User talk:AllBestFaith

Welcome!
Hello, AllBestFaith, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Trolling on the ref desk
I've actually praised some of your ref desk responses in the past, and as you likely know I am a champion of WP:AGF. Nonetheless, I can see why someone decided to hat your recent thread on the math desk. I am sorry that some others were being uncivil and unhelpful. In fact I just finished lecturing another user about it! Whatever your intent is, arguing with the folks at the math desk is generally not a good idea. Unlike the other desks, most of the people there have high levels of expertise, and are unlikely to say anything wrong, and pushing the issue is likely to get you labeled as a troll, even if you are acting in good faith. Anyway, the point is, the claim #2 is completely incorrect from a pure math perspective. It doesn't even matter about the units, its just that the difference have a limit of zero, not any positive finite constant. I maintain that the claim is not nonsense, but that's another issue entirely. If you are having trouble of understanding why the claim is incorrect from a pure math point of view, I'd be happy to help. If you want to talk about what limits really mean in the real world, what limits of computation are, etc, then I suggest the math desk is not a good place for that.SemanticMantis (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Behaviors at the Math Ref. Desk


 * My reading of the discussion Fibonacci sequence convergence today (all times are on 10 Feb.) is as follows.


 * Slawekb


 * - participates in answering clearly 01:04
 * - re-enters to make a point, using an example equation 12:10/12:17 (This was adding text to the point made.)
 * - re-enters with an unsigned pair of posts 18:09/18:10 (This was a quick edit of an equals sign to a "less than" sign.)
 * - hatted entire question 20:16 under the cryptic text "trolling" using summary "hatted trolling, which has now become very obvious"
 * - re-enters 20:38 with a post that repeatedly designates me the OP as "our troll", "the trolls[sic] latest objection", "our troll".


 * As to the content of Slawekb's posts:
 * 01:04 Short and encyclopedic. Immediately supported as correct by another user.
 * 12:10/12:17 Objects to a phrase "smallest quantised approximation" and presents an equation for "a decent computer".
 * 18:09/18:10 Echoes my call that the equals sign in his equation is incorrect, which he dismisses as "missing the point" and posts a second equation, followed by comments about "accuracy that is achievable my human activities". The second equation is said to be wrong (due to incompatible units) both by another user at 19:52 and myself at 20:07.


 * An immediate consideration is whether Slawekb is justified in both injecting the repeated WP:NPA of troll accusations into a question that is under discussion by 7-8 users, apparently in dissatisfaction at his posts not being entirely approved, as well as hatting the entire discussion. In mitigation, some comments by another were unhelpful, such as "go be a crank" and "try to have some idea what you're talking about" but these were not directed at Slawekb and were outweighed by calls to civility by myself 00:55 and most patiently by SemanticMantis 17:00 and 20:23.


 * The hat suppresses elaboration or free comment on these points. There may also be an administrative question about Slawekb both imposing a hat at 20:16 that says "...discussion is closed. Please do modify it." as well as subsequently 20:38 adding a rude post under the same hat.


 * Before making any response to personal abuse, I have informednote 1 Slawekb on his page of this summary so that he may use my page to give any comment or correction. In case this needs clarification, I accept without argument that Plank's constant has units (Mnudelman 21:23, confirmed to Slawekb 20:07), I maintain "equals" is incorrect in his equation 12:17 because it is an approximation, not because of anything to do with units here, and I maintain his second equation 18:10 is incorrect for the same reasons as given by CiaPan 19:52. AllBestFaith (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note 1: Slawekb deleted the notification 3 minutes after receiving it, citing WP:DENY.

clock running backwards
There are clocks in which a battery drives an oscillator which produces AC, and this then drives a synchronous motor. I think the clock in the video must be of this type. Running backward is a common malfunction of synchronous motors, but not of any other type of clock mechanism. DOwenWilliams (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rotating in either direction is characteristic of single-phase AC synchronous motors. When the rotation of such a motor gets stalled via a gear train with some resilience, its direction of rotation "bounces" back into the opposite direction. That is the correct operation of a direction-correcting ratchet that I have seen in AC driven clocks. I suspect the faulty clock in the video has an additional unintended mechanical blockage to movement in the intended direction, hence the continual reversing, but discussion about it at the Science ref. desk is speculation, not confirmation. I don't believe the analysis of a video of this one uncommon defect in one particular type of clock, though it is instructive to hear about, is relevant in the Clock article. AllBestFaith (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggested in my edit to the article that the mechanism may have been "stiff", maybe just needing lubrication. This could have caused the motor to stall, then re-start in a random direction. The caption to the video said that the clock stopped about an hour after the video was recorded. I guess the stiffness was getting worse.


 * Not all single-phase synchronous motors can rotate either way. Some have a "shaded" pole, which imposes a directionality on the motor. However, it also dissipates power, making the clock hot, and makes the system less efficient.


 * The ratchet is not always present. I have seen clocks in which the mechanism for resetting the time nudged the motor in the right direction. Since clocks are generally reset when they are started, this made sure that the clock ran the right way. Without being reset, the clock would not start.


 * Running backward is not a very uncommon problem in these clocks. I have seen it happen several times.


 * DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A shaded-pole motor would not be designed in a power-sensitive battery clock. The only constructive suggestion I can make is that you open the faulty clock and make a clear video with explanation of what is actually happening inside. It would then be an instructive video about "Solving the mystery of a backward clock" that can be well received, say at www.youtube.com. AllBestFaith (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If the clock were mine, I guess I would first try replacing the battery. Maybe I'd put a drop of light oil onto the gears. If the clock still misbehaved, I'd probably just throw it out and get a new one. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please Pay Attention
Assuming this was not done in good faith, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=712585398 whould be seen as vandalism. I'll assume it was a mistake. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No mistake. An unterminated small-text markup was disrupting a following section and I fixed that, and stated so in my edit summary. I assume your misspelling of "would" is a mistake and diagnose your intention here as pettifoggery. AllBestFaith (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:English speech sample.ogg
 Thanks for uploading File:English speech sample.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Cats Eye question
Hi Caleb. Good to see you again on the ref desk. It's a great version, isn't it? Hope you found Circuito Chiuso useful/interesting. All the best, --Viennese Waltz 09:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to your help I was able to present Circuito chiuso to a film group together with The Purple Rose of Cairo to demonstrate the two films' common theme of breaking the Fourth wall. Thanks again for that. You may have seen the two recovered versions of VDG's "Refugees Promo" from before and after I did some technical editing. In Cat's Eye (Yellow Fever) I focus on the violin piece that wraps up Peter Hammill's rant, originally played by Graham Smith and now well caught by the (name?) Russian player. AllBestFaith (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)