Talk:Parasitic oscillation

Author's questions
Please detail so I can improve it. Questions:

1. Stub means it is too short? But it is a good start?

2. Low importance - why? It was on the WP List of subjects - desired articles. This is why I answered the call and wrote this article to begin with.

--Zutam (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be glad to contribute to WikiProject Electronics. Please indicate which issues/subjects are important to WP.

--Zutam (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What can I do to make it important?
 * Please present your rationale for the changes.

--Zutam (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Parasitic oscillations are very important
See discussion in the Article.

The phenomena of parasitic oscillation is ubiquitous and indeed an important one worthy of it's own Wikipedia title. To my understanding, parasitic oscillation is a phenomena which applies to any signal amplifying system in which the output and input are coupled via some unwanted external 'feedback' mechanism. A more frequently (and less dramatic) experienced example of this phenomena is the feedback loop between the microphone and speaker of a public address system. There is no reason however to think of this as an electronics phenomena as it could apply to any feedback control system, be it mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic etc.. The phenomena is properly categorized as part of control systems theory so why not leave poor Boeing out the picture? JC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.73.151 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

--Zutam (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The author disagrees with the last changes
I strongly object to the last edit, for example:

1. "Parasitic oscillation is a usually undesirable oscillation caused by feedback" - it is always caused by positive feedback.

2. You object to examples in the definition, yet you bring your own examples there

"The problem occurs notably in RF[1] and other electronic amplifiers[2] as well as in digital signal processing.[3]"

3. The new examples do not improve on the previous ones, in my opinion,

The tone and implications of the new version are incorrect.

4. This change also does not contribute:

"It is one of the fundamental issues addressed by control theory.[4][5][6]"

What other "fundamental issues" do you know?

5. "section with unverified information that seems only marginally important."

Just an arbitrary opinion, without any support. Anyone is entitled to their feelings, but is this enough to erase another's well thought article?

6. "hypothetical example involving Boeing... "

Why do you think it is hypothetical? Do you have anything to support it? If you bothered to verify rather that delete, you may think otherwise.

BTDT - I came from industry, I did it - proposed this innovative approach, which was indeed approved at Boeing as stated.

7. "hypothetical example involving ... Wikipedia editors. "

This is simple and easy to verify - just look WP policy "Wikipedia- Your first article" and there, for example: "A common fallacy is... Remember, just because both Fact A and Fact B are true does NOT mean that... "

--Zutam (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The word usually also does not belong there not only because oscillations are always caused by positive feedback, but also because something "parasitic" is undesirable by definition. It is not "usually undesirable". Desirable oscillation from an oscillator is not parasitic.206.116.75.201 (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Trigger-happy edits

 * I protest changes made in an Article by people who don't bother to discuss it before with the Author, and don't bother to visit the Discussion section.

I quit the "Invention" article in protest - is it any better for that? reverted without an explanation, without a discussion. The reverters did not answer questions I placed in their own Talk pages.
 * There are constructive processes at WP, and there are destructive processes
 * For example, I tried to contribute to the "Invention" article, but my parts were repeatedly


 * It is easy to peck on the Revert button; to discuss and contribute - is more difficult.


 * Now is see the great Reverter of "Invention" fame comes to visit this article. Welcome!

--Zutam (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I removed your recent addition to Parasitic oscillation, and then I reverted your reversion of that removal, because you had added a section titled "The author disagrees with the last changes". That was not appropriate, because comments about editing disagreements should not be placed in the article itself - only here on the Talk page. I did explain to you on your Talk page when I initially removed your addition, and if you'd checked there before reverting my removal, you would have saved some aggravation and would not have earned yourself the subsequent warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I put my protest in the article because others change the article without visiting the Discussion or discussing with me, the author. Which is worse: to add a Protest in the article, or to distort it and delete its content? Now the article is still distorted and lacking important material. --Zutam (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You do not add protest edits to articles - period! Now, if you want to remain and make positive contributions to Wikipedia, then you must do so by following established policies. One of those policies is that any editor can edit articles, and nobody has to check anything with you as the original author. The moment you hit the Submit button you give up all control of it, and subsequent attempted "ownership" of articles is seriously frowned on - see WP:OWN. If you ignore established policy, you will almost certainly end up getting yourself blocked from editing. So I strongly suggest you listen to what experienced editors are saying, as we are only trying to help, and stop approaching this with such a combative attitude. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Environment conducive to quality articles
My contribution was repeatedly reverted without explanation. The reverter wouldn't answer my questions. Yet it is I who got warned and theatened - go figure. --Zutam (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was provoked into an editor's war in article "Invention". I was new; the reverter did it deliberately.


 * See my comments above - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime I learned WP policy on edit wars, and studied the WP style manual (a very interesting and useful document). I look forward to making better contributions in the future. --Zutam (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Point form not preferred
This article needs to be rewritten into proper prose, not lists of bullet points. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I added "See also"
Hi folks. I added a "See also" section that links to the Washington Metro accident of June 2009, which was caused (at least partly) by parasitic oscillation in track circuits.

I'm not sure this is the best way to integrate this into the article, but I wasn't sure where else to put it. I think it's a good example of the fact that parasitic oscillation can be a very serious problem, so I did want to include it. --Tkynerd (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)