User talk:Light current/archive3

A look over please
Hi Lightcurrent, I rewrote a couple of topics Spark-gap transmitter and Crystal radio receiver as I found the previous efforts not up to standards. Will you please cast an eye over my work for any glaring errors. Thanks. --DV8 2XL 17:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes will do. Thanks for asking me! i will edit them as I see fit. If you disagree, please revert me!--Light current 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Great work! This is what I love about collegial writing. The polish you applied to my efforts has raised the quality up another notch from the level that I brought it up to. --DV8 2XL 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I still have a little bit left to do yet!--Light current 12:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Article v talk edits
Just a bit of friendly advice :-) You are doing too many article edits without discussing them first.--Light current 01:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Which edits are you referring to? &#126;MDD4696 01:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your latest ones


 * I'm still not sure which ones you are referring to. Are you talking about the articles I nominated for deletion, my work to orphan the backlink template, or my vandalism reverts? If you are talking about the backlink orphaning, the issue had already been discussed on its TfD. &#126;MDD4696 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You are a little hasty on the backling deletions methinks and on nominating my article for deletion!


 * I believe that the backlink removals were justified given the outcome of its TfD, and Zzyzx11's comment at Templates for deletion/Log. I'm reconsidering the AfD now, but I may leave it up there just to generate some opinions or activity on that article (I'm still not convinced that it really needs its own article, although now I see how it might). I noticed the Immediatism link on your user page, so I'm sure you understand what viewpoint I took when I nominated it. &#126;MDD4696 02:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but Im not as immediatist as I was!

Re: Thermal management etc
I really can't see your reasons for wanting to delete this page. Can you explain please? Also, can you indicate where you would include such issues if the page were to be deleted?--Light current 01:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As it stands, I don't think the article covers enough material to be seperate from the Electronics page. Also, everything in the article is already described in detail on numerous other pages. So it seems to me that the topics it covers would be better served by a concise paragraph in the Electronics article, with inline links to the different types of cooling. If Thermal management of electronic devices and systems could be significantly expanded, then you should make that point on the article's AfD.


 * My reasoning was outlined on the article's AfD. If you are unfamiliar with AfD, there's a lot of information at WP:AFD and Deletion policy that describes the process. I've copied your comment from the article's talk page to the actual AfD. Please consider expanding your comment so that others who are unfamiliar with the subject can make more informed votes. You could also change it to a Keep or Rewrite. &#126;MDD4696 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well of course the article could be expanded. THis is just the start. A whole book could be written on the subject. Electronics page is overcrowded as it is and would not benefit from futher swelling. --Light current 01:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Signing Comments
It can lead to retribution, but not all that frequently. I've reverted around three to four thousand vandalisms and have had my user page vandalized less than 20 times. Signing is important because it gives other editors who warn the same user more information about the user's history. The time stamp in particular is very important, to make sure that you're not warning someone who hasn't vandalized since thier last warning. And an IP who really wants to know who reverted him or her can find out pretty easily. -- Vary | Talk 16:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Carrier generation and recombination
moved to talk:Carrier generation and recombination

Alcoholism
moved to talk:alcoholism

Displacement current et al
LC, I’m not sure I have to ability to interject into all of these conversations. I’ll perform the experiment and hopefully reasonably illustrate the issue. These polarization and displacement current issues are tied to my area of research at the moment, and I felt it would be nice to update these articles. I’m not nearly adept enough of a multitasker, so I’ll have to debate the other issues (Poynting vector, etc.) another time. Mak17f 05:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK I was just giving you a background in why current into the leads is not the same as current thro the vacuum. I wasnt expecting you to reply to all these things. If youre happy to continue, then good luck!

I'm a Wikipedia newbie, do you know of an appropriate place to put a pdf or doc of my results? I'd rather not host it on my website. I can even post a csv file with the traces from my diagnostics.Mak17f 15:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if it was in an image format (jpg), you could upload it as a file. Click on upload file in the special pages menu. Otherwise I ll try to find out.

Thanks for sorting out the talk page; it was getting jumbled. I am getting busy now, and won't be able to devote the time to debate all the issues that are arrising with the topic, but will make it a point to add at least once a day. Thank you for keeping an open mind on the issue, and I will do the same Mak17f 16:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

List of unions in Dorset
I have reverted your copy-and-paste page move of that article. Please see Help:Moving a page on how to move a page correctly without loosing the editing history of that page. andy 17:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Clamper
You changed the definition of a clamper to "... that prevents an input waveform from exceeding a certain defined magnitude.". I learned that a clamper can, for example, shift an 8V peak-to-peak waveform centered at zero, to an 8V peak-to-peak waveform centered somewhere else. The new definition doesn't fit this. Am I confused, or is the definition not correct now? Fresheneesz 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Only if you follow the clamper by a capacitor or other level shifter. See my comment on the talk page--Light current 22:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Pathology
moved to talk:pathology

Root page
moved to talk:Root page

Electromotive force
Okay, I am going to take a break from this nonesense for a while. Take a look at what I have done on the discussion page for emf. I think we can reach common ground (no pun intended) and achieve a deeper understanding if we can agree on a consistent set of definitions, and then apply Maxwell's equations. Let me know what you think. -- Metacomet 00:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree we may be well on the way to common understanding. Its just that we must be careful not to discard these early important ideas which were created for a particular purpose by some very clever scientists!

What's gravity got to do with it?
RE: Printed circuit board

Hot air doesn't rise without gravity -- so convection cooling doesn't work without it.

So it just stays where it is even if it has more bouyancy than the cooler air?

hub page
You do realize that the word link doesn't make much sense after I have printed out an article? —Ruud 17:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What??

Badass
Your article Badass has appeared in the Dead End Pages list because it is not wikified. Please consult the Wikipedia Guide to Layout for more information on how to write a good, wikified article. I would encourage you to revisit your submissions and them. Thanks and happy editing! James084 16:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Slight amendments done.

Image copyright problem with Image:KN2KrytronTube-large.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KN2KrytronTube-large.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 13:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The image I uploaded was purely an enlargement of the original image on the page. How does this NOW create a copyright problem?--Light current 00:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Messed up Afd's
Hey, you seem to need to brush up on your use of the Afd process. Scanning through some of your past Afd's, you were about 0 for 7 in getting the process right. I even db'ed one of them because it had no content. When you do afd1, the template actually contains the steps. Just hit the little "Show" link in the bottom right, and you'll see all three steps with even the name of the article filled in for you. I fixed two of your open ones where you messed up step 2 and didn't do step 3 at all. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah -sorry. I was still learning at the time--Light current 19:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your WIKI break!
Come back soon! BTW, it worries me that you keep editing your message "IM NOW ON A WELL DESERVED WIKI BREAK" while you are on it. (-; Lumière 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No Im just tidying thigs up! Im off tomorrow (Sunday). See You soon.!

Jesus
My edit summary mentioned only Christian beliefs because I thought I was only reverting your first edit. I didn't realize that you had a second edit prior to my edit. That is why my edit summary (and my revert) dealt exclusively with Christian beliefs. Pepsidrinka 03:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I hope my total edits meet with your approval. Its only a randonm edit on my part. THe page is not on my watchlist.

Verifiability
move to Wikipedia talk:verifiability

Electricity article
RexNL. Why did you remove the hub page expalnation at the top of the page?

Inaccuracies in reasons for blocking
WP:Verifiability It has been stated by my violation reporter User:Jayjg in his reasons for reporting that: ''His (LCs)attempts to reverse longstanding and fundamental policy have been reverted by four separate editors (and counting). After making 3 simple reverts, started gaming the system by making complex and sometimes nonsense reverts. Has been warned about reverting and complex reverting [24], but continues to revert.'' This is inaccurate in that: Since this wording at the top of this page has been the subject of multiple revetrs between Admins over the last few days, I do find it quite hypocritical of these people to critisise me and block me for doing a normal editing job on this page. This shows inconsistency between what Jayjg said and what he subsequently did.
 * The word's not truth as in the version in question are certainly not 'longstanding' having been added only in the last few days by SlimVirgin without such a major change even being mentioned in the edit summary let alone it being discussed! summary . THese words have been slipped in under the wire without anyone but me apparently even noticing. I therfore claim that this statement is complete nonsense.
 * I performed 2 simple reverts and then attempted to achieve compromise in the wording. My last revert was slightly frivolous and I apologise for that one.
 * None of my reverts was nonsense (ie thay all made grammatical and logical sense)
 * My warning about reversion was heeded by me yet I was still blocked.I could not self revert as asked as someone else had already reverted.


 * Perhaps you should re-examine the evidence:
 * The phrase "verifiability, not truth", has been in the policy since at least August 2005, a period of many months, not "the last few days"; see here:

THe words not truth were : In previous versions. Anyway a few months can hardly be considered to be longstanding. The old version you linked is far milder in this repect and does not convey to me the impression that truth can be thrown out of the window. The new version implies a total disregard for the truth. Im sure others will read it that way too, when they see it!.
 * a) not at the top of the page
 * b) not in bold

Moreover, it was moved into this policy page from the WP:NOR policy page, where it had existed quite happily for many months before that.

If its on the NOR page how do you expect peole interested in verifyability to become quickly aware of it?


 * You reverted at least 5 times, by removing the phrase "not truth", which is the phrase you objected to. The WP:3RR rule anticipates the kind of "gaming" you were doing (using slightly different phrasing each time), and says it counts as reverting: "Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part, or that add something new. Use common sense."

You interpret my actions as gaming the system, but these were ligitmate attempts (aprt from the last one) at offering some alternative words that would be accepted by other editors. It seems obvious to me that most of the other editors involved and yourself were unwilling to discuss this policy with a relative newcomer and thought to try to ignore me.
 * I didn't "do" anything to you; you were blocked by another admin, not me. Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You reported me after I had heeded your warning! So why bother persuade me to self revert if you were going to report me anyway?

Unfair blocking
I believe I have been subjected to an over zealous application of the 3RR in order to prevent me from continued discussions on WP:verifiability.

The additional words not truth right at the top of the page have only just been added in the past few days and, until recently, the policy appeared to me (at a cursory glance), to be reasonable.

It is interesting to note that an edit war has been occuring on that page between User:SlimVirgin and User:Jossi. I havent counted the reversions, but surely this sort of behaviour is not acceptaable from Administrators! It seems that I as an innocent User, trying to restore some sort of sense to the page have been unjustly blocked for my troubles. I suppose they would call this collateral damage or friendly fire?

In addition, User:Jossi has displayed a hostile reaction to my talk on the talk page that is completely inappropriate to the actions of an Administrator. He is now continuing this behavior toward User:Lumiere apparently because he disgarees with Lumiere's views as well as mine. What sort of community is it where bullying and abuse of users is tolerated?

Administrators have a responsibility to act not only within the letter of the rules but also within their spirit. In this case I feel the spirit hasd been breached, yet someone whose heart is in the right place (me) has been punished for no good reason.

Lumiere
AS you can see I have been blocked from editing for 24 hrs. Im not sure why exactly or who was responsible for reporting me. But I can guess.. I dont know if you can leave massages here. If so we can continue our discussion here. --Light current 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you see any parallels to verifyability here??
I know little enough about physics that I can't say anything meaningful about these particulars, but I would say

should patch these up or rewrite them so they aren't nonsenese
 * (a) if those are valid concepts about which we need an article, we

have an article about them, identifying them *as* ideas that are completely rejected by the consensus of leading scientists or NPOV verbiage to that effect
 * (b) if those are *known* and *popular* crackpot ideas, then we should

by one anonymous crank, then after some time on 'votes for deletion' they should just be deleted, not for being false, but for failing the test of confirmability.
 * (c) if those are *individualized* crackpot ideas, i.e. stuff made up

--Jimbo

WP:3rr violation on Verifiability
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Light_current --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  05:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Provided a critic to your last rule
Just to inform you that I have a critc of your last proposal in the talk page of verifiability. --Lumière 04:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you- Im watching that page and Ill get round to your post as soon as I can. Im answering many editors all at once at the moment!--Light current 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are a busy person! --Lumière 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A little busier than normal! But I brought it on myself didnt I? ;-)--Light current 04:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

3 RR warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 01:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this 3RR warning is not justified. There was no real problem. --Lumière 04:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

THanks for your support! (The only one)--Light current 04:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I only reverted back to the same thing twice- after that I attempted compromise wording.

You have violated WP:3RR
Your complex revert at WP:V has violated the three-revert-rule. Complex reverts count towards the revert number. Please revert yourself now, otherwise you might end up being blocked from editing. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not violated 3RR. I have done 2 reverts. Other mods have been changes to try to reach compromise wording.--Light current 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The changes you are making are clearly complex reverts designed to game the system, and the policy covers those as well. Your views are diametrically opposed to those of other Wikipedians, and existing policy, and your "compromises" are just different ways of stating your own view. Please stop trying to reverse longstanding policy by edit-warring it onto the policy page. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was trying to provoke discussion on this totally erroneous policy. I have succeeded! Thanks for your help!--Light current 00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How does one alter a long standing and well entrenched but erroneous policy statement?

Wiki Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ragib 06:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Please put your post at the top -- this is my scratchpad area

 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 06:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ias-comp2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Ias-comp2.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sue Anne 06:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)