# User talk:Zueignung

## Dipole

2A4Fh56OSA (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC) It seems like your formulas in the dipole antenna article do not show up correctly. 2A4Fh56OSA (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)The align stuff does not work (?) I have taken out this nice formatting stuff and now the formulas show up correctly. Nevertheless - they don't look nice any more :/

Hi. When you recently edited Two-state quantum system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superposition (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) 11:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spin (physics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vector (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) 11:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

## A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Zueignung. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! RockMagnetist (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

## Equation of motion

Hi - thanks again for your very hard work, apologies that your altruism has been neglected (especially on my part, for at least a couple of years?)... You may like to see this article, since it included that "F = d(mv)/dt" nonsense... I cleared it today out but you may still like to edit the article anyway. Thanks, Maschen (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

## Dipole antenna

Hi, just so you know I created SVG files for:

All except No6 uploaded successfully, 6 is drawn but apparently there is an "internal error" (there definitely shouldn't be, so will fix as soon as possible). Thanks, Maschen (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No 6 is done now. Just thought to let you know. Sorry it took so long! M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 19:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, somehow I missed your original post on my talk page back on 16 Sep—I must have gotten a single notice for this one and the one below, and then not seen this one. These all look great. I guess there is some pushback on the orange/blue torus, but I don't see why the others can't be added in. What program do you make these with? Inkscape? Zueignung (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Serif drawplus X4 is an excellent SVG program (loads of features, very easy to use). I would have almost no chance using Inkscape, too tedious and fiddly (for me). Anyway thank you for the acknowledgements, no 6 will be redrawn, according to proposals/comments on talk:Dipole antenna.
(P.S. Feel free to remove the nonsense post I wrote below on the applet, just found it at the time and became addicted... never mind!) M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 01:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

## Applet for orbital mechanics

Surely there are plenty, though here is an extremely good applet for showing orbital trajectories for 4 celestial bodies: [1]. If you find any good places, this may be a useful external link, also it's pretty fun! Just thought to let you know. An excellent demonstration of sensitivity of orbits to initial positions and velocities, hence the chaotic behaviour in a 4-body system. Maschen (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

## Warning vandals

Zueignung, thanks for reverting the IP vandalism on Magnetic field. You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also to direct new users towards the sandbox. Or you can install Twinkle to make the process easier. If users keep vandalizing pages, they can get increasingly stern warnings or even be blocked from editing (see also Warnings). RockMagnetist (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Van Cittert–Zernike theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mutual coherence (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) 12:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Von Neumann entropy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trace (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) 11:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

## your new Ultrashort pulse image

Improve it please, make the chirp stronger - unlike in the old image, I can no longer see the chirp at a glance. Since the entire point is to show the chirp, this is a serious defect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:12:10C6:217:8FF:FE2A:A8ED (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

## ISO and SI standards for physical quantities.

You should be aware that the standard for physical quantities is italics. Please see rules set by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) Section 5.3.1. You could also view this standard at ISO 31-0. I am reverting your changes at Angular momentum. You might have noticed I am changing Wikipedia articles to follow this international standard. Thanks for any assistance in this matter. Dger (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

## Negative feedback amplifier

The claims wouldn't be so puzzling if you consider that:

• In the emitter and op-amp followers, the negative feedback is just a piece of wire; there are no any elements connected there
• The emitter follower is exactly a negative feedback amplifier where the output voltage subtracts from the input one according to KVL (the two voltages are contrary connected in series and the result is applied to the base-emitter input)
• The article is about the combination "amplifier + negative feedback" that is usually an amplifier again; so the feedback network should be a kind of attenuator

Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 16:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schrödinger picture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamiltonian (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) 12:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, if it's ok... I'm about to add citations also... M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 12:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dipole antenna, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Resistance and Reactance (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) 11:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loop quantum gravity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charge (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) 11:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spectral density, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Impedance (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) 11:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

## Dipole impedance formulas

I think the dipole impedance formula is not correct for the reactance part in particular. I don't know what the correct formula is. But to see that this one is wrong just consider what happens when the diameter value, "a", is either zero or close to zero. The Ci() term that contains "a" either is minus infinity or close to it. And this propagates out to the value of X_dipole. This would be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttdoucet (talkcontribs) 20:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an antenna expert, so I can't assess the validity of the formula. The person to direct this question to is probably User:2A4Fh56OSA. Zueignung (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider myself an antenna expert either, but I have some experience with them and I looked into the issue a little more deeply. In a nutshell, I think the estimate for the reactive part is not useful, and it is not clear that a useful closed-form estimate is known. The resistive part is probably fine. It is easy to provide an example of where the reactive calculation goes astray: a 3/4-wave dipole with ordinary wire diameter of a few mm. The calculation will indicate that the reactive part is capacitive, but it is clearly inductive, through both modeling and practice. What happens specifically in the computation is that the correction involving the diameter takes over the computation, and causes the reactance to change sign. I believe that what is going on at a more fundamental level is that when deriving this formula there is an assumption of a sinusoidal current distribution on the antenna, and no current at the ends. This is certainly true for odd multiples of a half wavelength, but perhaps not true for other cases. So the end result is that the reactive part ends up being true around odd multiples of a half wavelength, but wrong, or at least extremely misleading, at other lengths. I believe a more conservative approach might be to give the formula for the resistive part, but not offer a formula for the reactive part, except near odd multiples of a half wave. (This is the approach that the well-known book by Kraus takes.)

Ttdoucet (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

## Physics manual of style

Hi! I'm not sure if you're aware of the up-and-coming Wikipedia:MOSPHYS (physics manual of style on WP). It's not complete yet (there's probably a lot still to do). You set good typesetting standards, so if there's anything you want to add/change, it would be beneficial for the project. I may be carrying over some of your recommendations from your user page, (unless you beat me to it), if that's ok. Best, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 16:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

## Examples of convolution

I saw the wiki page, but I couldn't find any examples using actual numbers to evaluate the formula. Could you give some examples of convolution, please? Mathijs Krijzer (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

#### Definition

The convolution of f and g is written fg, using an asterisk or star. It is defined as the integral of the product of the two functions after one is reversed and shifted. As such, it is a particular kind of integral transform:

 ${\displaystyle (f*g)(t)\ \ \,}$ ${\displaystyle {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ \int _{-\infty }^{\infty }f(\tau )\,g(t-\tau )\,d\tau }$ ${\displaystyle =\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }f(t-\tau )\,g(\tau )\,d\tau .}$       (commutativity)

#### Domain of definition

The convolution of two complex-valued functions on Rd

${\displaystyle (f*g)(x)=\int _{\mathbf {R} ^{d}}f(y)g(x-y)\,dy}$

is well-defined only if f and g decay sufficiently rapidly at infinity in order for the integral to exist. Conditions for the existence of the convolution may be tricky, since a blow-up in g at infinity can be easily offset by sufficiently rapid decay in f. The question of existence thus may involve different conditions on f and g.

#### Circular discrete convolution

When a function gN is periodic, with period N, then for functions, f, such that fgN exists, the convolution is also periodic and identical to:

${\displaystyle (f*g_{N})[n]\equiv \sum _{m=0}^{N-1}\left(\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }{f}[m+kN]\right)g_{N}[n-m].\,}$

#### Circular convolution

When a function gT is periodic, with period T, then for functions, f, such that fgT exists, the convolution is also periodic and identical to:

${\displaystyle (f*g_{T})(t)\equiv \int _{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+T}\left[\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }f(\tau +kT)\right]g_{T}(t-\tau )\,d\tau ,}$

where to is an arbitrary choice. The summation is called a periodic summation of the function f.

#### Discrete convolution

For complex-valued functions f, g defined on the set Z of integers, the discrete convolution of f and g is given by:

${\displaystyle (f*g)[n]\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ \sum _{m=-\infty }^{\infty }f[m]\,g[n-m]}$
${\displaystyle =\sum _{m=-\infty }^{\infty }f[n-m]\,g[m].}$       (commutativity)

When multiplying two polynomials, the coefficients of the product are given by the convolution of the original coefficient sequences, extended with zeros where necessary to avoid undefined terms; this is known as the Cauchy product of the coefficients of the two polynomials.

## Worthless jargon?

Hi! I enjoyed the contents of your user page very much and I will take your advice and try to improve my own lamentable performance.

impedance, resistance, susceptance, reactance, reluctance, admittance, permeability, permeance

seem to me distinctly out of place.

These are all technical terms with a precise meaning, no other word will do. In a number of professions you would attract some very strange looks if you described these terms as 'worthless jargon'. Calling it worthless jargon would merely indicate that you did not know anything about the matter in hand.

Currently I am banned from editing on one topic because I probably went too far in insisting on the accurate use technical terms. Too bad! But I applaud your talk page and will do my best to follow (most of) what you write.

Have a nice day! --Damorbel (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

## Wrong

why did you want to keep the wrong thing on newtons laws? It is not only ugly is is incorrect

TheZelos (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, please read the supporting references provided in that section. They explain why that equation is wrong. If, after reading these references, you still feel the article needs correction, start a new section on the article talk page. Zueignung (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

## Franking

Sorry, our edits crossed -- I was attempting to restore your previous version. Probably some interpolated version would be best. --JBL (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This guy is nuts! --JBL (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• If either of you have some point to make that's fine, but resorting instead to gratuitous uncollegial language ("This guy is nuts", "Learn to speak English.", and "How did this ungrammatical garble make it back into the lede?") and nascent edit warring is both unhelpful and unproductive. I have been writing about this and other related postal subjects for a long time and wrote virtually everything (as well as created most of the illustrations from examples in my large collections of postal history) in this entry in 2008. A review of its history shows that this article has been very stable for the seven years since. Franking is a fairly technical subject as its implamentation is highly regulated worldwide by the various Postal Regulations and practices of the 191 member Postal Administrations of the Universal Postal Union, therefore the specific wording and language structure with which it was developed was all chosen very carefully to accurately reflect the precise regulatory intentions of the integrated international postal system.
Developing and writing for the project this way is not being "nuts", but instead being encyclopedicly responsible.
Please, therefore, at a minimum first refer to the cited and other reliable sources and make an effort to fully understand the topic completely before making casual and ultimately unwarranted changes to the existing technical language that was already based on and supported by such sources. An example of such an error introduced by one of your instant edits caused by failing to follow this practice is incorrectly changing "Business Reply Mail (BPM)" to "business reply mail" on the somewhat specious grounds of "not capitalizing every Noun as if we're writing Articles in German" when it is clearly stated in the USPS Quick Service Guide here that Business Reply Mail is a proper name of a specific USPS class of service just like "First Class Mail", "Priority Mail", "Air Mail", etc for which each word is meant to be capitalized. If you (or any editor) have some disagreement or question some specific usage, then the place to raise those is in the article's talk page first as opposed to making blind unsupported changes.
Thank you for your consideration in doing this in the future as it will make things much easier for everybody. Centpacrr (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no "point to make" other than that the writing in Wikipedia articles should be clear and grammatically correct. You have repeatedly introduced unclear and grammatically incorrect language into the franking article. "Franking are" is not grammatically correct, which is why I removed it. Why did you repeatedly reinsert it? In fact, the first sentence of the lede is still not grammatically correct:
Franking refers to any devices, markings, or combinations thereof ("franks") applied to mails of any class which qualifies them to be postally serviced.
"Qualifies" refers back to "any devices, markings, or combinations thereof", and therefore must be plural ("qualify"). It's hard to see, of course, since you've inserted unnecessary filler phrases ("or combinations thereof", "of any class") that obstruct the flow of the sentence.
I will not waste my time producing citations for basic facts about English grammar. Zueignung (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Again this is technical legal language based on and derived from international postal regulations and proceedings of the UPU providing a definition that includes multiple elements and thus does not lend itself to "free flowing prose". "Qualifies" also does not refer back to "any devices, markings, or combinations thereof", but instead to "franking" which those other words are included to help define types of franking and are thus subordinate. Therefore the correct form is "qualifies" as the main term "franking" it is singular, not "qualify" as is it is not plural. If the sentence read "Frankings are any devices, markings, or combinations thereof ("franks") applied to mails of any class which qualify them to be postally serviced." then "qualify" would be correct.
Also with respect, sir or madame, you will be a good deal more successful in dealing collegially with your fellow WP editors if you were to adopt a less imperious (or judgemental) tone in your comments and edit summaries. We are all volunteers in here endeavoring to make as good a collaborative reference work as we can for the benefit of all. This is not a "job", however, and there is no boss or "editor in chief" to whom any of us has to report. Differences of opinion on content, form, style, usage, sources, what to include/exclude, etc, are just that, "differences of opinion", not the appropriate basis for invective especially when delivered from behind the internet's veil of anonymity. Centpacrr (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Ledes are supposed to be generally accessible. Legal babble belongs in later sections, and grammatically incorrect legal babble belongs in /dev/null. Zueignung (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, sir or madame, this sentence is a precise technical definition of a term that includes multiple interrelated technical and legal elements. As such it requires all those elements to be included in order to be accurate and not misleading. It is also not "grammatically incorrect" for the reasons I have explained above, i.e., "qualifies" refers to the term "franking" which is singular. Centpacrr (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Lady, if you're not trying to write the lede in a way that is accessible to a nonexpert, you have no business editing Wikipedia. Zueignung (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Centpacrr, If the current lead sentence is as you say, this is a good sign that it is poorly written. The point of a lead section is to summarize the article in an intelligible way. I edit a lot of mathematics articles, and there is often a similar problem there: articles that begin with a precise definition as the first sentence are very hard to understand, and generally benefit from reworking so that the first few sentences are not overburdened with jargon and technicalities. I see no reason that postal issues should be any different. --JBL (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Zueignung, is this an example of how you check sources and facts or even your level of curiosity about them? I am not a "lady" as you could easily determine by looking at my WP User Page in which I fully identify myself, my background, interests, areas of expertise, etc unlike your User Page which is a complete blank so that nobody (WP readers, other editors, etc) has any idea whatsoever who you are, gives no clues as to how to judge your reliability as an editor, or even know what your gender is so they can address you properly. In other words, you have chosen to be completely anonymous. As for your assessment of who "has any business editing Wikipedia" and who does not, well with respect that sort of remark is not ever worth responding to here as it is so utterly outside both the policy and spirit of how the Wikipedia Project was conceived and works.
• I cannot agree with either your or Mr. Lewis' extremely narrow and apparently uncompromising "lowest common denominator" views on "lead sentences". In this case the sentence is in the form of a simple declarative sentence carefully and fully defining what postal franking is. It contains no esoteric words or abstruse technical terms that would be outside of the standard vocabulary expected of the average (or even below average) reader. I see nothing whatever in it that would be in the slightest way confusing, misleading, or puzzling to a "nonexpert". If either of you do believe something does, however, it would certainly be much more helpful in here if you would be specific as to exactly what words and/or phrases confuse or puzzle you. So far I have no clue whatsoever what any of these may be, and doing so would also certainly be more productive than just casting gratuitous aspersions about fellow editors. Centpacrr (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)