User talk:Glrx/Archive 8

your revert on Anode

 * re Cathode linked already in article and liked again in "See also" section.

Initially I added the Cathode link because the article for Cathode has Anode linked both in the main article and in the "See also" section and that seemed very helpful. It makes sense given that the two terms are so tightly interrelated. Imagine someone going to one of the pages because they can't remember the name of the other and being able to refer to the "See also" section looking for the companion term instead of being forced to read thru the article trying to find a term they can't remember or don't know. Or maybe I missed some style guideline that recommends not doing that, but then I would argue that all guidelines have exceptions and this might be one of them. Jordsan (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the comment is about my revert on anode rather than cathode.
 * WP:SEEALSO says "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Cathode appears in the article text (see last sentence in heading) and in the "Galvanic cells" box under "Cell parts".
 * Glrx (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * subsequent edit switched anode and cathode in above text Glrx (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As you correctly pointed out WP:SEEALSO says it is a general rule, not a hard rule. General meaning it can, and does, have exceptions.
 * WP:SEEALSO also says "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."
 * It seems that the two words being so tightly interrelated make the link in the 'See Also' section desirable and useful.
 * I feel you are trying to be consistent with the style rules and failing to be consistent with the articles themselves. Either the link in the 'See also' section of Cathode would have to be removed or the one in Anode would have to be put back in order to be truly consistent.
 * Let's think what are we trying to accomplish. Are we trying to please editors, and blindly follow rules, or are we trying to help readers?
 * Jordsan (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You can bring up a discussion on the talk page Talk:anode or Talk:cathode about putting them in the see also section; I'm only one opinion around here, and my one opinion doesn't count for much; others may support your view. Anode and cathode were not in electrode, so I removed the inconsistent entry in cathode. Glrx (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference tags
Hi, I saw that you reverted my edit at Akaike information criterion. Your reason was that the edit broke Harv links: I agree that your reason is valid, and so my edit was inappropriate. My reason for the edit, though, is that the current display is wrong. As an example, consider the last item, which currently displays as follows. "Yang, Y. (2005), Can the strengths of AIC and BIC be shared?, Biometrika 92: 937–950"

&mdash;that should be displayed as follows. "Yang, Y. (2005), 'Can the strengths of AIC and BIC be shared?', Biometrika 92: 937–950" &mdash;so the edit that you made is also inappropriate.

Is there a way to set things up (with templates) so that Harv links work and the display is right? TheSeven (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm mystified here. I thought the only major difference between cite and citation was periods versus commas. Both systems have been reworked, and I think some changes have been made (citation journal title behavior has changed with trans_chapter), but I'm a template user rather than an expert. Generally, when an article starts out, then the reference format is kept. (Consensus on the talk page could change it.) The chosen style appears to be primarily Harvard references with citation templates. The issue you raise is about display style, and that is set by the template election. I don't see it as a right-or-wrong issue. If there is a mistake, then the mistake is in citation.  From the current documentation, it appears that template puts journal article titles in italics and conference paper titles in quotation marks. I'll take a further look. Glrx (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The italic v double quotes appears intentional. See Template talk:Citation. Glrx (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted your citation template switch at Bertrand paradox (probability). See WP:CITEVAR.  Glrx (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fixed in the next release? Template talk:Citation Glrx (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes!&mdash;I am glad to see that it is fixed now. TheSeven (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge sort
I see you reverted my edits.

Would it be better to copy the whole array to result once its paired list is found empty? This could save some effort of redundant comparisons.

Thanks.

Beijingxilu (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your edit at merge sort broke the algorithm, so I reverted. The merge is not on arrays but rather on lists, so it makes no sense to copy the whole array. I think you misunderstand some parts of the task or what the algorithm is doing. Glrx (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you reply. First of all, I meant list when typing array in previous message (see above). Once either left list of right list is found empty, there is no need to do the checks again, it would be much quicker to just copy right/left list into result.

Instead of doing else if notempty(left) append first(left) to result left = rest(left) else if notempty(right) append first(right) to result right = rest(right)

this can be faster: else if notempty(left) append left to result else if notempty(right) append right to result

This has been verified, however, if you see any issue, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beijingxilu (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There are better ways to write the algorithm, but you are trying to make a style choice that introduces further problems.
 * append does not consume left or right. There must be a left:=, right:=, or a break out of the loop.
 * As currently written, the pseudocode uses append to mean append an element to the end of a list. Your version uses two versions of append: one to append an element and another to append a list. To be consistent, you would need to do "append list(first(right)) to result". That adds clutter.
 * The comparison order statistics for either version not affected. If any input list is empty, then a comparison is not done.
 * WP is is interested in clear rather than optimized code. Using trailing pointers/rplacd or cons/nreverse are common approaches, but they would complicate/clutter the algorithm.
 * Glrx (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Re: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_180
 * Thanks for the cheeseburger. The RS/N issue had some interesting twists. Glrx (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I felt bad about getting RAF910 so upset, but he convinced himself that I had some agenda, when all I was trying to do was improve the writing and content of the article. Your efforts have been great, thanks again! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

COI term
Hi, you made a revert at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikumaroro&oldid=640039374 giving a reason of Not relevant here; refs have COI so not independent; lede should summarize body. I'm fine with the revert, but just for my own understanding I want to ask what you mean by COI as I do not understand what it means, and it's perhaps something I should know when doing any future edits/additions in other articles. Thanks Gts-tg (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Details about TIGHAR's search for AE don't belong in Nikumaroro article, and they certainly do not belong in the lede when they are not covered in the body.
 * WP:COI means conflict of interest. TIGHAR organized the expedition; Discovery funded and filmed part of it. Anything that those organizations say is not an independent observation about the merits of their search or the significance of the aluminum panel. Organizations often put things in the best light for them in their press releases; those press releases are often rewritten into news stories without a critical evaluation. News outlets that merely quote what insiders say are not independently reviewing the evidence. WP wants independent and reliable sources. (It can be OK to use dependent primary sources in some situations, but not usually to substantiate an extraordinary claim.)
 * If TIGHAR believes the aluminum panel proves AE's aircraft crashed at Nikumaroro, then isn't its mission over because the mystery has been solved? Instead, TIGHAR is seeking donations to fund another expedition in June 2015. TIGHAR has a good story about AE and some tantalizing artifacts, but it has no solid evidence. There is a big difference between what TIGHAR claims and what it can prove. It would be wonderful if they find her plane (or some other solid evidence); until then, it is just the Gardner Island hypothesis.
 * Glrx (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Union find algorithm
Hi, you reverted my changes at Union find algorithm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjoint-set_data_structure), why? doing in that way it is correctly working (the root is father of itself) and it is faster (at the next call of find method it skips one step of compression).

Kimi91 (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * RE: This revert
 * How does it skip a compression on the next call? If you look at the code,  guarantees , so it makes no difference which value is used. (My edit comment said   when it should have said  .) The root of a tree has no parent, so   is just odd. Glrx (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=642171120 your edit] to Linear search may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Glrx (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Spacing in mathematics
Hi, what was your reason for replacing narrow nbsp with nbsp, in Akaike information criterion? I thought that both were acceptable under the WP:Manual of Style. Narrow nbsp looks better in the context and it is closer to the math-tag style. SolidPhase (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Transparency (&amp;nbsp; is readable while &amp;#8259; is not) and failure to display properly on my ancient browser. Glrx (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Very curious--which browser are you using, and under what operating system? Also, how does it display?   SolidPhase (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Butler oscillator) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Butler oscillator, Glrx!

Wikipedia editor Damirgraffiti just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Seems that the article is good enough!"

To reply, leave a comment on Damirgraffiti's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Morse Code over IP

 * re: Morse code and my January 11 edit

Hello, I think it is a bad idea to remove cited stuff from wikipedia. I understand you point regarding relevance - nevertheless I doubt, that keeping tons of sound files and irrelevant learning methods, i.e. tree representations, while removing links to something somebody could nowadays use morse code is a good approach. de dg6fl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A4Fh56OSA (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the "Gear" article...

 * Re |my 13 February revert Glrx (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In the Gear article, you reverted my description of "sacrificial" plastic gear teeth, saying "Unsourced; clutches and torque/current-limited motors are a better design choice than breaking teeth". Such designs do sound better, but evidently came about later than what I was relating, which was closely paraphrased from the words of a technician who worked on such systems (such as the IBM 3800 series of high-speed laser printers). I could supply a "personal conversation" type of source/attribution, if that would help; as well as a notation that the sacrificial design is not the current/preferred version.

Please do not just delete something that may not be wrong, but merely outdated; add the more modern information.

Silverhill (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Distillation revert

 * Re my revert at Distillation

Hi,

Just wondering why you thought the KLM Book was not worthy. I have about 40 published articles on Distillation - 5 in Oil and Gas Journal, 1 in Hydrocarbon Process and 1 in CPE - I would think I am what they are looking for to write on Distillation

Thanks Karl Kolmetz

Karlkolmetz (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The link to the KLM book was added three times and reverted three times at Distillation. An Indonesian IP added the link as a reference even though it was not used as a reference, and reverted. Then  inserted it as further reading; once again, Materialscientist reverted. Mela widiawati then reinserted it, and I reverted.
 * Neither Materialscientist nor I have the final say around here. If you want the link in the article, then follow WP:BRD and bring the matter up on the talk page. If there is a consensus to add the link, then it will go in the article.
 * I don't know why Materialscientist reverted the addition.
 * I looked at the KLM book and thought it was inappropriate for the article. The article is about distillation, but the book is Distillation Column Selection and Sizing (Engineering Design Guideline). That's a narrow aspect of distillation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a design resource. WP is WP:NOTHOWTO design and build something. Even if WP were for that, the book would belong in an article about distillation columns rather than a general article on distillation. As I stated in my edit comment, the book has some interesting details. Although interesting, I don't think it is at the right level for the article. I would think a chemical engineering text on unit operations would be a more appropriate further reading item.
 * KLM may be the place to go for expertise on distillation columns. That's not the issue. WP is not the place to go to find chemical engineering consultants.
 * The book also has problems because it does not sufficiently reference sources. (There was a footnote labeled 1 in the history section, but I did not see the source. There was a URL ref for some design advice. The text does not strike me as sufficiently sourced to be a good reference.)
 * The book format also bothered me; it sounds in advertising for KLM Technology because the company puts its name in large letters on every page.
 * The book also says "Checked by Karl Kolmetz". That suggests that you have a conflict of interest about the book. See also "Kolmetz Handbook of Process Equipment Design".
 * If you want the link in the article, bring it up on the article's talk page.
 * Glrx (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

ARBPIA?
Just checked this post. AC/DS of Afghanistan, India and Pakistan falls under WP:ARBIPA, not WP:ARBPIA. Thank you.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I got the heading right.... Half-credit? Glrx (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No doubt, they are still WP:AC/DS Smile.svg  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Just so you know, I removed them because the original editor added in infoboxes for the command, which only tells you about the command and does not really add to the article. I would be more than willing to add in relevant infoboxes if you want, but I do not support having the joint command infoboxes in the article, since it goes against almost every other infobox that I have ever seen on the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * re: Lake City Army Ammunition Plant and Holston Army Ammunition Plant


 * . The military command is relevant. The articles have the word "Army" in their titles. JMC's task is to make munitions; it does that by managing government-owned contractor-run installations. If one goes to the JMC website, there's an installations maps and an installations tab. The articles don't explain the relevance of JMC, but that doesn't mean the articles shouldn't. Glrx (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it make more sense to put a mention into the article of what the command does in relation to the plant? The reason I objected was mostly because it would be better to have the plant have its own infobox, and then give the command its own mention below. The infobox should really just relate to the article, and having the command one there when it is possible to add a more relevant one is something that should be discussed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It would make sense to mention the command in the article. I reverted the deletion because the JMC infobox has content. The role field, for example, is "Operate a nationwide network of facilities where conventional ammunition is produced and stored." That's one organization controlling several plants, and each plant has its own article. I'm not skilled in infoboxes, but the JMC box seems OK for now; it would be better if the infobox included a link to each installation. (That's the way the Enigma machine infobox works -- one box used in several articles.) Companies have custom infoboxes; there's a point to telling the reader who the CEO of Yahoo or GM is, but it's not clear the reader is interested in who a contractor chose to be the general manager of a munitions plant. I care who the president of Ford is, but I don't care who runs its individual assembly plants. Glrx (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oscilloscope
I wanted to link to PicoScope as well as well as the other major PC softwares. If you are aware of any other "major players" as indicated by your edit, please add those in. Wonderfl (reply) 07:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * re: my revert on oscilloscope
 * The subsection is saying something much different. The article is about oscilloscopes. Typically, such scopes have been standalone instruments -- that is they are complete with a display: an external interface, computer, and software were not required. Many scopes with displays added computer interfaces such as RS-232 or GPIB so they could be used in data acquisition systems. Classically, a digital scope might have a GPIB interface. Several companies provided software that could talk to several different instruments using a common interface. A major player in that field is National Instruments with its product LabVIEW.
 * In contrast to that, several companies started making computer-based "oscilloscopes". The instruments are not standalone but rather require a computer to provide the oscilloscope display. PicoScope is in that category: without an external interface, computer, and software, the device does not function. Software is not a "feature" but rather a necessity for the instrument. Alternatively, the instrument is not an oscilloscope (something that displays a graph) but rather a waveform digitizer (early HP and Tektronix terminology for instruments that did not have displays).
 * Picoscope does provide a proprietary programming interface to access its digitizer, but that is not in the spirit of the section. To the extent that Picoscope includes a LabVIEW interface, such a comment would be subordinate to LabVIEW (most high end instrument manufacturers provide LabVIEW drivers, so Pico is not a good example).
 * Winscope is a hack. It is not an oscilloscope but rather a program that attempts to use a computer sound card as an oscilloscope. It is not a feature that is added to a scope.
 * Glrx (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your understanding of the oscilloscope related material on WP is thorough, so it would be best to ask your help in this : I've recently created Pico Technology and PicoScope (software), and since they are orphans I'd like to add links from other WP articles to them. Could you help? Also, since LabVIEW is supposed to match the description of the software section, why can't you add LabVIEW into the section with whatever description you gave me? -- Wonderfl (reply) 06:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Weather Vane photo
How is this "advertising"? That makes no sense whatsoever because my name/ website appears nowhere in association with this picture. Furthermore, the picture was submitted through Wikipedia Commons (Ticket#2015053110008861) and it was given the green light by two editors--Huon and ALexJFox as well as Stephen Philbrick at Submissions who all encouraged use of the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithvane (talk • contribs) 19:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * re: Weather vane revert and Weather vane revert


 * Your efforts on Wikipedia have primarily been including your artwork into several articles. WP is not a place for you to publish your work. Please read WP:conflict of interest. Weather vane; Lightning rod. Other editors have raised eyebrows about the purpose of some of your edits: Dual Freq's revert: "please don't come to wikipedia to increase visibility for your art sales."
 * I do not see the picture I reverted adding anything to the article about weathervanes, but I don't control content here. There are procedures, however. If you add something to an article and another editor reverts it, then you need to get consensus on the article's talk page before the content is reinserted. See WP:BRD. That procedure should be especially true for an editor with a conflict of interest.
 * As for the three other editors, I do not see their comments at the Weather vane article. My understanding is they were involved with the copyright permissions issue, but that issue is separate from whether a picture should go into an article.
 * Glrx (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Glrx (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say an artist whose sole contributions at Wikipedia consist of adding images of their own work to various articles, even when they clearly don't belong or when they add little, has other interests at heart than the improvement of the encyclopedia. Smithvane, do you believe your work is among the half-dozen or so most significant examples of weathervanes, along with the very first one, the biggest one, and the one of the British Admiralty? With all due respect, I rather doubt that. All other images in that article illustrate the text, based on reliable published sources. And for the record, I did not encourage use of those images beyond the one at the Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe, which serves to illustrate the modern museum's exhibits. Huon (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may clarify my role in this issue: I acted primarily as an OTRS agent, reviewing and verifying the permission request providing the license for the images. In most cases, I simply carry out the task and move on. In a few cases where a photo is particularly striking or if I have some connection to the subject matter I’ll often make a comment. In this particular instance I had recently read a biography of Nichola Tesla so I commented favorably on the Tesla weathervane, and generally about some of the other creations. I stand by my comments; however, I’m sorry if my positive reaction to the images was construed as general support for inclusion in articles. The decision to include any of these images and articles, as always, rests with the editors of the articles.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding my inputs, as stated by Glrx I was solely focused on the copyright issue - for which several uploads were incorrectly reverted by a trigger happy commons admin. That is the issue I would ask to be attended to first and foremost, then I think we can worry about relevancy. My two pence, I don't feel there is a COI/advertising issue here personally, at least not on the revisions I saw.  Alex J Fox  (Talk)(Contribs) 17:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry
Hi,

Thanks for fixing sourcing problems (including those inadvertently caused by me) on Battle of Midway. I'm really embarrassed about my mistakes -- I'll make sure not to repeat them in the future.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Partial reversion?
Hello Glrx, I have a question. How do you do a partial revert? Says here Reverting and here Help:Reverting that Partial reversion is possible but provides no instructions on how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedjargon (talk • contribs) 00:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Partial reversion of a single edit is done by hand. Sometimes an editor will do a string of edits, and a partial revert would hit a subset of those edits (some edits may not be automatically undoable). You can check partial reverts with View history and comparing old edit with current version. Glrx (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Weird change
When you edited the lisp article from 01:08, 24 June 2015‎ to its present state, notice the text "(f arg1 arg2 arg3)" is no longer stylized/monospaced font? Strange because there is no indication of what caused this in View history. The markup tag is exactly the same in both revisions. Wickedjargon (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's going on. Looks monspaced for me.... Glrx (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

learnemc.com

 * re: reverts one and two

Hi, I see you reverted my removal of two external links to learnemc.com. My concern about the links is that they were originally placed by thubing who (I infer from learnemc.com/instructors) has a close connection to site and is promoting it all over wikipedia contrary to WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Just letting you know. If you think the info has value, that's fine. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for your efforts. Many/most COI editors add material whose purpose is more advertising than anything else. WP needs editors to keep its balance. Yes, I think the links have value. Glrx (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy ping
Hello Glrx. Are you planning to do more with Marian Rejewski? I am not sure how to interpret your sudden silence. Thanks.&bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 10:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Finite element method revert

 * re Your edit

Hello Glrx,

Indeed, it originally referred to problem (3), but this was flawed i think since problem (3) in the previous form can also be written in a form without the $$M$$. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 20:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You changed "problem (3)" to "equation (5)", but equation (5) has $M$ in it; that makes the text "no matrix $M$ is used" goofy. Large sections of the article are about sub-problem (3). Glrx (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that large sections of the article are about sub-problem (3). However, I do not see how the appearance of M in eq. (5) makes the text you quoted sound goofy. What is certain is that writing $$\mathbf b = \mathbf M \mathbf f$$, we can reduce (5) to (6). Hence, it is not the problem becoming simpler, but the equation. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please respond or correct. --Mathmensch (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the section again. In the article's text, equation 6 does not depend on $M$. Your above definition of $b$ depends on $M$. That's goofy. The section defines $b$, and it is not the definition that you propose above. Your argument is inconsistent with the text.
 * The top of section Matrix form of the problem makes a specific assumption for subproblem 3 that the form of $f(x)$ is a vector dot product; from that assumption, the section derives equation 5 with matrix $M$. Then, near your edit, it says "it is not necessary to assume [the dot product form]". That change of context blows away the assumption at the top of the section and consequently makes equation 5 irrelevant. The section then considers a "general function $f(x)$" that is not a dot-product form: $f$ stays inside the integral and is not moved outside of it as an $f_{k}$. The resulting equation 6 is not a simplification of equation 5 but rather a new derivation for the right hand side that uses a generalized $f$. It's about subproblem 3.
 * If the text had meant to say what you claim above, then it would have just evaluated the right hand side of equation 5 and called it $b$ as you did. Instead it starts talking about a general $f$ and defines $b$ without a hint of $f_{k}$. Glrx (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * $$\mathbf b = \mathbf M \mathbf f$$ for the special case coincides with the definition of $$\mathbf b$$ in the text.


 * "That change of context blows away the assumption at the top of the section and consequently makes equation 5 irrelevant."


 * If it's irrelevant, why does the sentence compare the equation (6) to (5) ('since no matrix $$M$$ is used')? It is at least relevant for the comparison, and hence even part of the context.


 * The problem does not become simpler, because in (5) we at least have a solution method by matrix theory.


 * BTW: I make mistakes all the time (as you can clearly see from my talk page), and even David Hilbert once 'proved' the continuum hypothesis from ZF. And despite you not going to believe me, I sincerely wish you a very pleasant afternoon. --Mathmensch (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please collaborate.
Hello Glrx,

You have reverted the article Finite element method again. Above, I have explained why the version of the article proposed by me is the accurate one. Therefore, please agree to use that version. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you have not explained, and you have not addressed my arguments above.
 * Furthermore, you do not have consensus for the change under WP:BRD. It's not my job to build consensus for the original version. Consensus is not about voting, but we are sort of at a WP:3O here: looking at the original author, me, and you puts the vote at 2 to 1.
 * As instructed, I have gone to your talk page and noticed that you have made several mistakes in the past. I think those episodes should make you much more careful about your positions.
 * Glrx (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your positions and actions are unfortunate and put a halt to any progress on the issue. --Mathmensch (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

TDR Traces on Time-domain reflectometer
Great pictures. It appears that there is 18 inches of some type of cable. Perhaps you could add a description of the cable. 108.171.132.164 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Bombe Simulators

 * RE: my revert at Bombe

You mention that there have been many Bombe simulators, but none are mentioned in the article. Doubtless worthy of a discussion there. kencf0618 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * At least four bombe simulators are mentioned in the article; see Bombe. The mechanical copy is a much more significant project. Glrx (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Tektronix

 * re GermanJoe's removal of ELs at Tektronix

Hello Glrx, I deleted the link, as it was added by a long-time EL spammer violating WP:LINKSPAM and WP:EL, most likely to promote their video productions (WP:PROMO). Sorry, if my initial edit summary has been a bit short and confusing - I'll keep them more detailed now. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit removed three links. One was an apparent Tektronix corporate link to a Chinese website, one an apparent Tektronix link to information about its 60th anniversary, and a third to a documentary published by Oregon Public Broadcasting. The edit comment was just "rmv WP:EL".
 * The PBS link looked good but the 60th anniversary was a dead link. I reverted because there was no explanation for the removals. I deleted the CN EL as pointless and tagged the 60th as dead. I then went to archive.org to recover the dead link, but that didn't work; it just redirected to CN and went nowhere, so I deleted the 60th link. That left the PBS link.
 * Now you've re-deleted the PBS link with the comment "rmv - WP:LINKSPAM by SPA account". which seemed to be opaque as well. The article is about the company, the PBS video is entirely about the company, I've restored the video as relevant, and now you've labeled it linkspam and implied somebody is an SPA.
 * I crawled back in the history section and uncovered the EL's insertion in October 2012 by.
 * That led me to User talk:Guanaco55 which has a few comments about inserting PBS videos. One November 2012 comment about removing a video for passing mention states, "However, if the entire documentary was solely about the one individual, I would say that falls under a link to be considered under WP:ELMAYBE criteria 2."
 * The talk page also pointed to the recent Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam where you comment that the video additions are "to vaguely related articles". A documentary about Tektronix is not vaguely related to Tektronix, which was a major tech employer in Oregon.  You also state that non SPAs had added links to these videos and that "I am trying to avoid deleting legit usages as far as possible, but if it happens feel free to revert me". Others, such as  has also reverted you. Apparently several editors have found some of these videos relevant.
 * I am at a loss to understand your rationale for deleting the Tektronix link. You don't seem to complain about the bandwidth because you admit some links are acceptable. You say many links are "'documentaries' and 'video stories' of questionable encyclopedic value", but I don't get your meaning there. Are such "documentaries" questionable because they are shams? I've deleted infomercial links, but PBS is not in the infomercial business. PBS exercises editorial judgment. The criteria for an EL is that has material that would be good to include in the article. I'd expect a PBS video about Tektronix to have such information. Yes, it has interviews with retirees who may not matter, but it has stories about the principals, why the product was selected, and why the company happened at the right time. I delete a lot of content whose purpose is primarily advertising (such as authors plugging their new book), but I also leave in or add commercial material that has significant content. For the Tektronix link, I do not see "strong evidence for a conflict of interest".
 * Glrx (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the link, when you think that it contains valuable information - that point wasn't entirely clear for me in your last revert. However, I am baffled by your comment, that you don't see a conflict of interest in the user's linking pattern. Do you really believe, these links are added to improve Wikipedia just for the sake of it? I don't have to "imply", that Guanaco55 is an SPA - their edit history shows clearly that the account has no other purpose than publicizing the content of video sites. That's WP:LINKSPAM, just like adding book links from a specific publisher to hundreds of articles would be spam - even if some of the books may be related to the article's topics. GermanJoe (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the link, when you think that it contains valuable information - that point wasn't entirely clear for me in your last revert. However, I am baffled by your comment, that you don't see a conflict of interest in the user's linking pattern. Do you really believe, these links are added to improve Wikipedia just for the sake of it? I don't have to "imply", that Guanaco55 is an SPA - their edit history shows clearly that the account has no other purpose than publicizing the content of video sites. That's WP:LINKSPAM, just like adding book links from a specific publisher to hundreds of articles would be spam - even if some of the books may be related to the article's topics. GermanJoe (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you...

 * RE above

Thank you for restoring the external link for Tektronix. Quite frankly, I was devastated to see most of my links being reverted. Sigh... Anyway, thanks for making a positive difference here!Guanaco55 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Neural machine translation

 * re: My 20 October revert of COI insertion at Machine translation
 * re: My 29 October revert
 * re: My tagging restore at Neural machine translation

Hello! Since you reverted my edits and suggested a discussion on the talk page, I opened a new section: Talk:Machine_translation. I am interested in your opinions on the matter. --Krz.wolk (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Glrx (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Undersea cable test TDR

 * RE: file:Time-domain reflectometer 580km test, Teleflex VX, TDR, SebaKMT, Megger Group.jpg screen shot uploaded by Zureks showing 580 km test screen shot.
 * RE: My 20 October revert of that image.
 * RE: My 26 October revert of undersea test at Time-domain reflectometer
 * RE: My 26 October revert of undersea test at Time-domain reflectometry
 * See also: file:Megger MTDR1 screenshot.jpg screen shot uploaded by Zureks
 * See also: Discussion at Talk:Time-domain reflectometer about confusing image
 * See also: Revert by at Time-domain reflectometer
 * See also: File:Megger Time-Domain Reflectometer MTDR1.jpg Megger screen shot uploaded by Zureks still used at Time-domain reflectometer

Hi, I can see you reverted my additions. The only point of my edit was to show that the "longest" test carried out by TDR was for an undersea cable of 580 km length. I think this is at least worth mentioning somewhere, especially that there are references confirming it, as well as a screenshot proving it? What is your opinion? --Zureks (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have several problems with your additions.
 * The undersea cable picture is confusing. There's a lot of hash at the front of the trace (going out to about 175 km) that is unexplained. The 580 km reflection is not obvious (and the zoomed in view is 10 km long); what about the additional noise at 800 km? There are no interesting reflections. The underlying cause of the noise seems to be that the power cable is not a controlled impedance line; see Electrical Review article about surrounding dielectic changes. A contributing factor appears to be the lack of AGC in the instrument (1940's tech). Illustrations should be clear and have a purpose. I removed the image on 20 October.
 * On 26 October, I removed the text you added about the same long test. Using a TDR on a long cable run is important, but the typical "long" length is probably less than 1 km. The undersea application seems very narrow. The online Electrical Review article (http://www.electricalreview.co.uk/features/10153-reliable-offshore-power-connections) has just a paragraph:
 * As an indication of what is possible at the present time in the field of subsea cable testing, it is interesting to examine the trials carried out jointly by Megger and Statnett, the operator of the Norwegian energy system, in September 2013. These involved the 580 km long NorNed HVDC cable that runs between Feda in Norway and Eemshavan in the Netherlands. The cable operates at ± 450 kV, giving it a terminal-to-terminal voltage of 900 kV, which means that the system includes HVDC converters with the highest voltage rating of any in the world.
 * The Electrical Review article indicates the TDR efforts were "trials" that showed "what is possible". Were those trials successful? Electrical Review does not tell us.
 * I'd looked at the Electrial Review article several days ago, but I didn't bother with the first reference, Electrical Tester because I thought it might be offline (it didn't have a URL). I just went looking for it and found that Electrical Tester appears to be a corporate publication of Megger. I'm not going to take it as an independent, reliable, source. The article link is http://uk.megger.com/getmedia/92b63f52-e255-4ece-bc43-198fc3fcc553/I031_Electrical-Tester-Jan-2015.pdf/ The article does not say much, but does make the world record claim at p 5. The article only claims that the TDR was able "to see" the end connection. The article only had two paragraphs on the test, the undersea screen shot, and made the vague "As an indication of what is possible at the present time in the field of subsea cable testing" statement.
 * The other Megger screen shot is confusing as Constant314 brought up on the talk page. I agreed with him, and Constant314 removed the image.
 * A good portion of your contributions revolves around Megger accomplishments, products, and technology. That raises a question about a possible WP:COI. There is material that you might add, and I don't want to discourage you from editing, but please be aware of WP's audience.
 * In any event, I'm just a lowly editor around here. If you want any of the above material included in the articles, then follow WP:BRD: you inserted the material, I reverted some of it, so now you can raise the issue on the talk page and garner a consensus for the inclusion.
 * Glrx (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Highlight pseudocode
Hi, re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heapsort&diff=prev&oldid=689058733 I agree that syntax highlighting would be a good thing. What language would you suggest for pseudo code like that? It is already hand-formatted for **is** and **for** etc. It's nice to have ≥ and ← characters in the code, I don't think any language will recognize those. Hmm, just noticed that one of the blocks has :=s... TWiStErRob (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really care which language is used, but hand formating the syntax takes it further away from looking like code. All the code should be readable; I don't care about the compilable issue, so fancy relational operators are a wash to me. Pick a language that highlights the main reserved words and then make the comments match.
 * It also looks like syntaxhighlight has been replaced recently; language (algol is no longer supported) and color schemes have changed. Glrx (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It also looks like syntaxhighlight has been replaced recently; language (algol is no longer supported) and color schemes have changed. Glrx (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It also looks like syntaxhighlight has been replaced recently; language (algol is no longer supported) and color schemes have changed. Glrx (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to Gray code

 * re: My first edit restoring less idiomatic algorithm but keeping many of 71.41's changes
 * re: [ My second edit] changing  to , the type declaration used in rest of article
 * re: "this criticism" is discussing 71.41's edits while I was unknowingly changing them.

I was trying to satisfy this criticism and a third opinion is very useful. I really appreciate the first, but I undid the second one because I think using a size-specific type helps reinforce the fact that the code only works up to 32 bits. I'd be happy to discuss it (we should move to Talk:Gray code, of course) if you still disagree. Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to  and added a " " suffix to the procedure name. Code in WP is intended to illustrate the algorithm; WP code is usually not about programming. Readers should not have to know clever language features, know about some typical type decls (WP C code seldom has include files), or decipher too much. If you still want your changes, then bring them up on the article talk page so other editors can chime in; they may support your position; see WP:BRD. Glrx (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A very nice solution! To me, the idea that even someone who's never seen C would find   confusing seems comically implausible.  The abbreviation isn't exactly obscure to start with, but add the syntax highlighting, the similar function a few lines away, and the comment, and it's just it's just not a problem.  The   syntax would be a far greater obstacle.
 * But a -32 suffix on the function name is equally clear, and has the nice feature of avoiding a multiply defined function name. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
 * (Aside: I keep wishing there was a quick way to "upvote" an edit, to quickly add a "thank for for this edit" note to the edit log without having to edit a talk page somewhere. It'd generate nice attaboys for the editor, indicate that a potential editing dispute is resolved (e.g. "My mistake; thank you for the correction"), and show that someone has reviewed the edit.  It would also let watch lists show "edits since you last reviewed this page".  I'm often pleased when I can find a lingering minor typo just so I have an excuse to make an edit log entry.)  71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Steampunk vacuum tubes

 * re my revert of steampunk being predominate user of decorative vacuum tubes

Actually, the steampunk world seems to be quite taken with vacuum tubes. SpinningSpark 08:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And see this steampunk wristwatch! SpinningSpark 08:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, for I am backward and cannot recognize trends. Where's the steam? And why the blue LED? Is the cathode so hot we only see the blue tail? Shades of francium! Glrx (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The page says the display is a vacuum fluorescent display. They could be lying, but I don't think so.  VFDs are not blue LEDs.  I don't know where the steam is, perhaps it's in the little pipes. SpinningSpark 17:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your http://www.instructables.com/id/Steampunk-Vacuum-Tube-Night-Light/ has filaments that glow blue. Maybe I'm being punked. Glrx (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh right, I thought you were replying to wristwatch thing. Yes, the instructables thing is lit up with LEDs, not the tube heaters.  If you click on to step 2 they say that explicitly.  The colour though, I think must be an artefact of the photograph - they say they used white LEDs. SpinningSpark 22:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Comma-separated Values

 * re my revert] at Comma-separated values

You reverted an edit of mine recently which indicated that a CSV file could be generated from a database with multiple relations providing the export process made suitable joins. This puzzled me. I have worked for many years with EDI, in which the most common application export format is a CSV file of that type. The EDI construction process then uses the values of key fields in the exported records to infer the critical relationships and generate a hierarchical output which obeys the syntax requirements of the relevant EDI standard. In this respect the CSV file is a very clumsy form of intermediary, since there is a massive duplication of field values across groups of records, but it remains the one most commonly used. I do not intend to enter into an edit war, but my daily work does incline me to believe that my original edit was correct! Chrisj1948 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think either statement is good, but I think the original statement is better.
 * The orginal states that a database with multiple relations (i.e., tables) cannot be exported as a single CSV file. That makes some sense in that a CSV file is only intended to export one table. The statement leaves open the possibility of exporting the relational database as several CSV files. Yes, that's not going to be perfect because a CSV file does not specify which fields are keys and other relationships are also lost. The statement is flawed but makes sense.
 * Your edit immediately denies the predicate: it says that the database can exported if the multiple relations are first removed with a join. If the database is flat to begin with or has been flattened with a join, then a CSV file can be used. It's a strange exposition: a relational database can be exported if there are no relations. Yes, there are C-normal form tools that can recover some of the relations, but that is getting far afield for an encyclopedia article that hasn't even discussed the format yet.
 * Your EDI example sounds more like a subset of the problem: the EDI example wants to export some data from the database rather than the entire database. I know next to nothing about EDI, but I thought there were more involved (non-CSV) data exchanges such as ANSI X.12. It doesn't change my viewpoint.
 * If you want your edit, bring it up on the talk page. My voice isn't any stronger than yours around here.
 * Glrx (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for your response. You observe, very fairly, that I work in terms of selective extraction from database tables rather than with an export of the entire database. You also observe, equally fairly, that a single CSV file containing information extracted by table joins is of little value without external knowledge of the key fields (which must be present) and the relations they represent. I actually see little difference in this respect between export as a single 'joined' CSV and as multiple ones, one for each table. The latter case is operationally rather simpler to handle, but I rarely encounter it because it is easier for an application programmer to make table joins and then export as a single CSV, thus transferring some of the burden of sorting out the export to the EDI ayatem programmer (me).


 * I shall not be re-instating my original edit. I am lazy and, since I think some of the observations in the article about transforming between hierarchical formats and CSV are not accurate, it would be too much work to do a proper job. Incidentally the EDI standards such as ANSI X12 (no dot) and EDIFACT are used to transfer documents between trading partners; my job is to transform data between the hierarchical form which they use and the myriad formats used for application import and export :-( Chrisj1948 (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree completely with your statement that the CSV is weak in either case. I think CSV survives because it is a lowest common denominator that is trivial to use. When one starts adding bells and whistles, then the effort needed to translate from one format to a "neutral interchange" format grows. Glrx (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

78.135.60.110

 * re: Kabir Sadeghi edit tags

Just saw he removed the the maintenance tags again. Seems like it is time for a block. Can you report it, I'm mobile at the moment. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm online now and reported it. This IP clearly can see these notices, evident by this post... Tiggerjay (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Sigh. I just looked at it, and the latest revert was not by British IP 78.135.60.110 but rather Turkish IP 212.175.35.5. I'll start poking around. Glrx (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Notice you made an AIV report against 78.135.60.110. I would have gone to edit warring for 78.135 (if 78.135 had made last revert); maybe RFPP is appropriate with the IP shift.
 * I've been troubled with the article. For a time, the article claimed KS was a "distinguished professor", and that statement alone would satisfy WP:N for an academic. The cited source did not mention him being a distinguished professor, so I tagged it as verification fails. I did search for his academic rank at the time, and I found sources that identified him as an associate professor (2 ranks below distinguished). The recent edit by 212.175 (judging from the URL alone) only puts KS at associate professor.
 * I've wanted to give the IP some time for sources, but I'm thinking the appropriate action for the article is WP:AfD.
 * Glrx (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP was blocked for 31 hours. But I agree the article has issues, and the various IP editors don't help. I'll give it a quick review and nom for AfD as you suggested. Seems to be the best route. I was thinking about Edit Waring, but it wasn't quite a WP:3R so I figured AIV was best. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * AfD created and I threw you under the bus too... Hope you don't mind. My own research turned up little and I actually went through and removed a LOT of bad references on other articles that link to his page. Appears a lot of work was done to attempt to establish notability, but none of it appears to meet required thresholds. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Kabir Sadeghi
 * If you threw me under, then I guess I belong there. I'll check it out. Glrx (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: 212.175.35.5 removed the AfD template; I reverted and left User talk:212.175.35.5 — Glrx (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)