Talk:Multi-user MIMO

Unnamed section #1
This whole article is an absolute mess, I'm gonna do my best to clean it up right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislees (talk • contribs) 01:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ″Multi-user MIMO algorithms are developed to enhance MIMO systems when the number of users, or connections, numbers greater than one (admittedly, a useful concept)″ Who wrote this crap? 216.241.106.56 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Unnamed section #2
What is with the text about Muppets and puppets that was added by Bagoas on March 5? If that is a term related to MIMO, it should be a link and defined somewhere. I can't find any reference of it on Google. The rest of Bagoas edits were awesome - was this a silly joke inserted in to see how long it would stay?

Per-user unitary and rate control
I see no reason that 'PU2RC' is worthy of placement in the first paragraph or anywhere else in this article. Just because it was proposed by Samsung to 3GPP and because it has been cited a couple of times does not make it worthy of placement in the article. I'm fine with having the redirect as at ; placing it in the article is not justified. If, for example, you were to cite all the MU-MIMO articles which are more significant than PU2RC, you'd have to turn this article into a book. On the other hand, I think the article is already completely messy and unfocused. I think your efforts would be better spent on paring it down to something more digestible.

I apologize for removing PU2RC from this article a few weeks ago without noting my concerns about it. I have now done so; Could you Dsimic let us know why you think it should be in the article? Sanpitch (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! As we can see, the whole article isn't that great, but I see no reasons why PU2RC shouldn't be part of it?  Perhaps PU2RC isn't the most significant MU-MIMO technology (I'm not an expert in the area), but then let's replace it with a few more significant technologies instead of just deleting it, if you agree.  Though, I totally agree that PU2RC shouldn't be in the lead section, so  to the appropriate section. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 05:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why are you making contributions to an article if you can't figure out whether something is notable or not? Do you claim any knowledge at all of MU-MIMO, now that you acknowledge to not being an expert? PU2RC should not be in the article at all, and it should not be in any of the other articles in which you've placed it, such as the MIMO article.
 * As for replacing it with something else, let's just take care of one problem at a time. Sanpitch (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you claim to be an expert on MU-MIMO, why don't you improve the article as a whole, instead of blaming me? By the way, IIRC I haven't placed PU2RC in the MIMO article, please provide a diff to confirm your claims. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 03:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, just checked and I've never edited the MIMO article. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 03:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize for assuming that you were the one who'd added the other PU2RC content. Rather than getting sidetracked into an ad-hominem discussion, let's focus on PU2RC itself. Do you you have any further argument as to why it should remain in the article? Sanpitch (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, and I agree that we should focus on the content. I have no strong desire to see PU2RC remain part of the article, but I just don't see why do we simply must delete it?  In other words, I'd be perfectly fine with you replacing PU2RC with other more prominent examples of MU-MIMO technology, with references and everything (and I'd actually be thankful for that), but I wouldn't accept its deletion without providing other examples. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 14:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a notability requirement for Wikipedia, but no requirement that a non-notable item be replaced with a notable item. I've removed PU2RC. Sanpitch (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * makes no sense, and I . Haven't you read what I wrote above more than once?  Replacing PU2RC with more prominent examples of MU-MIMO technology is what you should do.  Moreover,  and  is easy, writing good articles isn't. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 04:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Your personal wishes are not wikipedia rules. I'm just abiding by Wikipedia rules of notability. Sanpitch (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that PU2RC fits the bill regarding the coverage by reliable sources. Your fixation toward deleting it, instead of replacing it with better examples, is another problem. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Who's fixated on what? My career is essentially built on MU-MIMO; what's your excuse for promoting a poor paper? Sanpitch (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My "excuse" is that PU2RC is covered by what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. If I may ask, what's your excuse for not using your vast experience with MU-MIMO to rewrite the article and make it great?  Wikipedia articles need more content, not less. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 02:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the lede, and removed a bunch of other fluffy promotional nonsense, including removing the PU2RC reference. Even so, the article remains a piece of shit. I don't have time to make a detailed edit of the whole fucking page; I'm just making incremental changes as is the Wikipedia model. I don't have the time for an edit war as you seem to be interested in having, I'm just doing a few small things when I have time. I have added a few references, but not any to my own work. Sanpitch (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Shit" and "fucking" aren't the words a true expert in any area would publicly use to express his or her professional opinion, at least not when discussing something with someone he or she doesn't know personally. However, you can have your, including the removal of PU2RC that obviously makes you happy.  I have other things to do here instead of arguing with you, and nobody else seems to care about the article. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 02:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Multi-user MIMO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208121926/http://mars.bell-labs.com/papers/proof/ to http://mars.bell-labs.com/papers/proof/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Article requires actual explanation
The technology should be actually explained. The current text is extremely vague, at best a description of a description, and even contains terms that are not explained at all. (What is a ”qfz“?)

I came here, wondering how it actually does the trick. Since an antenna is just a single modulated wave, I don’t see how different ”spatial dimensions“ can emerge. Since any kind of modulation would implicitly ruin any other kind of modulation. And how do the senders coordinate transmissiom so they don’t step on each other’s toes?

— 89.1.58.254 (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)