User talk:Sbyrnes321

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

navbox[edit]

Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,

you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KPU0/sandbox Plutonium 16:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to help you with that because I don't think it's a useful navbox for wikipedia articles. (It's a fine thing to put on your user-page, like a list of things you find interesting and related.) Just my opinion. --Steve (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You can see similar navboxes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Composition OR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Biological_organisation that used in some articles. my navbox is about evolution of a science from observation to science, in the Outline of scientific method you can see the original source. I'm not sure about title of navbox. please help me and tell me what's wrong in my navbox? Plutonium 23:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You can show me many comparable navboxes, but that won't convince me, because I think that those navboxes are bad too. There are just a lot of unhelpful navboxes on wikipedia. I don't waste my time trying to get them deleted, or anything like that, because it's unpleasant to pick fights, and because I suspect (extrapolating from my own experience) that most readers quit reading when they get to the, references and probably don't even realize that the navboxes are there at the bottom, so it doesn't matter much anyway.
Take any nonfiction book out of the library, chosen at random, and open it to a random page. Based on the things discussed on this page, you can make a list of maybe 20 wikipedia articles. These articles will be related to each other, and if somebody sat down for a day and read them all, they would really get a pretty deep understanding of the area. You could imagine constructing a short pedagogical course around those 20 articles.
Yes, you have found a set of articles that are related to each other, and whose relationship is worth thinking about. But that's too low a bar to warrant a navbox. There are probably billions of conceivable navboxes that satisfy this criterion. Your navbox reminds me of a music playlist. I have a playlist of rock ballads that I really love listening to, and I would recommend it to anyone. I might post it on my personal website. The songs all go together and complement each other, and I think you can appreciate each song better in the context of my playlist. But it's still just my personal playlist, I would not make it into a wikipedia navbox and forcibly shove it in front of anyone looking at any of the songs on it.
I think that for a navbox to deserve to exist, it has to be among the very most natural groupings of articles, such that almost everyone reading any of the articles will recognize that as part of its very most natural grouping, and where almost everybody reading any of the articles will probably want to read the other articles too. I don't think that most people reading Deep learning will feel the need to immediately also read the wikipedia articles about Knowledge and Positivism. I think hardly any would. --Steve (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Steve, currently i stopped working on it, i just think that i start to reading wikipedia articles about the subject of scientific method and collect them into a navobx, but as i think this not my personal view, i read too many of articles and some books about this subject and found this idea, for me it's not useful but if some one want to start this subject can use my experience by just a short look at this navbox. i planed to delete OTHER and just keep DIKY pyramid and Scientific method because other is just for me as writer to think. Both of us are programmer(i think you're programmer too!) and we know there are too many algorithms for doing one thing but we just choose most optimized algorithm and for a group of things we can create a general algorithm. In philosophy of science the process of forming a branch of science start by observation but a theory may start by a question or a branch of science like philosophy, but in general use we start our workflow by observe the world and then ask question,then step by step move. i know there are different views about philosophy of science like bacon and kuhn. i think this navbox(when finished) help too many people to understand the process of scientific method.Plutonium 17:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 (talkcontribs)

I disagree with you revert at Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy in Conceptual introduction[edit]

I really understand what you mean but the problem is that viewing a Michelson interferometer as a wavelength filter is not right at all. In fact, that is how a spectrometer works. More over the usual mistake about the Michelson interferometer is to compare it to a spectrometer which it is not. You must know that all wavelengths are passing through a Michelson interferometer and that what you see on one of the output ports is the sum of the interference pattern of each wavelength for a certain optical path difference. I know that the way a Michelson interferometer works is not easy to understand but it may be better to avoid false description (I am sorry for my poor english). This is a description taken from Michelson interferometer : "The Michelson interferometer's detector in effect monitors all wavelengths simultaneously throughout the entire measurement, increasing the integration time and the total number of photons monitored"

Oh, I already wrote a message at Talk:Fourier_transform_infrared_spectroscopy#Conceptual_introduction ... I will copy this message and we can keep talking there :-)

Benford's law[edit]

I'm afraid I don't understand either of your points.

"more likely to be smaller" falsely suggests that we are comparing some digits to other digits

Isn't that exactly what we're doing?

"Most significant digit" is not technically correct.

Why not? – Smyth\talk 09:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

When you say "the most significant digit is more likely to be smaller", I think readers will read an implied comparison and fill it in as: "the most significant digit is more likely to be smaller [than the second and third and other digits]". If that's how they read it, then they're getting the wrong impression. The point of Benford's law is not that the first digit of a number is typically smaller than the twelfth digit of a number. (That's true, but it's not the main Benford's law, it is merely an unimportant, incidental consequence of Benford's law.)
For "most significant digit", the question is whether this is a synonym of "leftmost significant digit". My comment was wrong, this usage is common and accepted (and "technically correct") in the context of computer science. (Sorry about that!) But many readers don't have any computer science background, but rather learned about significant digits in, say, grade-school science class. In grade-school science class, as far as I can tell, people generally learn that digits are either significant or not significant, but not "more significant" or "less significant". If you look at significant figures article, you'll see that that's the perspective. So these readers would be confused by "most significant digit", whereas they would understand "leading significant digit".
Do you agree? Am I missing something? --Steve (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good explanation. – Smyth\talk 17:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Guideline on overlinkig[edit]

With regard to your reverts, the manual of style MOS:DUPLINK states, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --Mark viking (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to make sense of this ridiculous rule and found this discussion. Essentially everyone who supported the current wording interpreted it as being a gentle suggestion rather than a strict rule. And a lot of people did not even support the wording in the first place.
Anyway, I hope we can agree that your quote above is superseded by that other sentence from the section:
A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from.
Isn't "helping someone understand the article you are linking from" the point? What is the point of Wikipedia, if not to write articles that are maximally effective in conveying information to readers? Why are we doing this?
So if we agree on that axiom, I am happy to discuss with you why I think my edits were in support of it. (I did not revert all your changes, only the ones that I thought would make life harder for readers.) --Steve (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Data file for S-Q Voc[edit]

Hello Sbyrnes321, I would like to request the data file for the S-Q Voc plot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ShockleyQueisserVOC.svg Origin or ASCII is fine. Cheers, m2mayer M2mayer (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see the Talk page of linear optics[edit]

Dear Sbyrnes321, we can discuss here or in the Talk page of Linear Optics. I am happy with most of the modifications you have made there, but not with all. Please see the Talk page there. Thanks a lot Tal Mor (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Fresnel_equations page edits - may be wrong[edit]

Hi,

If I have interpreted the history edits correctly it looks like you changed the Fresnel equations for Rs and Rp. I have derived these myself and checked with a two other references and I believe your edits may be wrong

ie rs (ignoring the squared Rs to ease typing) =

  (Z1 cos(theta_1) - Z2 cos(theta_2)/(Z1 cos(theta_1) + Z2 cos(theta_2))

and rp = Z2 cos theta_1 - Z1 cos theta_2/(Z2 cos theta1 + Z1 cos theta 2)

regards Kim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.168.202 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, well I've been wrong before. First, what references are you referring to? Second, just to be very sure, you're not confusing Z and n are you? (They're inversely proportional.) For reference, the current article versions are:

Do you think the Z versions and n versions are both wrong? At a glance, they seem consistent with each other, right? --Steve (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)