User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

recheck your activity

[1]--Reinstall (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad, sorry. It looked at first as if you had deleted the Finnish entry. SpinningSpark 18:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

IP block due to vandilsm

Hi, I want to note that the IP 8.20.179.66 is blocked. I have an account and sometimes use this IP because it is my High School's IP address for Every computer in the school. I'm not sure if i can edit pages if I'm logged in or not from here, but if it is possible i think you SHOULD block every edit form the IP address UNLESS said wikipedian is logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betsi-HaP (talk • contribs) 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly how it works. Registered users (those who are logged in) may edit from that IP address. See the top comments at User talk:8.20.179.66 - Glrx (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my friend tried to make an account, that way I could show her how to do the basics for when she was at home, and it also doesn't let her to that. Is there anyway to Perma-Ban the IP address for editing with the exception of non-logged in users, because I'd honestly really suggest that.

Betsi-HaP (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

When an IP address is blocked, new accounts cannot be made from the blocked IP. Have your friend make an account at her home or some other (not blocked) IP address. With her new account, she should be able to edit from school. Glrx (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Evolution as theory and fact

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Evolution as theory and fact. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

reason for deleting my edit

I have edited the wiki page of bandpass filter.There was no information about the types of bandpass filter and I have added it with reference in my own words.So what kind of edit you want or please suggest me some book to edit. and please reply as early as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitd.elec (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Suicide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User Viraj nadkarni

Not much communication there. I really don't understand what's happening with this user Viraj nadkarni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bizarre. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to block him as disruption only but I found at least one edit which might possibly have been constructive. He has the benefit of the doubt for now - at least we now know he has read the messages so there is no excuse in the future. SpinningSpark 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you or I add the (isosceles) area formula to the Skinny Triangle article?

I see that you created and are by far the largest contributor to Wikipedia's skinny triangle page, so I thought I should check with you before adding it myself. We link to the skinny triangle page from the Tau_(2π) page because skinny triangles are used to derive the formula for area of a circle. (If you slice up a circle like a pizza into many slices, you can approximate those slices as skinny triangles. Then the area of the whole circle is just the sum of the ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\theta r^{2}$ areas of the individual skinny triangles. There's a drawing of it at this link.) The problem is, we have to include a short derivation of ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\theta r^{2}$ from ${\tfrac {1}{2}}base\times height$ on the Tau_(2π) page because it's not on the skinny triangle page. Would you prefer to decide how to work it into the article, or should I do it? Thanks for your help. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with you making that addition. SpinningSpark 13:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Voltage doubler.

I've not used user talk pages before so I appologise in advance if I have placed this content in the wrong place. As you have noticed I don't often log in to wikipedia.

Figure 5. "The contentious image"

I deleted figure 5 as I could not make sense of it. the capactitor C1 does not participate in the operation of the circuit at all. Also the unlabled switch beside is useless as both "option" terminals are connected to the same node.

With those two useless parts removed the circuit is the same as figure 6.

Looked at another way perhaps the link from the middle switch to V_in+ should be removed,

Either way the circuit illustrated is incorrect.

If you going to edit the image, labeling the switches (eg:S1_a,S1_b,S1_c would make it easier to discuss :)

Jasen betts (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the link to V+ was incorrect (incorrect version) and I have now remove it. I don't want to clutter the diagram with annotation that is not used in discussion in the article, but I would be happy to make an alternative version if you need it elsewhere. SpinningSpark 06:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool, it makes snese now Jasen betts (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ginsberg's theorem

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ginsberg's theorem. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Thank uWill Gladstone (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, but what are you thanking me for? SpinningSpark 09:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical Puzzle Page

Hiya! There were a couple of external puzzle information links that I wanted to add to the Mechanical Puzzles page, but as the first one I tried was removed by yourself I just wanted to double-check with you before considering any further edits.

The initial two links that I wanted to add were to the Puzzle Place Wiki and the Hordern-Dalgety Puzzle Museum. If these are not appropriate please do let me know why so that I can avoid trying to add anything incompatible in the future. Many thanks. --Puzzle Paradox (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Spinningspark! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla query

Greetings, I post to ask if you would take a look at some practical problems with the article. I wonder, since I have probably less time than you to spare, why is it locked? Is there a problem with someone trying to sell Chinese iphones? The main problem is there are silly statements about Tesla, which are already marked as needing citations, and they should go. There are also statements that are easily verifiable by a source already listed there: yet it seems no one working on that article has read the source properly. Thanks, I require no personal response.75.21.113.40 (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It is currently protected to put a stop to endless edit warring over Tesla's nationality, for which there is a separate discussion page where this can be debated. You can still make suggestions on the article talk page. If you have a definite and uncontroversial edit you want to make you can use {{edit semi-protected}} to request another editor to insert it. SpinningSpark 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Spinning Spark, how I like your username - well that is helpful advice but I'm afraid I always worked in a limited capacity on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I have noted a lack of interest in posting on the talk page.

If I may be specific with you, Margaret Cheney in her authoritative biography quotes Tesla as saying he was proud of being a Serb and equally proud of his birthplace in Croatia. Tesla ought to be the ultimate authority about his nationality, do you not think?75.21.113.40 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Sorry, I returned because I propose this: I can streamline this article (fixing the horrendous grammar to start). I can remove unsourced claims and insert the closest fact. I can also insert references to statements that are true but are marked as needing a citation.

It is clear the people editing this have read little of real value about Tesla. I always say for the purposes of this article, being conversant with Cheney's biography Man Out of Time is sufficient to clear out the errors. If you examine the arguments, who is involved now capable of filling in the factual gaps?

For example, I can cite the precise Tesla quotes, culled from Cheney's research, in which he speaks of the issues of Serbia and Croatia. Final word, end of discussion. Imagine what that would mean! I saw the discussion about his nationality, it is the most stupid quarrel I have ever encountered here in the years I've been writing!

Anyone is free to examine closely anything I do; since I am ill and disabled, my proposition is costly to me. I do it because of my abiding love for Tesla. What say you?75.21.113.40 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to unlock the page to allow you to edit it directly if I was convinced that your editing would be uncontroversial. There is a suspicion, however, from what you say that you do not want to go to the talk page because other editors would disagree with you. Issues of nationality are controversial with Tesla and the main reason for locking the page was steady edit warring over natiionality. Given the sensitivity, you need to gain consensus on the talk page first, whether or not the article is locked. I cannot agree with your comment that the talk page is ignored: it is a very busy page and has well over one thousand editors watching it.

The notability of Tesla has nothing to do with his nationality, or how proud, or otherwise, he was of it. The majority of editors with no axe to grind in this are heartily fed up with the continual bickering. The article currently says that he is Serbian-American. I can't see what's wrong with that or what else it is necessary to say. Given the importance of Tesla the article should really be brought up to featured status but I am not inclined to work on it (probably along with many other editors) because it will be an uphill struggle because of the bickering and I know full well it will never get to FA because of the edit warring.

An alternative for you is to register an account and wait for it to become autoconfirmed. Registering has many other benefits. I would be willing to confirm you immediately so you don't have to wait if you can convince me that you will be editing uncontroverially. Note that uncontroversial is not the same thing as being right. Happy editing, SpinningSpark 18:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Spinning Spark, I'm sorry, but you almost seem to be straining here. That talk page, whilst active, is far from busy and I get NO replies from what little is there now that I've posted. My offer was to streamline the article and insert references, but now I meditate on the subject, why should I? It is all easily verifiable by consulting Cheney's biography and I have absolutely nothing 'personal' to add.

As to the fight about his nationality, logic and common sense answered that question decades ago. It is beyond me why that bickering is allowed to continue unchecked, but I know people over in that region are hypersensitive about it. Sorry I bothered you. By the way, my IP fluctuates for security reasons.

I hate to repeat this so often, but I am nowhere near stupid enough to register an account here.75.21.100.100 (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have unlocked the page so you should now be able to edit. Sorry to make you jump through hoops over this. When you talked of Serbian v Croatian my suspicions where raised and I did not pay so much attention to the rest of what you had to say.

I don't know why you think it would be stupid to register an account. You are not required to reveal anything about yourself in order to register, in fact more is revealed from your IP address. SpinningSpark 07:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowing the difficulties you face, I cannot know whether or not to congratulate you for having the fortitude to unlock it. Certain factions will be at it like sharks to blood.

My good fellow editor, I do not open an account here because there are about a dozen lovely grizzlies who'd get me up on sockpuppetry charges within ten minutes. Do you catch my drift? It is sad, but there it is. I am not going through that crucifixion-via-Wikipedian-opinion again.

Believe me, as you can plainly see, my IPs reveal nothing.75.21.156.42 (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually you can use it to trace your location and ISP but an account reveals nothing you don't want it to. Rcsprinter (rap) 16:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter, if I am not in error, you are mistaken. I have seen strips torn off usernames whenever a crazy admin wants to track them down, block them or even range block. This may be before your time and things may have changed - I doubt it. In this way, with my government-level spinning IPs, I can usually edit happily and constructively without people gunning for me. Well, there are exceptions ....

I am sorry that Republican Jacobite scared you so badly that you bowed out of the situation. With your help he might have been stopped sooner. I'm still mulling over whether to try to get help reporting him for what he did. I doubt I'll receive such help.75.21.156.42 (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who you mean by "Republican Jacobite". There is no such user and I cannot recall any dealings with a similarly named user.

...get me up on sockpuppetry charges.... Are you implying that you have been previously banned for sockpuppetry? SpinningSpark 17:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Spinningspark. 75.21.156.42 is just carrying on a bit of a dispute we're involved in. And there is a User:RepublicanJacobite, but no space inbetween the words. Best, Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) 17:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Spin, I don't blame you! See what is being done?

1. this user Rcsprinter has tracked all the way here from another issue - an issue which she has allegedly refused to address any further after I asked for her help. It involves a querrulous editor called Republican Jacobite. She knows all about this. Why, by your own apparent confusion, does she come here now to comment, out of the blue?

2. Accused of sockpuppetry? Definitely, about 2 years ago. Falsely, because there were more evildoers than there are now. And I apologise, but I plan to carry this discussion no further.75.21.156.42 (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My question was not "were you accused of sockpuppetry?" My question is were you banned or blocked for sockpuppetry? SpinningSpark 17:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No. If you can't catch on or see for yourself, I do not know why I felt I should answer you but no - I have not been banned for that or for anything. Have I ever been banned? Yes. By nosey, abusive admins. Happy?75.21.145.222 (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The temperature of a single molecule

... is meaningless.

Thanks for a slam-dunk set of links! [2] Jheald (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In "| Talk:Boltzmann_constant The_First_Line_in_the_Article Sbharris 2" you wrote "This debate could go on forever, I don't think Damorbel will ever be convinced and it is pointless to continue trying to do so. It is not Wikipedia's job to teach Damorbel."

This is not a valid contribution to Wikipedia. Please refrain from writing this kind of contribution, it is a personal comment about me based on a personal POV, not a contribution to the article. --Damorbel (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how about instead - talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the subject itself. Any further posts of this nature will be deleted without comment. See WP:TALK. SpinningSpark 16:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Penniless Tesla

Hi Spinning, I just noticed your last edit to Nicola Tesla. I had checked that modification earlier today, and apparently the quoted source says "almost penniless", so perhaps, in view the above section, perhaps it might be a good idea to put it as such in the article. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just returning the article to the previous wording and am not particularly defending that exact form. However, I suspect "almost penniless" is probably a colourful phrase not meant to be taken literally. I note the source is not an in-depth biography, but rather an encyclopedia - making it a tertiary source and therefore not the best kind. SpinningSpark 08:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite. No problem with me - just anticipating another imminent edit war. Duck and cover, so to speak :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't taken me long to regret unprotecting this article. SpinningSpark 08:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The silence in response to your last question above is telling. - DVdm (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Duh. I hope (but doubt) that this will help. Sigh. - DVdm (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it, but had lost enthusiasm for that article. SpinningSpark 12:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Spin: I hope you do not blame me and that your comment wasn't a veiled hint about unprotecting the article. It should be clear from my comments, if not the history of the article, that I did nothing to it at all - as I told you.75.21.145.222 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This thread is not about you or your edits, but while I have your attention, as long as you are not prepared to reveal the name of your original account, I am entitled to think the worst. SpinningSpark 14:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, see, I am not so well versed in the Wiki-speak that I understand you here. What do you mean reveal the name of my original account? What, the one from 10 years ago? From 5 years ago? What do you mean? It is my understanding from Alpha that you are inclined to think the worst anyway. I ask that you reconsider, and that you heed the sage input of Alpha.75.21.145.222 (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop trolling - when were you blocked and is it still in force? SpinningSpark 15:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Spin, you are making a huge error. I am not "trolling". You have made up your mind, clearly, so the conversation's over - there is nothing further to be gained from this. May I suggest you consult Alpha about this before you go berserk. This attitude you display is what disgusts me more than anything about Wikipedia.75.21.109.203 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this please you? Don't you ever accuse an innocent editor of trolling.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, since it does not answer my question. SpinningSpark 19:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In reply to that "question", which is "NO" - how many times must I reply for it to answer you satisfactorily?Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Spinningspark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I'm learning electronics and I have a question for an expert.

Hello!

I was just looking at your article on RLC circuits, and it made me think that I don't really understand how inductance works. It was taught to me as the opposite of resistance (and this makes sense, given the fact the the inductor in the picture basically seems to be a solenoid), but this also seems pointless in series because the net effect would be that the resistor and inductor would sort of cancel each other out and you'd be left with quite a lot of very flustered electrons and a capacitor. If you could explain to me where I'm going wrong, and/or how inductance really works, I would be extremely grateful.

Thanks! A curious mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.136.36 (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all the RLC circuit article is not my article (although I did substantially rework it). Have you read our article on inductance? Inductance is most definitely not the opposite of resistance, if you paid for the course on which you were taught that error then I recommend you ask for your money back. If you are looking for an opposite, then you could say that the impedance of an inductor is the opposite of the impedance of a capacitor. The difference between an inductor and a resistor is that in the latter the voltage is proportional to the current (Ohm's law) whereas in an inductor the voltage is proportional to the rate of change of current.

By the way, are you aware of the Science Reference Desk where you can ask any science related question? SpinningSpark 17:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

FP

{{.ace.alm}} - Sigh. Ah well. - DVdm (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And again. Perhaps it is time to fully protect the talk page Talk:Nikola Tesla now. Good grief. - DVdm (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We can (and should) be substantially more tolerant on talk pages compared to articles. I would only protect a talk page under extreme circumstances. In any case I cannot see much in the way of disruptive editing by unregistered users at the moment so semi-protection would not achieve much. If you really meant full protection then absolutely not, out of the question. SpinningSpark 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, of course not really. Merely in a manner of speaking :-) - DVdm (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Boltzmann constant/Archive 2

Concerning your contribution, Talk:Boltzmann constant/Archive 2, a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history and therefore violates the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license. As a violation of the page move process, Talk:Boltzmann constant/Archive 2 needs to be temporarily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria so that the page you intended to move may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. Talk:Boltzmann constant/Archive 2 has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If not, please refrain from editing either the page you intended to move or Talk:Boltzmann constant/Archive 2 until the latter has been deleted according to Wikipedia's speedy criterion G6 (non-controversial housekeeping).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.

I want to be clear, I posted this here because the template I pasted at Talk:Boltzmann_constant#Archived said I should. I realize that you will see the templates there. Also, this does not reflect on whether or not I agree with making an archive, but only with the method used to make the archive. Specifically, the method you used removes the history from the main talk page and I don't think that that is the best way to make an archive. As far as I understand it, the templates I added are primarily to have the edit history restored. I have also requested (via a note) that all discussion over 100 days old be archived. Assuming that a standard template is used to do that, then the editors can agree on some time period and modify the template as appropriate.

Having said all that, I agree that the conversation appears to be going no where. However, I believe that it is beginning to wind down and can be hatted with a lot less drama in a day or two. Q Science (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

...a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history... What are you talking about? I did no such thing. The page was moved into archive along with its history. Anyway, I can't be bothered to waste any more time on it, I have unwatched the page. SpinningSpark 07:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

With the other pages I am familiar with, the talk page history is never blanked when making archives. Since you moved the page, another editor has copied the text back without the history. At any rate, I am just trying to keep you in the loop. Q Science (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just following the previously established method of archiving on that page. If another method had been in use, I would probably have followed that, although it makes sense to me to keep the history associated with the page that actually has the things in the history written on it. I know other editors have now made a mess of that, but frankly, thats not my problem. For the record, I have no intention of undoing my actions since that would be facilitating a huge WP:TALK violation but otherwise I am not going to get involved. SpinningSpark 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You then go on to say you don't agree with your own template?? Pleae try and leave more succint and to the point messages. SpinningSpark 07:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Good work!

		The Technology Barnstar
		This award is mainly in recognition on your diligent work on waffle-iron filter, but also for your work in general. Editors with much technical knowledge and experience, such as yourself, are a real boon for those looking to learn through Wikipedia. Just to let you know, that the time you give in writing and editing articles in much appreciated! SFB 00:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SpinningSpark 09:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Kane

I do not, however the book has been digitized and is available here. The other two volumes are there as well. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Associated Legendre polynomials

Hi Spinning, regarding your recent question on Reference desk/Mathematics:

$P_{N,m}(\omega )={\frac {d^{m}}{d\omega ^{m}}}P_{N+m}(\omega ).$

as defined by Paarmann cannot be described as the m^th associated Legendre polynomial of [degree] N as it does not satisfy the relevant differential equation (try it with N=m=1). It seems that Paarmann is not a reliable source on this point. Coincidentally, I've been expanding radiating fields in spherical harmonics recently, so I have been reminding myself all about associated Legendre polynomials. --catslash (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. A shame, Paarman has some useful historical sections I wanted to use but he does seem to need "interpretation" at times and now I am not sure it is reliable enough. SpinningSpark 09:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I would just like to intoduce myself. My name is Tim Pence. we seem to have a lot of common interests. although I am not an engineer I make my living repairing electronics. first learning my craft in the military on a very old air defense radar system (Hawk), and later on some of the very modern radar systems. I currently work on the APG-73 radar that goes into the F-18. I also for a while worked at the lab in Los Alamos working on their Partical Accelerator. that is where I got a very good education in Nuclear Physics. I have read some of your articles, and arguements, and I hope you don't mind if I probe you for some answers to some of the questions I might have. thank you for your time. regards. Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.245.231 (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help you in any way I can. If you need answers to science questions the best place to ask is WP:RD/S. You will get a larger audience and with any luck (not guaranteed) a more authoritative answer. SpinningSpark 09:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Template deletion

Hi, you deleted two templates per this deletion discussion; however this was dependent on the base template having been deleted; unfortunately, it was restored and the nominator trouted following this ANI discussion in October. Given that, I suggest that those two templates should be restored given that the original deletion rationale was no longer valid. Black Kite (t) 17:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing that ANI thread to my attention. SpinningSpark 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Waffle-iron filter

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For a great contribution to the world of knowledge and it's preservation. Please contact me regarding an editing proposition. Noa F. editor@worldjewishheritage.org Nono-editing (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

IP adress 70.28.59.179 has continued to vandalize Wikipedia even after your three month block. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:70.28.59.179 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan653 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Now blocked for a year. SpinningSpark 17:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Waffle-iron filter

Hi, I was just reading this article and I noticed you are nominating it for GA. As a GA reviewer, I have noticed your referencing. When the article gets reviewed, book references need the author, publishing date and page number. I see you have got the page numbers, but all of that information needs to be included in the citation, as this is a major problem. Just thought you should know before anyone reviews it. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That style of referencing is called Harvard style. The full citations are given in the Bibliography section. SpinningSpark 21:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you chose that style? I think it's easier to list it in the references section. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a common enough style on Wikipedia. It has several advantages: the bibliography is kept together in its own section and is easily edited; there is no need to search through the article text to find the reference text and it is harder to accidentally delete a reference used elsewhere when text is removed. The bibliography can be alphabetized, impossible with inline references. When the same source is used in multiple places but with different page numbers Harvard style is much superior, the reference is listed once onlyin the bibliography in full - with inline referencing it would either have to be listed in full multiple times, which does not make for a neat or meaningfull list of sources, or else one has to resort to the use of ibid or op cit which are not recommended because new references can interpose and make them point to an entirely incorrect ref. SpinningSpark 20:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Toolserver problem

I have replied to your Village Pump post. Since it appears to be an ISP problem, I was wondering who you are with in the UK? I have the same problem here in Germany, where I am also using an Arcor connection. I have no idea about the technicalities, but it was interesting to read that it's not just me and also affecting people in other countries. I have no idea how, and even if this can be fixed... Jared Preston (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

cutoff frequency

Hi,

Then it should not be called cutoff frequency, it should be called "angular cutoff frequency"? I think most are interested in the cutoff frequency. As it is now it is misleading.

Ptast (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

When stating a cutoff frequency it would be usual to state f in Hz, but when giving a formula or a derivation it is invariably more convenient to use omega. This is also conistent with the preceding section on rectangular guide. But you are right that the article should define omega at some point. SpinningSpark 07:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Waffle-iron filter

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Waffle-iron filter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Dolphin (t) 06:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dolphin, thanks for reviewing. Just got back from a long work trip abroad and am currently working through a month of watchlist items, but will be giving you my full attention shortly. SpinningSpark 13:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have promoted Waffle-iron filter to Good Article. Congratulations and thanks for working through the process! Dolphin (t) 23:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you also for a thorough review. SpinningSpark 23:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Impedance matching, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bandwidth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Garrett Lisi

There is some problem about this article that is well appeared in the talk page. It would be helpful your intervention to fix the situation. Thank you very much.--Pra1998 (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You appear to want the article deleted. Administrators are only allowed to delete articles on their own authority under very limited circumstances, none of which apply in this case. If you want it deleted, the correct course of action is to nominate it here where it can be debated by the community. SpinningSpark 17:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for the information. Before to proceed on this way I would like to see what will happen when dust should settle. As you can see there is a significant attack from people with anonymous IP both to the article and in the talk page. Someone does not even know how to sign the comments. This is a complex matter as involved several important persons in what is called the "string war". Lisi is one that got a pay-off from that. My action would be improper now.--Pra1998 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you left a warning on my page. But if you look at the chronology I stopped the edit war after I realized that no matter I was trying to discuss or talk was going to be reverted by this user SherryNugil that is actively trying to keep some information out of Lisi's personal page. I.e., that the theory is incomplete (even Lisi himself says that) and that the theory is widely not accepted by the academic community. Also, I don't understand why I received the warning given that I did try to report the violation of 3RR from that user that is misusing the BLP exception. Also, I had stopped editing and posted on both the noticeboard for BLP violations and for temporary protection of the page. I also have asked not to delete the article, but simply that it is stated clearly that Lisi's theory in its current status is not working, cannot reproduce the known particles and that it's not widely accepted in the scientific community. The problem is actually quite complex, because without any understanding about the physics behind it is hard to see, but not impossible, that the user SherryNugil has been working for years on this page trying always to smooth or to delete any information that isn't supportive of Lisi's POV. Even more worrying, there is another user, Scientryst, that acts exactly the same (same method, same editing style, same responses) on Lisi's theory page. It's been years that people arrive to these two pages and complain about these two users. The problem is that then those people after a while get tired and so, few weeks later, SherryNugil on Lisi's page and Scientryst on Lisi's theory page go back and start editing again to make everything look more favorable to Lisi's POV. In the latest happenings, SherryNugil is trying to hide the information the Lisi's theory not only is just preliminary, but doesn't work (who knows, maybe it will in the future, but not at the moment). Yet, a reader that arrives to Lisi's page, doesn't even understand that very clearly. Something that is in conflict with WP policies of UNDUE and FRINGE.

My idea, idea often shared by other editors, is that these two users are directly involved with Lisi's work and are trying to make any random reader believe that Lisi actually wrote a theory of everything that actually works. This is a problem since not only it is not true, but because Lisi's theory is what made Lisi famous in the first place. Hence, it needs to be stated clearly whether or not his theory in the present version works or not. This has nothing to do with being a crackpot or with deleting the page. Personally, I also think that user SherryNugil is a sockpuppet of user Scientryst. They respectively edit Lisi's page and Lisi's theory page. Those two pages are the only pages that those users edit on WP, indicating clearly that their only intention on WP is to make sure that the poor results of Lisi's theory get hidden in words of infinite disputes. I am currently trying to report them for sock puppetry, because I believe that editing the two pages pretending to be a different user is just an attempt to hide their purpose, which would be more obvious if it was proven that it was the same editor writing on both pages using a disguise. If Lisi's theory really was correct, we wouldn't need just these two users, or one user and one puppet, to constantly defending that page. If it was correct there would be many many users competent about physics who would defend the page. Thanks 24.7.128.58 (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It is beside the point who is in the right in an edit war. Wikipedia requires you not to do it. It is not at all a reflection on my own opinion of the subject. The IP I warned (who is not the same as your IP by the way) had done six reversions yesterday and was clearly taking part in an edit war. SpinningSpark 11:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Spinningspark for helping to promote Waffle-iron filter to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Filter photo

Hi Spinning, I've added a photo to waffle-iron filter. It's clear however that this photo isn't wonderful (and there's not much hope of getting a better shot without cutting the thing open). So if you feel it doesn't add anything to the article, then just revert it, and I won't be offended. --catslash (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I wrote to a manufacturer asking for pictures. They said I could use anything on their website but they have not managed to provide a simple statement that it is released under a free licence so I am unable to currently use anything. They also promised to take some pictures with a professional photographer, but nothing has materialised so far so I am giving up on them for the moment. Even if they do eventually provide something, your picture is showing the matching sections, so still adds something extra. SpinningSpark 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Through-hole merge (reply)

In regard to this edit, just to let you know that the merge debate is at Talk:Printed circuit board#Suggest merge, not on the page you actually posted on. SpinningSpark 18:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! I posted on the wrong page, as merge discussions usually occur on the target's talk page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of chronometers on HMS Beagle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Strand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Indoor-outdoor thermometer

Orlady (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Otto Julius Zobel

This is a note to let the main editors of Otto Julius Zobel know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 28, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 28, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Otto Julius Zobel (1887–1970) was a design engineer who worked for the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T) in the early part of the 20th century. Zobel's work on filter design was revolutionary and led, in conjunction with the work of John R. Carson, to significant commercial advances for AT&T in the field of frequency division multiplex (FDM) telephone transmissions. Although much of Zobel's work has been superseded by more modern filter designs, it remains the basis of filter theory and his papers are still referenced today. Zobel invented the m-derived filter and the constant-resistance filter, which remains in use. Zobel and Carson helped to establish the nature of noise in electric circuits, concluding that—contrary to mainstream belief—it is not even theoretically possible to filter out noise entirely and that noise will always be a limiting factor in what it is possible to transmit. Thus, they anticipated the later work of Claude Shannon, who showed how the theoretical information rate of a channel is related to the noise of the channel. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Foo fighter

I agree with you about the image. It looked cool when I found it on the French article but thought afterwards the jets look like the 262s on my old Panzer General.

I don't usually say anything but thought this once I'd point something out. I wished that you had just removed the image instead of doing a full revert. When I go into an article for whatever reason (rvv, add image etc) I always see what little things I can cleanup - remove double spaces, add or remove line feed maybe some ce.

In my little brain wasting a diff feels like throwing food out. I know about "don't worry about it" but still every edit/diff costs the project resources/money and I don't know how they do it. SlightSmile 17:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have done an edit rather than a revert if I did not actually disagree with most of your "cleanup". Spacing put in to aid readability of text in edit mode is beneficial. This includes line breaks after headings and formulae and double spaces at the end of sentences. Many people who have been formally taught to type will have great difficulty not doing that last one, I think it is fundamentally wrong to gratuitously change the style of a page. This forces the editors of the page to then either use a style they don't like, have an inconsistent mix of styles on the page, or get into edit wars with every passing copyeditor.

I don't understand what you mean by "wasted diff". Whether a revert or an edit, there would still be the same number of diffs in the database. SpinningSpark 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Something to think about, thanks. As far as line breaks after headings I do try to see if there's a consistency, if not then I make it consistent in favor of remove the excess line except if there's an image or template after the heading in which case I like a line feed. You have a point about "gratuitously change the style of a page" but in fairness to me I've found a lot of pages that looked like someone's cat barfed on it - and I made it nice.

Sometimes I don't explain well. This is me when I was new here. Twelve edits to do in what should have been one or two edits. How does twelve diffs take up the same storage in the database as two? When I rvv I go through the page to see if it needs something while in there anyways. SlightSmile 18:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, consistency is the main thing, if a page is a mess of different styles, it of course needs cleaning up. SpinningSpark 18:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review, Dorset.

Thanks for your very thorough peer review of the Dorset article. I will post any comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dorset/archive3‎. Any further thoughts that you wish to contribute, will of course be welcome. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Does the whiteboard need an eraser?

Circuit dreamer's doodles are still around, though I don't know if any of them are still in article space. The ones I've seen also have the "candidate to be moved to Commons" template on them. Given that CD is banned from editing electronics articles and that his whiteboard sketches were generally received negatively, I wonder if a mass deletion of them would be 1. proper and 2. a good idea. I had last read the negative resistance article when it was largely a CD thought experiment, and recently pointed out the article to someone else whereupon I noticed the discussion and reversion. I have no other involvement in the matter, though I must admit that CD's posts are unintentionally funny. Hellbus (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't much care for CD's artwork either, deleting purely on the grounds that he currently has community sanctions against him is not a valid rationale. The work he did before he was sanctioned stands or falls on its own merits, same as anybody elses. Images from CD that are not used anywhere on Wikipedia (including talk pages) I would think you would not have much trouble getting them through WP:IFD but it hardly seems worth the effort to me. Commons have different criteria for inclusion, but quality does not seem to be amongst them in my experience. SpinningSpark 00:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

CIDR contribs

Is this what you had in mind? (A large range as an example, takes a moment to load.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, just the ticket. I would suggest though, that the results are limited to 50 or 100 at a time to avoid freezing browsers on slow machines. It's rarely necessary to look back beyond that and a "next 50" or "next 100" button would take care of the cases where it is wanted. Thanks for your efforts, I will certainly put that to use. SpinningSpark 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've imposed a limit of 1000 edits (with no "next 1000" link) for now, but I can change that if/when someone needs it. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting followup

Hi Spinningspark, thank you again for taking the time to do a source review at Franco-Mongol alliance. I have replied to your post at the FA nom. If you have a moment, could you please pop in again? The promotion of the article seems to be stalled, awaiting on your reply to my reply.[3] Thanks, --Elonka 04:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Macario De Souza

hi their, forgive my ignorance as i am a first time user on wikipedia, i needed to create a wikipedia for a musician/ film maker in australia and am wondering how i can go about that. i've updated what i think is a better unbiased version of my first article. i think it's in the right place, and am hoping it has enough to stay... can you give me any pointers? thank you Lharriet1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lharriet1 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Spinningspark,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, why not? SpinningSpark 21:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck?

Hi Spinningspark, I don't think we've run into each other before, but I noticed that you've been doing some spotchecks at WP:FAC recently and was wondering if you'd be interested in doing one for an article I co-nominated. Prosperity theology is at FAC right now, and I think it might be due for a spotcheck. (I noticed some FACs have languished without a spotcheck for a while, so I thought I'd ping someone directly on it.) No problem at all if you're busy/uninterested though. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would oblige, but I don't have the time right now - spotchecks take a considerable amount of time. Keep me in mind for next time. Has the FA director/delegate asked for a spotcheck? They don't always, depending on the proposer's past FA experience and performance. If that is what is holding up promotion I would expect them to say so. SpinningSpark 19:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I imagine that they are quite time consuming. They haven't asked for a spotcheck yet, but neither I nor the co-nom have nominated anything before, so I imagine that they will need one before promoting and figured I'd try to speed things up. No prob, though, have a good weekend. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be going well anyhow. Good luck. SpinningSpark 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Communication with Mars

Hi! I'm an Engineer with whom you communicated on Talk:Electric current, and I notice you're interested in communications. I'd very much like to read something about the details of how we manage to generate and communicate all the information we are getting from spacial locations like say Mars. Do you know a source of summary information that explains the technical details of that operation that I can review? I did help work on the batteries for some of these space operations, but I'd like to know more communication details. It has to do with the basic principles of spacial communications, Frequency generation, antenna coupling and aiming, back and forth communicating., data storage etc. There ought to be a neat summary of this stuff that a person could review for understanding. Any ideas? and thank you.WFPM (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You might start with Space Communications and Navigation Program although that only covers NASA activities and not other countries (although some others are linked in See also). SpinningSpark 00:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Okay and thank you and I'll tackle it. But you can see the sort out I'm going to have to make to extract the Mars details from the JPL and other programs. And it seems to me that a lot more precision is involved with space communications than with earth communications, and I was wondering how they coordinate to keep in contact. And if they're doing it by the directional carrier mod method I don't see how they can believe in other than photon energy transmission.WFPM (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Adaptive Carrier Tracking for Direct-To-Earth Mars Communications discusses some of the issues. If you don't have access to IEEE Xplore, drop me an e-mail and I will send you a copy. You might also be interested in a NASA proposal for an optical comms link for Mars Deep-Space Optical Communications Downlink Budget from Mars: System Parameters. SpinningSpark 17:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Now they're cooking!! Sounds like a good application for a powerful laser. I wouldn't want to get in its way though. And We'd learn a lot about orbits by just controlling the correct aim of it. However the Moon would a good place to start. How do you modulate a laser? Everything argues that we ought to start this stuff with the moon.WFPM (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Maybe you could use a laser com system like that from the International Space station and have more coverage than you would from California.WFPM (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi, I'm a librarian at a small school about 60 miles from New York City. My students are investigating the Titanic. We are seeking more information on the telegraph and Morse code. I was wondering if you would be willing to video conference with us to tell us more about the Morse code. Thank you Paugh (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not do video conferences or lectures. I am happy to answer questions here, but you may get a faster response to specific questions at our reference desk which is manned by many expert volunteers. We have articles on all the subjects you mentioned: RMS Titanic, electric telegraph, and Morse code. SpinningSpark 00:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really confused and a little flabbergasted

"It is simply common politeness to inform another editor...."- 22 What could I have done better and is the other party truly tendentious and if so what should I do How to you justify all this?

First I only filed a dispute. And in the interest of Wikipedia not myself. The moderator at the dispute board referred the issue to the OR board because the other editor thought he acted improperly and wouldn't take his advice. I'm not behind continuing the issue and I have no personal feelings about the other editor although I admitted to being a little annoyed and frustrated with the process.

I thought I made it clear I wanted an opinion on the editing pattern and whether is was problematic specifically tendentious. I don't want an opinion about the other editor. Show me anyone's pattern of editing you think is tendentious. I also wanted to know if it was problematic should I really do something about it. I don't have personal motives in these issues. Wikipedia is the issue. How are you so sure you understand my motives? And if you're so concerned about the other editor why not just inform him? I don't care since the issue isn't really about him anyway. I'm not going to even bother to look up what forum shopping is.

I'm not reluctant to puts diffs up but how is anyone going to comment on a pattern of editing without looking at a good bit of the editing? If you'd told me to put them up if I really wanted an answer then I'd be happy to do it upon arriving back in the States. I haven't had much bandwidth or time on the internet much less a stable one while in China. I got back 4AM this morning.

I'm not that upset with having the issue closed but I'm upset you unilaterally decided what I'm thinking, what my motives are and didn't take the time to message me even though you were readily prepared to message someone else. Have a great day!Jobberone (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave you an opinion of the editing pattern in my first post to the thread, and the detailed reasons for the close in the second. I really have nothing to add to that: you declined to inform the other editor after being prompted to do so, and declined to provide diffs after being requested. There was no assumption, or accusation, made about your motivation in either post. This would not have been an issue if you had asked a general question about editing patterns, but the answer you got would probably be little more than a referral to WP:DISPUTE and WP:TENDENTIOUS. On the other hand, if you want to discuss a specific case then we expect you to provide specific evidence and inform the specific editor. SpinningSpark 08:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You gave me an opinion about one talk page not an opinion about whether an entire editing pattern is an example of a tendentious editor. I've reread my comments and I can see where you would have gotten the impression I was concerned with that particular poster first and foremost. I could have explained myself better. However, I came there with clear intentions stated I wasn't interested in causing problems and wanted one on one help. I wasn't interested in involving anyone else in the community but wanted private help. I can see that isn't part of the process though. I'll think twice about asking for help in the future particularly if people are going to assume I'm not acting in good faith. And you did accuse me of forum shopping. Also you told me it was generally good etiquette to inform the other editor. I took that as a suggestion not a rule. He'll continue to get in trouble without my involvement and I'm not interested in wasting my time on chaos. You may want to consider your own actions about assuming bad faith and slamming the door on someone asking for help in a help forum. I'll consider my own actions including trying to involve myself more in Wikipedia.Jobberone (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Rascals( Film)

Those weren't my words, I just quotes Vinay Choksey. --Meryam90 (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

reference

Would you mind cited a reference textbook where the schematic below comes from ? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Unbalanced_Transmission_Line_Equivalent_Sub_Circuit.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.168.17.34 (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not my drawing. You need User:Constant314. But I think it comes from here. SpinningSpark 13:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Content is outside your subscription

Hi Spinning, I'm starting to gather material to expand the rat-race article, and it would be nice to read the original paper: W.A. Tyrell, Hybrid Circuits for Microwaves, Proc. IRE, vol 35, pp 1294-1306 Nov. 1947 - it is the first description of not only the rat-race, but also of the magic T. Would you by any chance have (access to) this paper? - it's in Procs. Cheers, --catslash (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look. Even if I don't have a local copy I will be able to get it. Ping me an e-mail so I have your e-mail address and I will send you a copy. SpinningSpark 17:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have mentioned that I will be off-line Monday to Friday next week, so there's no urgency (on that time-scale). --catslash (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That was worth reading. The ring couplers with some shunt and some series ports were entirely unknown to me (probably because they're not convenient for microstrip), and likewise the idea of square waveguide ports carrying two polarizations. The paper also provides a source for a couple of observations that I was planning to make.

The File:Hybrid ring coupler.svg has the ring trace wider than the port limbs; being shunt-connected, the ring should be $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {2}}$ times the port impedance, and therefore narrower by a factor somewhat greater than $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {2}}$. --catslash (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's gone off the rails a bit. I think what happened is the drawing started off as a 10dB coupler with unequal impedance sections as shown in Ishii but I then perversely decided to simplify it. In any case the Ishii drawing seems to be a little off. His own graphs show a 10dB value for Z₁ ≈ 115 Ω and Z₂ = Z₃ ≈ 55 Ω, so Z₁ should be thinner than Z₂/Z₃, not thicker. Any thoughts? I will redo the drawing at some stage, but I am still waiting for my graphic package PC to be returned from repair and there is already a queue of requests. The article text is also not very clear on this point, I'll address that now.

Some variants I have come across you may be interested in [4][5][6][7]. SpinningSpark 15:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternating impedance arcs, I'm familiar with (and was intending something like the edit you just made, but you beat me to it). Improving the bandwidth by replacing the 3λ/4 arc with a λ/4 arc and a generic wide-band 180° phase-shifter, I was intending to mention, and possibly also specifically the coupled-line arc. The constant-impedance variable-length arcs are entirely new to me. And [3] and [4] are [6] (Shu Liang Li et al.) is outside my subscription <rant>really it's a complete rip-off: over how many publications are microwave papers scattered?</rant>. Incidentally, don't expect me to expand the article very soon, it takes me a while to get around to things. --catslash (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll e-mail the papers to you. Don't worry about the time taken; things on my to do list take about a year and a half to get to the top if I do them in order - and some have been there forever. By the way, if you would like any more versions diagrammed I would be happy to do it. They are relatively easy to produce now I have a library of components to construct them from. SpinningSpark 19:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the paper.

Your to-do Slotted line: are you aware or the Commons picture File:Falowod_linia_pomiarowa.jpg which (possibly cropped), could by the addition of an explanatory paragraph make a passable stub?

I am now. How on earth did you find that, do you speak Polish? I would rather not create a stub, it will only endlessly get messed with by bots and categorisers etc without adding anything substantive to it, which makes it difficult/impossible to later histmerge the user space article.

Your to-do Reciprocity (network theory): yes, there are many instances where this is wanted as the target of a link. For the same reason, how about Ideal transformer separate from transformer?

Nothing wrong with ideal transformer article in principle, but if it does not have substantially more on ideal transformers than is already in the transformer article then someone will undoubtedly try to merge/redirect it.

Diagrams: I've already done some hand-coded svg based on File:Ratracecoupler.svg (but with the trace-width fixed, and with 2134 port numbering (which I'm starting to favour)), and intend to PD-license these. Do you consider the metal-glint shading in your 2D diagrams to be subject to copyright? Also the 'hammered-metal-finish'-paint pattern in your waveguide diagrams?

--catslash (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the copyright issue. I would be happier if you released on a CC licence and declared a derivative work. SpinningSpark 01:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Golding-Birds

Just briefly, because it is getting off-topic at the FAC, and because I don't have anywhere else to really put this, I wanted to point out something called the Royal blue book: Fashionable directory and parliamentary guide (1900). A search within that for "Golding Bird" brings up a snippet view that shows at least four Golding-Birds: Reverend Cyril Henry Golding-Bird (MA), Reverend Golding Golding-Bird (MA), Reverend Robert J. Golding-Bird (DD), and Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird (FRCS). There may be more, but the snippet view only shows me those four. And now, after that brief diversion, I'll get back to the FAC as I promised I would. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube references

SpinningSpark ... It is perhaps an exaggeration to describe as "unnecessarily harsh" your insistence that http://dlmcn.com/rubik2.html is an "unacceptable link". However, looking at some of the references which have been allowed in the Rubik's Cube article, I cannot help wondering whether you are being consistent? As I've mentioned, my write-up has appeared in print – [admittedly, not in a peer-reviewed journal, although it has received favourable comments from cubists]. Are there no references in the present Rubik´s Cube list with comparably modest credentials? --DLMcN (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The quality of material on Wikipedia is extremely variable. Comparisons for precedent with existing material is rarely productive unless one compares with the very best - and that can be found at WP:FA. I am not the guardian of the Rubik's cube, or any other, article and I did not "allow" or disallow any of the content. I have merely responded to edits that popped up in my watchlist and given an opinion. SpinningSpark 21:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ... Another point which might be worth considering - whenever we revert something - would be to ask ourselves whether the deleted material (despite its controversial status) could at least have thrown useful light on the issue. --DLMcN (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Rubik's cube group

Thank's for the catch. The page is still a work in progress. I'm getting happier with the intro and the first couple of sections but I'm very unhappy with the Group structure section. I'll be attacking that next but it'll be slower going.

The Rubik's cube group is a good example for Group theory, and since they're using the picture the page should be up to par.

BTW, I'm a Newbie and you're an Admin so if you have any guidance, I'd appreciate hearing it. --Olsonist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonist (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching your edits; I'm not a mathematician but it looks fine to me, keep up the good work. The only thing I would say is that that article needs better referencing. There are several books on the subject which might help. SpinningSpark 22:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting and consensus

May I say how much I agree with your comment here. Unfortunately the evidence so far seems to suggest that he pays no attention to what people say to him. I am the editor whose fully sourced text he reverted unilaterally but he then insisted that consensus was necessary for it to be reverted back, despite citing no sources at all for his alternative theory. As a result it has gone to an RfC, which is not yet completed. I had even given him on his talk page here several days in which to say in what way he thought my version of events was wrong before writing the text at issue, but he did not do so. What is one to do? -- Alarics (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If the editor continues to edit war in their uncited material drop me a note here and I will do something about it. SpinningSpark 08:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Alarics (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Topology (electrical circuits)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Topology (electrical circuits) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

I've already spotted several issues. Once I'll complete the review, I'll put this article on hold as I believe that it could be promoted really soon. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Authority control

Thanks for your message. I am aware of the WorldCat link problem. I can't fix it either, but have left a message on the talk page for the following, which should also explain the purpose of adding authority control information: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Authority_control

I hope this is helpful. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15