User talk:Constant314/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Revert

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

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

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

Misuse of Bayes' theorem

Dear Constant314,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atomic Clock Lead

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

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

International System of Units Featured Article Nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Constant314,

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

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

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

Atomic Clock Organization Proposal

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

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

Benson Distributed List

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

Noise Figure

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

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

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

Salaam

Hello! Just wondering why this edit ([1]) was flagged by your process? No big deal, but my edit was legitimate and with good intentions. Hope all is well. Red Director (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Rosehip neuron

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

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

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

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

Just a comment on the last revert at Nehemiah Persoff

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for offering help

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

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

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

Hope that conforms. If not, please explain.

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

" Coefficients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"

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

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

A final comment:

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

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

Thanks, DJ7BA

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

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