User talk:Constant314

Magnetic current (flowing magnetic mono-poles), M, creates an electric field, E, in accordance with the left-hand rule.

Archives (Index)

User talk:Constant314/Archive 1 User talk:Constant314/Archive 2 User talk:Constant314/Archive 3 User talk:Constant314/Archive 4 User talk:Constant314/Archive 5 User talk:Constant314/Archive 6 User talk:Constant314/Archive 7

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome...

Hello, Constant314, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Einführung
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! SpinningSpark 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know I had a user page until today. Thanks for the greeting and I apologize for it taking so long.

Telegrapher's Equations and Heaviside Condition

Hi, sorry I don't have an account and hope I'm formatting this correctly. Can we discuss your reversion of my edits on the Telegrapher's equations? I won't quibble over the edits on the Transatlantic Cable page, those were unimportant. But I don't understand why you didn't find the reference and text I added to the Telegrapher's Equation page, clarifying the Heaviside condition, as useful. I added it because I wanted to know what the condition was, and had to dig through primary sources to find it, so I thought I'd save others the trouble.

You said practically no cable is operated under those conditions. But in the past, loading coils or even high permeability magnetic tape or wire wrapped around the core were indeed used to more closely approach the Heaviside condition; see Practical use, and I can dig up more references on the web if you want.

And more to the point, why does the practical application (or not) of this condition in real cables dictate whether this information should be included in the article or not? Right now, if someone reads the Telegrapher's Equations page, there is no information available as to what conditions would allow a lossy line to transmit signals without distortion. Even if this arrangement of line constants hadn't ever been used in practice, wouldn't we want to at least note the condition just for academic interest? Can't we get something on the Telegrapher's Equation page which at least links to the Heaviside Condition from the appropriate place? Thanks, InductorMan

Have a look at this chart for a typical coaxial cable:

The Heaviside condition is G/ωC = R/ωL. That is where the blue curve intersects a red curve. For trans-Atlantic cable using gutta-percha, use the red curve labeled "Med" . To make the blue curve coinside with the red "Med" curve, you would have to increase inductance by 8 orders of magnitude. It isn't practical. If you did you would have a cable that met the Heaviside condition for frequencies below 0.01Hz. It would not be usable for telegraphy. It is true that they did use permalloy loading to increase the inductance, but they never got close to the Heaviside condition. Constant314 (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh that's very interesting, I have never seen the actual parameter values laid out like this.

However I don't really believe this touches on the issue at hand. Don't you think a page on the Telegrapher's Equations which doesn't include the Heaviside condition is incomplete? Not only is it of theoretical interest, but it drove actual design practice.

On the theoretical side, the Telegrapher's equations page is a page about a mathematical approximation. In this context, I still feel that it's important to indicate the Heaviside condition to a reader. Even if this condition is not practically achievable, the whole purpose of Heaviside's work was to identify the sources of dispersion, was it not? The reason that the Telegrapher's Equations exist was because Heaviside was interested in finding conditions under which the impediment to communication caused by dispersion might be addressed, as I understand it. Aren't we obfuscating the ultimate conclusion he reached, if we don't mention the condition he found?

On the practical side, I'm a design engineer myself, so I really do appreciate that you don't want a bunch of mathematically correct but practically useless garbage cluttering up a useful knowledge base like Wikipedia. But I don't think this falls under that heading. I haven't personally acquired a deep understanding of the details of practical transmission line theory (which is why I'm reading about it on Wikipedia), but I do know that people spent money on mu metal tape wrapping. It must have provided some benefit, and while I'm not a historian it seems like this approach was guided by an attempt to reach Heaviside's condition.

It feels like we can achieve both of our goals at the same time. I for one am just always curious what the theoretical answer might be even if the conditions are impractical, and whether approaching that theoretical answer might be useful. I think others might have the same curiosity. It seems like you want to make sure that useless, impractical crud doesn't clutter EE related pages, right?

The lossy section of the Telegrapher's Equations page could link to the Heaviside condition page, with a note that "practically speaking these conditions can't be achieved with actual transmission line materials, although attempts were made to approach them with added inductance provided by a wrapping of magnetic material around the conductor" or something like that. I volunteer to dig up some references to actual loaded transmission lines, and how close they approach (or don't) the Heaviside condition to support this qualification, if that would be helpful.

What do you think?

-InductorMan 157.131.205.57 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see some references regaining loaded cable. You might want to look at [[1]] which has data on the 1928 submarine cable. Particularly look at figure 4, which shows the loading profile. The inductance ranges from 5.6 mH/nm (nm is nautical mile) in the unloaded end sections to 205 mH/nm in the maximally loaded middle section. That is a factor of about 37, or 1.5 orders of magnitude. That is about a factor of a million short of the Heaviside condition. But notice that they increased the inductance toward the middle of the cable. These guys knew what they were doing. They were optimizing the overall dispersion rather than trying to meet the Heaviside condition on particular sections. I don't know what method they used, but I strongly suspect that they used filter theory and treated the sections as lumped elements. Credit is due to the telegrapher's equations for telling them that they can treat the sections as lumped elements.

Here is a plot of the propagation velocity.

Newfoundland-Azores 1928 Submarine Telegraph Cable Estimated Velocity vs. Frequency

You can see that the benefit of the extra inductance is that it flattens out the velocity curve between 10 and 400 Hz which is where the cable operated. It also increased the delay, which was acceptable.

I regard the Heaviside condition as a mathematical curiosity, since L, C, G, and R are all functions of frequency. They also change with the daily temperature cycles. Interestingly, for modern dielectrics, G/ωC converges to the loss tangent of the dielectric for frequencies above about 0.1 Hz. The only way to operate in the Heaviside condition is to make R/ωL approach a constant. Since R already increases as the square root of frequency due to skin effect, you would need an inductance that decreases as the square root of frequency. It really is not feasible.

However, the for data cables, the secret to low dispersion is simple. Just make G/ωC and R/ωL small. In the coax chart above, that means anything above 1 MHz. No one attempts to increase inductance of cables today, because every method of increasing inductance requires some frequency dependent magnetic material and it increases delay. Today, what they are adding is air to the dielectric to make G and C as small as possible which reduces delay and attenuation. Dispersion is handled by adaptive equalization in the receiver.

The bottom line, for me, is pointing people to the Heaviside condition to explain dispersion is like pointing them to a blind alley. Constant314 (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to say I don't agree with this line of reasoning at all. I don't argue your point that uselessly simplified mathematical models are... well, useless. But I don't think it's even necessary to address this question, in order to answer the question of whether the link should be there or not. The link should be there because it's a core theoretical conclusion of the theory which forms the subject matter of the page.

The way I see it, the "Telegrapher's equations" page is a page about a particular mathematical model. And the Heaviside condition not only explains dispersion in this particular mathematical model, it is literally one of the sought-after results which inspired the creation of the telegrapher's equations in the first place. Did it solve the practical problem? I'm learning it did not. But was it one of the main answers which the equations sought to answer? I think so.

If you agree with the above statement, I really would strongly insist that the Heaviside condition should be linked from somewhere in the page, and with whatever kind of disclaimer you think necessary to accompany it. Absolutely let's exactly how practically useful or useless it is: that's even more valuable than just linking the theoretical solution alone. Or better yet let's link some solutions used in practice (which I have to say I'm unqualified to provide).

Obviously this is my subjective opinion. I'm not going to submit another edit if you feel the need to delete all such edits. But I would feel very frustrated to not be able to help others like me who were looking for this particular answer and had quite a lot of trouble finding it.

[edit: oh ps, thanks for the link! I actually found that last night, and skimmed that article! It looked really interesting, I was hoping to find some time to play around with the numbers as I see you already have.]

157.131.205.57 (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Contact me by email and I'll send you a spreadsheet of my guesses with regard to that 1928 cable.

With regard to the other, I think that you are committing synthesis (WP:SYN). That goes like this 1. Adding inductance moves the conditions toward the Heaviside condition, 2. They added inductance, 3. Therefore they were trying to meet the Heaviside condition. Conclusion #3 may be correct, but unless you have a reliable source that says that, then you can't put it in an article. You look at it and it looks like they were trying to achieve the Heaviside condition. I look at it and to me, they were trying to optimize a filter. If they even knew about the Heaviside condition, they had rejected it as being of no useful consequence. Neither statement can be put in the article without a reliable source that says that explicitly. Constant314 (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds interesting, I will email you! I also wanted to ask you how you generated the velocity plot and where you got the data for loss tangent of gutta percha, but maybe that's best done over email. Now, I have to ask, how do I email you? Sorry I'm not really part of the Wikipedia community and don't know where to look for these things.

Regarding the link I want, I have to protest that I am making no such error as synthesis in my core argument. I believe it is you who are making an error with regard to the subject matter of the article in question. I hope this doesn't come across as antagonistic, that's not how I mean it. Bear with me and I'll explain what I mean.

Now, as far as the argument I made about the practical applicability of the Heaviside condition and loading telegraph cable, I admit I absolutely did say that it seemed like the practical addition of inductance might have been guided by the Heaviside condition. I agree that this isn't supported right now (and may be dead wrong), and can't be included in an article without references. This may have been an incorrect inference. We agree on this.

But let's please set aside the question of actual, designed, loaded cables and practical electrical engineering practice. We're required to set these topics aside to decide the question, because these things are not germane to the subject matter of the article. I will just excerpt the introduction of the article to remind us what we're talking about:

Telegrapher's equations

The telegrapher's equations (or just telegraph equations) are a pair of coupled, linear partial differential equations ... The equations come from Oliver Heaviside who developed the transmission line model ... The theory applies to transmission lines of all frequencies including direct current and high-frequency. Originally developed to describe telegraph wires, the theory can ...

Emphasis added. Now obviously I'm being selective here, but I'm trying to make a point. The point is that this is an article about a theoretical model, and I submit that what we are arguing about is whether one of the main mathematical results of the model should be mentioned or not.

Can we agree that this page is a page about a theory? Not about electrical engineering design practices? Or do you disagree with that? If you disagree, then I guess this argument won't go anywhere, and no hard feelings, I guess people have different perspectives.

But if I have convinced you that the page in question simply isn't a page about loading of telegraph cables, or design practice, or what real transmission lines do, and is in fact a page about a particular mathematical model called the Telegrapher's equations, then again I say there should be a link to the Heaviside condition. -InductorMan 157.131.205.57 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I only have time for quick answers right now. I will write more, probably later today. To email, use the blue link on the left that says "Email this user". For information on gutta-percha see [[2]], table 1, specimen #3 in the power factor columns. Note, since G/ωC << R/ωL in the frequency range of interest, exact values of G are important. Constant314 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that we have hit an impasse here. If you want to add the Heaviside condition to the article, you should probably make the case on the article's talk page. Maybe some other editors will agree with you. If you want to talk about the 1928 cable, I would be happy to continue that discussion. Constant314 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for the links, and I agree: we are at an impasse on the article link question. I do think I'll have more questions about the 1928 cable and cables in general, but first I'll need to digest what you've given me so far and get the email correspondence going. Thanks you for the helpful and courteous discussion. 157.131.205.57 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I sent you the spreadsheet. Let's see if the attachment gets through. I meant to point you to this essay: WP:COATRACK. It is not an official guideline, bit a lot of us use it as such.

With regard to courtesy, I believe most editors are courteous, but some of them forget that written words often come out more forcefully than the same words spoken face to face in a friendly voice.

Welcome to Wikipedia! Constant314 (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

KCL

Why is there no derivation given of Kirchhoff's Current Law?

As you all know, Kirchhoff's current law is the main tool used in the design of electronic circuits. Beisenbe (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

KCL was invented before the laws of electromagnetism were worked out. KCL takes no account of total current. It only considers branch current. KCL is essentially obvious. No need to clutter it up with obscure math that does not appear in mainstream textbooks on the topic. Constant314 (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"Electromagnetic charge"

I think your correction to my recent edit on magnetic monopoles rather missed my point. My description of particles having an "electromagnetic charge" was very carefully chosen, because I wasn't just talking about electric charge, but about the greater set of both electric charge (known to exist) and magnetic charge (hypothetical, but on-topic). Changing that to "electric charge" is technically more accurate, but it reduces my point from a specification into a mere restatement (and an overly-hedged one at that, since any unknown particles with electric charges will also be electric monopoles). --71.56.148.29 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Edit: I have a real account now! --Dalek955 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Your edit struck me as odd, but I didn't want to just remove it. All material in Wikipedia must be paraphrased from reliable sources (WP:RS). I haven't seen the term "electromagnetic charge" in any reliable sources. If you have access to reliable sources that talk about "electromagnetic charge" then feel free to cite them and paraphrase what they say about it, if it is relevant to the magnetic monopole article. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia. I look forward to your contributions. Constant314 (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, it's not so much that I think "electromagnetic charge" will appear in any literature (either the paper deals with known forces, in which case it will say "electric charge" because that's the only demonstrated kind, or it deals with magnetic monopoles, in which case it generally glosses over the whole concept) so much as that it was simply the least clunky way to say "either of electric charge or magnetic charge". Most of the other phrasings I can think of seem likely to be factually wrong rather than simply using an "if you will" term. If you know of a good, concise way to say it, please tell me and I'll rephrase. Would "electromagnetically-interacting" work? --Dalek955 (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this any different than saying that there are no known monopoles? Constant314 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That's just it, my point was that there *are* known monopoles, they're just all the electric kind. Anyway, I thought of a better way to fix that sentence, by moving it to a different paragraph with better context. --Dalek955 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I should have been more precise. Is this any different than saying that there are no known magnetic monopoles? Constant314 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Aharonov–Bohm_effect#Monopoles_and_Dirac_strings Gah4 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Gah4. It is not obvious to me what your point is. Constant314 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It is believed by some that quantization of electric charge is due to the existence of magnetic monopoles. You have to know quantum mechanics better than I do, to use it as a proof, though. Gah4 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it has been awhile. As I recall, if you assume the existence of magnetic monopoles and some other stuff thought to be true, then you can deduce that electric charge must be quantified. It is a sufficient, but not necessary condition for quantified electric charge. It doesn't go the other way. Quantified electric charge does not imply the existence of mm(s). Still, it is a tantalizing possible connection. Constant314 (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That is true, but also that there is no other known reason for charge quantization, other than "god said so". Some things have arguments related to a single valued wave function, or other wave function properties. Yes, not necessary but suspicious in any case. And it only takes one to quantize the whole universe! Gah4 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Atomic Clock

I am unsure what you mean by microwaves in ordinary language. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem with microwaves. The phrase you added was "Many caesium atomic clocks measure microwaves". What does it mean that "clocks measure microwaves"? Did you mean to say that these clocks are used to measure some parameter of a microwave, such as frequency? You have been doing some good work. I know a bit about this subject, yet it is not obvious to me what you mean to say. The note needs a bit of polishing, I think. By the way, it may seem like I am picking on you, but I don't mean it that way. I think that you have the potential to be a very valuable Wikipedia editor, so I am following you.Constant314 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I am ready to discuss the blog post. ScientistBuilder (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the talk page of the article. I am sure some of the others will want to join in. Constant314 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

ITER

I am working on atomic clock to bring it to a good article status. I am also hoping to make some contributions to ITER to eventually bring it to good article status. How could I make a Google Drive link reliable if the documents are not elsewhere? ScientistBuilder (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that would ever be possible. We allow a lot of bad practice all over Wikipedia, but you need to avoid that in a good article. Good articles need good, stable, accessible, verifiable documents from reliable sources. There are several problems with Google drive. Most important is the long-term availability of the documents. Also, there is the integrity of the person controlling the google drive content. Did they have permission to copy the materials? Did they modify the materials? Did they attach a computer virus?

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

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

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

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

Keep up the good work. Constant314 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla coil

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

International System of Units Featured Article Nomination

I am working on nominating International System of Units for featured article status. I think its ready, but I don't want to rush. What do you think? ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it is ready, but it is worth the effort. If you nominate it, remember that you are asking the reviewer to do a lot of work who may in turn ask you to do a lot of work. Constant314 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You may wish to contact @Chetvorno:. He is a helpful and easy-going editor who took the negative resistance article to GA status. He may be able to give you insight into the process and the effort. He has been active on Talk:Atomic clock, so you are already in the same room, so to speak. Constant314 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder:Chetvorno is reaching out to you on the atomic clock talk page, but you haven't responded. You are missing an opportunity. Constant314 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I have school work that I'm occupied with in addition to my work on atomic clock. ScientistBuilder (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of Bayes' theorem

Dear Constant314,

You removed twice my mention of the book The Existence of God, on See also in the article Bayes' theorem. I agree with your analysis, however it REALLY IS an elaborate use of BT, so we can mention it. Now i had added "speculative use...". You might add a section on misuse of BT, which might be widespread.

• I think BT cannot be used with fuzzy input, but i don't have a proof, you do? That would be great.

Another well-known misuse of BT - i think - is the cold case analysis in Rosemary Sullivan: The Betrayal of Anne Frank. BT is used to calculate a probability of 0.85 that AF was betrayed to the nazis by an Amsterdam Jewish notary to save his own daughters. The book has been severely criticised in the Netherlands. Again, i think that BT should not be used for speculative use, but i don't have a proof... Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hansmuller: Hi. Thanks for contacting me. One of the things that help make a good encyclopedia article is discretion. Not every peripherally related topic should be part of the article. It is obvious to me that The Existence of God is an example of the misuse of BT. I haven't read the book, but I would expect to see good math with unsupported assumptions about the underlying probability space. It is really more of an example of garbage-in, garbage-out.

Everything we add to the article should be beneficial to the reader. I do not want to blindly lead the reader to an example of misuse and leave him to figure it out for himself. I do not mind leading the reader to such a topic, if the fallacies are clearly discussed within the target article, which is not the case in The Existence of God (book). If that topic is added to the article, then the reader should get notice that it is not an example of good use. If you had added EoG as an example of bad use, i probably would not have given it a second look, but it might get challenged by someone who perceives an anti-theist bias. They might then demand a reliable source that says EoG is an example of bad use. Simply labeling the book as controversial isn't likely to be challenged, but I do not think it gives the reader enough guidance. The problem is that EoG is not a bad example because it misuses the machinery of BT. Rather it is a bad example because it missuses the concept of probability. With regard to BT, the book is just noise.

The bottom line is that I do not see any benefit to the reader of adding The Existence of God (book) to Bayes' theorem without a comprehjensive discussion as to why it is not a good example. Constant314 (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you on the problems with misuse of BT, but want to signal prominent (mis)use on the BT article. I try to start a general discussion on Talk:Bayes'_theorem#Use_and_abuse_of_Bayes'_theorem:_should_we_mention_Swinburne?, where we can continue our discussion. Cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we should have the discussion there where other editors can join in.

Revert

I am wondering why my edits are reverted very often. My edits on linear algebra, specifically Linear equation and System of linear equations have been completely reverted, and many of edits on Atomic clock. I am wondering where I can edit that it won't be reverted within minutes. ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the Wikipedia guide page on why my source by the BIPM was rejected and reverted? I want to understand how to not add sources like this in the future. ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You have a lot more energy than I have, so I cannot personally review all your edits. If you have specific cases, give me the diffs and I will look. Hopefully there was an edit summary. Of course, the best way to find out is to ask the person who did the revert. Collaboration is an important skill here. If you reach out to other editors, you will find that most of them want to help. There are many possible reasons for reverts. Being reverted is just part of the process. Constant314 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Atomic Clock Lead

I am finished with rewriting the lead. I was wondering if you think the rewritten part is better because I don't want the lead to be reverted. ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't expect it to be reverted, but I expect that there will be a lot of changes. That is the way things go. In fact, the lede gets more attention, editing, and squabbling the anything else in most articles. You should really be doing the work down in the body and then summarizing the body in the lede. But a lot of articles stray from that idea. There is a lot of anarchy in Wikipedia. Constant314 (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Photon: Electromagnetic Interaction, Revert 18:31, 22 February 2022‎

Dear Constant314,

thank you for keeping an eye on changes in Wikipedia!
But in particle physcis, photons, to my knowledge, do not interact directly - in the sense of contact (Feynman) diagrams - with each other. I.e. they do not interact electromagnetically since they themselves constitute the electromagnetic interaction.
I'm looking forward to discussing this topic further in the Talk section!

--DakiwipieRuse (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, they do interact at high energy. See Two-photon physics. But even if they did not, that hyperlink is there for the convenience of the reader. The photon is part of the electromagnetic interaction. Constant314 (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Atomic Clock Organization Proposal

I have proposed a simple way to organize the many subsections to the atomic clock article. I want to start working on this once there is consensus. ScientistBuilder (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not see anything to object to. Just keep using edit summaries. Constant314 (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Benson Distributed List

You got me at Benson distributed list :-) but I guess it was a typo.--Gciriani (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Noise Figure

Hey why are you changing my noise figure modification? This one doesn't make any sense. IF YOU REALLY read the definition and try to understand it.-- 67.194.19.235 21:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.19.235 (talk)

I couldn't parse it. Constant314 (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If you don't like my modification, fine. However just telling you, the definition is completely wrong. It's ratio of the SNR, not noise power. Because you can not cancel output signal and input signal. It's a disgrace this definition is still up there. 67.194.19.235 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Salaam

Hello! Just wondering why this edit ([3]) was flagged by your process? No big deal, but my edit was legitimate and with good intentions. Hope all is well. Red Director (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That was entirely my mistake. I thought that I reverted my revert. Constant314 (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Rosehip neuron

Thank you to support me in rosehip neuron. I agree I am newbie and I have some problems but Mathsci is reverting all my edits. Rosehip neuron is such a proof. Can I add Clinical significance if smith.. mag says it ? Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have edited rosehip neuron. Would you help me to correct grammatical errors if there are. And I have added informations what is in the reference. Pls check it. Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Intelligent boy 13:, @Mathsci: correctly reverted your addition. The source did not contain the material that you added. You may believe and you may be correct that the discovery has "great clinical significance" but you cannot add that to Wikipedia unless the reliable source says explicitly that the discovery has "great clinical significance". That is the way Wikipedia works. That is the way we avoid mistakes. You are making a lot of mistakes that others must correct. I think it would be best if you stopped editing articles and instead proposed edits on the talk pages of those articles. That way you can get specific guidance. Constant314 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Does Endorestiform nucleus belong to cerebellum? Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Skin effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Micrometer. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment on the last revert at Nehemiah Persoff

By the way this <revert> didn't really need to be done either, since most of the vandalism had already been manually reverted by other users (and sadly that revert didn't even tag the vandal's contributions as reverted :/), that's why I had only reverted the last 5 contributions.
So basically what that last revert I linked did was remove a new reference and a cause of death that someone added in the middle of that (even if the reference was plain and not formatted properly) and not, in fact, revert any vandalism. 2804:F14:C060:8A01:49F8:DD91:13DA:F750 (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't tell for sure and wanted to get all the vandalism. That editor was already on his last warning. Any new vandalism will likely result in a report. Constant314 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I just ctrl+f'd the vandal IP and compared the contribution immediately before theirs with the one adding 12k characters after, like so: diff

Turns out they were identical 🤷‍♀️ (and the remaining 2 before that were already tagged reverted).

At any rate, doesn't Twinkle let you preview the edits before you do it? I've never used it, I'm pretty new, not sure if I want to make an account yet. 2804:F14:C060:8A01:49F8:DD91:13DA:F750 (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have twinkle, but I cannot tell you all the features. I guess I'm a hack. Constant314 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for offering help

DJ7BA (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good. Meanwhile I have understood wiki style already better to some degree.

A first result of that (please check that) is a small addition to introduction: "For impedance matching considerations, case suitable coefficients permit evaluation at frequencies of interest, how relatively away an actual or planned design is from optimum impedance match."

Hope that conforms. If not, please explain.

Also please tell me, where best to place the - now much smaller - addition planned, that is going to be roughly like this. (But Sorry, I found no way for math equation or source inserting in talk):

" Coefficients

The suitable coefficient for evaluation of real power transfer between a source and a load is [insert full Orfanidis source here]:

    Source Load Impedance Mismatch Coefficient [later to insert wikilink to the at present still draft only Gamma-SLIM]   |\Gamma{SLIM}| =   \left |\frac {Z_L-{Z_S}^*} {Z_L+Z_S} \right |.

It may be understood as [insert here wikilink to "relative difference"] between actual and optimum currents (= conjugate complex impedances [include wikilink to Maximum power transfer theorem] for best possible real power transfer)

    |\Gamma{SLIM}| =  \left | \frac {I_{opt} - I_{actual}}{I_{opt}} \right |.

The suitable coefficient for evaluation of reflection suppression on a complex impedance terminated, complex characteristic transmission line is [insert wikilink to "Reflection Coefficient"]:

    |\Gamma| = |RC| = \left | \frac {Z_L-Z_S} {Z_L+Z_S} \right |.

It may also be understood as [insert here wikilink to "relative difference"] of actual and optimum currents, but in this case for optimum (= identical impedances for no reflections [insert full Chipman source here])

    \Gamma{SLIM} =   \frac {I_{opt} - I_{actual}}{I_{opt}}.

"

Pictures of two circuits, indicating the quantities used in the equations, are available, but doubling should be avoided.

Is that generally acceptable? Or else, what should be improved?

A final comment:

If your job is improving wiki newcomer's styles: Why not immediately first address them like "I am Constant314. My task is to help newcomers understand wiki style. Just like you, I am not paid for that, but do it purely motivated by the will of improving. My remarks are the result of thousands of newcomers that allowed me to help them. So it is not criticism, but helping. Your contribution is appreciated, but for compliance with wiki rules it needs some improvement ... "

This, instead of plump immediate deleting, could have saved a lot of mutual misunderstanding. Right?

Thanks, DJ7BA

You have made a number of points and i will try to address them all.

• I will be happy to help you, on the talk page, but not in the article until it is very close to acceptable form. We do not need readers to be reading the work in progress when it has significant problems. I do not consider it my task "to help newcomers understand wiki style," however, I will be happy to do that, when asked, as you are doing now. The usual sequence goes like this. You, the newcomer, boldly adds new information in the good faith expectation that it is useful. That is fine. Nobody will get mad. If I review it and it needs a minor fixup, such as grammar, then I might fix it. However in this case, it would take hours and I do not want that sitting there for an unexpecting reader to see it and think that it is a finished product that has been reviewed and agreed upon by several collaborating editors. I simply revert with a edit summary. That is your feedback. If you do not understand or agree with the feedback, the proper action is open a discussion on the talk page, which you did. Kudos for that. You are now getting a lot of help from four very experienced editors that absolutely do understand the material. @Spinningspark: has always been one of the best at helping newcomers. Try to attend to his advice. Beginning in a few hours, I will be mostly unavailable for a couple of weeks and so my involvement will be sporadic. I apologize for that.
• It is OK to express your feelings and frustrations. You can say, for example, "your refusal to agree with me is pissing me off. I have a BSEE degree from XYZ and 3 years of experience and I know what I am talking about." It is not OK to to tell other editors what their intentions are and to impugn their competence. You may respectfully inquire into their intentions and qualifications.
• You enter math on the talk page the same way you enter math in the article. You use LaTex markup like this $\Gamma _{SLIM}$.
• I cannot tell you where to place the new content because the sentence structure and writing is so awkward that I cannot tell what you are trying to say. Notice, that I am only commenting about what you wrote and not about your ability to write.
• It is not OK to say that gamma may be understood as the relative difference between actual and optimum currents because that is not what is usually said. It may be true, but you need a reliable source that says that.
• It is fine to refer to an illustration that is already in the article. Try to use the same symbols that appear in the illustration. It is best if the illustration appears before the material that refers to it, but that is not always possible. Just be sure to identify the illustration sufficiently that the reader knows which one it is. Try not to use expressions like "the third illustration from the top" because that may later change.
• I am in compliance with wiki rules. I do not appreciate being accused of that. If you think other wise, you should cite the rule with a hyperlink. There is no rule about the amount, extent, effectiveness, or timeliness about my participation. Constant314 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Not interested

If you want to keep the delusional version of the Dunning-Kruger story, I've got too much real life to bother fighting with you.

Have it your own way.

I hope you have the wit to laugh at yourself when you finally figure it out.

Note, however, that erasing not merely my entry but all evidence of your having done so is rather against the spirit of Wikipedia's careful record-keeping, isn't it? That's not funny at all.

Cheers,

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

All the evidence is still there. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not the validity of the subject of the article. Constant314 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

None of the evidence was there at the time I wrote, a few minutes after you had removed my very-improving comments for the second time.

So you want me to word my correction as "It would improve the article if you removed it totally, because it's incorrect, and replace it with the actual situation..."? Is that it?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The evidence is available the "View History" tab at the top. You can view any previous version. DKE may have started as a joke, but it is not a joke now. There is continuing research and publication. If you think otherwise, you can propose the article for deletion. If you can find reliable sources that say the subject is a joke (not started as a joke, but is now a joke) then you can propose adding that material to the article. Constant314 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated reverts

Please, explain this revert. What harm does it do to the article to show pick-and-place machine together with reflow oven? Mind you, this is the exact way these machines are used in PCBA production of surface-mount technology. There is no photo of this kind in the article, so I don't understand why you insist on removing this photo. --Amakuha (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There is already a photo. At least it shows the reels. The photo you added could be anything. It is a grey box. Photos should add value to the article. Take it to the talk page and make a case. Constant314 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Chris foy

Why was my correct fact about Chris Foy taken down? Dddn2000 (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Facts in Wikipedia articles need to be established by a reliable source. You added "

Foy is the only referee in Premier league history to send off two Chelsea players in separate matches, against QPR in 2011, where Jose Bosingwa and Didier Drogba were sent off, and in 2014 where Willian and Ramires were sent off."

Your source did not establish that Foy was the only ref to do so. If I missed it, I apologize.

Also, I am not sure whether that fact is notable. Constant314 (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Biot-Savart Law - Field of circular loop.

Hi, I see that you have made a number of contributions to this page. I am working on the magnetic sail article and could not find this important result on Wikipedia and this seemed the most relevant article for placement. I tried to match the notation and style of the other equations in this article.

I restored the sentence you deleted on 29 August, 2022 "Calculation of the off center-line axis magnetic field requires more complex mathematics." adding a citation to Freeland 2015 and a wiki link to elliptic integrals to illustrate the added complexity. I may expand this sub-topic in the future, so if you want to make substantive changes, let us please discuss first.

I understand how Wikipedia allows placement of the section, page and other information within a citation as you edited. When there is a single citation this is a more compact form. However, if there are multiple citations to the same source to different chapters, sections, pages, equations then that method result in an increased number of citations in the References section to the same source, which would make the References section much longer.

Dmcdysan (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for contacting me. I have no problem with the accuracy of the text. I tend to view telling readers what they cannot do with a formula as clutter. We cannot list every wrong way someone might misuse a formula. Why tell them that they cannot use the formula off-axis unless you are going to give them the off-axis formula. It seems sort of smug. Like, "I know something that you don't and I'm not telling you." I don't have strong feelings about it. If you want to keep it, go ahead, but consider giving the reader the rest of the story. Constant314 (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the openstax citation made this comment, it was not my statement. I added a citation that covers the more complex mathematics, not sure if you saw that. It appears that you deleted the elliptic integral equations on Sept 26 2021 that would provide more details. I will need to look at this, align the notation and make any necessary corrections. Including a code example may not be appropriate, but some readers make use of it. Would be better if the code were on a cited website. I copied the deleted equations to my sandbox and put it on my list of things to do to summarize this result with at least the Freeland citation and possibly others. Dmcdysan (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I can see how this calculation could be done for the paper you mention as you summarized. Would be more straightforward to succinctly state the off-axis solution with citation(s) as I described above. Dmcdysan (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are interested in the off-axis, you may find this paper to be of interest.

Mutual Inductance Calculation Between Circular Filaments Arbitrarily Positioned in Space: Alternative to Grover’s Formula by Slobodan Babic, Frédéric Sirois, and Claudio Girardi. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 46, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2010 3591

It is about calculating the mutual inductance between two arbitrary circular coils, but if you let one of the coils be an infinitesimally small test loop, you can calculate the three components of the B filed at any point.

Please, no computer code or scripts etc. Wikipedia is not a how to manual. Seed WP:NOTHOWTO. Constant314 (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the changes you made. ikipedia is not making it easy to undo your changes. Some citations are behind a pay wall another is free. One citation has documented code. Please, let's discuss before you make anymore changes. Thanks. Dmcdysan (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I changed the text to differentiate that each citation contains information related to different aspects of this problem. Does this address your deletions?

The invisible comment is a reminder to myself. In the future if you delete a large block of text that you cut this and put it on the Talk page for that article. Dmcdysan (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dmcdysan:We have a process here called Bold-Revert-Discuss (WP:BRT). Make a bold edit. If someone reverts or removes the edit, discuss it with them before changing it back. Otherwise, you may start an edit war. No harm this time. As a new editor, it is good to reach out to the reverting editor on that editor's talk page, as you are doing now, but before you make a revert. As you become more experienced, the article talk page is better, so that other editors can also engage. I will look at your edits.

When a "fact" in not disputed or controversial, one reliable reference is preferred (a maximum of two). The extra refs are seen as clutter and evidence of past edit-warring. In both cases, I kept the reference that was the most reliable, in my opinion. If the article were ever nominated for good article status, the reviewer would probably cull out the same refs that I removed.

I edit many articles and do not remember edits from more than a few days ago. If you want to discuss a particular edit, then send me a diff. That is just the URL at the top of the page showing the edit. Like this: [[4]].

Hyperphysics is not considered to be a reliable source (WP:RS). The github source is also not reliable. I am dubious about the reliability of the Journal of BIS. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, it just means they do not meet Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source.

Please do not embedded hidden comments referring to other editors. It is considered rude and provocative. If you need to comment about another editor's actions, do it where that editor can see it and respond. A talk page is the place. but use the ping template that I used at the beginning of this reply to give that editor notice. You do not need to ping me on my own talk page, because I get a banner on the top of my watch page. If you post on the talk page of an editor that has not been active, you may want to ping them.

Please to not include links to offline calculators and code because we cannot vet them. I know that you are trying to be helpful, but that is not considered encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a code directory. You might want to review WP:NOT in general and WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTDIRECTORY in particular. Constant314 (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Constant314,

Yes, I am relatively new editor. Thank you for explaining the Wikipedia process and conventions. It was my intent to help move the article past Start status and add to Wikipedia an important practical example of the Biot-Savart law. I apologize if the note to myself offended you. It appears to be gone in the latest revision: if it is not, please delete it. I have a note to myself in my Sandbox to add back in the relevant equations summarizing the 1 or 2 reliable sources that will be cited.

Thank you for agreeing to look at my edits. Based upon the definition of a Reliable Source provided and your note I am ok deleting the github, hyperphysics and on-line calculator citations.

I have a few questions that an answer from you would help me.

• Bold-Revert-Discuss: the link you provided went someplace not related to this topic (BRT vs BRD?). Did you mean this Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? I will follow this in the future.
• Regarding Journal of BIS, not sure if it meets all of the Reliable Source criteria. There is a Wikipedia page Journal of the British Interplanetary Society and it appears to meet at least some of the criteria. In my opinion, this is a very important reference that provides a lot of good information specific to the magnetic sail - there is a citation to this paper there. It is behind a pay wall, like other publication sources such as IEEE and AIAA, that I assume are reliable. My intent was to also provide a "free" link, such as the NASA paper and for the off-axis case although old (2001), it appears accurate.
• For WP-NOT would your suggestion "let one of the coils be an infinitesimally small test loop, you can calculate the three components of the B field at any point" from the IEEE paper "Mutual Inductance Calculation Between Circular Filaments Arbitrarily Positioned in Space: Alternative to Grover’s Formula" not be considered "original research?" If it yielded the same equation as another citation? If it resulted in a different equation? I have seen some Wikipedia pages that have in some cases lengthy derivations that go beyond the citation(s). This is a grey area for me and any insight you could share would be appreciated.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me and provide the links.

Regards,

Dmcdysan

PS - I have done a lot of work revising and augmenting the magnetic sail article over the past few months. It am nearly complete filling out the outline I proposed on its Talk page a few months ago. I copied any prior text that I deleted or modified to the Talk page with an explanation. Please give me some time to complete it and make another pass to ensure conformance to the guidelines from the links that you provided before you review it. Dmcdysan (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean WP:BRD. The fingers don't always type what the brain tells them to type.

I think JBIS is probably OK, especially for non-disputed facts. The important thing is to have an editorial staff that gives the publications a second look. Anything called a blog usually fails on this basis.

The stuff on mutual inductance would be WP:OR. I only meant it for your interest. Constant314 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Heaviside made electrical reactance popular

Here is my reference that Heaviside made electrical reactance popular: "Heaviside was an English self-taught mathematician and physicist who brought complex numbers to circuit analysis" Oliver Heaviside K00la1dx (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That is possible a quote. To evaluate its correctness, we need to know the source of the quote. When we ask for a reference, we are asking for enough information to check the source ourselves. That lets us verify that (1) you correctly interpreted the source and (2) the source is reliable. Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable sources for all the information in the articles. Constant314 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

On Reactance: I provided a secondary source (a reliable website), a primary source (Heaviside's electromagnetic theory), and Wikipedia's own article on Oliver Heaviside. You won't see any articles wrote in the IEEE, and here is why: The folks at such "credible" places, saw how Cambridge University slandered and disowned Olive Heaviside.

Is that your "good faith" you pretend to be an open website on information but in fact the real principle of what information gets posted: "might makes right." above truth. Many people know Heaviside coined the term reactance, not the French. And Heaviside made popular and simplified some complicated mathematics to make Reactance a popular term. I am not a professional researcher. I don't know what kind of source you are looking for. Please find it for me and post it in the Reactance article. K00la1dx (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Heaviside got poor treatment by his contemporaries. Yes, he deserves recognition. I admire him, especially his contributions to vector calculus. We have an article about him. Actually, you do see articles about Heaviside in the Proceedings of the IEEE. I even have a couple ripped out and thrown in a folder somewhere.

Let's look at your references:

• Wikipedia: It is not reliable. It is written by people like you and me. We have no credibility. See WP:NOTSOURCE, Wikipedia:Academic use. Here at Wikipedia, we do not use Wikipedia as a source because of the danger of creating self-sustaining fake facts.
• Secondary source (a reliable website): It is not a reliable source. It is a blog. Its purpose is to sell product and not to disseminate reliable information. It could be a reliable source for claims made by that source about products that they sell, but not general information. Wikipedia is full of misinformation. Here on the STEM articles, the concerned editors are more discerning.
• a primary source (Heaviside's electromagnetic theory): It is a reliable source for what Heaviside wrote, but it only establishes that Heaviside mentioned the word "reactance" and not that he coined it. Heaviside is also a reliable source for the fact that he said he got the term from the French. QED, by his own words, he did not coin the term.

I cannot find the source that you are looking for because by Heaviside's own words, he did not coin the term.

I do share your frustration. There are a lot of facts that I know that I would like to post, but I do not because I cannot find a reliable source. I wish I had easy access to a good university library, but I don't. That is how the good articles on Wikipedia work. No facts without a reliable source, even if it means that true facts are left out. Constant314 (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge University wrote slander about Heaviside. That is why these so called credible sources won't write about it. They are intimidated. The way this whole organ works, it is a complete jargon for misinformation. K00la1dx (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That is irrelevant for Wikipedia. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Constant314 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

What you need to know is the history:

1. Heaviside wrote ground breaking mathematical techniques

2. Cambridge University used slander to bash Heaviside

3. Heaviside continued to write in secondary journals.

4. It eventually got word in France, where the idea of creating new norms (and words) struck heart

5. Heaviside credited the French who were listening to him, rather than try to argue against Cambridge

6. Heaviside further developed the ideas coming from France to make it easier to the average joe.

(This is what led to the verbiage in the electrical reactance article) K00la1dx (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I found a reliable source that credits Stienmetz to Heaviside and thus Heaviside to reactance. It is on page 232 of The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside by Basil Mahon.

I am having trouble with the wikipedia editing tool. Can you please add it for me? K00la1dx (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Spinningspark:You need to make that request on the talk page of the article. You need to say exactly where you want to add a reference. Also, you are making an inference. Unless the source explicitly says Heaviside is credited with reactance, then you cannot use that source as a reference for crediting Heaviside with reactance. This has been explained to you before. Finally, this case is so contentious, that I would not add the reference unless I could see for myself exactly what the source said. Constant314 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I talked to the man who runs a website crediting Heaviside to reactance. He said that Stienmetz greatly referenced Heaviside in his creation of complex numbers being used in circuit analysis, and it is in the book, "The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside." K00la1dx (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That is hearsay. WP cannot accept hearsay as a reliable source. Constant314 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Femke: Thank you.

Budgerigar revert

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit to Budgerigar. It is considered inappropriate to use lower-case for the word Indigenous when referring to Indigenous Australians, as can be seen here on the Australian Government's style manual. Could you please reinstate my edit? 159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have approved it now. Constant314 (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for being receptive to my concerns and approving my edit. Hope you have a good day! --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In the future, on these semi-protected pages that require a pending change approval, almost any reasonable explanation will get it approved. I'm just an uninvolved editor with no subject knowledge that is working to reduce the pending changes backlog. Hope you have a good day, too! Constant314 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Early muslim conquests

Even though the edit summary was misleading, this IP was actually restoring content that was previously changed without explanation, and that's the reason why I accepted the revision. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for contacting me. I am new approving pending revisions and am open to advice. In the absence of edit summaries, it was hard to tell what was going on. It looked to me like additional material added without explanation was a good faith attempt to improve the article. The edit I reverted looked like it was leading into an edit war so rather than allowing it, I reverted it for no edit summary. I figured that the IP editor could revert my revert with an edit summary should he or she be so inclined. If there had been almost any kind of reasonable explanation for the removal of content, I would have most likely approved it. Constant314 (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

the forgotten genius of Oliver Heaviside

I bought the book because of how backward the Oliver Heaviside article is on Wikipedia. I also emailed the author of the Website that credits Heaviside to Reactance. He said people on Wikipedia are either stupid or intentionally trying to sway attention away from Heaviside being mentioned in multiple articles. The author also said Heaviside was responsible for Reactance being developed. Steinmetz never really achieved the celebrity status as Heaviside and what he did develop he largely accredited Heaviside's operational calculus. K00la1dx (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Unblock my contributions

The links i mentioned are not trying to spam or promotional purpose. I (Zahoornoman0 (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)) am a Electrical and electronics engineer by profession and i blog the problems of students on my website and i have valuable blogs related to the Wiki articles that i linked to my website in external links. You told me to read external links guidelines i read them already and my contributions are not spam. Don't revert my changes or contributions.

External links must be high quality and must contain unique information that could not be added to the article. Blogs never make the cut. Constant314 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

wes sideman

Hi just a quick note, wes sideman is a vandal and is reverting your edits. He edit wars on a regular basis and has his own agenda. The Klete Keller lead should not mention felon first. He is an American Olympic Gold Medal champion first in the majority of people's minds. Thanks 96.76.94.222 (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wes sideman: IP editor, it looks like the beginning of an edit war. It is time to open a discussion on the talk page of the article rather than to continue the edit war.. Constant314 (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Constant314: This discussion was completed weeks ago. You're reading an IP editor who is actually a sock of Defeedme, a twice-blocked user who has resorted to IP-hopping to continue to try to impose his version of the lead onto the article. There will be no discussion with blocked users. Wes sideman (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, when will they stop making personal attacks? Tails Wx 14:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: my favorite bit is "I'm not sure why you are protecting ... but I'm sure it's due to ..." well, which is it? Is he sure or unsure? Wes sideman (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

They weren't sure about [the message recipient]'s protection, they were pretty confident in their own perspective about [the message recipient]'s protection...until they were blocked. Tails Wx 16:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

good faith

You keep reverting my edits due to "good faith." Please enlighten me of what this good faith is. To me good faith is and hindoo and a christian having a wife swap. If you know that Heaviside is very much connected to reactance... why don't you put in whatever you think the correct credential is and edit the article? I come up with things and it pulls a punch but it is still not what you want. No one knows more what sources to put in than you, so show my some good faith and do it yourself if you know that what I am telling you is true. K00la1dx (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You are reaching an incorrect conclusion. I do not question your good faith. I believe that you believe that you are making a valuable contribution. I always give a reason for reverting. In the most recent case, I want to verify that the information was accurately paraphrased. Constant314 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you use the word good faith when you edited me out. I assure you my paraphrase is in the sources I cited when I posted. In good faith, primary sources should trump secondary source. I should be able to take Electromagnetic Theory and say that Heaviside greatly developed the use of reactance. You said you wanted a secondary source because the use of primary sources cater to original research. So I cited the book, The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside. It also states Heaviside was a key player in the use of reactance. In good faith, I will send you the book, I will mail it, I really think Heaviside should be mentioned in the reactance article as it is essential in his theory of the ionosphere. Heaviside's Electromagnetic Theory is available on google books for free. Why don't you check it out? K00la1dx (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me review two Wikipedia policies.

If, after you add new material, another editor reverts it, then discuss it and reach a consensus. If you cannot reach a consensus, then you don’t put it in. If you keep putting it in without a consensus, that is considered to be disruptive. That will get you blocked.

The second policy is what can go into Wikipedia articles. There are only two categories: material that is accurately and concisely paraphrased form reliable sources and material that is quoted from reliable public domain sources. You do not need to send me the whole book to establish that you have paraphrased the material accurately, because if you did it would take no more than a couple of pages. Typically, it only takes one sentence. If you combine facts from different places in the book, that is synthesis (WP:SYN) which is not allowed. Constant314 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It is in the book, than Stienmetz cited his sources when he used complex numbers for circuit analysis, and Heaviside was heavily cited.

It also says in Heaviside's electromagnetic theory, that Reactance is used to describe the Heaviside layer also known as the ionosphere, the earths upper atmosphere.

Those are really the only two points I need to make to put Heaviside in the Reactance article. I am not combining facts from different places in the same source, I have 2 sources.

Is that what you mean "Combine facts from different places?" K00la1dx (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Spinningspark: has already refuted that. However, if it were true it would be marginally notable on the Heaviside article and nowhere else.
• Whether or not Heaviside used the term "reactance" in his writings is not notable.
• Here is an example of combining facts. You find the statement the A implies B. Elsewhere you find the statement the B implies C. You combine the two statements to say that A implies C. It seems reasonable, but that is synthesis, and it is not allowed.

Constant314 (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not using synthesis. Just saying that Heaviside was a key player since the beginning in regards to reactance. If I have both key points that Stienmetz developed his complex circuit theory based on Heaviside's operational calculus and that Heaviside used reactance in his infamous wireless transmission theory, it deserves a mention in the reactance article.

By the way: I e-mailed the guy whose website stated that Heaviside is credited to reactance, he said that Stienmetz cited Heaviside multiple times and it is in multiple articles. K00la1dx (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• If you want to add "Heaviside was a key player since the beginning in regards to reactance" then you need to find a reliable source that says exactly that. But I would not bother because it is still not notable for a Wikipedia article on reactance.
• It does not matter what a guy with a website said to you in an e-mail. It is still hearsay. If you want to add "Stienmetz cited Heaviside multiple times and it is in multiple articles," then find a reliable source that says exactly that, in print, where it can be reviewed. But again, don't bother because it is not notable for Wikipedia.

Constant314 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As long as you think The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside is a reliable source, I will find it and post it, even if it contradicts Sparkles source K00la1dx (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how I am in bad faith. I did not post anything that is not factual. I would like you to explain to me how Wikipedia has a creed of faith. I thought Wikipedia was unbiased and free from political opinion. Saying I can't post blatantly obvious truths (that Oliver Heaviside furthered the development of Reactance from the beginning, even Stiemetz cited him, and Heaviside used reactance in his theory of the ionosphere)

So this good faith is a creed, that I can't post something that we all know is true. That contradicts the mission statement that Wikipedia is unbiased.

Please help me post to the Reactance article. K00la1dx (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@SpinningSpark:The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside probably is a reliable source; however, it may not have as much weight as other sources. But, if you post again, you may be blocked because the material has already been reverted more than once. Instead, post on the talk page and seek a consensus. Do not post without a consensus on the talk page of the article, else you may be blocked.

No one is accusing you of bad faith. What you consider as blatantly obvious truths still need cited references that include page numbers. That is Wikipedia policy. You have been reinserting material that has been reverted. That is disruptive. That can get you blocked.

I know that Heaviside is under credited. However, I do not know that "furthered the development of Reactance" is one of those things. I have read The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside, but I do not remember everything I read. I need to see it in print.

Once again, I advise you: Do not post in an article without a consensus on the talk page of the article, otherwise you may be blocked. Constant314 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me how some sources have priority over other source?

Can I please see the Wikipedia policy page on how that works?

K00la1dx (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)