User talk:Glrx/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Analog to digital converter

Hi, you made a somewhat ambiguous edit to this article and I'd like to know what your reasoning is. You disagreed with "The resolution of the converter ... determines the magnitude of the quantization error" and changed that to say "determines the lower bound". Can you explain what you meant by that remark? Are you thinking of nonuniform sampling strategies? Or something else?18.62.28.248 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Steve Gull

Hello Glrx,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Steve Gull for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Merge_sort Top down implementation

I added a new section for the talk page. Hoping for some feedback before I spend any more time trying to get the top down example similar in style to the bottom up example:

Talk:Merge_sort#Top_down_implementation

Rcgldr (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this topic got lost in a mess of other events. I was tempted to revert your edits, but wanted to think about them some more. Another editor came along and did the revert. You're clearly trying to make things better, but sometimes adding too much detail can be a bad thing. There's also something to be said for sorting linked lists rather than sorting arrays. Glrx (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Heterodyne

This is regarding your undo-ing of my edit on the Heterodyne page. I believe the statement that "heterodynes are closely related to the phenomenon of "beats" in acoustics" is misleading, especially to people who are not experts in the field (presumably the audience for the article). Beats in acoustics are fundamentally linear, certainly for the acoustic power levels commonly encountered, while heterodyning is essentially nonlinear. While your terse comment on the revert that "products of sines are equivalent to sums" is correct as a statement, it rather misses the point. The difference between heterodyne signals and beats is easily illustrated. For example: consider a superposition ("beat") signal S(t) = A sin(2 pi f1 t) + B sin(2 pi f2 t) with A \neq B. The spectrum of this signal contains (unequal amounts of) power at frequencies f1 and f2. On the other hand, a beat signal S'(t) = A sin(2 pi f1 t) x B sin(2 pi f2 t) contains *equal* power at f1+f2 and f1-f2.

I would appreciate it if you would restore my edit (or some equivalent of it) on the heterodyne page. Please feel free to let me know if any of the above requires more explanation, or if you have any questions.

AmarChandra (talk)

Sorry I'm replying late, but I've been fighting a string of problems outside of wikipedia -- and losing browser histories.

Chetvorno reverted the edit, and I agree with him. I reverted based on the math identity and not the necessity for some nonlinearity to create cross products.

I agree with your math but disagree with the conclusion. There are amplitude values were the effect is complete. Different amplitudes would affect the depth of the null. Furthermore, mixing in real life is seldom perfect.

I haven't had time to pull the IEEE article, but if it presumes that human hearing is linear, then I'd have to disagree. I can sense the amplitude of a signal.

Glrx (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Quadratic

Hello Glrx. I put some quotes into the footnotes of the quadratic equation article, plus rephrased a little bit. I hope that takes care of the problem. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Re Talk:Quadratic equation#Quadratic formula in the lead

The record is currently a mess. User:JamesBWatson's edit removed my and some other editors' comments. I've got to paw through that to see if it is salvageable.

I still oppose your changes. I'm neutral about including the quadratic formula in the lede, but your statements go too far. In addition, I have trouble with the weight of the sources.

Glrx (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to salvage that stuff. If you get a chance, I'm wondering if you could give an example of how to present the quadratic formula in the lead that would be acceptable. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to think about that more. Focusing on the QF may be too pointed. The QF is important in applied fields and high school algebra, but I'm not sure how to rank it for mathematics in general. That's also where I have trouble with your sources: they are technical/engineering/high school texts, so their opinion doesn't give broad coverage. The QF is also something of a fluke. There are are formulas for third and fourth order polynomials, but they are rarely used. The first order is so simple that it is largely skipped over as just an algebraic manipulation. Glrx (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• My apologies for accidentally removing a whole chunk of comments from the talk page. I'm not sure how that happened: perhaps I edited the wrong revision of the page by mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  I know you are one of the good guys.... Glrx (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for offering to think about whether there is an acceptable way to put the quadratic formula in the lead of our Wikipedia article about the quadratic equation. I've just assembled the following list of sources that may be useful to you.

• [1]Blanton, Floyd. Modern College Algebra, p. 162 (McGraw-Hill, 1967): "The quadratic formula is the most powerful method for solving quadratics since it can be used to solve any quadratic."

• [2]Li, Xuhui. An Investigation of Secondary School Algebra Teachers' Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Algebraic Equation Solving, p. 56 (ProQuest, 2007): "The quadratic formula is the most general method for solving quadratic equations and is derived from another general method: completing the square."

• [3]Jahr, Cathy. Barron's How to Prepare for the Tennessee Gateway High School Exit Exam in Algebra, p. 137 (Barron's Educational Series, 2005): "The Quadratic Formula is one of the most important formulas in mathematics because it is a method for solving all quadratic equations."

• [4]Heywood, Arthur. Intermediate algebra: lecture-lab, p. 235 (Dickenson Pub. Co., 1975): "The quadratic formula is one of the most important formulas in mathematics, and we will now spend some time studying many different ways of using it."

• [5]McConnell, John. Algebra, p. 603 (Scott Foresman 1993): "The Quadratic Formula is one of the most famous formulas in all of mathematics. You should memorize it today."

• [6]Banks, John. Elements of Algebra, p. 97 (Allyn and Bacon, 1962): "The quadratic formula is one of the most useful formulas in elementary mathematics. You should be certain you know what it is and how to use it. Many other equations can be solved by first reducing them to quadratic form."

• [7]Larson, R. and Hodgkins A. College Algebra with Applications for Business and Life Sciences, p. 104 (Cengage Learning 2009): "The Quadratic Formula is one of the most important formulas in algebra, and you should memorize it."

• [8]Smith, R. and Peterson, J. Introductory Technical Mathematics, pp. 408-409 (Cengage Learning 2006): "The factoring method has limited application. Only certain quadratic equations can be solved by factoring. Completing the square…can be a rather long and complicated procedure and is seldom used in practical applications. [The] quadratic formula…is the most useful method for solving complete quadratic equations."

• [9]Payne, M. Intermediate Algebra, p. 289 (West Publishing 1985): "While the method of completing the square may be used to solve quadratic equations, it is more involved than the quadratic formula, and is seldom used in practical work."

• [10]Davis, L. Technical Mathematics, p. 174. (Merrill Publishing 1990): "You can use the quadratic formula, as well as completing the square, to solve any quadratic equation. However, you will find that the quadratic formula is easier to use."

• [11]Dugopolski, Mark. Algebra for College Students, p. 541 (McGraw Hill 2006): "Any quadratic equation can be solved by completing the square or using the quadratic formula. Because the quadratic formula is usually faster, it is used more often than completing the square."

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you are trying to go with these sources. Nobody doubts that the QF is widely used. The sources that state QF is easier/faster than completing the square seem more like a passing remark about human effort rather than a serious study about efficiency. The statement also strikes me as a bit odd because the QF can be viewed as an expression of completing the square (and if the quadratic is monic to begin with, completing the square is simple). I also doubt the need to inject such a statement in the lede. Your earlier edits to the lede were strong statements about QF's significance in algebra, and most of the sources above do not seem qualified to make such as assessment. WP wants a source that would survey the field, but the above sources are more focused on teaching the fundamentals of technical or intermediate algebra rather than surveys of algebra.

Glrx (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. When I initially looked for the QF on Wikipedia a few weeks ago, I expected that it would have its own article, given that it is one of the most well-known and frequently-used of all mathematical equations. When I found that it had no article of its own, and was instead buried deep in the article about the quadratic equation, this concerned me. My feeling was that a person who reads nothing more than the lead ought to at least see what the QF looks like, because it's an equation that every student of mathematics should memorize. I think that's a very widely held view. Anyway, I obviously have no personal stake in burying or unburyng the QF, and my only concern is good article-writing. At this point, if you don't see any acceptable way to put the QF in the lead, then I'm certainly not going to try and put it there. I did the best search through Google Books that I could. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding dead link at Dilly Knox

Hello, Glrx. I wonder what value you think it adds for our readers to keep a dead link. Interested to know your rationale. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Some dead links have merely moved to another location; some pages will have been copied to internet archives such as archive.org. Tagging as a dead link is a request that those options be explored. To me, the editor who adds a link believes it is worthwhile; just blowing away a link disagrees with that editor. Given the domain of the link, it probably does say more about Dilly Knox than would be in the article. Glrx (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I'm not sure I agree, but I shan't stick my oar in any further. Tim riley (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

CD variations

Hey Glrx... you reverted my change to the CD article about SHM-CD. I'm not sure why: it's a real format (released in Japan) and the comment was sourced. What exactly is the criteria for why something can be included as a variation to CDs? As for the fact that you said it "sounded like an advert" we can certainly reword it if that's your only complaint. Thanks, 87Fan (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: this edit which inserted:

Super High Material CDs (or SHM-CDs) claim enhanced audio quality through the use of a special polycarbonate plastic which allows for more accurate reading of CD data by the CD player laser head. SHM-CD format CDs are fully compatible with standard CD players.

Bowie Back Catalogue Due On Shm-cd In Japan, September 14, 2009, retrieved October 15, 2013

The claim in this text is the use of "a special polycarbonate plastic". That does not sound like a format change ("fully compatible with standard CD"). The performance claim also sounds dubious; CDs have error correcting codes that usually work just fine. The reference leads to a retailer. It all sounds like puffery.

The first page of Google hits is a mixed bag. Some say it's BS; others point out the bits are the same, so it makes no difference in sound quality. Some claim the plastic is clearer and more fluid but don't make any claims as to error rate.

For some reason, I cannot pull up http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/where-is-the-magic-in-a-shm-disk.271766/ and look at post 43 right now.

What WP wants is a reliable source that tells us it is important.

Glrx (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Capacitance probe

Please explain to me how three companies that sell and explain capacitance probes are acceptable whilst the website www.dfmsoftware.co.za is seen as spam? Having posted a legitimate source regarding the comparison between the neutron probe and the dfm probe, you removed it under the pretense that you would expect high correlation in measurements of same property. It is not what you "expect", but rather the imperical research at stake here. And to mention the least, the correlation is not the same. There are major differences noted here. Did you even read the article, or just decide that you own the page itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNBailey911 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several things going on with the article. An IP editor in co.za keeps adding a link to www.dfmsoftware.co.za for general information without focus.

Yes, the article had a list of such URLs, but none of them are particularly good or focused. The rationale that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to insert more poor links. The linked page is about advertising not encyclopedic content.

Furthermore, adding external links to the body of an article is not good practice.

The identified link that you inserted on Oct 16 (edit comment: "I felt it important to mention the difference between the neutron probe and the capacitance probe and which one is more reliable at this point") seemed to be a random comment. As I recall, the papers reported a correlation of 99 percent and were not of much encyclopedic interest. WP prefers secondary rather than primary sources. Furthermore, one paper can be cited directly without going through the dfm website. (doi:10.4314/wsa.v39i2.1).

I'm just a lowly peon here; I'm not in any sense the final arbiter of what gets include in WP. If you want the material added, then bring it up on the article talk page and get a WP:CONSENSUS for it. See also WP:BRD.

Glrx (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

PS. I flushed some of the other links because they didn't add much content.

BLAS#Implementations and MATTLAS BLAS

Other history. I reverted the IP's insertion of MATTLAS BLAS in the Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms. Qwertyus also reverted the MATTLAS BLAS addition, and IP engaged in a discussion with Qwertyus at User talk:Qwertyus#MATTLAS BLAS.

MATTLAS BLAS is a full implementation for x86_64 supporting AVX. There are only two open source BLAS libraries in existence that support the AVX instruction set, OpenBLAS is the other (GotoBLAS doesn't support it, everything else is closed source). MATTLAS BLAS is a full BLAS implementation, as the subsection of BLAS implies, that uses a novel task based technique that scales better than many other (including closed source) options. I encourage you to check the Wiki for MATTLAS BLAS for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.190.129 (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made comments at Talk:Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms#MATTLAS BLAS. When I googled for "MATTLAS Matt's Linear Algebra Subroutines", I got one page of hits (most via Matthew Badin), and one of the hits was

other untrusted versions of 'blas' - Personal Package Archives : Ubuntu

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas?name_filter=blas‎

20+ items - Ubuntu also includes a wide variety of software through its ...

Description Sources Binaries

MATTLAS (Matt's Linear Algebra Subroutines) is a high ... 1 3.

In this PPA I provide Maxima 5.29.1 and wxMaxima 13.04.1 ... 2 18.

It may be a worthwhile project, but I don't see reliable sources telling WP that yet. Consequently, mention is WP:UNDUE. WP is not supposed to be a directory of everything. Glrx (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that WP is not supposed to be a directory of everything, but BLAS implementations are few so it more or less is. WP currently includes several BLAS libraries that aren't even actively maintained.

What would be a good credible source? A published work will be written by the same person as the person who wrote the library, who made the website, etc. This is true of GotoBLAS, OpenBLAS, ATLAS, etc, all single author (obviously a different author for each library, but a single author did each one).

Thank you for taking the time to consider the case and address my concerns, I really do appreciate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.190.129 (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to see sources that suggest MATTLAS is a serious and mature effort. Even the author says MATTLAS is an "early alpha" release. See the comments on the BLAS talk page. Your examples are distinguishable. ATLAS is linked from netlib/BLAS; furthermore, DUE is satisfied because one author is Dongarra. ATLAS even has a WP page. Googling ATLAS BLAS gets plenty of hits. Same for GotoBLAS. That's not the case for MATTLAS. Glrx (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If we have to wait for Jack Dongarra to endorse MATTLAS, we'll be waiting quite a while. For instance, major players in the research area such as Robert van de Geijn are never included in BLAS discussions of any kind (this is the guy who found Kazushige Goto). If I wanted to be uncharitable, there are duplicate entries and unsupported libraries in the list. For instance, SurviveGotoBLAS hasn't been updated in 2 years. OpenBLAS is almost completely identical to GotoBLAS2 except for the name change and two kernels (one of which doesn't work, the one that does work is done incorrectly, this is easily demonstrated by comparing the real versus complex kernels). Libraries like C++ AMP aren't really BLAS implementations, they are BLAS like (they do linear algebra). BLIS, by it's own description, is also not a BLAS implementation. The overall point I am making is MATTLAS is done with much more care than many of the research projects dumped on github (checking the testing folder alone should demonstrate this). In addition, this is a list of BLAS implementations, it appears exhaustive, this is a BLAS implementation, there are only two in the world that support AVX and are open source, this is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.190.129 (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need Dongarra's stamp of approval to be included, but it should have an independent source that has reviewed it. How does WP know it has be implemented with more care than many of the projects on github? Right now, the only source is the author, and he says it's not ready yet. Googling does not find significant mention. That an implementation hasn't been changed for two years does not mean it should be excluded. Maybe you could write a journal article that surveys BLAS implementations. When it's published, then it can be used to edit the article. Glrx (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can always read the code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.190.129 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add the following commentary, taken from the "Criticisms of Wikipedia" page, on WP: "These habits of commandeering, sanitizing and squatting discourage informed experts from spending the time and attention to make well-footnoted entries for fear that accurate and time-consuming work will be quickly deleted." You googled me, surely you noticed I worked with Kazushige Goto and wrote major parts of the Intel MKL BLAS library for the OpenCL team. I'm just trying to put all of this into perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.190.129 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

My reading the code wouldn't help because I'm not a secondary source. My opinion would be WP:OR and not welcome on WP.

I think the BLAS page is in poor shape, and I welcome editors expanding the article. However, editors who have a conflict of interest need to be careful about their editing. It's OK to describe one's own work, but one must be circumspect. Glrx (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Interwikiconflict Casting - Casting (metalworking)

Hello Glrx,

I saw that you reverted my edit about casting. I had a lot of work about this matter: There are two Wikidata items that have almost the same meaning: d:Q496098 which is about casting (in general) and d:Q10956917 which is about casting (metalworking). It took me a lot of work to discern in every language, to which of both categories each article belongs. Most languages have only one article, about 'casting'. And to make it even more complicated: those items often only write about metal casting, not about f.i. the casting of plastic or chocolate.
Then it may be clear that whatever you may do to solve this puzzle, it'll never be perfect. But the most important is the fact that there is no interwiki conflict anymore.

Now you reverted one of the many edits that I did in many languages. The result is that Casting (metalworking) refers to the german Gießen (Verfahren). And that article refers to Casting. Is that what you want?

You wrote that I didn't give an edit comment. Actually I did: '> Wikidata check'. I admit that I could have explained more. But I am resolving hundreds of Wikidata conflicts, and if I have to explain it everytime, there's less time for me to do the real job. Erik Wannee (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks for working on WP. To me, your edit blew away some useful interwiki links, so I reverted it. Before reverting, I followed the links, and they seemed to be on topic.

I'm pretty much ignorant about interwikis, but the deletion just seems odd. I'm not sure that I buy into "the most important is the fact that there is no interwiki conflict anymore." To me, the most important thing is the effect on WP's readers. There were three reasonable interwiki links that your edit deleted.

I don't see a problem with specialized en.WP articles linking to more generalized articles on other wiki. Especially if I'm reading an article on metal casting, click the de.WP link, and get an article that describes metal casting.

I understand equivalence classes and agree that WikiData may need to maintain equivalence, but the metal casting article had distinct interwiki links that were not part of wikidata. It would seem that interwiki links need to handle many-to-one and one-to-many as well as one-to-one links.

Glrx (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Interwikiconflict Noise Factor

With all due respect, I think the version you revert to makes less sense. The noise factor of the first receiver (F1) should be the smallest to have the lowest noise system, yet you want it to say F1 "should be the most significant." Bigger (i.e. significant) noise factors should be down the chain so they can be reduced by the gain, G, of the previous recievers. Noise Factor of the first reciever should be as low as possible. Why do you want this important point to be confusing?

Sorry for the delay, but I've been swamped.

The issue is more subtle and involved. Many of the "amplifiers" aren't amplifiers at all but rather feedlines, filters, or mixers. A short feedline may contribute little to the noise figure; a mixer often contributes 6 dB.

Your viewpoint is only true when the blocks are amplifiers, the first block has significant gain, and there is no significant attenuation in the subsequent blocks. That may not be the case. In some applications, there's a feedline preamplifier, but its job to just to make up for the following feedline's loss. If the preamp has too much gain, then it risks introducing intermodulation products in a downstream amplifier.

Glrx (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ionization energy

Thanks for doing good job looking after the article. Was curious about the reason for your revert - abbreviation / initialism is covered by sources as I indicated in my edit summary. I was backfilling IE from the dab ie, which either needed this in the article or has to be removed from the dab. As found in the dab already, and in sources, I thought important to fix the article. I was going to discuss with you but then another editor has reverted you, so if you'd like to discuss on the article talk that would seem appropriate. Regards Widefox; talk 17:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but I've been buried. I was also reverted (as you point out above). I deleted the abbreviation because it wasn't used in the WP article, and it doesn't seem to be a globally used term. The reference you cited to support the insertion seemed to be using it as a local abbreviation. If I say MI6, CIA, or FBI, many people know what I'm talking about without any more explanation. If you said IE to me a week ago, I wouldn't know what you were talking about.

That IE is on the DAB page is a bit surprising to me, but I don't see a need to contest the issue. Putting the entry on the DAB page is cheap, including IE on the Ionization energy page is cheap, and at least one other person believes the abbreviation is appropriate. It's simpler to let it stay and move on to other things.

Glrx (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Glrx. You have new messages at Talk:Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms.
Message added 12:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Responded. Glrx (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exquisite components

Glrx, In PC Power Supply, you may have better expression for this. See the reference. Intel has specified the manufaturer and the capacitor to achive the same result of the setup. How to explain this without advertising? --Hans Haase (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

re Power supply unit (computer)

We don't have to worry about the fine details, so we don't need to get close to advertising.

Intel's diagram on page 19 makes statements such as "0.1uf - Kemet, C1206C104K5RAC or equivalent". The "or equivalent" says the actual manufacturer is is not relevant — it is the performance of the part that matters. The actual details of that performance, such as getting a low ESR, is beyond the scope of WP. WP is not a how to book.

I have trouble with File:PC PSU Noise Test Setup.svg. It's merged two grounds and ignored the differential probe issue.

Glrx (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with no advertising. The point is the specifcation defines special compontents. This is reference only.

The low ESR caps I differ. I should be declared even capatitor is not capacitor. On the one hand we should give the information if a reader goes for "do not try this at home" to prevent accidents. On the other hand, when writing about combution engines, there are 2-strokes, 4-strokes (Otto), atkinson and miller cycle, carburetors, direct injetion and it is known where these engines are used.

With the ground wire you are right. I will update the diagram. --Hans Haase (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Why are you changing my edits??

I would like to know why you change my edits on the page caller id. ~NutwiisystemRocks (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: edits to Caller ID that gave instructions for disabling Caller ID in different regions; North America was present and this editor added United States.

First, the US is part of North America, so the US need not be separately called out. NANPA. Canada and Mexico are not separately called out, so why should the US be listed.

Second, WP should not be a reference manual for how to use different phone systems. It is enough that Caller ID can be disabled with touch tone or rotary commands. I see no point to explaining how to disable it in countries throughout the world. That's just not something readers need to know; it's also explained in telephone books. I would cut down the section a lot; in that vein, I removed the redundant entry you added.

That said, I'm ignoring the addition now. It's not worth disputing. Glrx (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What is a "crlf"?

You fixed a couple of my edits on the Comparison of the AK-47 and M16. However, I am at a lost. Please explain what I did wrong so I do not make the same mistake in the future. Thank You.--70.173.135.216 (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

CRLF is very old lingo for a teletype "carriage return + linefeed". In your editing, you inserted several newlines. That doesn't affect the appearance on the page (it's treated as a space), but it makes it difficult to compare differences (which WP does only by paragraphs). Inserting a newline in the middle of a paragraph is shown as deleting second half and then reinserting the second half. It's difficult to see what changed in the second half.

You also deleted one or more wikilinks. When text is surrounded by [[]], that's a link to another article. Glrx (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove my N-door multi-elimination demonstration of the Monty Hall problem under the section "N-doors" as "offtopic"?

Seriously? 37.201.226.78 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Just going to undo, because the reason given inapplicable. C0NPAQ (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit at Monty Hall problem was off topic because it does not address the Monty Hall problem in general or the reason for the N-doors argument in particular. Your illustration is difficult to follow and not about random choice at all. There is a common answer to the question of when the World War II ended; a knowledgeable contestant could answer the question immediately. The MHP contest does not have a known answer: the location of the car is not a widely known fact. Furthermore, the N-door variation does not possess any characteristics of a total order.

You reinstated your edit, but another editor reverted you.[1] You need to discuss your illustration on the talk page before reinserting it. Glrx (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: Not a software developer

As a software engineer with 15+ years experience, I can tell you without question: What sounds like advertising to you is merely clarification. When choosing a development package, from a list of packages, one must know what features are available before hand. I have never in my lifetime had spare time to review a list of "uninteresting packages."

You *might* be well "educated", you *might* be well versed in many areas of science and technology, but you certainly are not the only person on the planet with such a background (eat it); While you may think differently the "facts at hand" certainly do not authorize you to dictate a free on-line encyclopedia, which many users such as myself have made financial contributions to support so that our ideals and interests in information may be independently supported.

Furthermore, your background compared to the knowledge I possess of myself paired with experience suggest that you have not, nor will you ever have the foresight to overrule my unbiased and logical judgment on the topic of Software Engineering. If you would not like me to poke my nose in your business, keep yours out of mine.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triston J. Taylor (talk • contribs) 05:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You inserted a link to advertise/WP:PROMOte your recently published code. It's your code, so you are not "unbiased"; see WP:COI. The link is inappropriate; generally, it is a bad idea to insert links to one's own work on WP; it can be done, but it usually better to let others do it. The insertion has been reverted under WP:BRD: if you want your project listed in the article, then you should bring the issue up in a new section on Talk:Hash table and get a WP:CONSENSUS to add it.

Background: An IP editor's sole edits inserted a github.com implementataion link in the article Hash table.[2] The section has the potential to become a spam magnet. The 16 February 2014 insertion stated:

• HashTable A robust implementation of hash tables written in C. The software is covered by a 2-Clause BSD license. The library supports per-instance private data, and binary keys, as well as binary values of arbitrary length. The GNU Tool chain is a requirement to build the package using the provided Makefile, however the library code is both operating system and architecture independent.

The text did not claim anything significant about the implementation. The WP edits appeared to be a WP:COI advertisement for some code.

I followed the link and discovered that the current version had been placed on github on 16 February 2014 by Triston J. Taylor. There wasn't any significant content on the page, so I reverted the edits.[3]

Now User:Triston J. Taylor appears and reverts my reversion.[4]

Glrx (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, gee, thanks for the education. That was much faster than searching through a bunch of crap I'll never need to know for days on end. I earnestly appreciate your effort. But on the whole, I think I'll just call myself not interested WP publication, you call it a conflict of interest... I see it as a conflict of freedom of information. I added this content so it would be available to other people who *might* be interested. An encyclopedia is a catalog of information, I added such information, you removed it, and so shall it be. I haven't got time to play games or jump through hoops and I'm not a circus monkey so don't ask. Once again, Thank you for your disapproval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triston J. Taylor (talk • contribs) 12:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you mean "sentence that contradicts the lead"?

I'm fine with your edits and certainly not going to start a war, but still, how do you mean?

How is Just as the Intel 4004 and Intel 4040 it used the same physical design methodology and the same basic elements at the transistor and microarchitecture levels, so the major change was the switch to faster n-MOS transistors. contradicting the lead?

Are you talking about the lead of the full article (which does not even mention 8080 or 4004) or possibly the lead of the Design section (which does mention 4004 and 4040)? Other than that, I could see how many people would argue that sentence was to much detail, in that brief context, even if I would argue that technical detail should be embraced under a Design-section, also when comparing closely related chips.

Best Regards // HenkeB (my 2006 account/name, not used since many years) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.225.3 (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is about my edit to Intel 8008.

The lead sentence of the paragraph describes some significant changes to the 8008: going to a 40-pin package, using the extra pins to make a better bus architecture, and adding some instructions. That contradicts the "the major change was the switch to faster n-MOS transistors". The process switch seems secondary. Saying "the same basic elements at the transistor ... level" but then also claiming the switch from PMOS to NMOS is is the significant change confusing. If the transistor level stayed the same, then why was the switch significant? Intel recognized that the 8008 architecture needed a lot of improvement, and Shima was thorough. IIRC, he dumped the carry-lookahead network in favor of a faster ripple-carry adder (speed-power tradeoff).

On top of that, the text is unsourced. Glrx (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you were aiming at, regarding "the lead".

The "transistor level" can mean two things (with some degree of overlap) depending on author and context, typically either

(1) How transistors are made, including materials, back gate bias, doping profiles and basic types (polarity as well as enhancement/depletion mode) etc. or it can mean

(2) How transistors are interconnected in order to implement logic gates, latches (registers), ROM/PLA-structures, and so on. I was using the second definition here, with the first seen as (part of) the physical level.

I was trying to describe how these digital buildning blocks (not the external interface) were very similar, in the 4004, 4040, 8008 and 8080 except for the change to n-typ transistors in the 8080, which made it faster (largely because the mobility of elektrons is 150% better than the mobility of holes). The 8085 and 8086, on the other hand, used depletion mode loads, other design teams, etc. and so differed more.

But I agree that this is largely unsourced, or "original research" (looking at chip photographs, disclosed ciruit diagrams, timing diagrams in the old 4004, 8008 and 8080 manuals, reading between the lines in interviews with Faggin and Shima, etc., adding two and two toghether). That is why I cannot really argue that this should be included in a WP-article, although most articles seem to contain "unsourced" material, in reality.

A ripple carry adder is much slower than a carry-lookahead adder. Speed would probably be the sole purpose of choosing the latter, as it needs more gates to implement and therefore draws more power. The improvement from 8008 to 8080 (above the external interface and the faster n-MOS transistors) was mainly in the instruction set. It was things such as direct adressing and 16-bit instructions. 16-bit additions were implemented via the same 8-bit ALU as the other instructions using a PLA-based state machine and sequencer. (The original Z80 did the same using a 4-bit ALU, costing an extra cycle (11 in Z80, 10 in 8080) as Faggin and Shima were afraid of copying their own design, probably with Intel's lawyers in mind).

Take care // Henrik

My adder comment was to dispute the digital architecture difference.

I disagree that "A ripple carry adder is much slower than a carry-lookahead adder." Shima had many constraints: area, power, and time. The IC world is not like the discrete world: one is not limited to a single gate speed. Faster gates can be made by using larger gate widths. IIRC from 1972, Shima was simulating a full lookahead adder, but then decided to try two four-bit adders with ripple carry between them. He could apply the saved area and saved power to making the four-bit adders faster. The design was better. Then he tried simulating four two-bit adders with ripple carries, and that was also better. In the end, a beefy ripple-carry adder was the simulation winner.

If I believe my university professors, in the asynchronous logic world, a ripple carry adder can have better average performance than a look-ahead adder. For most additions, there are not a lot of late carries.

I don't know which adder the 8080 eventually used, but Shima was not stuck to any particular micro architecture.

Glrx (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing unsourced material

I noticed that you uncollapsed my addition of unsourced material to an article's Talk page in at least one case. Please note that I deliberately add the material in collapsible form so that editors who aren't interested in addressing the sourcing problems don't have to deal with the full text appearing each time they view the page. The text is, of course, available at any time by expanding the box. I would be curious to hear why you feel that not offering this option is preferable. DonIago (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is about Doniago's post to Uninterruptable power supply and my edit of that post.

First, your edit to the talk page had no explanation of what you did, and it was unsigned. Explanations are needed so other editors can understand what happened without a lot of detective work. Signatures are relevant for indicating who made the changes and for dating (which also helps archiving). Your post to the talk page was opaque.

Second, your edit put a heading inside the collapsed box. If you'd looked at the expanded box, you'd see the heading was not rendered correctly. The heading should have been created outside of the collapse box. Your (unsupplied) comments should have gone outside the box so people would now what the box is about.

Third, collapsing a modest paragraph seems to be overkill. You spent 7 lines to create the collapse box when the paragraph is only seven lines. Collapse boxes are appropriate for walls of text.

Glrx (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say that I provided no explanation, as not only did I provide an edit summary explaining that I was adding to what was obviously the Unsourced material section, but there is a header at the top of said section explaining its purpose. Given that I was the only contributor to that section to date, I'm not clear on how adding a signature at the end would have been necessary or necessarily appropriate. IMO it would have looked more awkward than anything else.

A heading was intended to be inside the collapsed box given that it was the heading of the section that was moved from the article. The heading appeared as the name of the collapsed box as well. I fail to see how this was unclear, but if you have a significant disagreement then perhaps a third opinion would be warranted.

I collapse unsourced material by default when adding such sections, and was encouraged to do so when I started this practice (as an alternative to simply deleting unsourced text). If you are willing to provide further reasoning I may reconsider my practice, but your suggestion that it's not clear what I'm doing seems exaggerated to me. DonIago (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please tell more

You deleted my addition to the coaxial cable article.:
"Coaxial cables are most commonly used for cable television and transmitting RF signals for other devices. Coaxial cables are not used to carry electricity to power electrical devices."
(Undid revision 598050115 by Wyn.junior (talk) cables are used to carry power for lnb and old catv; RF use redundant) (undo | thank)
Please tell more info on the Talk:Coaxial cable page. I am very interested. Thanks.--Wyn.junior (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)