User talk:Constant314/Archive 3

Roy M. Harrigan on magnetic levitation
Why do you insist on reestablishing this dead wiiilink that has been dead for over a decade?? Seriously, I realize we editors on this project are to AGF but sheesh your "editing" is coming across as blindly clueless if not malicious. 2601:645:102:45A0:4D75:F192:F56A:5FAD (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer to discus this on the article talk page. Constant314 (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the person reverting this edit so it makes sense to address you here about it. Again, regardless of other edits on this article why are you reverting the removal of this wikilink? What is your logic for that? 2601:645:102:45A0:4D75:F192:F56A:5FAD (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with removing the redlink. My revert was for the awkward language. Constant314 (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So a blind revert? Nice. Good job, thumbs up. Clueless as suspected. Please edit better. Thank you. 67.164.63.226 (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hello Constant314, Thank you for your feedback and sending me a welcoming message and guidelines of wikipedia. I definitely did not intent to spam anybody by sharing the links, I love electronics and this is my personnel website that I am currently designing, I still have a lot of work to do, but I am trying to come up with a centralized way to have all tools you need when you work on electronics. I understand the uniqueness of the links is not appropriate for wikipedia, so hopefully one day I will get something worthwhile :) In the meantime, I will continue to work on it, thanks for the guidance. Gratefully,

Papapuce (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, since it is your website, it would be a conflict of interest, WP:COI, for you to insert a link to your website on any article.  Bringing the tools together in one place is a great idea, but Wikipedia is not the place to publicize it.  Best of luck on your endeavor.  Constant314 (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, before you make any more edits, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. Just go to your user page (which is blank right now) and put a simple statement like "I own the website ..." Constant314 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Very good to know, I was not aware of this but it makes complete sense. I look forward to contribute (more carefully) to the encyclopedia in the future. Thank you! Papapuce (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good. I am looking forward to that. Constant314 (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Twisted pair
Hey, was [|that revert] on twisted pair nesaccary? I read that sentance like 3 times in my head and was really confused by the statement "inteference on telephone lines is even more disruptive than inteference on telephone lines", because the difference between telephone and telegraph is rather small to the eye. My edit makes the meaning of that sentence easier to grasp on a quick read, in my opinion.

Thanks, UltrasonicNXT (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, We try to avoid unnecessary emphasis because it puts an extra burden on the next editor and it breaks up the reading flow for most people. I guess it is a matter of taste, but it looks superfluous to me.Constant314 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken about capitalization
Wikipedia style is to present all headings in sentence case (in this, the Wikipedia follows APA style). Regardless of the form that an article is titled in the original source, in citations are reduced to sentence case for titles of articles in newspapers and magazines, chapters and sections in books, and so on (again, APA style); the citation is under no obligation to follow capitalization in the article (e.g. Title in All Caps). The only required capitalization in citations is for the titles of books, and the names of journals, magazines, and newspapers.

I draw your attention to the Manual of Style § Capital letters / All caps and small caps

I have reversed your "undo" on the article on loop antennas. I also plan on continuing to edit anonymously, in as you seem to be in need of more practice exercising editorial restraint. Any further complaints you may have should come before the arbitration board. 107.116.93.52 (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See MOS:TITLECAPS. "In titles (including subtitles, if any) of English-language works (books, poems, songs, etc.), every word except for definite and indefinite articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions is capitalized. This is known as title case. Capitalization of non-English titles varies by language (see below). Wikipedia normally follows these conventions when referring to such works, whether in the name of an article or within the text." Constant314 (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * See MOS:TITLECAPS. "WP:Citing sources § Citation style permits the use of pre-defined, off-Wikipedia citation styles within Wikipedia, and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles (usually article and chapter titles). Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style when that style is the one consistently used in an article." 71.94.235.196 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:STYLERET. The predominant style for the titles of English language works in that article is title style.  You could make an argument for changing those that are in sentence style to title style of consistency.  Constant314 (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverting edit
Hi, I am struggling to make clear that the DK effect is not anymore that real or proved. Have you read the motivations of my edit? Have you read the (many) citations before my sentence in the same paragraph, few words before? 🙏 amdp 06:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for reaching out.  You have committed the error of reaching a conclusion from the evidence in the article.  We call that synthesis or WP:SYN.  That occurs when you combine facts to reach a conclusion.  Your conclusion may be correct and reasonable, but you cannot put it in the article unless you have a reliable source that says that the conclusion is correct. You are not allowed to use reason to reach your own conclusions.  You are only allowed to paraphrase reliable sources.  Sometimes, we allow it, but in this article, the conclusion is contentious.  If it were allowed without a reliable source, it would just restart an old edit war. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Atomic Clock
I am unsure what you mean by microwaves in ordinary language. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem with microwaves. The phrase you added was "Many caesium atomic clocks measure microwaves".  What does it mean that "clocks measure microwaves"?  Did you mean to say that these clocks are used to measure some parameter of a microwave, such as frequency?  You have been doing some good work.  I know a bit about this subject, yet it is not obvious to me what you mean to say.  The note needs a bit of polishing, I think.  By the way, it may seem like I am picking on you, but I don't mean it that way.  I think that you have the potential to be a very valuable Wikipedia editor, so I am following you.Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am ready to discuss the blog post. ScientistBuilder (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss this on the talk page of the article. I am sure some of the others will want to join in. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

ITER
I am working on atomic clock to bring it to a good article status. I am also hoping to make some contributions to ITER to eventually bring it to good article status. How could I make a Google Drive link reliable if the documents are not elsewhere? ScientistBuilder (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think that would ever be possible. We allow a lot of bad practice all over Wikipedia, but you need to avoid that in a good article.  Good articles need good, stable, accessible, verifiable documents from reliable sources.  There are several problems with Google drive.  Most important is the long-term availability of the documents.  Also, there is the integrity of the person controlling the google drive content.  Did they have permission to copy the materials?  Did they modify the materials?  Did they attach a computer virus?


 * If you can sufficiently identify the documents, you may be able to access to them here: WP:RX.


 * I do not think ITER will be a good candidate for GA for a long time, because the topic itself is evolving. There will be a continuous stream of new, significant information as the project is turned up.  Atomic clock and the recently nominated cyclotron, on the other hand, do not have this problem.  There will still be new developments, but 90% or more of those articles could be expected to remain relatively stable.


 * If you nominate an article for GA, the reviewer will expect you to fix any problem they identify in a timely manner. If you do not, then they will put the review on hold and go to the next nomination.  Before you make the nomination, you may want to enlist other editors who will agree to do some of the work.  Use the article talk page.


 * The GA back log can sometimes exceed 90 days. Here is a snapshot of the current backlog User:SDZeroBot/GAN sorting.  Actually, it looks pretty good right now, as there has been a concerted push to reduce the backlog.


 * Keep up the good work. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla coil
Dear Constant314. I would like to discuss SRSSTC with you. Would you please join the Tesla Coil talk? --Neotesla (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Electromagnetic charge"
I think your correction to my recent edit on magnetic monopoles rather missed my point. My description of particles having an "electromagnetic charge" was very carefully chosen, because I wasn't just talking about electric charge, but about the greater set of both electric charge (known to exist) and magnetic charge (hypothetical, but on-topic). Changing that to "electric charge" is technically more accurate, but it reduces my point from a specification into a mere restatement (and an overly-hedged one at that, since any unknown particles with electric charges will also be electric monopoles). --71.56.148.29 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Edit: I have a real account now! --Dalek955 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia.  Your edit struck me as odd, but I didn't want to just remove it.  All material in Wikipedia must be paraphrased from reliable sources (WP:RS).  I haven't seen the term "electromagnetic charge" in any reliable sources.  If you have access to reliable sources that talk about "electromagnetic charge" then feel free to cite them and paraphrase what they say about it, if it is relevant to the magnetic monopole article.  Once again, welcome to Wikipedia.  I look forward to your contributions. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not so much that I think "electromagnetic charge" will appear in any literature (either the paper deals with known forces, in which case it will say "electric charge" because that's the only demonstrated kind, or it deals with magnetic monopoles, in which case it generally glosses over the whole concept) so much as that it was simply the least clunky way to say "either of electric charge or magnetic charge". Most of the other phrasings I can think of seem likely to be factually wrong rather than simply using an "if you will" term. If you know of a good, concise way to say it, please tell me and I'll rephrase. Would "electromagnetically-interacting" work? --Dalek955 (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this any different than saying that there are no known monopoles? Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just it, my point was that there *are* known monopoles, they're just all the electric kind. Anyway, I thought of a better way to fix that sentence, by moving it to a different paragraph with better context. --Dalek955 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have been more precise. Is this any different than saying that there are no known magnetic monopoles? Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Aharonov–Bohm_effect Gah4 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Gah4. It is not obvious to me what your point is. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is believed by some that quantization of electric charge is due to the existence of magnetic monopoles. You have to know quantum mechanics better than I do, to use it as a proof, though. Gah4 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been awhile. As I recall, if you assume the existence of magnetic monopoles and some other stuff thought to be true, then you can deduce that electric charge must be quantified.  It is a sufficient, but not necessary condition for quantified electric charge.  It doesn't go the other way.  Quantified electric charge does not imply the existence of mm(s).  Still, it is a tantalizing possible connection.  Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is true, but also that there is no other known reason for charge quantization, other than "god said so". Some things have arguments related to a single valued wave function, or other wave function properties. Yes, not necessary but suspicious in any case. And it only takes one to quantize the whole universe! Gah4 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been awhile. As I recall, if you assume the existence of magnetic monopoles and some other stuff thought to be true, then you can deduce that electric charge must be quantified.  It is a sufficient, but not necessary condition for quantified electric charge.  It doesn't go the other way.  Quantified electric charge does not imply the existence of mm(s).  Still, it is a tantalizing possible connection.  Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is true, but also that there is no other known reason for charge quantization, other than "god said so". Some things have arguments related to a single valued wave function, or other wave function properties. Yes, not necessary but suspicious in any case. And it only takes one to quantize the whole universe! Gah4 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is true, but also that there is no other known reason for charge quantization, other than "god said so". Some things have arguments related to a single valued wave function, or other wave function properties. Yes, not necessary but suspicious in any case. And it only takes one to quantize the whole universe! Gah4 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)