User talk:Glrx/Archive 9

Barcode revert

 * re my revert at Barcode

Hi there! Thanks for reverting my edit: any edits, even those which I disagree with, are a fundamental part of Wikipedia.

I disagree with the removal of the tag, as the sentence is still very vague. Which stores? Even if it's referencing the study in the previous paragraph, no stores are actually mentioned by name. The previous paragraph mentions studies done for the grocery industry committee, and does not mention which stores participated in that study or which stores are on that committee.

What should we do to improve that paragraph? I'm taking a look at the reference at the end of that paragraph, and it seems like Kmart was the company that turned the tide of applying barcodes. I would love to hear your input! A ir ♠ C ombat  What'sup, dog? 01:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I looked at it again. Yes, it is not clear, but it looks like the Selmeier 2008 reference stretches over three paragraphs with other sources spliced in. Not many stores adopted, but there were fewer than 200 that had (go back 2 paragraphs). Those are stores from which IBM got feedback and learned tidbits such as increased sales. Selmeier does say once a customer bought a system, they were not interested in looking for additional benefits. Clients even pushed back when IBM asked about additional benefits. I tried fixing some stuff, but then gave up. The refs are there, but in odd places. Selmeier even repeats page numbers. Glrx (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit to WWVB and my revert

 * re my revert at WWVB

Hi. I wanted to explain why I reverted your edit.

At first, I have to confess, my reason was "that doesn't sound right". On further research, though... I am not an English major, but this is what I came up with:

A comma splice only exists if the comma is combining two independent clauses. An independent clause is one that could stand on its own as a sentence. It has to have its own subject and its own verb.

In


 * "WWVB is a time signal radio station near Fort Collins, Colorado, operated by the NIST."

"operated by the..." is not an independent clause. It doesn't have its own subject. You couldn't write this as


 * "WWVB is a time signal radio station near Fort Collins, Colorado. Operated by the NIST."

The latter clause is instead a dependent clause: It adds information about the subject of the first clause (which is, of course, WWVB). Therefore this was not a comma splice. A comma is perfectly fine between independent and dependent clauses when the latter adds non-essential information (which this is, because the subject would be perfectly well identified without it).

To be sure, some other constructions are possible. However there's nothing wrong with it as it is now.

Thanks for raising the issue - I always enjoy learning a little more about grammar beyond what I got in school. Hope you feel the same way! Jeh (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted again.
 * Your explanation is even further wrong. If "operated by NIST" is not a clause, then it cannot be dependent clause. "operated by NIST" is just a predicate, so it cannot be a clause (dependent or independent).
 * There is an implication: "WWVB is operated by NIST". It's a horrible passive construction (better is NIST operates WWVB), but it has a subject and verb.
 * If you want the dependent clause, then it needs a function word such as "which" or "that": "WWVB is an X which is operated by NIST". We get into odd territory because WWVB is already a proper noun, so it does not need any further restriction; the other tidbits are just additional information rather than identifcation. It is in Ft. Collins and nowhere else (e.g., there's no WWVB in New York, NY), and NIST is the only entity operating time broadcasts in Ft Collins (there's no WWVB or other Ft. Collins time station operated by General Electric). If one assumes there is no restriction, then we get "WWVB is an X, which is in Ft. Collins, which is operated by NIST."
 * There is further ugliness because the modifier is uncertain: "WWVB is (an X) in Ft Collins, which is operated by NIST". Modifier bindings naturally go to the closest noun. That has NIST operating the city of Ft Collins rather than the WWVB. I've been in Ft Collins (and scraped the ice off too may windshields at 6 AM), and it is not run by NIST.
 * We can write "WWVB is an X, and it is operated by NIST".
 * Both clauses share the same subject, so we can share "WWVB is" to make a dubious compound object: "WWVB is (an X) and (operated by NIST)" or "WWVB is (an X) and is (operated by NIST)".
 * We don't put a comma between two compound items: "WWVB is (an X) and (a Y)." Not "WWVB is (an X), and (a Y)."
 * Glrx (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Mary Margaret Revell

 * re: edits at Garces Memorial High School:
 * IP deletes 3 entries (including her) from notable alumni with no edit comment.
 * I restore the links after googling them and leave WP:BEFORE comment.
 * Trackinfo fixes 2 alumni links but deletes Revell

You left sources indicating you have a case for notability. That's fine for me, but other people will clear out the red links. The safe thing to do is rather than suggest notability, go ahead and write the article, then you establish notability, use your source to establish the unique accomplishment. Then there is no question. Trackinfo (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for doing a lot of work about California schools. I recognize your username.
 * WRT the article, thanks for fixing up the other two links, but why did you delete her entry in the first place? "English channel swimmers do not seem to be notable." I don't know about the lady; I just watchlisted Garces Memorial High School because it's been hit with vandalism. Recently people have been deleting material without doing something like WP:BEFORE: they are confusing the requirements of WP:N for a standalone article with the lesser requirements of WP:DUE for mention within an article. Principals are mentioned in high school articles all the time, but that does not mean they need to have WP:N by themselves. Maybe the lady doesn't merit an article (I didn't find anything that said she actually swam the English Channel), but I doubt she should be deleted from the article when the school believes she's a notable alumna. I kept the WL because the simple step of googling her name turns up hits in the Chicago Tribune, a government archive of a story, a BBC video in Getty's archive, and her own story (complete with polio) in a post to the Bakersfield Californian website. Glrx (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

3RR?
Why are you giving me a 3RR warning? Aside from the fact that I haven't made a 3rd revert, let alone passed it, it's not needed. Second, it could be argued that the first revert wasn't applicable since it was improperly removed as vandalism, which the edit clearly wasn't. I informed the editor about what is and is not vandalism and he thanked me for restoring it. Arguing about who is responsible for starting the discussion is a dodge on your part. It was restored and you've removed it twice now. You have the same number of reverts. Except that I made 2 reverts in 3 days and you have 2 reverts in about an hour. So if you're going to even hint at saying I'm edit warring, you have no high ground. Citing BOLD is also a bit pointless. It's a large editing guideline. If there is a specific part of it you think applies, then actually talk about that part. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * On your talk page, I told you that it was your burden to bring up your insertion on the article's talk page; I also quite clearly linked WP:3rr; I did not give you a templated warning. You inserted some dubious material and have now reverted two different editors who removed the material. You inserted an editorial "so-called" in Wikipedia's voice in front of "'truth report'". removed the editorial using the edit comment, "Undid revision 702638661 by Niteshift36 (talk) Clean up Reverting vandalism or test edit -- Not needed insertion." You reverted. I removed the text. You reverted me. I reverted you and commented on your talk page with a reference to 3rr.
 * You did complain on Emt1299's talk page about being labeled a vandal.. As of right now, I see no response on that talk page nor any edits by Emt1299 since he reverted you. Another communications channel, perhaps? I can see Emt1299 apologizing for the vandalism / test edit remark, but I don't see Emt1299 thanking you for restoring a dubious POV edit about a "truth report" that hasn't been published yet. Neither cited source uses the words "so called"; both sources put "truth report" in quotation marks as does WP. Glrx (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First, the burden is not mine. It is shared. We ALL bear the responsibility of discussion. Refusing to start it because of an imagined responsibility is not productive. Second, the first revert made of my edit was incorrectly labeled as vandalism. Even so, I have reverted twice. Period. No matter how you try to twist it, I have only made 2 reverts, just as you have. I made 3 edits, 2 reverts. You don't count the initial edit as a revert. No, you didn't template the warning, but the mention serves the same effect, so it's a warning (that wasn't needed). Third, I didn't "complain" about being labeled as a vandal, I informed the less experienced editor that falsely labeling legitimate edits as vandalism is considered bad faith. Fourth, I got the notification for Emt1299 thanking me for the edit. Now maybe you can't see the so-called "public thanks", but it was done never the less. If you'd like continue implying that I'm not being truthful, just come out and say it and I'll be happy to send you the screen capture. Yes, the sources put "truth report" in quotes, but that doesn't preclude labeling it as "so-called". Both sources are questionable in their objectivity. Of course I wonder why we're having this discussion about the content here when I started the discussion on the page hours ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=703652594 your edit] to ISO 8601 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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * in Berlin during the winter), the zone designator would be "+01:00", "+0100", or simply "+01" . To represent a time behind UTC the offset is negative. For example, the time in New York in

NEC edits
In your latest edits you removed the section based on the official reference and replaced it with a section based on... nothing. If you have a problem with the text as it is, please discuss it on the article talk page, because these edits appear to be removing useful information without explanation. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted the fixed-format field definition insertions again and commented at Talk:Numerical Electromagnetics Code. It's a waste of time to tell readers about column numbers when they haven't been used in decades. Column numbers are not "useful information". The departure from fixed-format was not "During the conversion to modern systems" as your edit states; it was done when FORTRAN-H Extended allowed free-format input. Yes, when I used NEC-2, the documentation showed card images with fixed columns, but even then the FORMAT statements had been revised, so the column numbers didn't matter. Glrx (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Plasticine
As you will see from the last diff I posted on Talk:Plasticine, the disputed material was added, with a citation, last August. After the spelling was changed in December, that change was rejected by several users including myself [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasticine&diff=697356954&oldid=697323163] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasticine&diff=697576449&oldid=697575594] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasticine&type=revision&diff=698000517&oldid=697999594] and has now been extensively discussed on the talk page. Your recent [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasticine&diff=704453411&oldid=701622437 edit] restored the disputed material without an inline citation to support it, and without clear consensus on the talk page. This appears to be WP:DISRUPTIVE.

Although you pinged a number of editors, few have responded. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated and you now appear to be flogging a WP:DEADHORSE. It is getting tiresome. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your revert is regrettable. My response will take some time. Glrx (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you have not made any further reverts, which is appreciated, thank you. Unfortunately the edit-war is still ongoing and the page has now been protected again. Whatever the outcome, I would like to see this dispute resolved amicably via some kind of process that complies with policy, that's all. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The whole mess above is about how to spell the thing screwed into the nose of a bomb. Both "fuse" and "fuze" are acceptable, but "fuze" is preferred. There have been many discussions about the spelling in many different articles; in general, the result as been to use "fuze". The Brits in this picture, File:Bombing up 106 Squadron Lancaster WWII IWM CH 12541.jpg, should know what they are doing, and they spell it with a "z". There was some recent discussion on the issue at Talk:Plasticine.  stated, "I see evidence there to suggest the -z spelling is considered more technically correct in some circles."  An IP offered a Ministry of Defence publication that stated a preference for "fuze"; most editors believed "fuze" was appropriate.  Burninthruthesky wanted "fuse" but said that if Plasticine were a munitions article (instead of one about clay), then "fuze" would be appropriate. There was a discussion about "fuze" being jargon. On 6 February, when the discussion had died down, I summarized the result on the talk page in favor of "fuze", but I did not edit the article.  My summary triggered another round of argument between BITTS and  with nothing substantially changing. On 11 February, I changed the article spelling to "fuze" and commented on the talk page.  Burninthruthesky reverted my article edit.  I believe that BITTS' revert was against consensus. Burninthruthesky has offered poor sources on the subject at Talk:Fuze; BITTS pointed to 1905 reference; I had consulted that reference and found it dated; he used tertiary sources. I did not revert BITTS' edit, but I offered an extensive contribution on the talk page showing British terminolgy dating back to 1805 is "fuze" and linking to long articles in the tertiary Encyclopedia Britannica that use "fuze". AFAIK, BITTS has not commented on that addition, but the edit war has spilled over into several venues. This mess has been at ANI; there are sockpuppet investigations (Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate; Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley); Hengistmate has been taken to WP:ANEW and blocked; there are vandalism allegations, allegations of misquoting sources, pissing match metaphors, and I don't know or care what else.  Glrx (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Antoine equation
Hello, Glrx! I see that you've contributed to Antoine equation. Can this equation be also applied to solutions/mixtures? The article deserves a clarification to this aspect.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but I believe it is used to estimate vapor pressure for mixture components. See Vapor pressure. Key word is estimate; I have no idea about accuracy or conditions. Glrx (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Lucy spy ring

 * re: Xyl 54's edits inserting interlanguage links
 * re: my edits removing interlanguage links

Hello You recently reverted some changes I made to this article, but your edit summary didn't say why (more of an observation, really; and one which implied you'd put the links in, rather than taking them out). I've opened a discussion at the article talk page, if you care to comment. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:Manual of Style/Linking which states, "To avoid reader confusion, inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged." Glrx (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Reed Solomon article

 * re: Reed–Solomon error correction

This section needs improvement. It's basically describing the case where a codeword is a set of values, and in the example case, includes the message unmodified as the initial set of values of a codeword. Then it goes on to state that this is somehow optimized without mentioning the change to consider a codeword as a set of coefficients. Even though there's an equivalence in the codewords as mentioned later on in the article, treating codewords as values results in inefficient decoding compared to treating codewords as coefficients (BCH type methods). Rcgldr (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it needs work. I looked at the edit/comment=out earlier today, but I didn't know what to do. The addition skips over the finite field issue (values of f(x) are big otherwise), but that is not a big fib. It uses the original view rather than the modern view (views are explained lower down in the article). Reverting to previous isn't better. Blowing away the section didn't seem right because it was trying to give a simple and intuitive description of how RS works. It became one of many tabs on my browser to revisit.
 * Right now, I'm tempted to move the text in &sect; Basis down to &sect; Construction and rename "Construction" to some better title. For most readers, the important thing is that it is an ECC family, it has flexible coding properties, and where it is used. After that, the article can get more involved.
 * Sigh. I wish User:Nageh were still around. Glrx (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I wish User:Nageh were still around. Glrx (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * On the talk page, I mentioned that the basis section seemed redundant to the construction section. It's not quite the original view: in the original view, the message elements are considered to be coefficients of a polynomial, and used to generate the codeword values for a[1] through a[n]. The basis section shows an intermediate view, where the message itself is part of the codeword and a method like Lagrange interpolation used to determine the polynomial that generates the codeword values. In both cases, a polynomial of degree k-1 is usually involved, a[1] through a[n] are known to both encoder and decoder, and decoding involves trial and error of a method like Lagrange interpolation to try combinations of n elements taken k at a time until a match is found. The switch to treating a codeword as a set of coefficients and using a generator polynomial of degree t-1 known to both encoder and decoder is what made RSECC practical.


 * On a side note, just about every other article related to RSECC describes the number of redundant symbols as 2t instead of just t. However that can be awkward in the case of that the number of redundant symbols is odd (the old floppy tape drives used a matrix where each column was a (29,32) codeword. Each row had a 16 bit CRC used to detect erasures, so 3 erasures could be corrected.


 * Rcgldr (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right about the coeffs. I just keyed on sending the values. Glrx (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * re: Reed–Solomon error correction

Rather than create a new section, I made this section more general. In the RS history section, it mentions an efficient decoder was not known when RS codes were first introduced (1960). It then goes on to mention an efficient decoder algorithm was determined in 1969, but fails to mention that this required changing the encoding process to use generator polynomials of degree t-1 and considering codewords as a set of coefficients. I'm wondering if the change to the encoding process predates Berlekamp and Massey (1969), or if it was part of their discovery. Rcgldr (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The encoding process had to be changed in order for a Peterson like decoder to work. The Peterson decoder for BCH codes was developed in 1960, but I can't find when RS encoding was changed to allow a modified Peterson decoder to work.


 * After correspondence with Dave Forney, I cleaned up the history section. Rcgldr (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I did find the credited author (Yasuo Sugiyama in 1975) for the adaptation of the extended Euclid algorithm and updated the history section to reflect that. Rcgldr (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I updated the history section to reflect all of this. Rcgldr (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * re: theoretical decoder

I moved this from error correction algorithms to the codeword viewed as a sequence of values section since it's not a practical decoder. I added a noted that all of the decoders in the error correction algorithms use the BCH view. Rcgldr (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * re: equivalent views - regarding the transform equation for p(x), I find that $$\textstyle v_i=q(\alpha^{n-i})$$ is working without the 1/n factor as shown in the article: $$\textstyle v_i=\frac{1}{n}q(\alpha^{n-i})$$ . Rcgldr (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * . I appreciate your efforts on these subjects, and I envy your correspondence with Forney. There's are some nagging notions about RS/BCH that have been in the back of my mind, but I haven't had time to look because I'm buried in my real life and have other distractions in my WP life. RS, BCH, and several other coding topics are on my watchlist, so I will see them eventually.  Glrx (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I probably handled that poorly
It seems to me quite probable that I owe you an apology, and if so, I do apologize. You did nothing wrong, and if anyone did, it was me. I'm actually and truly not at all sure how to move forward, but I'm sure that "slow and steady" is a part of the correct equation. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * re: Talk:Vincent van Gogh
 * re: Lingzhi's revert
 * re: Lingzhi's reversal
 * I'm not sure what to say here. Should I let it slide or get real?
 * Your email was appalling. The bullet is you reverted an hour's worth of my work not because you thought it was the right thing or that I'd misread the talk page consensus but rather because you thought it might please a third party. And you weren't even sure it would please that party; you were only guessing. Editors are grown ups; if they want something, then they should say so on the talk page. Your decision wasn't anything about improving WP. Your sudden reversal to cite book is even more surprising because at one time you offered to do the edit.
 * I understand it is difficult to offer up an apology, but I'm taken back by it's conditional nature. See non-apology apology. I read the "slow and steady" as you want me to delay even though your email suggested my edit would be the eventual result. You've accused me of stepping on another editor and misreading consensus. You blew away my work. Yet you claim that you are not sure.
 * I don't buy that you are "not at all sure how to move forward". I think you know exactly what you should do.
 * I admire User:John's diplomacy on the talk page.
 * Glrx (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Glrx (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I don't know what I should do. If I knew what I should do, I would certainly do it. Improving WP is not always and everywhere the only or even main goal (though in dry theory, of course it should be). If improving WP were the only goal, then I would have sent you a "thank you" ping and then forgotten about it. :-) The reason that I accused you of stepping on another editor is because.. the timing was so exactly, exactly, perfectly wrong. It looked deliberate to me, and I was quite surprised when you claimed innocence... (oh, and btw, if you wanna say I didn't WP:AGF, you'd be right, but my WP:AGF filter was just overwhelmed by the timing thing)... As I have said before, if you want to think I'm an a**hole, please be my guest, but from my perspective I am (or at least, was) caught between Scylla and Charybdis and not clever enough to know how too swim through without getting wet... If this helps, think about it this way: what do I gain from anything I did? What was my motivation? Then consider the possibility that confused people do confusing things. But in any event, I am of course sorry if I made you feel unvalued. That's all.... pps, I have restored your one hour's worth of work. Best wishes in all things. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Intel 4004

 * re: my revert at Transistor–transistor logic

What logic levels are the 4004 really? Bytesock (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The i4004 uses PMOS logic; see http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/DataSheet/4004_datasheet.pdf. Sadly, the WP PMOS article has many problems. Internal voltage swings could be close to 15 V, but I don't know.
 * Logic families are not determined by logic levels; it's the technology used to implement the logic that counts. TTL uses bipolar transistors and an unusual multiple emitter input circuit. The classic logic line is TI's 7400 series. There are speed-power variations such as 74L00 and 74H00. There are variations of TTL such as 74LS00 and 74S00 that are TLL circuits with Schottky clamps. Other logic lines (such as 74HC00) implement the same logic functions with compatible logic levels but use a different logic family (such as HCMOS).
 * Glrx (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I improved the PMOS article. Interesting that families are defined by process technology and not voltage levels. Which are the ones that will dictate what a designer can do without cumbersome signal conversions. And then what functions that a voltage compatible family offers. The WP revert message kind of shocked me :-) so had a look at the datasheet on the 4004 and it sunk in that it was something completely different than one expects, those voltage ranges are really asymmetrical and high. It must been messy to design with PMOS parts. Bytesock (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * By the time of the i4004, TTL was the dominant logic family (RTL and DTL were disappearing; ECL was the high-speed market and CMOS the low-power low-performance market).
 * There's some symettry in the RTL, DTL, and TTL names; the first letter is the device responsible for the logic, and the second letter is the device for inversion and gain.
 * Voltage levels are not enough. Current source/sink are also important (loosely fanout). There are also issues with OC outputs vs. totem pole outputs. It is not a simple abstraction. Transition times are also important; many TTL designers came to grief because they ignored transmission lines. Glrx (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The only factor that really mess up designs tend to be the voltage levels however. And the transition time. The rest is more about paying attention than anything else. Ie, less fanout, use less inputs without amplification. If using amplification calculate propagation times etc. Bytesock (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the PMOS voltage levels. Are they like this? 4004 datasheet Is it reasonable generic to interface with random PMOS logic chip? Say if you wanted to read out a Intel 4001 ROM or control 4003 I/O chips? Bytesock (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I doubt PMOS logic levels were standardized. A 15-V i4004 probably would not want to be connected to a 24-V metal-gate PMOS part. The Intel 4004 family of parts could be connected together. It looks like the i4008/9 were used to translate the i4000 series logic levels to standard TTL levels. I think TI (and other companies) had logic level translators; it's not hard to do with bipolar transistors. Glrx (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Good catch
I accidentally selected "Central America" when I meant "Central Asia". It's fixed now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits to pi

 * re: this addition of περίμετρος and some nearby edits

Thanks for adding some real Greek. Even though you claim to know only 3 digits, you at least know more than 3 letters... Imaginatorium (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Music_OCR revert

 * re my revert at Music OCR

Hi there!

Can you please help me understand why you removed my addition to the Proprietary software section? I tried to follow the existing structure and don't see how the newly added line is different to the old ones, e.g. the PhotoScore one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrAlienDragon (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You have 3 edits on Wikipedia. The first two edits are apparent advertisements for the "Sheet Music Scanner" phone app; your third edit is to this talk page.
 * I see the mention of "Sheet Music Scanner" as being WP:UNDUE. WP wants secondary sources that say the application has merit. I googled for SMS and only found its iTunes listing.
 * WP does not want to be a buyers' guide.
 * SMS does not fit the Music OCR topic. It reads and plays from cameraphone input. There's no indication of how much music notation it needs to parse to achieve its goals. There's no indication that the OCR output is available in machine-readable or even printable form. I googled PhotoScore; that application has been around for 22 years and offers editable output; it also reads lyrics. Compare also with Audiveris.
 * I'm only a lowly editor around here. If you still think SMS should be included, then you are free to follow WP:BRD by creating a new topic on Talk:Music OCR that advocates the inclusion of SMS in the article. If there is a WP:CONSENSUS to include it, then it goes into the article.
 * Glrx (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. With all due respect, I don't see how the number of edits is relevant to the fact that I've built an OMR engine as proprietary software that I'm trying to list here.


 * I am not sure what you mean by not fitting the topic - to play something from camera input means doing full OMR on the image the same way as any other software on this page.


 * "There's no indication that the OCR output is available in machine-readable or even printable form. "
 * I don't see how the OMR topic implies that the output should be machine readable or printable (but my app does enable export to MIDI as you can see from the website). Even the OMR page says: "... to interpret sheet music or printed scores into editable or playable form." - my app plays the music, it is playable.


 * "There's no indication of how much music notation it needs to parse to achieve its goals."
 * The list of recognized symbols is listed on my website: treble, bass, and alto (viola) clefs, notes, duration dots, rests and accidentals, which is enough to play most scores. Btw. there are some youtube videos of the app in action.


 * Regarding being a buyer's guide, the link to PhotoScore leads to their webshop, the same way as my link, I really don't see the difference. If you consider the link to the app's website advertisement, you should remove the other links too IMHO. My app wants to be an affordable alternative to fairly expensive professional software that is linked on this page. Currently, it is the only mobile alternative to NotateMe (Neuratron) that actually works without a scanner.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrAlienDragon (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 April 2016‎


 * An editor with few edits that focus on a particular subject is a WP:SPA. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does raise some questions about the editor. In particular, it suggests the editor may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies yet.  It also suggests that the editor may not have a neutral point of view.
 * Above, you indicate that your purpose here is to list your software on Wikipedia. Your goal is to advertise your product. Wikipedia does not want to be an advertising forum. See also conflict of interest. Editors need to be very circumspect when writing about their work.
 * I see a large difference between the capabilities of your app and PhotoScore's. But my view is not important. Wikipedia wants WP:reliable sources to show a product's significance. PhotoScore has a colorable claim because it is in Byrd's list.
 * There may well be other links that should be removed from the list (notice the section is tagged as using primary refs), but the existence of other, similar, links is not an argument to include your link: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If an entry is challenged, then reliable sources (rather than similar links) are needed to support the entry.
 * Glrx (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Good grief. A template for two reverts that restored material that had been around for 5 months? The first removal was done without comment by an IP.
 * On 28 December, Mackey el Capitain introduces sourced text into article on University of Phoenix that says UoP gives credit for corporate training at some companies. The edit gives a long list of companies that includes Fortune 500 companies. It is reasonable that such companies would have corporate training programs that are serious and could carry academic weight.
 * ElKevbo edits article several times since that edit, but does not remove that material.
 * On 1 June, an IP edits the addition by deleting the example companies; the IP does not give an edit comment about why the list was deleted. The IP's edit makes the article's text vague: it says 300 companies but without specific examples, the reference loses meaning.
 * On 4 June, I revert to restore the company list.
 * Four hours later, Orangemike reverted me with the edit comment "this list is cherry-picked by the subject's PR people for maximum prestige; see WP:NONCONTAGIOUS" [sic]. The WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS is not apropos. UoP is not claiming WP:N by using these company names. UoP is already WP:N.
 * I revert Orangemike stating "Undid revision 723713809 by Orangemike (talk) Not abt notability; I don't like UoP, but the Q Is whether list of examples is accurate."
 * ElKevbo reverts with the comment, "please don't edit war" (devoid of any comment about the content) and templates a regular.
 * Glrx (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ionization

 * re: AWB edit1 and AWB edit2
 * earlier, 29 May, edit that I also reverted

In order for author names to be incorporated into metadata, they need to be separated. One way of doing this is use Vancouver style, since the 'vauthor' parameter is automatically parsed. You should not be removing that parameter, unless you intend to replace it with alternative means of indicating individual authors. --Dcirovic (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is inappropriate to introduce a new citation sytle onto a page that is already using other styles. WP:CITEVAR. The page was not using Vancouver style. Although I recognize the value of splitting authors, you are running a script that does not follow the set style on the page. I see a lot of that on my watch list. Glrx (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Lucy spy ring, again
Hello I am just checking to see whether you still wish to be part of the discussion on this page; I replied to your comments there a while ago but have not yet seen a response. I left it a while, as you were busy elsewhere, but I would like to resolve this before moving too far on myself. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My position hasn't changed from 31 March. I don't view the Bureau Ha or Deutscher Herrenklub links as notable, but if you want to include them as ill links I won't object. Glrx (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly, my apologies for the lateness of this reply.
 * I appreciate you haven't changed your position; the purpose of my reply over there was to point out our position is contradictory. You cannot argue that HK and BH are non-notable on the en WP (which would suggest using plain text and an inline link) while at the same time insisting the Ill template be used (which would of necessity create a redlink) Nor can you reasonably reject adding useful information (to an encyclopaedia!) that has been requested, because you personally object to the formats (neither of which has any absolute prohibition in the guidelines) to be used.
 * So, do you have a better way of presenting this information (one that achieves what I was intending, while at the same time ticking all your own boxes), or are you prepared to accept a remedy that is good enough, in the absence of that something better.
 * Otherwise it feels like you are simply reserving the right to object at a later stage, and I would like to resolve this matter as amicably as possible. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm lost.
 * I don't think the topics are notable on en:WP, so they don't need links. The article explains Bureau Ha as an intelligence front. Herrenklub seems unimportant to the Lucy article.
 * I don't do much editing on de:WP, but
 * de:WP has found that Deutscher Herrenklub is notable enough for an article.
 * de:WP has not yet found that Bureau Ha is notable enough for an article.
 * Consequently, I'm for no links. I don't see the links as additions of "useful information" but rather links to irrelevant details in a foreigh language. Encyclopedias are not intended to include all knowledge.
 * You don't place either topic high on notabily and seem to accept ill: "As for the Herren Klub, I wouldn't have rated it any more notable than BH, (and if there's one thing the en WP doesn't need it's yet another article on another bunch of Nazis) but if we are going to redlink it I would favour the format you used above".
 * Glrx (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So, here we are again.
 * Allow me to recap: I want to put a couple of links into this article, in order to "increase readers understanding of the topic at hand" and to "help the reader find related information", and because the terms in question are "proper names that are unlikely to be familiar to readers". And as there is no appropriate article on the en WP, I intended to use an interwiki link to somewhere that does have the information (in this case the de WP). These could be inline links (viz Herren Klub (de), Bureau Ha (de) [or Bureau Ha (de), using the redirect there]) which you have reverted before; or we could use the Ill template, which you suggested (viz, [or ]) but have now objected to, though none of them are prohibited.
 * I've also wanted to remove the link currently in the article as a pipe from Bureau Ha (per WP:EGG), as the piped article (Swiss intelligence agencies) has not, and won't have, any mention of the Bureau; You've insisted on keeping it, despite your stated objection to EASTEREGGs.
 * I have also asked you for suggestions on how to link in a way that you don't object to; your only suggestion was not to have any links at all.
 * So, do these objections of yours extend to an intent to revert any of these links if they are put in? Because if so, we will need to get a third opinion, to resolve this (and I cannot believe this issue is having to go the full 15 rounds and then to a judges decision!) Xyl 54 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I had to go back and reread the article.
 * By and large, Deutsche Herrenklub and Bureau Ha are irrelevant to the Lucy spy ring. The article seems to mislead when it suggests that Rudolf Roessler ran Lucy. Roessler was a mailman selected by Thiele and others to disseminate the information. Roessler was not recruiting agents in Germany or elsewhere. Thiele, Gersdorf, Fellgiebel, or others were running Lucy. Rado was running a Soviet ring and hooked up with Roessler, but it's not clear whether Rado was an open intel officer (Switzerland was full of them) or clandestine. It also sounds like the British used Roessler as a mailman to reach Rado.
 * None of that makes DH or BH interesting. Maybe the principals of Lucy knew each other through DH, but Lucy is still a well-kept secret, so we don't know. Roessler's ties to BH/Swiss Intell would mean that the Swiss got copies of the information, but the article suggests they were passing it to the British. Maybe the Swiss also passed stuff to the Germans.
 * Lucy's known successes helped the Soviets more than the British or the Swiss.
 * I still oppose links to foreigh language wikis. The foreign targets do not offer insight into Lucy. DH is all over the map. Hitler met principals in private but denounced in public. DH seemed to be against Marxism but Lucy benefitted the USSR. The article used a friend as a cutout to Bureau Ha. The German article on Masson does not mention BH. Masson was head of Swiss Military Intelligence during WWII, he was getting Lucy's output, so the details of the Roessler to Masson link is a minor detail. The de.WP article on Roessler equates Swiss Military Intelligence to BH and is done with it.  BH was run by Hausamann, but Hausamann is not mentioned in the current article. The de.WP for Hausamann just labels Bureau Ha as a conduit, so it is not more informative than the current en.WP article.  Masson, Hausamann, and BH were just conduits for Lucy's information.
 * You are welcome to open a 3O, but please get a good idea of what the de.WP articles say so you can tell people why the links would be important.
 * Glrx (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And again!
 * I see you have re-read the article, though if you think
 * .a) Roessler was simply the mailman
 * .b) Lucy was a British op to pass information to the Soviets
 * .c) the Swiss were passing Lucy product back to the Germans
 * then I suggest you read it again. (tho' if the article says Roessler was running Lucy in Germany then that needs changing, but I didn't put that there; I only re-wrote the History section. It's also incorrect that Roessler worked for Masson at Bureau Ha; that's been added since)
 * And there may be a lot of stuff we don't know, but what we do know is there, and is well-documented in reliable sources.  If you disagree, I would suggest you find some sources that say different.
 * Also, you can dismiss the detail as minor if you like; all details are minor if you have no interest in a subject.
 * As for getting a good idea of what the de articles say, I'm well aware of that. And I've already said why I want to put the links in; there is (marginally) more information there than there is here, and more than needs to be added to this article. Contariwise, are you clear your objection isn't simply a case of not liking something?
 * Anyway the 3O request is in now, if you care to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)