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)

Finite element method revert[edit]

re Your edit

Hello Glrx,

Indeed, it originally referred to problem (3), but this was flawed i think since problem (3) in the previous form can also be written in a form without the M. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 20:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You changed "problem (3)" to "equation (5)", but equation (5) has M in it; that makes the text "no matrix M is used" goofy. Large sections of the article are about sub-problem (3). Glrx (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that large sections of the article are about sub-problem (3). However, I do not see how the appearance of M in eq. (5) makes the text you quoted sound goofy. What is certain is that writing \mathbf b = \mathbf M \mathbf f, we can reduce (5) to (6). Hence, it is not the problem becoming simpler, but the equation. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Please respond or correct. --Mathmensch (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please read the section again. In the article's text, equation 6 does not depend on M. Your above definition of b depends on M. That's goofy. The section defines b, and it is not the definition that you propose above. Your argument is inconsistent with the text.
The top of section Matrix form of the problem makes a specific assumption for subproblem 3 that the form of f(x) is a vector dot product; from that assumption, the section derives equation 5 with matrix M. Then, near your edit, it says "it is not necessary to assume [the dot product form]". That change of context blows away the assumption at the top of the section and consequently makes equation 5 irrelevant. The section then considers a "general function f(x)" that is not a dot-product form: f stays inside the integral and is not moved outside of it as an fk. The resulting equation 6 is not a simplification of equation 5 but rather a new derivation for the right hand side that uses a generalized f. It's about subproblem 3.
If the text had meant to say what you claim above, then it would have just evaluated the right hand side of equation 5 and called it b as you did. Instead it starts talking about a general f and defines b without a hint of fk. Glrx (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
\mathbf b = \mathbf M \mathbf f for the special case coincides with the definition of \mathbf b in the text.
"That change of context blows away the assumption at the top of the section and consequently makes equation 5 irrelevant."
If it's irrelevant, why does the sentence compare the equation (6) to (5) ('since no matrix M is used')? It is at least relevant for the comparison, and hence even part of the context.
The problem does not become simpler, because in (5) we at least have a solution method by matrix theory.
BTW: I make mistakes all the time (as you can clearly see from my talk page), and even David Hilbert once 'proved' the continuum hypothesis from ZF. And despite you not going to believe me, I sincerely wish you a very pleasant afternoon. --Mathmensch (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please collaborate.[edit]

Hello Glrx,

You have reverted the article Finite element method again. Above, I have explained why the version of the article proposed by me is the accurate one. Therefore, please agree to use that version. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you have not explained, and you have not addressed my arguments above.
Furthermore, you do not have consensus for the change under WP:BRD. It's not my job to build consensus for the original version. Consensus is not about voting, but we are sort of at a WP:3O here: looking at the original author, me, and you puts the vote at 2 to 1.
As instructed, I have gone to your talk page and noticed that you have made several mistakes in the past. I think those episodes should make you much more careful about your positions.
Glrx (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Your positions and actions are unfortunate and put a halt to any progress on the issue. --Mathmensch (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

TDR Traces on Time-domain reflectometer[edit]

Great pictures. It appears that there is 18 inches of some type of cable. Perhaps you could add a description of the cable. (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Bombe Simulators[edit]

RE: my revert at Bombe

You mention that there have been many Bombe simulators, but none are mentioned in the article. Doubtless worthy of a discussion there. kencf0618 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

At least four bombe simulators are mentioned in the article; see Bombe#External links. The mechanical copy is a much more significant project. Glrx (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


re GermanJoe's removal of ELs at Tektronix

Hello Glrx, I deleted the link, as it was added by a long-time EL spammer violating WP:LINKSPAM and WP:EL, most likely to promote their video productions (WP:PROMO). Sorry, if my initial edit summary has been a bit short and confusing - I'll keep them more detailed now. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit removed three links. One was an apparent Tektronix corporate link to a Chinese website, one an apparent Tektronix link to information about its 60th anniversary, and a third to a documentary published by Oregon Public Broadcasting. The edit comment was just "rmv WP:EL".
The PBS link looked good but the 60th anniversary was a dead link. I reverted because there was no explanation for the removals. I deleted the CN EL as pointless and tagged the 60th as dead.[1] I then went to to recover the dead link, but that didn't work; it just redirected to CN and went nowhere, so I deleted the 60th link.[2] That left the PBS link.
Now you've re-deleted the PBS link with the comment "rmv - WP:LINKSPAM by SPA account".[3] which seemed to be opaque as well. The article is about the company, the PBS video is entirely about the company, I've restored the video as relevant, and now you've labeled it linkspam and implied somebody is an SPA.
I crawled back in the history section and uncovered the EL's insertion in October 2012 by Guanaco55.
That led me to User talk:Guanaco55 which has a few comments about inserting PBS videos. One November 2012 comment about removing a video for passing mention states, "However, if the entire documentary was solely about the one individual, I would say that falls under a link to be considered under WP:ELMAYBE criteria 2."
The talk page also pointed to the recent Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Video spamming (PBS) where you comment that the video additions are "to vaguely related articles". A documentary about Tektronix is not vaguely related to Tektronix, which was a major tech employer in Oregon. You also state that non SPAs had added links to these videos and that "I am trying to avoid deleting legit usages as far as possible, but if it happens feel free to revert me". Others, such as Montanabw has also reverted you. Apparently several editors have found some of these videos relevant.
I am at a loss to understand your rationale for deleting the Tektronix link. You don't seem to complain about the bandwidth because you admit some links are acceptable. You say many links are "'documentaries' and 'video stories' of questionable encyclopedic value", but I don't get your meaning there. Are such "documentaries" questionable because they are shams? I've deleted infomercial links, but PBS is not in the infomercial business. PBS exercises editorial judgment. The criteria for an EL is that has material that would be good to include in the article. I'd expect a PBS video about Tektronix to have such information. Yes, it has interviews with retirees who may not matter, but it has stories about the principals, why the product was selected, and why the company happened at the right time. I delete a lot of content whose purpose is primarily advertising (such as authors plugging their new book), but I also leave in or add commercial material that has significant content. For the Tektronix link, I do not see "strong evidence for a conflict of interest".
Glrx (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I have re-added the link, when you think that it contains valuable information - that point wasn't entirely clear for me in your last revert. However, I am baffled by your comment, that you don't see a conflict of interest in the user's linking pattern. Do you really believe, these links are added to improve Wikipedia just for the sake of it? I don't have to "imply", that Guanaco55 is an SPA - their edit history shows clearly that the account has no other purpose than publicizing the content of video sites. That's WP:LINKSPAM, just like adding book links from a specific publisher to hundreds of articles would be spam - even if some of the books may be related to the article's topics. GermanJoe (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! Face-smile.svgThis e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Undersea cable test TDR[edit]

RE: file:Time-domain reflectometer 580km test, Teleflex VX, TDR, SebaKMT, Megger Group.jpg screen shot uploaded by Zureks showing 580 km test screen shot.
RE: My 20 October revert of that image.
RE: My 26 October revert of undersea test at Time-domain reflectometer
RE: My 26 October revert of undersea test at Time-domain reflectometry
See also: file:Megger MTDR1 screenshot.jpg screen shot uploaded by Zureks
See also: Discussion at Talk:Time-domain reflectometer#File:Megger MTDR1 screenshot.jpg caption needs more explanation about confusing image
See also: Revert by Constant314 at Time-domain reflectometer
See also: File:Megger Time-Domain Reflectometer MTDR1.jpg Megger screen shot uploaded by Zureks still used at Time-domain reflectometer

Hi, I can see you reverted my additions. The only point of my edit was to show that the "longest" test carried out by TDR was for an undersea cable of 580 km length. I think this is at least worth mentioning somewhere, especially that there are references confirming it, as well as a screenshot proving it? What is your opinion? --Zureks (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have several problems with your additions.
The undersea cable picture is confusing. There's a lot of hash at the front of the trace (going out to about 175 km) that is unexplained. The 580 km reflection is not obvious (and the zoomed in view is 10 km long); what about the additional noise at 800 km? There are no interesting reflections. The underlying cause of the noise seems to be that the power cable is not a controlled impedance line; see Electrical Review article about surrounding dielectic changes. A contributing factor appears to be the lack of AGC in the instrument (1940's tech). Illustrations should be clear and have a purpose. I removed the image on 20 October.
On 26 October, I removed the text you added about the same long test. Using a TDR on a long cable run is important, but the typical "long" length is probably less than 1 km. The undersea application seems very narrow. The online Electrical Review article ( has just a paragraph:
As an indication of what is possible at the present time in the field of subsea cable testing, it is interesting to examine the trials carried out jointly by Megger and Statnett, the operator of the Norwegian energy system, in September 2013. These involved the 580 km long NorNed HVDC cable that runs between Feda in Norway and Eemshavan in the Netherlands. The cable operates at ± 450 kV, giving it a terminal-to-terminal voltage of 900 kV, which means that the system includes HVDC converters with the highest voltage rating of any in the world.
The Electrical Review article indicates the TDR efforts were "trials" that showed "what is possible". Were those trials successful? Electrical Review does not tell us.
I'd looked at the Electrial Review article several days ago, but I didn't bother with the first reference, Electrical Tester because I thought it might be offline (it didn't have a URL). I just went looking for it and found that Electrical Tester appears to be a corporate publication of Megger. I'm not going to take it as an independent, reliable, source. The article link is The article does not say much, but does make the world record claim at p 5. The article only claims that the TDR was able "to see" the end connection. The article only had two paragraphs on the test, the undersea screen shot, and made the vague "As an indication of what is possible at the present time in the field of subsea cable testing" statement.
The other Megger screen shot is confusing as Constant314 brought up on the talk page. I agreed with him, and Constant314 removed the image.
A good portion of your contributions revolves around Megger accomplishments, products, and technology. That raises a question about a possible WP:COI. There is material that you might add, and I don't want to discourage you from editing, but please be aware of WP's audience.
In any event, I'm just a lowly editor around here. If you want any of the above material included in the articles, then follow WP:BRD: you inserted the material, I reverted some of it, so now you can raise the issue on the talk page and garner a consensus for the inclusion.
Glrx (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

RE #Tektronix above

Thank you for restoring the external link for Tektronix. Quite frankly, I was devastated to see most of my links being reverted. Sigh... Anyway, thanks for making a positive difference here!Guanaco55 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Neural machine translation[edit]

re: My 20 October revert of COI insertion at Machine translation
re: My 29 October revert
re: My tagging restore at Neural machine translation

Hello! Since you reverted my edits and suggested a discussion on the talk page, I opened a new section: Talk:Machine_translation#Problems_with_neural_machine_translation. I am interested in your opinions on the matter. --Krz.wolk (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Responded there. Glrx (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Highlight pseudocode[edit]

Hi, re: I agree that syntax highlighting would be a good thing. What language would you suggest for pseudo code like that? It is already hand-formatted for **is** and **for** etc. It's nice to have ≥ and ← characters in the code, I don't think any language will recognize those. Hmm, just noticed that one of the blocks has :=s... TWiStErRob (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care which language is used, but hand formating the syntax takes it further away from looking like code. All the code should be readable; I don't care about the compilable issue, so fancy relational operators are a wash to me. Pick a language that highlights the main reserved words and then make the comments match.
if (x > other) while (1) i = 6 * 7; // here's a comment
if x > other then begin while i < 6 do i := 6 * 7; end // here's a comment
It also looks like syntaxhighlight has been replaced recently; language (algol is no longer supported) and color schemes have changed. Glrx (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to Gray code[edit]

re: My first edit restoring less idiomatic algorithm but keeping many of 71.41's changes
re: [ My second edit] changing uint32_t to unsigned int, the type declaration used in rest of article
re: "this criticism" is Johnuniq discussing 71.41's edits while I was unknowingly changing them.

I was trying to satisfy this criticism and a third opinion is very useful. I really appreciate the first, but I undid the second one because I think using a size-specific type helps reinforce the fact that the code only works up to 32 bits. I'd be happy to discuss it (we should move to Talk:Gray code, of course) if you still disagree. Thank you! (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted back to unsigned int and added a "32" suffix to the procedure name. Code in WP is intended to illustrate the algorithm; WP code is usually not about programming. Readers should not have to know clever language features, know about some typical type decls (WP C code seldom has include files), or decipher too much. If you still want your changes, then bring them up on the article talk page so other editors can chime in; they may support your position; see WP:BRD. Glrx (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
A very nice solution! To me, the idea that even someone who's never seen C would find uint32_t confusing seems comically implausible. The abbreviation isn't exactly obscure to start with, but add the syntax highlighting, the similar function a few lines away, and the comment, and it's just it's just not a problem. The for(;;) syntax would be a far greater obstacle.
But a -32 suffix on the function name is equally clear, and has the nice feature of avoiding a multiply defined function name. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
(Aside: I keep wishing there was a quick way to "upvote" an edit, to quickly add a "thank for for this edit" note to the edit log without having to edit a talk page somewhere. It'd generate nice attaboys for the editor, indicate that a potential editing dispute is resolved (e.g. "My mistake; thank you for the correction"), and show that someone has reviewed the edit. It would also let watch lists show "edits since you last reviewed this page". I'm often pleased when I can find a lingering minor typo just so I have an excuse to make an edit log entry.) (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)