User talk:Constant314/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Not interested

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

Have it your own way.

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

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

Cheers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsubstantiated reverts

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

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

KCL

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

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

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

Chris foy

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

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

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

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

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

Biot-Savart Law - Field of circular loop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I edit many articles and do not remember edits from more than a few days ago. If you want to discuss a particular edit, then send me a diff. That is just the URL at the top of the page showing the edit. Like this: [[1]].

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

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

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

Hi Constant314,

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Dmcdysan

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

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

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

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

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

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

Pending changes reviewer granted

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

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

See also:

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

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

@Femke: Thank you.