User talk:Ludwig Boltzmann

Gerber format
I have replied to you at User talk:Dgtsyb  Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi Karloman2, this edit should not really have been marked as minor. Minor edits are reserved for correction of spelling/typo/punctuation errors etc. Addition or removal of text should not normally be marked minor even if you believe it to be uncontroversial. Thanks,  Spinning Spark  20:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Spinningspark, I did not remove the sentence, I moved it unchanged into the first paragraph. (IMHO it deserves that prominence, and the text flows better if it is there.) Does this qualify as a minor edit? Karloman2 (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, my mistake, I had not noticed that you had merely moved the sentence. In either case, I do not actually disagree with the edit.  Spinning  Spark  19:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem.Karloman2 (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Faster and cheaper
Why do you seem to think that automated manufacturing and assembly does not make products faster to manufacture?  Spinning Spark  20:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, to be honest, my main concern for the edit was style. The previous sentence was awkward. Admittedly, I wrote it. Apart from that, I do not think PCB do not make for faster fabrication, but neither do I know the contrary. If I want something fast, I may not make a PCB. It is anyhow an unreferenced statement. That PCB manufacturing is cheaper I know. I tried to make a better sentence by omitting an uncertain and unreferenced assertion, and an assertion that is not essential for a summary. IMHO. The salient fact about PCB's is that everyone uses them because they are cheaper and more reliable. This was the rationale.

Something else. I saw your question if PCB's are really more expensive to design. This statement also bothered me. It is unreferenced, not generally obvious to people active in this feild, and maybe not true. I suggest to remove it altogether. Karloman2 (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's strange that you will accept that pcbs are cheaper without a reference but not that they are faster. They are cheaper because they are less labour intensive to assemble.  They are faster to assemble for exactly the same reason.  I would have thought that the latter is somewhat more obvious than the former, certainly to anyone who has actually assembled circuits.  I would also strongly dispute that pcbs are more reliable; they are prone to a number of failure modes that are just not possible in point-to-point wiring.
 * Up to about the 1980s pcb design required laying out the track pattern manually with black crepe sticky tape at a 4:1 scale, then photographically reducing it to produce the photoresist mask. This was a significant design overhead beyond other design tasks common to other assembly methods.  However, nobody designs pcbs like that any more and in all probability designing a pcb is now cheaper than designing a point-to-point unit.  Hard to say for sure since there is not much in the way of mass-produced electronics that isn't pcb to compare it to.  Spinning  Spark  03:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More reliable. These are not my words, this was already there. I have no statistics. As this is not certain and not referenced maybe someone should throw it out. More expensive to design.Again, these are not my words, and they bother me too. Maybe better removed.  Faster  Well, I do not say PCB are not faster. I just removed the statement that they are faster, because it is IMHO superfluous as subsumed in cheaper. Moreover, point to point is probably the fastest way to get to a prototype, but slow for series. I think a solution would be to replace all this with words to the following effect: PCBs carry a start-up cost in design and manufacturing. Once set up they can be manufactured and assembled automatically. Products are then cheaper to manufacture.    (This is not referenced either, but generally accepted by practicioners. I dont have the time now to look for references; frightfully busy; I actually have time for none of this, alas )-:Karloman2 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Faster does not always mean cheaper and I think it should stay in. Gold wire can be drawn faster than copper wire but that really does not make it cheaper.  I don't agree that the essence of pcb cheapness is that they can be assembled automatically - small runs are often assembled by hand but pcbs still have the advantage.  When wire-wrap was in vogue there existed automatic wire-wrapping machines  and pick and place automation of component placement is just as easy to implement in that technology as pcbs.  With modern CAM, automated assembly using soldered wires is quite possible if we wished to regress to that technology, and doubtless does occur here and there for the odd wire that can't go on a pcb.  No, the fundamental advantage of pcbs is that all the wiring is done at once, in one process, and additionally is firmly fixed and can't be screwed up by the dumb operator if manual assembly is being used (of course, the operator is still at liberty to screw up many other aspects of the assembly).
 * As I said above, I don't agree (or at least am not sure) that the start-up costs are greater than soldered wires. There is, as you say, an advantage in prototyping because one can go straight from circuit design to prototyping, but for a consumer design and mass production just as much effort would need to go into the soldered wire design as the pcb.  There needs to be drawings of wiring runs showing routes, lacing and tie points as well as the point-to-point matrix.  All that will burn up CAD hours with drawings that cannot generally be automatically produced whereas pcb trace layout is nowadays semi-automatic from the input data (components, wiring matrix and physical constraints).  Good chance that the soldered wire design will actually be more expensive on your design team costs.  Spinning  Spark  18:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try and write something in the article.  Spinning Spark  18:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is much better now. A great improvement. Would you mind a few small edits to make it shorter?Karloman2 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In principle, of course not, but you haven't said what you are going to change so I won't know if I object until you change it.  Spinning Spark  22:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Excellon format, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Via. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. It was indeed unintentional. Thanks for pointing this out. It is corrected now.Karloman2 (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerber format, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barco. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is fixed now. Karloman2 (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

External Links in Gerber format
Hi, Ludwig Boltzmann. You've added a link to the External Links section of Gerber format that does not meet WP:EL/WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. We don't include multiple external links to the multiple pages on the same site (ELPOINTS #4). Luckily, there is a huge icon with a link to the reference viewer on the Official Website already linked from the article. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Stesmo, I don't think it violates the guidelines as the viewer and the official site are not the same site. They are different url's, although both sites seems to be run by Ucamco. That is why I restored the link. (There may be a link from the website to the viewer, but that does not make it the same site.)Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ludwig. You are correct. Ucamco runs both of the sites. Instead of making the site www.ucamco.com/gerber, they made the reference at gerber.ucamco.com. It is 100% the same company site, just as it would be if it was ucamco.com/gerber or ucamco.com/reference, and it runs afoul of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Additionally, the link is already linked from the Official website that remains, making it unnecessary. Stesmo (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Stesmo, I see your point, but I am of another opinion. Both sites are run by Ucamco, but they are not the same sites; totally different urls and IP addresses. Why that is I don't know. So clearly, they are two different official websites. Now the question is if this warrants two links. This is a matter of judgement. From the guideline: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content ..." It is clear that the viewer provides valuable content that is not available from the main Ucamco site. The question is now if the link invalidates this.  I think not: I had overlooked the link because it is grey and shoved on the side, and it is one link in a very complicated website with lots of information; not obvious at all. More importantly, a viewer is very important, maybe more important then the spec and the other Gerber stuff on the Ucamco website - this is probably why Ucamco put it on a separate website - and it is far from obvious from the wiki article that Ucamco does provide a viewer. Well worth the very small overhead of a second link. It is not quite that a second link terribly clutters the article. The article is more useful with the explicit link. Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, no objections, I think I can restore the link to the viewer. All the other cleanups by Stesmo remain in place of course.Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

External Links in Gerber format
I've removed the external links again from Gerber format, as they *still* don't meet WP:EL. For the exact same reasons as last year, even. Stesmo (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you concerning the link to the spec, which runs of the same website. However I disagree concerning the viewer, which runs of another website. The fact that they cross-link is neither here nor there, plenty of sites link to plenty of other sites. And the viewer does not link to the website, it is clearly intended as a dedicated application. Furthermore, WP:EL is a fine guideline, but one must look at the practical effect. The existence of a specification is obvious, and a logical place to look is the official website - a dedicated link does not bring much. However, the existence of an official viewer is not obvious. An extra link brings vital information to the developer. Removing this link damages the usefulness of the page. I suggest the following, we remove the download link and restore the viewer. I will accept your undo, to avoid an undo war, and add the viewer. Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not here to promote software, and there are plenty of other Gerber viewers around. Pinging .Ludwig Boltzmann, You are very close to wp:3RR. Take care.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is another argument than WP:EL, and it has a lot of merit. There are plenty of Gerber viewers indeed, and probably more functional ones than this one, aimed at interpreting fabrication data. However, this one is the only one giving the official image corresponding with a file - this makes it unique, a valuable resource for software developers, and worthy of a link. This page is less useful without it. You can always mention somewhere that there are plenty of viewers and other Gerber software. It is also mentioned that the site "looks promotional to me". This is very subjective. It does not look promotional to me. I have some arguments. It does not require registration nor payment, it has no publicity that I am aware of, does not obviously links to entice people to go to a commercial website. It does promote what, exactly? It is simply a very useful device. I do not understand why you obstinate to block access to it.Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, no objections, I think I can restore the link to the official viewer.Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your insistence on adding this link to the page does not make it seem less promotional. Rather, quite the opposite. And, promotional links do not require registration or payment. (Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion)
 * Regardless, assuming you had only altruistic motives, your link does not meet WP:EL. 1) That link you just added is a deadlink. No deadlinks allowed in the EL Section. 2) The Gerber viewer is *already linked from the Official site*, which means it should not be added separately since anyone interested enough in Gerber format to visit an external link would also undoubtedly follow through and select the links in that official site. 3) And, it is part of the same domain as official website, which again means it shouldn't be added, as we need only one official link.
 * If you truly wish to have a discussion, you should actually let the involved editors know you are talking to them. Personally, I have ~17,000 pages on my watchlist and it's usually pretty easy for me to miss edits. It was pure luck I noticed you adding a deadlink to Gerber viewer this last time. If you truly want a conversation, there are a couple methods... You could leave a message on the involved editor's talk pages (e.g. via Template:Talkback). The easiest method for me is the one used by, which is a ping like this: and  . They'll be notified and can then join you in conversation. Stesmo (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Actually, my personal page is not the ideal for this conversation. It does not concern me, but the Gerber format. I will continue the conversation on the Gerber format talk page, when I have some time, referring to this conversation. What counts is the consensus that is reached there.Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And now the ping and  Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that the viewer is indeed prominently linked from the official page. (I think this was not the case before.) So you are right, it should not be linked again. I retract my proposal. and Ludwig BoltzmannLudwig Boltzmann (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping! And for the discussion! :) Stesmo (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment FWIW, I do not really have a strong interest in the Gerber article, although I do know how to use the software that creates them. The issue here from my point of view was that we're not here to promote commercial products, and one of the ways we avoid promotion is by not overlinking their products. External links are in general supposed to be fairly minimal-- they are not allowed inline (per WP:MOSand should be used carefully in EL as we saw here. Google is there for those who need to find a piece of software, new shoes or a bolt for their car. Wikipedia is for carefully presented and sourced knowledge summaries, rather than product promotion. I'm glad this was sorted out.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ucamco moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Ucamco, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. noq (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ucamco (November 30)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ucamco and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ucamco, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ucamco Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ucamco reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ucamco
Hello, Ludwig Boltzmann. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ucamco, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)