User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Carbonaceous

I don't see the purpose of having a whole article for a definition of the adjective of carbon. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We can link to the Wiktionary definition of carbonaceous in a dab page. Adabow (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion at User talk:BD2412#Carbonaceous. Please make your comments there, or else move the whole discussion to the article talk page. Otherwise the discussion becomes fractured. SpinningSpark 09:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

CIDR

Not to upstage Jarry, but this tool I have migrated to labs might be able to help you out.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. Is there a documentation page showing how parameters can be entered in a line of wikicode or javascript? SpinningSpark 21:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow. Could you clarify. All you do is type a range and select range, or type a list of IPs and select list to run the checker.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a javascript sidebar menu that finds an IP range (/24 by default) and looks up its contributions automatically if I am on an IP's page or contributions list. My question was if I replace the tool with the Labs version, how is the IP number to be passed? I know I can do a test query and scrape the url and then use that as basis for javascript but I thought there may be a cleaner way to do this. SpinningSpark 00:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php?type=range&ips=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx%2Fxx should do the trick.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Does it work?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it works, but I haven't changed the javascript while Jarry's tool is still running. SpinningSpark 15:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Transient response plot of the LCR circuit

Dear spinningspark,

there is written in the description of the transient response plot of the LCR circuit that it is made with Inkscape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RLC_transient_plot.svg#file). I just wanted to ask, which program was used for plotting it and if the source codes for the plots are available somewhere?

Frankly, I can't remember how I did it, but I probably used the Function Plotter extension in Inkscape. This uses python expressions to generate the plots but unfortunately Inkscape discards the expressions afterwards and I have not kept an external record. One can also use an external application to generate a plot and then import it into Inkscape as a bitmap. If desired, the bitmap can be converted to a path in Inkscape using the Trace Bitmap function, but this usually does not end up with as clean a curve as generating a path directly. SpinningSpark 11:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Waveguide filter

The article Waveguide filter you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Waveguide filter for things which need to be addressed. VQuakr (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Passing it now; congrats. VQuakr (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Constant-k-gain.PNG listed for deletion

File:Constant-k-gain.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. While I find my version a bit nicer than File:Constant-k Filter Gain with Multiple Half-Sections.svg, I have no immediate interest in these files. Materialscientist (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DRS

<Moved to user talk:Hailypaige own page to keep conversation together>

Flitch of bacon custom

I did a tiny bit of work to reference up the last section, and think it's now clearly and unambiguously GA-standard. Review follows. Congratulations! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flitch of bacon custom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 00:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty good article. Well-written, entertaining, comprehensive, and well-referenced.

The only problem, really, is a few missing references in the last section, so once those are sorted, this can easily be promoted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What facts specifically do you think are so dubious that they need to be provided with citations? Bear in mind that GA criterion 2b does not require every sentence to be sourced. SpinningSpark 13:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, obviously. But there are certain amounts of "good practice" to consider. I've marked it; I'll see if any of it can be cited. The last one (the film existing) is probably optional, but better done.

One other issue: "The flitch of bacon" is very weird capitalization for an opera title. I'm going to capitalize it.

Also, I found a source for the opera: Hauger, George (Oct. 1950). "William Shield". Music & Letters. 31 (4). Oxford University Press: 337–342. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link). I think the book is already cited in the article. I'll check and copy that source, leaving just the film. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. Here's a list of the changes I've made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flitch_of_bacon_custom&diff=564673170&oldid=563735335

It's generally good practice to have a citation at least for every paragraph. Mainly just enough to show things exist, and provide a little more information if people are interested. ✓ Pass Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As a bit of a late aside, I do think this would be a good FAC. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

...

...

I certainly appreciate what you've imparted but as it does not make sense, I will not comply. I won't become an active Wikipedian for exactly this irrationality and do not care if my account is blocked. You may use this to do so: If you, SpinningSpark revert my edit I will pepper your contributions with edits from accounts and IP addresses all over the world and you will spend eternity in the reversion land that you seem to so well enjoy and flourish in. I travel very frequently and apologise in advance that you are the recipient of the full force of what can only be described as annihilating of the last straw that broke the virgin editor's back. The good news is that you will most likely get your pages locked. That may or may not make you happy, but I've taken a full recording of your contribs now, so changing your tag will not help avoid the envitible onslaught that you may or may not choose to bring upon yourself. Hailypaige (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Re.: an filter...

After browsing through your talk page, I'll give you the following advice: try to bicker less and collaborate more. You've wasted more time complaining that your poorly thought out reversion was fixed than taking the time to fix any grammar problem -- Mecanismo | Talk 14:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Hello. I see that you reverted a stub sorting edit that I made. The facts that line throwers are used in (at least) the United States Navy and that the article is in Category:Military logistics made me think that {{Mil-stub}} was an acceptable stub template to use. Granted, it covers a lot of articles, but I couldn't find one more specific. Do you have a better suggestion?.--Rockfang (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It really didn't seem appropriate to me, but if you want to put it back in I would be cool with that. The military use lots of things; ropes, pulleys, boots, paperwork; but would it be appropriate to sort a stub article on any of those things into "military"? Something under technology seems better and more general to me. SpinningSpark 09:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cutoff frequency may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• :<math>\left | H(j\omega_ \mathrm c \right | = \frac {1}{\sqrt{2}} = \sqrt{ \frac {1}{1 + \alpha^2\omega_\mathrm c ^

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antimetric electrical network

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Antimetric electrical network you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Corvus coronoides -- Corvus coronoides (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antimetric electrical network

The article Antimetric electrical network you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Antimetric electrical network for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Corvus coronoides -- Corvus coronoides (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Primary line constants

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Primary line constants you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antimetric electrical network

The article Antimetric electrical network you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Antimetric electrical network for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Corvus coronoides -- Corvus coronoides (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Abacus: Further Reading

Hi,

You reverted my edits of Abacus: Further Reading to revision 566816145.

I posted my comments and requests on my talk page; please respond to it.

Thanks, Steve Stephenson Sks23cu (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

BudRack

Given your interest, I'd like to know why you object to including a link at rack disambiguation to Bud Industries for BudRack or Bud rack. I feel sure you can tell me things I really want to know, which I would then likely post to Facebook group "Norton Chimes Company", which used them, though it took me several days to recall the nomenclature!--Pawyilee (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of disambiguation pages is to distinguish between pages of the same (or similar) name on different subjects. We do not normally include entries merely because the title includes the subject name (partial matches), see WP:DAB. Budrack is a particular brand of 19-inch rack. I doubt that anyone says just "rack" when they mean Budrack rather than 19-inch racks in general. Putting in trade names smacks of advertising and should only be done in clear-cut cases. A solution often adopted is to add intitle:rack or All titles containing "rack" and/or All titles beginning with "Rack" to a "see also" section. However, since there is not presently an article called "BudRack" it would not be included in these searches. SpinningSpark 10:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, according to the trademark search engine BudRack, Budrack and Bud rack are not registered trade marks. Bud Industries article only refereed to hobbyist or experimental Bud boxes. Searches for "bud rack" returns lots of hits, but their catalog page refers to the largest as BudRack [sic]. I added the term with their page as ref. Bud disambiguation currently lists Bud Industries, a manufacturer and supplier of electronics enclosures. Could BudRack or Bud rack be added as a nickname, though neither is a trademark, nor apply to all Bud enclosures? As for me, I had forgotten "Bud," and had to search a lot of pages on racks to rack my memory.—Pawyilee (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's beside the point whether or not it is trademarked. It is the name of a product and Wikipedia is not a trade directory. Your best solution is to create a redirect from "BudRack" to the Bud Industries article. That redirect will then show up in intitle searches. By the way, I would have thought that in 10,000 edits you would have learned how to WP:INDENT properly. SpinningSpark 17:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I thought "Oddly enough" introduced a new topic related to the thread, but not the previous comments. Still, you did give me interesting info, so thanks! —Pawyilee (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Primary line constants

The article Primary line constants you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Primary line constants for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Are any admins monitoring the page, Talk:Salamis Tablet?

There seems to be some anonymous user writing content in Salamis Tablet while reading my works, or watching my videos published elsewhere. I guess I should be flattered, but I'm not sure he's properly assigning credit for the material. Sks23cu (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:CPI for the procedure for dealing with this. SpinningSpark 02:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reflections of signals on conducting lines

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Reflections of signals on conducting lines you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Slotted line

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Slotted line you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of capitalization for units of measure named after individual people?

Spinningspark,

You seem to be knocking heads with people who are used to a convention where names of units of measure are capitalized when the names come from the names of individual people.

That is a convention that I am used to myself.

What is your source for declaring that names of units are necessarily lower case?

Who arbitrates on such a thing?

It seems to not really be such a big deal after all...

PoqVaUSA (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The capitalization convention is not universally established outside of Wikipedia. Granted, this IS Wikipedia, so Wikipedia standards should prevail. Where is the source for the Wikipedia standard for capitalization of units of measure? PoqVaUSA (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Who arbitrates on such a thing? In the case of the SI system of units, that would be the Bureau international des poids et mesures but lowercase unit names has been a common convention with most other preceding systems of units. I beg to differ that it is not a universally accepted convention. It is the standard used in all scientific and academic writing in English and is supported by all national and international standards bodies. See NIST for instance. SpinningSpark 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question on where this is in Wikipedia guidelines, see WP:UNIT. SpinningSpark 23:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The reference you gave for WP:UNIT contains the following instruction, identified with reference [6] when I viewed it.

• Unit symbols/abbreviations, apart from those listed below, are written in either non-alphabetic characters or in lower-case letters unless they are derived from a proper name, in which case the first letter is a capital letter. (This applies to the unit itself, not its prefix).

The distinction is that the capitalization is for an abbreviation of the unit, but not for the full name. I always thought that the abbreviation was capitalized because the name of the unit itself was capitalized. Thanks for the clarification. Citing WP:UNIT when correcting unit names might be helpful all around. PoqVaUSA (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Completely unjustified block

Re: [1]. I don't know this user and it's quite possible that they're up to no good. But since when is "sweeping unexplained and undiscussed changes over numerous articles" a reason for a WEEK LONG block? See WP:BOLD. I see "sweeping unexplained and undiscussed changes over numerous articles" on Wikipedia all the time and nobody gets blocked for it.

Is there some discussion about this I'm missing?  Volunteer Marek  01:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sorry but the part of the block justification where you say " ... edit warring to keep them in" is complete bullshit. I just looked through this user's contributions. There's edits on Sept 14 and before that edits on August 4th and before. There's not a single instance of a WP:3RR violation. Not a single instance of a 2RR. 1RR... maybe not even 0 RR. You are simply making shit up in that edit summary. Maybe there's some older instances of edit warring or something... but I see no discussion about that.

And consider this: even if this user gets unblocked because your block was bogus, they'll have the permanent stain of your false comment in their block log for ever. At the very least you need to be way more careful with what you put in those block summaries. At the very very least. Volunteer Marek  01:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. SpinningSpark 09:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.71.150 (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 

Help me move files to commons

I am trying to make a Hindi version of Topology (electrical circuits). I have used the images used there but they are not showing in Hindi wikipedia as they are not on commons. Can you guide me to the easiest way to get these files on commons. Anunad Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.240.114.85 (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

They are marked with a request to keep on English Wikipedia so they should not be moved to Commons, but they can be copied there. You can do this yourself but be sure to copy the licence and author information exactly as it appears here. If you are not comfortable doing that yourself you can instead mark the image pages with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and editors experienced in Commons transfers will deal with it. Would you like clean versions of the images with the English annotations stripped off? If so, please send me an e-mail. If you want, you can send me Hindi translations of the annotations and I can add them to the images for you. SpinningSpark 16:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I plan to use the images with English annotation as of now and try to have them with Hindi annotations later. अनुनाद सिंह (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for being a positive influence on the ref desks, providing good links, and not succumbing to the petty quarrels that distract us from our mission! SemanticMantis (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Advise

Hi, I've tried making some changes to some articles in the field of electrical engineering. In almost all cases I've been reverted by one user, and the discussions that have followed haven't had any consensus. The most editors active in a discussion have been four, however it's mostly been me and one other editor. Which route to dispute resolution do you think would be better? Since one of the discussions involved four editors in total I wasn't sure if 3O would be appropriate, however the most recent discussion only involved me and one other editor I wasn't sure if DRN would be the appropriate venue either. For extra information the first discussion took place at Electric Current, and the subsequent discussions took place at Alternating Current, and Direct Current --Kyohyi (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you should refrain from spreading the same dispute from article to article. Resolve it in one place first, as has already been suggested to you here. If you want to involve more editors, you could open a WP:RFC either on an involved article talk page or at a central project location such as WT:WikiProject Electrical engineering but I suspect that the main thing you are likely to achieve is to get added to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. SpinningSpark 21:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have no desire to have any edit war. And I thought consensus had been reached back at the initial article of Electric Current, which is why I had made the changes to other articles. However, their reversion of me in the other articles lead me to believe that it hadn't, so I was hoping to further the discussion. I would rather resolve this before moving on any further, but it is rather difficult to do if discussion isn't happening. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

classical elements articles

I don't know where you get your sources from, but Earth is asociated with Spring, as that is the season there everything grows, and it's direction is East. Water is asociated with Winter as that is the season with the most snow (water) and where the night and moon are more dorminant and it's direction is North. And of course, Air is asociated with Autumn, as that is where the wind blows the most, and it's direction is West. So far Fire/Summer is the only one you actually seem to have right. 90.185.223.70 (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My reason for reverting you is that you did not provide a source, not anything to do with what my sources say, but it is easy enough to find gbooks sources that verify the article (easy to find ones that contradict it as well). The article is continually changed back and forth without anyone providing sources. I am simply removing all unsourced changes on sight. I am almost inclined to delete all this witchcraft nonsense from these articles, witchcraft has precious little to do with the classical conception of element which is what these articles are supposed to be about. SpinningSpark 10:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ammonia fuming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red oak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ammonia fuming

Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Decoupling (electronics) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• mount technology]] is now the norm]]) but the general principles of decoupling remain the same.]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

CPM Link/Article

I guess my point was that a whole article on CPM seemed superfluous since (in Morse Code) the 'W' in WPM always refers to 5 characters (including spaces and straddling words) and CPM is always WPM times 5. But I see your point and won't pursue this further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagnor (talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

About the last removals in Current-to-voltage converter

Spinningspark, about ten days ago, I saw that the infamous Zen-in began to systematically destroy my edits in the Current-to-voltage converter article. First, he deleted the whole section about the so important passive application - building an ammeter by a voltmeter [2]

Then, he deleted the section about the fundamental (nonelectrical) idea behind the I-to-V converter what was actually the Ohm's law idea (V = I.R) [3]

I reminded he that the big Wikipedia idea was to improve, rewrite and enrich the already written, not to destroy it and start again from the very beginning [4] ...

... but he deleted my message from his talk page [5] ...

He deleted even the extremely useful link to the remarkable genuine paper of Dan Sheingold in the legendary Philbrick 's "The Lightning Empiricist" magazine that I suggested to include in the article (note in this he wrote deceptive explanations in the summary fields) [6], [7]

Today, he erased another big part of my edits [8] ...

... including the important section about the passive circuit imperfections [9] ...

... and writing again misleading comments in the summary field; only see:
(diff | hist) . . Current-to-voltage converter‎; 09:22 . . (-1,367)‎ . . ‎Zen-in (talk | contribs)‎ (fixed a typo in equation)

In this connection I want to say that I do not claim that what I wrote then (2007) is the most perfect, but I assert that it was true and explained things well. I wrote it 7 years ago when naively believed that the form is not so important for an encyclopedia, but rather the content. So I tried to explain the ideas and the implementation of these circuits in a human friendly way; now I would not write it in this way... Then I naively hoped that Wikipedians would help me to write together this page... what was the great Wikipedia idea... See my appeal to them (perhaps including you) written by me 7 years ago in the beginning of the talk page - Talk:Current-to-voltage_converter

"Of course, my insertions need improving by a native English speaker(s). I have realized that I have only roughly exposed the topic... Circuit-fantasist 11:06 am, 12 August 2006, Saturday (7 years, 3 months, 6 days ago) (UTC+3)"

So, the article should be rewritten... but by a person(s) who can do it... who understands the specific subject and so can appreciate and salvage the already written... The article cannot be rewritten by a person that can only blindly blank articles and destroy else's creations just because he cannot realize even the simplest circuit ideas (if you have forgotten this sorry truth, I can recall it by links to the history)...

--Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 20:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the inaccurate edit summaries, my bad. All Wikipedia editors have the right to edit whatever they choose. The page in question needs a total re-write. The stick figure "graphi-analytical" illustrations were judged to be unencyclopediac and a judgement was made that they should all be removed after an ANI hearing in 2012. I don't think a former editor who has an indefinite ban has any say in these matters. I have recently done a lot of research in this area and have found several good references. I am making a good-faith effort to improve this page and have so far refrained from removing all of the banned editor's work. But it all will have to go. This graphi-analytical portrayal of electronic circuits is unencyclopediac and cannot be cited by any references. Zen-in (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Again misleading edit summaries (removing a full sub-section should not be simply commented by "rm duplication") [10]...--Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 10:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It does not take a whole section to say that transimpedance is in units of ohms, something already stated in the lede in any case. Alright, the edit summary didn't cover it, and alright, everything in the lede should be a summary of the body, but I'm not going to start jumping all over someone for going about regular editing activities. Please let go of this, it has been so many years now... SpinningSpark 10:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at recent major editorial actions, I suggest the title of "Current-to-voltage converter" to be replaced by "Photodiode applications":)--Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 10:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Alcubierre drive edit

Hello, I didn't understand why the entry was reverted. What did I do wrong?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avirupkundu (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Avirupkundu, I guess you are referring to this edit. It is not the purpose of popular culture sections to document every use of a term in works of fiction, although people frequently make such edits. It just ends up with an unmanagable list of cruft if we let it develop. For instance, the automobile article does not list every use of cars in James Bond movies and books, although I'd bet that Bond has had a far bigger influence on the popular image of automobiles than Asher has had on the Alcubierre drive. The dress article does not list every instance of it in Barbara Cartland novels even though Cartland is hugely more widely read that Asher.

If you have sources that discuss the influence of Alcubierre on science fiction or Asher then that is a different matter and that could be added. Likewise a discussion of the progression of the Alcubierre drive in science fiction in a coherent and sourced section would also be welcome. SpinningSpark 18:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok i get it. Thanks for your reply! Avirup (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniell cell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Platinum chloride (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Sidney Lewis.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sidney Lewis.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

About the last insertions in Current-to-voltage converter

SpinningSpark, I am sorry, but I will need again to respond to the last edits made in the article about current-to-voltage converter. I can not stay indifferent to what is done there because I created the most of this article six years ago. I have written my comment here because, as you well know, I have no other option where to do it ...

The article is not about photodiodes

First of all, I want to repeat again what I have written above that this article is about "current-to-voltage converter" or "transimpedance amplifier"; it is not about "photodiodes" neither "photo multipliers" nor about of all sorts "photo detectors". These devices do not belong to the circuit; they are external (auxiliary). I bothered to check in how many sentences and how many times the word "photo" has repeated. Here are the funny results of my statistics:

Fully 15 sentences of total 28 (more than 50%) are about "photo applications", and contain at least one "photo word"; throughout the text, the "photo-word" is repeated 21 times (here I had no patience to calculate the percentage). If you do not beleive me, look at the extracted sentences below (the "photo-words" are emphasized in bold) :

...Fig. 1. Transimpedance amplifier and photodiode...

...The TIA can be used to amplify the current from Geiger–Müller tubes, photo multiplier tubes, accelerometers, photo detectors and other types of sensors...

...This is the case with photodiodes where it is not uncommon for the current response to have better than 1% linearity over a wide range of light input...

...The transimpedance amplifier presents a low impedance to the photodiode and isolates it from the output voltage of the operational amplifier...

...In the circuit shown in Fig. 1 the photodiode is connected between ground and the inverting input of the opamp...

...This provides a low impedance load for the photodiode, which keeps the photodiode voltage low...

...The photodiode is operating in photovoltaic mode with no external bias...

...The high gain of the opamp keeps the photodiode current equal to the feedback current through Rf...

...The input offset voltage due to the photodiode is very low in this self-biased photovoltaic mode...

...This configuration is used with photodiodes that are illuminated with low light levels and require a lot of gain...

...Fig. 2 shows a TIA with the 'photodiode' driven by a laser diode and operating in the photoconductive mode...

...A positive voltage at the cathode of the photodiode applies a reverse bias...

...This reverse bias increases the width of the depletion region and lowers the junction capacitance, improving the high frequency performance...

...The photoconductive configuration of a transimpedance photodiode amplifier is used where fast switching speed is required but high gain is not...

...Fig. 2. Simplified transimpedance amplifier with a reverse biased photodiode...

The conclusion: Obviously, the author has nothing to write about the very current-to-voltage converter and fills the page with "copy & paste" excerpts from books...

Misleading sentences

...The TIA can be used to amplify the current from Geiger–Müller tubes, photo multiplier tubes, accelerometers, photo detectors and other types of sensors... - to amplify the current? It sounds strange but possible if we connect the dual voltage-to-current converter after it; but how to do it after another "wise guy" removed (redirected) exactly this article?

"...The one factor they all have in common is the requirement to convert the low-level current of a sensor to a voltage..." - there is no sense in this sentence (it is redundant)

Next, in the DC Operation section we see new "pearls":

"...the photodiode is connected between ground and the inverting input of the opamp. The other input of the opamp is also connected to ground..." All this can be seen in the figure...

"...The input offset voltage due to the photodiode is very low in this self-biased photovoltaic mode..." What is this 'input offset voltage due to the photodiode'? Is it a characteristic of the photodiode or of the op-amp? A vague phrase...

The two "expressions" occupying much space are nothing else than the Ohm's law in its two versions (I=V/R and R=V/I); it is not clear where they come from (at least he was mentioned the KVL about the loop consisting of the op-amp output, the resistor and the op-amp differential input)...

The section is about the DC Operation... but only look at Fig. 2 where the LED is driven by a square wave signal. Is this a DC mode (with these sharp edges)?

There is no idea in the inserted text

To begin talking about a transimpedance amplifier (the active version of a current-to-voltage converter), first you have to show the imperfections of the passive version (the undesired voltage drop across the humble resistor decreasing the compliance voltage of the imperfect current source, the influence of the input (cabel) stray capacitances, leakage currents, the impact of the next load, etc... Only then you have to show how the active version has solved these problems in a clever way by the means of the ubiquitous virtual ground... but this "wise guy" removed exactly this link a few days ago... He removed also all the explanations of the circuit operation and the colorful circuits illustrating them at the end of the article and placed his "explanations" in the very beginning (thus putting the cart before the horse:)...

Putting yourself in the place of the web visitor

I try to imagine what the poor web visitors feel when opening and see this "mesh" consisting of two completely different parts: the first - "encyclopedic", but saying nothing; the second - unencyclopedic (colorful, lengthy, naive... I wrote it in 2006), but still explaining the circuit ideas, their implementations and the circuit evolution. Here is what it was before this massive deletion. Maybe some template ("Under construction" or something similar) should be placed at the top of the article to show tо visitors that the article is in the process of a great change.

"Anyone can edit electronics Wikipedia" (even DOS-programmers)... but if he did not understand the "copy & paste" texts that he had blindly extracted (and compiled) from various books, let him first use the sandbox to exercise under your control...

(sorry for the little mistake when posting; for a long time I have not edited Wikipedia)

--Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 21:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

My talk page is not a substitute for your community ban on editing electronic article talk pages. If you want to discuss your ban and how I can help you get it reversed then we can do that, but otherwise I am not going to get drawn into discussion. SpinningSpark 23:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop tinkering with your text above. It won't make any difference and it is annoyingly triggering repeated message notifications to me. SpinningSpark 14:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see... and I will no longer bother you here with concrete suggestions about specific articles... Indeed, it is more correct to regain my rights in electronics Wikipedia (more than two years after I was banned) and take part in these electronics articles. So I need your help in this endeavor.--Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 19:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. To get your ban lifted it would be necessary to show that you understand the reasons for the ban and would try not to repeat them. Have you understood? Much of your post above says to me that you have not, or if you have, that you don't care. SpinningSpark 20:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Spinningspark, I have understood the reasons for the ban but it is preferably to show it in practice. I can be of use to Wikipedia and this is the most important here. As you can see, I have realized that this style using detailed step-by-step explanations, colorful pictures and animations is not so suitable for Wikipedia but sooner for Wikibooks. My idea is to contribute more episodically electronics Wikipedia when needed.

About my post above... I really allowed myself a little joke with Zen-in (about "DOS programmers"), but I am not afraid to make a joke in the same way with myself because I am somewhat an "assembler programmer" at still lower level in microcomputers. In fact, I appreciate his efforts to make a good article, but he should take also into account at least some of my comments above.

And finally, I care a lot about Wikipedia...--Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 22:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Figure 8 on the RLC Circuit page

just wondering if you could help me out with 'finding the waveform of the current that leaves the source' of this circuit? This is a complicated maths question I've been set. I've come up with a few equations but I'm not knowledgable in the area to know if they're near correct. Any response would be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.25.194 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

How you go about solving it, and how easy that is, depends on the nature of the source. Under steady DC conditions it is a trivial Ohm's law problem. For steady AC conditions you can solve by forming an expression for the equivalent impedance of the circuit and dividing into the voltage. This will give you a complex number that can be resolved into the amplitude and phase of a sinusoid. If the driving source is a step function, ie suddenly switching on or off a steady voltage, you can develop the differential equations for the circuit following a similar procedure to the RLC case. The characteristic equation will be of a similar form and the waveforms obtained will be a similar result but the expressions for α and ω0 may be different. If the source is doing anything more complicated than any of those, the general approach is to form the differential equation as before, but the RHS will no longer differentiate to zero. Alternatively, the Laplace transform of the source voltage waveform can be found and divided by the s-domain representation of the impedance to get the current. The time domain waveform is found by taking the reverse Laplace transform of this. The s-domain method is outlined in the article. SpinningSpark 02:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. We are told that the source is AC and that Vinput(t) = 2cos(100t). So to find the waveform of the current i used V = IZ. worked out the complex impedance to be jwL + R/(1 + RjwC) and then did V/Z. I'm just not sure if that's simplified enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.25.194 (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you have been asked to find the output waveform, and the input waveform was expressed in the time domain, expressing the answer in the jω domain may not be enough. Probably the answer is required in the form Asin(100t+θ) or Acos(100t+θ). SpinningSpark 03:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ammonia fuming

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ammonia fuming you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, this is the real Curly Turkey letting you know I've finished my review of the article. there are some easy-to-fix things in there, and some other comments to think about if you can take the time to look. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey, just letting you know I've passed the article. My OCD and I went and did some formatting (endashes, etc) as well. Thatnks for your kind words re Lusitania—it must have been frustrating for you to hammer the same point into me again and again. I'm surprised you stuck with it!
    One other thing: I wonder if maybe File:Unfumed oak.jpg or File:Fuming chart.jpg would make a better lead image—it's not really clear from first looking at it what the choir stalls are representing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought a real piece of craftmanship was better for the lede image, but feel free to change it around yourself. I don't think Unfumed oak.jpg is suitable for the lede however as it is not fumed (clue in the name) and it is really a pair with Fumed oak.jpg so the two should be kept together. SpinningSpark 23:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ammonia fuming

The article Ammonia fuming you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ammonia fuming for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Beatcha to it, Legobot. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK Toolbox

I posted about this at the DYK Discussion, but no one answered. When the DYK Toolbox was set up this past May, it included "Disambig links" and "External links". Until recently, I never used those two options. And while I understand what they do, I'm wondering how they are useful in a review. I don't really see anyone mentioning these on a review, so I've been assuming they are for informational purposes for the reviewer, not necessarily something the nominator has to correct before being passed. Can you enlighten me about these two tools? — Maile (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The toolbox was originally based on the GA toolbox. There was a discussion at the time on which tools should be added and removed and this is what we ended up with plus whatever has changed since. You should be able to find that in the DYK archives. Although I was involved with setting it up, I am not really the best person to ask on what should be in it, that is for the DYK community to decide. The external links tool will show up deadlinks in the references. An article with many non-functioning references may be a concern to DYK. It could mean that large portions of the article are unverifiable, or worse, POV editing or even a hoax. Links needing disambiguating are probably not too big a concern at DYK but the tool is easy and quick and there is no harm in letting the author know there is a dab problem that needs fixing. SpinningSpark 01:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, this is enlightening. I wasn't questioning whether or not these two should be in the toolbox. I read the thread in the archives before I posted here. I was just unclear on what I should do in a review if anything odd comes up with those two checks. You have helped me understand. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cool as Ice may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |producer = [[Carolyn Pfeiffer]]<br />[[[Lionel Wigram (cinema)|Lionel Wigram]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Art marble (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Josh Simpson

Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Josh Simpson

Marble (toy) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Josh Simpson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A Holiday Turkey!

What's a holiday without a funny-tasting chicken? Most flavourful they are soonest after glaring directly into the twinkle of your eye.

Gobble gobble! Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20