented favorably on the Tesla weathervane, and generally about some of the other creations. I stand by my comments; however, I’m sorry if my positive reaction to the images was construed as general support for inclusion in articles. The decision to include any of these images and articles, as always, rests with the editors of the articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding my inputs, as stated by Glrx I was solely focused on the copyright issue - for which several uploads were incorrectly reverted by a trigger happy commons admin. That is the issue I would ask to be attended to first and foremost, then I think we can worry about relevancy. My two pence, I don't feel there is a COI/advertising issue here personally, at least not on the revisions I saw. Alex J Fox(Talk)(Contribs) 17:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


I wanted to link to PicoScope as well as well as the other major PC softwares. If you are aware of any other "major players" as indicated by your edit, please add those in. Wonderfl (reply) 07:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

re: my revert on oscilloscope
@Wonderfl: The subsection is saying something much different. The article is about oscilloscopes. Typically, such scopes have been standalone instruments -- that is they are complete with a display: an external interface, computer, and software were not required. Many scopes with displays added computer interfaces such as RS-232 or GPIB so they could be used in data acquisition systems. Classically, a digital scope might have a GPIB interface. Several companies provided software that could talk to several different instruments using a common interface. A major player in that field is National Instruments with its product LabVIEW.
In contrast to that, several companies started making computer-based "oscilloscopes". The instruments are not standalone but rather require a computer to provide the oscilloscope display. PicoScope is in that category: without an external interface, computer, and software, the device does not function. Software is not a "feature" but rather a necessity for the instrument. Alternatively, the instrument is not an oscilloscope (something that displays a graph) but rather a waveform digitizer (early HP and Tektronix terminology for instruments that did not have displays).
Picoscope does provide a proprietary programming interface to access its digitizer, but that is not in the spirit of the section. To the extent that Picoscope includes a LabVIEW interface, such a comment would be subordinate to LabVIEW (most high end instrument manufacturers provide LabVIEW drivers, so Pico is not a good example).
Winscope is a hack. It is not an oscilloscope but rather a program that attempts to use a computer sound card as an oscilloscope. It is not a feature that is added to a scope.
Glrx (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Your understanding of the oscilloscope related material on WP is thorough, so it would be best to ask your help in this : I've recently created Pico Technology and PicoScope (software), and since they are orphans I'd like to add links from other WP articles to them. Could you help? Also, since LabVIEW is supposed to match the description of the software section, why can't you add LabVIEW into the section with whatever description you gave me? -- Wonderfl (reply) 06:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry[edit]


Thanks for fixing sourcing problems (including those inadvertently caused by me) on Battle of Midway. I'm really embarrassed about my mistakes -- I'll make sure not to repeat them in the future.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Partial reversion?[edit]

Hello Glrx, I have a question. How do you do a partial revert? Says here Wikipedia:Reverting and here Help:Reverting that Partial reversion is possible but provides no instructions on how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedjargon (talkcontribs) 00:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Partial reversion of a single edit is done by hand. Sometimes an editor will do a string of edits, and a partial revert would hit a subset of those edits (some edits may not be automatically undoable). You can check partial reverts with View history and comparing old edit with current version. Glrx (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Weird change[edit]

When you edited the lisp article from 01:08, 24 June 2015‎ to its present state, notice the text "(f arg1 arg2 arg3)" is no longer stylized/monospaced font? Strange because there is no indication of what caused this in View history. The markup tag is exactly the same in both revisions. Wickedjargon (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on. Looks monspaced for me.... Glrx (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[edit]

re: reverts one and two

Hi, I see you reverted my removal of two external links to My concern about the links is that they were originally placed by thubing who (I infer from has a close connection to site and is promoting it all over wikipedia contrary to WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Just letting you know. If you think the info has value, that's fine. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

First, thanks for your efforts. Many/most COI editors add material whose purpose is more advertising than anything else. WP needs editors to keep its balance. Yes, I think the links have value. Glrx (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Choco chip cookie.png
Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Courtesy ping[edit]

Hello Glrx. Are you planning to do more with Marian Rejewski? I am not sure how to interpret your sudden silence. Thanks.• Lingzhi(talk) 10:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)