User talk:Omegatron/Archive03

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between July 2005 and September 2005.

Post replies to the

.)

---

you wrote this:

I read an article somewhere that convinced me that most Latin or foreign phrases really have no use in English, and just alienate certain classes of people, and I have been casually changing them into English equivalents when I run across them. I wish I could find the article...

PLEASE, don't do it! English is not the only language, nor should it be! changing foreign phrases into English makes it easier for people to keep their dictionaries closed, and allows people to remain in their Anglocentric world view. for shame...

Weejee 9 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)

Even on the Wikipedia, where we can link directly to phrases ad nauseam, I still don't think they should be used. I wish I were more adept at explaining why, though. - Omegatron 19:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen http://CommunityWiki.org/PlainTalk ? --DavidCary 04:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is a similar viewpoint. — Omegatron 21:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think expressions like ad nauseam should be grouped together with well accepted acronyms such as i.e. Ad nauseam (and its likes) do not belong in an encyclopaedic entry, it's more of a specialised expression to be used in articles where the writer tries to convey his/her thoughts in a more elegant way than writing "until I feel nauseous" which frankly, sounds pretty bad.

However, i.e., e.g. etc. are the accepted (and used) acronyms for expressions like for example or and so forth for the English language. So, what I'm kinda trying to say her is , "sure, change the Latin phrases to English because they don't belong in an encyclopaedia, but I don't change these Latin-derived acronyms because they are English." Probell 20:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely understand what you're saying, but disagree.  :-) — Omegatron 19:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems I forgot to sign my post. Fixed now. Just wanted to point out that than post wasn't written by DavidCary or Weejee. Probell 20:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to explain myself a little better, but can't find the words right now. (And cannot find that article! What happened to it?!)

Basically the idea is that the abbreviations were originally only used for brevity; to save space (and ink/paper) in printed documents, which we don't need to worry about on the Internet. Foreign phrases (e.g., modus operandi) have acquired a formal je ne sais quoi, which, when used ad nauseum in an attempt to sound impressive, serve as nothing but a pons asinorum, though regardless of the writing's actual merit. Wikipedia should ideally be accessible by everyone, not just the pretentious. ("Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet...") — Omegatron 21:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the phrases but disagree on the acronyms, at least from a "foregin language" standpoint since the acronyms can not be considered to be a foregin language (as opposed to the phrases, which are). If the acronyms are to be removed, they should be so with the motivation that acronyms should not be used in text unless necessary. I hope I'm not coming across as too anal about this. --Probell 21:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I don't think the abbreviations are used in common speech nearly enough to consider them English words (except for etc). They're still abbreviations for a (dead) foreign language, in my mind.

I don't have anything against common abbreviations as long as they are expanded when first used. (Though uncommon or invented abbreviations should not.) — Omegatron 21:31, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but written and spoken English (or any other language for that matter) are two very different beasts. Take a look att any book in your bookshelf. The language is not spoken as it is written nor is it written as it is spoken, it never has been. A text written the way it is spoken is actually very hard to read and someone speaking as text is written will sound very "rigid" and strange. Most of the time speech has very little or no punctuation and sentence structure and grammatical "errors" are commited on a regular basis. To make things worse English has one of the worst correlations between spelling and pronounciation of any language written with latin characters. So, your point about abbreviations in common speech is completely moot since they were never intended as a part of the spoken language. Check out the opening section in Spelling reform and there were some tidbits in Writing system. --Probell 22:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Literary language is pretty interesting as well. --Probell 22:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Common speech"/"common writing", whichever.  :-) I meant you wouldn't use those abbreviations in normal everyday writing. They're only used in excessively formal and technical writing (and shouldn't be, in some cases). — Omegatron 02:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose this is where our opinions differ. I can agree that they might be used exessively in formal and technical writing, but they can be very useful in "normal" writing as well. If the text calls for examples and explanations it is much less cumbersome to write and read "bla blah blah (e.g., yadda yadda)" than "bla blah blah (for example, yadda yadda)" or "a, b, c etc." rather than "a, b, c and so on". This follows from the fact that text should not be unnecessarily padded or extended, that makes it tiresome to read. I.e., e.g., sic (which isn't an abbreviation, I know) and their likes are common enough to assume that readers know what they mean, and if they don't, they only have to look it up once. At least one English professor seems to agree with me on text economy.

On a side note, I think that there is a point to not making text (in almost any circumstance) as "basic" as possible, removing any expressions that are even slightly unusual. That harms more than it helps, allowing people's vocabulary to decay, ultimately depriving people of the capability of being stringent without having to use two extra sentences to explain themselves (yeah, I exaggerate a bit). Trying to simplify texts everywhere will only make the readers feel truly alienated when they come across a text that hasn't been simplified for them. Isn't it better to leave these expressions around helping everyone to keep their vocabulary up? (Besides, if they're here, it's reasonable to assume that they want to learn something, right?). --Probell 08:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree.  :-) etc., sic, and et al in citations are the exceptions for me, though. I guess I should clarify that. — Omegatron 20:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then. :-) – Probell (Talk) 08:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. :-)

I updated that section of my userpage, if you didn't notice. — Omegatron 14:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, saw it. It makes your standpoint clearer and better motivated than before. – Probell (Talk) 10:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this page give some matter for links bettwen the languages, infact many of others wiki have on Seebeck effect page, one Peltier effect page and one Thomson effect page. so I wonder if it does not matter to make

9 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)

I have (re)make some change in the links to the others wiki, I don't del it, don't worry, but I set it to allow bot to don't put too much mess in links. Oliviosu 17:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on

Talk:Peltier-Seebeck effect#Why not to make it in three pages? — Omegatron

19:51, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Omegatron is awesome.

Thank you for all your work. --Thax 16:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Omegatron rules. Weejee 12:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Omegatron. I added some stuff to the graphs section of

]

Excellent. Thanks. I put the Maxima and Octave headings under the gnuplot heading since they both just use interfaces to gnuplot.

You don't have anything to add to the Octave one? I didn't really know much about it. - Omegatron 01:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Omegatron,

I noticed your comments on the various vandalism type antics surrounding attempts to move the gasoline page. It looks like the warnings you have left so far are quite approriate, and the anon is one step away from receiving a temporary block - or were you looking for an independent admin view?

One thing that puzzles me, is your attachment of a SpeedyDelete tag to Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs. As an admin, you should be able to just delete pages that meet the Speedy criteria. On the other hand, I'm not sure this page does quite meet the Speedy criteria. It is clearly a made up term and should be deleted, but does it really count as patent nonsense? Its a borderline decision and may have to be done the VFD way. -- Solipsist 14:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was quite involved in the dispute before they reached consensus, and I recuse myself from deleting the article. I think it is patent nonsense, but a handful of people thought it was useful at the time.
2. I've never blocked anyone before. I see myself as more of a custodial admin than a "political" or dispute resolution admin. I'll do it, but I want to do it right. - Omegatron 14:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I thought you might actually be asking for independent admin input, which is definately a good idea for disputes you are already involved in.

I've also noticed that

WP:3RR on that page. However, so far I have only warned them, since although they may be a sockpuppet and should already be aware of the 3RR, I have to assume they are a new anon who may not be aware of Wikipedia policies. -- Solipsist 15:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah. See, I would have just assumed that they were a sockpuppet, based on their other edits. But I guess we have to assume innocence until proven guilty?

Will a block affect their user account, too? - Omegatron 15:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

There are some bureaucrats who can lift the lid on anonymity and track sockpuppet use, but in general it is best not to bother them until a dispute reaches the Arbitration Committee. Until then, we are generally bound to assume good faith and issue warnings before proceeding to a block. I think there are some earlier steps that can be taken to deal with sockpuppets, such as getting communittee consensus on likely sockpuppet behaviour (possibly via an RFC). But it is not something I have chased up before and I would have to do some reading around on the Admin guides to figure out the correct approach.

As I understand it, a block on an anon is likely to affect all logged in users who edit with the same IP. This is what causes so much hassle on blocking one of the IPs for an AOL proxy. -- Solipsist 15:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That makes sense. But it's a temporary block and the dynamic IPs are only used by one person at a time and last a while, right? So it shouldn't affect anyone else. - Omegatron 15:51, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

That can be true. It depends on their ISP to some extent. Some ISPs route web traffic via a proxy server, in which case it can affect a significant number of people. But that's OK, you just have to keep an eye on your (real) mail box, as the message a blocked user sees includes a link to send an email to the admin who placed a block so that they can request it be lifted. That's the safety valve in case of accidental block or blocking the wrong IP. If you unwittingly block a big proxy you are likely to get some requests to lift the block and if the request look legit you can easily go to the block log and unblock that IP. So its not a big deal.

Fortunately, in this instance it looks like the anon is on a final warning on several fronts and has seen the wisdom of not continuing the edit war :-) -- Solipsist 16:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion warning

The image Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.

Craigy (talk) 00:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Question: I've been working on that

has considerably less information but doesn't contain the description "stub" anywhere on it. Could you help me understand this?

Thanks so much!

Hi Omegatron. Regarding the comments at the

]

Page moves by anons

Thanks for the note—I was not aware that anons didn't have a "move" link. And there I was yelling like an idiot... :) tregoweth 21:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Omegatron, I responed to your query at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#css problem since upgrade. Func( t, c ) 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking at Laser cooling and Talk:Laser cooling ? I think you're just the person to make this article more accessible to those of us who don't have degree physics. --DavidCary 04:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, really? What are my credentials?

The best explanation I've ever seen just happens to be the first google hit, so it was easy to find. [1]

I'll look at it. - Omegatron 04:57, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I added code to my monobook.js to do what you suggested at the test wiki a while ago. It works (not always, for some reason, but often enough) good enough for me to write a comment on the Village pump. Since the original idea was yours, and it looks like you wanted that feature, I thought it would be good to tell you directly about it. --cesarb 16:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to know what you think about using of Polarized plug in the article, can it be confused for reader with low knowledge in electricity? Do Plug with locating pin is better? I'd like to know what do you think about it? Thanks. Oliviosu 19:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was I who blanked that last paragraph because it just does not make any sense. (I had forgotten to log in). I dont know what the writer is trying to say here-- do you??Light current 13:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ive read it again and I still cant make any sense of it. What chance will a newbie have? I dont know what is meant by the term 'sensor' and how it relates to a different type of current source (which is what the para implies). Can you illuminate me some more?Light current 14:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete things because you don't understand them. Work to improve them so that other people can understand. Yes, the wording needs to be changed. So we'll change it. - Omegatron 14:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, to me, the para that YOU have just deleted (thanks) DID seem like utter nonsense beacause it did not make any sense to me. There are many pages I have come across that have similar very confused entries or paragraphs ( I you wrote it, I'm sorry) which are more confusing than helpful to the readers of this encyclopaedia and can lead To Wikipedia being given a bad name. If it comes to a chioce between utterly confusing the reader and deleting the offending paragraph-- I vote for deletion.

BTW I dont delete things that are outside my sphere of knowledge or common sense without asking opinions of others. Hope this explains my actionsLight current 16:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you modified the para (but very substantially) which is what I intended to do-- its just that I could see nothing that could be done with the para except delete. I admit I was wrong to remove the link and apologise for that its just that I thought the surrouding text was totally confusing, not only to me but surely to others as well. I'm sure you agree with that.Anyway it seems that we are now on the right track in improving this article but I think it needs its own copy of the current mirror diagram here rather than being linked to. What do you think??Unfortunately I do not know yet how to copy diagrams from one page to another. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?Regards Light current 19:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to put an offet or signal current into the non inverting input of an op amp, Which would you use?:

A) A one transistor current source B) A current mirror or C) a resistor connected to a constant voltage I know what i would do for cheapness.(C). The resistor in this case acts as a perfect current source because its load impedance is zero (virtual earth). Any comments?Light current 21:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think I can explain any more simply except to say thta in this case a resistor(in conjunction with the power supply) is OBVIOUSLY as a current source. Why not put on talk page so that others can try to illuminate you more.Light current 21:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved our discussion over to Talk:Voltage source so that others can see it. - Omegatron 19:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Having pondered this question over a few pints of fizzy coloured liquid, I now see that we are BOTH RIGHT and BOTH WRONG at the same time. I'm afraid that we have both fallen into the trap of considering the paradox of the Irresitible Force against the Immovable Object. Neither can win. Neither of us can win. What we need here is a compromise solution that is satisfactory to everyone. I think the clue lies in your statement that both an ideal voltage source AND a perfect short circuit cannot exist. In fact I believe that neither can exist. Hence, we are conducting a sterile argument. I think that the way out of this is to say that an ideal voltage source (or current source for that matter) cannot exist so it is pointless talking abut what happens when they are open or short circuited. We must remove the reference to ideal voltage or current sources that involve calculations of load power from the definitions of voltage source and current source. Is this acceptable to you??:)Light current 22:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I altered your wording slightly to say that the two concepts are incompatible. The only trouble is, will that confuse the readers.Light current 23:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why the writer mentions temperature tracking of the Vbe mult as a shortcoming . Do you?? This needs clarifying.Light current 00:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this...well temperature tracking is a shortcoming because the output of this voltage source changes if temperature changes - which is against a requirement for a voltage source: voltage being constant over temperature. And this shortcoming has meaningful purpose only when used, for example, in a class-ab output stage. Rohitbd 10:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

hey omegatron, could you put your OS and browser (including version #) on the blahtex bug page? thanks mate Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 15:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Talk:Voltage_source#Class_AB_Amplifier_biassing. - Omegatron 16:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to look at the Volatge source page and click the link to compensator and let me know whether you think this is an appropriate link to be included on a page about voltage sources. If its not to be deleted, what do you suggest doing with it?? The word compensator is , I believe , a word used in Control Engineering (although I may be wrong ). Anyway it is not used widely (if at all) in electronic circuitry (or is it??)

I'm afraid that the compensator does not have a meaning (or is at least not used) in either of the text books on Control Enginering I have. Niether is it listed in the index of the Electronic Enigneers Handbook (Fink). It may be a mechanical term but youre not giong to insist that we s t r e t c h it to that are you?? Why don't we opt for the word 'compensation' insted. I would be happy with that Light current 18:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is the English spelling also. So you are American I assume?. Just that some poor user just got it wrong. I don't think it was me. but i'm sure you'll tell me if it was :)) Light current 20:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying that I don't like 'Anmericans'. In fact I quite do (in small doses). Don't take everything so seriously :))Light current 20:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen your question on arcs, sparks & corona. THIS is a very large and complex subject area. I would recommend you try to obtain the book 'High Voltage Engineering Fundamentals' by E.Kuffel &W.S.Zaengl. I dont know if its avail in US. I quote an extract from the book on corona:

"In non uniform fields, various manifestations of luminous and audible discharges are observed long before complete breakdown takes place. These discharges may be transient or steady state and are known as coronas" p371 Sect 5.11. More on arcs & sparks nex month when I find the refs.:-)Light current 23:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Credit where its due!!.. Good edit. :-)Light current 23:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what the extract says. You dont need complete breakdown to have corona. I'm sure you can have it all the time where it will cause untold damage to insulators etc and create a great deal of #RF interference.Light current 23:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just having had quick look at my college notes, I see that an arc is defined as a negative resistance breakdown in the gas through which it travels. In a low pressure gas discharge tube with only weak ionisation of the atoms,the arc region is defined at currents of about 10A. I am sure, though, that in atmoshpheric pressure air, arcs of much lower currrent can occur. Whether these are visible I do not know. I have seen 1 kA arcs but not sure if ive seen 1A arcs. Hope this is Helpful. Sparks are more difficult to define I think. More info as I find it. :-) Light current 23:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you were to put your finger close enough to the dome of a Van de Graaf Generator (VGG) charged to 100kV ,say, then you would probably draw a (painful) arc through the air your body to ground. If you (sensibly) keep your finger and other objects well away then it is probably just going to create a corona discharge which I believe is more visible in the UV than the visible (but if you turn out the lights you may see a faint glow so they say!). Whether it does or doesn't, corona depends on the voltage to which the dome is charged, and the shape of the dome. Sharper edges are liable to cause corona at a lower voltage. When testing HV cables at work we always put 'anti corona' discs on the exposed end of the conductor to avoid this.

As to sparks, my memory has just been jogged and /'I THINK (dont quote me on this one yet) that the term 'spark' strictly speaking has nothing to do with breakdown of the air, but is merely the melting and heating to white heat of the conductor material ( say you put your screw driver across your car battery terminals ( dont!!) then the result would be sparks. You wouldnt get an arc cos the voltage is too low. It needs more than ~ 120v (I think) to create an arc in air at 1 Atm. Hope this is useful. Any questions I will try to answer. :-) Light current 00:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just remembered something which may be confusing to you: the things which people commonly call'Spark Gaps' are in fact 'ARC GAPS' as it is an arc that passes between the 2 electrodes when the gas (or air) breaks down. This is an unfortunate weakness in the HV terminology.Light current 00:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My quick rule of thumb is to say that if its bluish and thin, its an arc. If its white and sparkly, its a spark. I dont think ive seen corona in the flesh(as i said I think its difficult to see in the light). Light current 00:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just had another look in my HV Engineering book, and while it does not seem to mention 'sparks' as such, it does mention something called 'sparking voltage' which is one and the same thing as arcing or breakdown voltage. So it does seem as if The Danish Proffessor and 'Atlant' (and maybe you also) have it right. I personally dont like the use of 'spark' to describe an electrical breakdown in a gas, prefering 'arc'. I like to reserve the word 'spark' for something that is red or white hot. Hope this clarifies the picture a bit. Light current 01:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that book is a classic ( dont have a copy myself but certainly heard of the chap). If it refers to arcing as sparkover then it almos clinches it that 'arcs' and 'sparks' are the same thing in the world of electricity. However, I think that arc should be the primary word (referring to 'spark' as meaning the same but having lesser usage ( which I think it has) Light current 01:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you going to call those brilliant flashes of white hot metal that appear when you drop your (uninsulated) screwdriver right across your car battery terminals???

BTW are car batteries in US 6v or 12v??Light current 01:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK. BTW A partial discharge is definitely not the same as corona. I have worked on them . Goodnight!! Light current 02:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit on Corona. I agree with it Light current 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown voltage in air at STP is approximately 3kV/mm or 30kV/cm assuming reasonably large electrodes. Light current 00:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by a very experienced physicist the the color of an arc is dependent on the material being ionised. For copper, brass etc it may be blue , but for other metals it could be different colors. Please do not revert my edits without discussing with me first. Light current 19:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Talk:Electrical breakdown - Omegatron 20:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Pleas look talk voltage source. I dont think this para warranted deletion. What is the problem with using aresistive dropper as a voltage source. It wa used all the time in ol TVs to generate variuos rails. Again, is this article about voltage sources or Ideal Volatge sourcesLight current 17:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont think a potential divider should be included in voltage sources,then ALL other practical votage sources should be removed to their own page. How can you discriminate between a zener voltage source (dependent for operation on supply voltage) with a divider (also dependent on supply voltage )?? Remember we are talking about PRACTICAL sources, not theoretical ones. Just take some time to think about it before replying (PLEASE!!)Light current 20:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just re read the voltage source page- and - do you know what? I really quite lik it now!!. Just a few minor titivations to it needed (unless some other user puts a spanner (wrench) in the works by adding something else!!)..;-))

Discussion moved to Talk:Common drain - Omegatron 20:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy reply to my comments. I would like to reply as follows: 1) I am not tyring to "get anywhere" on Wikipedia.(Where are you trying to get??) I am merely trying to correct the gross inaccuracies I find on almost every page I dial up. In that respect, I am trying to increase the credibilty of Wikipedia.

2)When nonsense and claptrap are evident I feel it is my duty to point it out. Your response is just to revert edits that you don't understand. Wikipedia does not solely exist for you to further your education at the expense of innocent readers who turn to it for the facts. Editors should only edit subjects with which they are familiar. I can confidently say that, in your case, you should be editing very little and reading more.

3)I take exception to you implying that I am a crank or "know it all". These sorts of comment are not helpful to people trying to rid Wikipedia of some of the more abominable inaccuracies.

4)I ask you, as a self declared designer of audio amplifiers, whether you would include resistors in the collectors of the output transistors under any circumstances (apart from current Limiting reasons) before I have to go and quote you chapter and verse from one of the may textbooks available.

5)Could you explain your comments about my attitude and previous edits in terms of the general aims of Wikipedia??

6)Content of Wikipedia is not only about what has been written in old textbooks but what is now genarally accepted to be current thinking.

7) Finally , get some proper experience before telling others how many beans make 5.. :((Light current 21:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. The only place I am trying to get is to improve the quality of Wikipedia.
2. I disagree.
3. I wasn't implying that you were. I was explaining why we don't trust edits or demands without explanations or facts to back them up.
4. I don't design audio amplifiers. Current limiting is a perfectly applicable function, though. Quoting from textbooks would be great. That's exactly what I'm trying to get you to do.
5. Your several bold and accusatory edits which were later shown to be wrong, your tendency to take editing disputes personally or make
   Wikipedia:Wikiquette
   for guidelines on how to edit constructively.
6. I don't understand your comment.
7. Get some proper experience editing Wikipedia before telling others how to edit. I never claimed to know more than I actually do. - Omegatron 21:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the Sedra/Smith(5th ed) reference you have provided. However I do not agree with the other two web based articles/book. These appear to be written by amateurs for amateurs and they probably got 'em from another incorrect book/article. Again it doesnt follow common sense does it?Light current 21:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They don't look very authoritative. - Omegatron 21:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I often put things on the subjects talk page but sometimes you do not see it. So to draw your attention to the problem i have to use your talk page. Please feel free to move any of my comments to the relevant talk page. I have nothing to hide!Light current 21:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will see them eventually. Pretty much every article you are editing is already on my watchlist, as we share the same interests. It just takes time to go through it all, as there are a lot of other articles on it, too. (1,186, as of today. I need to cut that number down a bit!) What you should probably do is post comments about the article content on the article talk, and then write a note like "replied to your comment on Talk:Voltage source" on my talk page if I don't respond right away. - Omegatron 22:02, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

OK will do if I wish to wake you up!! :-) Light current 22:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Electrical breakdownLight current 22:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I base my editing philosophy on the basic premise that

Readers should not be misled when referring to what is supposed to be an accurate repositry of knowledge(Wikipedia)

To that end, I would rather see something that is inaccurate removed rather than remain on the article page to confuse the innocent. The inherent weakness/strength of a Wiki is, of course, that anyone can contribute and edit/revert. However if any one can contribute, and the editors do not know whether the contribution is right or wrong, the article can remain visible for a long time steering readers in completely the wrong direction. Since I have been editing Wikipedia, I have been truly horrified at the number of inaccuracies and sheer poor quality of writing on many subjects with which I am familiar. My purpose therfore is to try to correct those articles in the subject areas with which I am familiar so that readers like myself can have confidence in the accuracy of Wikipedia. I'm sure I read somewhere on 'pedia that CREDIBILITY is (rightly)one of the main concerns of the organisers. I have to tell you that, certainly in the field of electrical, electronic engineering, Wikpedia is certainly NOT credible to at the moment. I am prepared to, and already have started to, help correct that situation in the subject areas with which I am familiar.

I have a suggestion for minimising the amount of substandard/incorrect information appearing on the live pages. This is as follows:

Until a new user has proved his/her reliability over a period, he/she would only be able to edit the Talk pages relating to an article and not the article itself. New articles could be submitted in the same way but only go 'live' when the new user becomes 'registered as reliable'. The only disadvantage to this is that new users would be under the scrutiny of existing users and admins and may never get their 'wings'. But this is similar to the procedure at the moment in that existing users and admins try to moderate the excessive tendencies of new users and this must take up a great deal of their time. Under my scheme, at least the live pages would probably be more accurate and hopefully be more resistant to vandalism. I think also that in this scheme new users could be mentored and encouraged to edit responsibly and not have to learn the hard way (like me) by having their edits reverted and getting into timewasting arguments with admins etc.

I would be pleased to know your views on this idea and hope that the above explains my sometimes over-zealous attitude (which I am trying to moderate) when editing.:-)Light current 23:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you wouldn't be able to delete all this useful information until I approved your changes? Sounds good to me.  ;-)

Variations have been proposed many, many times, especially by new users. You would have to get a lot of support to change something so fundamental to the wiki, though. I started a new section on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(perennial_proposals)#Require_changes_to_be_reviewed_before_going_live for you to post your idea in.

An alternative idea is just to warn newcomers about the way the wiki works and get them to approach articles the same way we do, with caution where caution is due. One small change that might help is to make the disclaimer or the source of our content (us) more visible to newcomers. See Wikipedia:Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline.

Also, I think the credibility problem is very much your own personal opinion. It has its problems, but it's not that bad, and covers a lot of things that aren't covered at all in other places. Read through Wikipedia:Replies to common objections, if you haven't. - Omegatron 00:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding on the interesting philosophical discussion, but Light current's argument sounded a lot like a form of immediatism. It might be very interesting for him to take a look at that series of pages on meta. --cesarb 00:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're being watched! :-)

Yeah, that definitely sounds like LC. I think I am much more of an eventualist. - Omegatron 00:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are being monitored. But I totally agree (having looked up the meaning) that I am one of those IMMEDIATISTS. After all, if I want to find some info I want it NOW-- not next year. But most of all I want it accurate. It is bettter to have no entry at all than an incorrect one. Who agrees with me??Light current 01:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The other immediatists, of course ☺. (I'm more of an eventualist myself too.) --cesarb 01:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'd rather find an article with lots of information and a few fixable errors than not be able to find any information on the subject at all. Wikipedia's information is almost always better than the average article you'll find on some webpage (or textbook!). If they have an error, you have to write them an email to get them to fix it (which I do), but it's a huge pain and they often never respond, and the error just sits there forever. As our articles increase in size, new errors appear, but older errors disappear, and the accurate content vs error ratio keeps climbing... - Omegatron 01:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is ,though, you and I may be able to recognize the few fixable errors, but the person referring to a 'pedia cos he doesn't know something is hardly likely to know that the errors are there and is going to take what is written as Gospel truth-- "after all its an ENCYCLOPEDIA" He says to himself-- "it MUST be right if it say so here". So off he goes wires up his TV plug wrong and kills himself (for instance). I know that's an extreme example but you get my meaning. It wont give WP a good name if even one person finds something wrong and tells his friends "Hey -you know that Wiki thing on the web-- well its a load of bull****". If he doesnt find it, he'll look elsewhere and no blame attaches to WP . Do you follow my drift now?? Light current 03:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're well aware, and there are discussions about how to change the nature of the Wikipedia to make it perfect and blah blah. I think a better idea is just to make sure newcomers know how our content is generated and know how much they can trust it (more than a regular web page, but less than a peer-reviewed paper or traditional encyclopedia). Traditional encyclopedias have errors and references and disclaim accuracy, too. You shouldn't trust any source of information without checking the references. - Omegatron 04:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. You and I know that we should not trust sources without checking references, but the 'Homer Simpson' types will just look in his 'pedia (if he has one) and take it as truth. Additionally, I think WP is more vulnerable to the accusation of being inaccurate because, being a FREE web source, many more people are likely to turn to it for reference. Hence we have a responsibility to the general public MUCH greater than the editors of Britannia or other papers 'pedias. Do you agree on the responsibility issue?? Light current 17:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But we're not going to change the way the wiki works. We're just going to warn newcomers as to how it works. If you want to fundamentally change the way it works, you'll have to create your own fork or join one of the ones that already exists, like wikinfo.

I just saw a co-worker looking at a Wikipedia article for the first time, which is kind of bizarre considering I'm sitting across the desk editing it furtively.  :-) We're the first result in all kinds of google searches, and we really need our source of information (ourselves) more visible to newcomers. Please comment on the new tagline proposal (which I think is being handled rather poorly, but maybe with more input from users like you we can get it to look like an attractive proposition.) - Omegatron 17:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Have you been blocking my edits on the Potentiometer page by any chance? I was trying to reorganise the page so that it would make everyone happy. As I was nearly finished and about to save the page, the content of the edit window suddenly changed backt owhat it was before I started editing. I then copied the article to the Talk page to present the new suggested format there and that disappeared. Do you know what is going on??Light current 02:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only way I could do that is to protect the page, and then you would not be able to edit it yourself. It looks like ssd reverted your revert. You know how to use the history page, right?

Let's figure out what we want to do on the talk page before we actually do it. - Omegatron 02:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have twice tried to edit this page within 6 hrs and the edits do not go through-the page is the same as the previous version. Is this page locked or only locked for me. Can someone else try and see if they can edit it? Or is there another explanation?? Light current 07:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not as I had attempted to edit it . Please ignore last edit comment saying that this is new layout .Its not- its the old one. Light current 07:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been editing Talk:Potentiometer with some new info and my edits have been trashed. Just not recorded.

This is now becoming a very serious issue and I suspect some foul play. Could you please look into blocking of edits on the potentiometer talk page. THis problem is now serious as this page is unavialable for any work by anyone. THanks Light current 15:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not blocked and can't be blocked without protecting it. I've just edited it and reverted myself with no problems whatsoever. It must be a problem on your end. Try refreshing your cache (ctrl+reload or ctrl+F5 or whatever). That sometimes fixes things like that. - Omegatron 16:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

See User_talk:Wyatts#Tagline_proposal. Would you respond there regarding other ways to put text on each page? Thanks for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 16:32, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Specifically, Wyatts says: I'm proposing something like the original suggestion to put something at the top of every article, but not use the tagline, since there is strong opposition from Jimbo and others. I confess I don't know a good way to do this without using the tagline. Maybe (and I'm thinking out loud here) we could format it such that the disclaimer text is obviously separated from the tagline? e.g.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. ...(blank spaces)... All articles are user provided in a collaborative effort.
-- Sitearm | Talk 18:00, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

You said: "All articles are user provided in a collaborative effort." is very dry-sounding. Surely we can do better. What is your alternative? It has to stand separate as in "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." space "DISCLAIMING TEXT HERE" -- Sitearm | Talk 00:17, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

The proposal has been updated:

• Leave current top-left text as is ("From WikiPedia the free encyclopedia.")
• Add new top-right text ("All articles are user-contributed in a collaborative effort.")

Interested contributors please comment here. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 02:16, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

How hard would it be to add a MediaWiki:Tagline2 page with a one-liner that shows up at the top right of every article page? First text to go in there would be "All articles are user-provided." or "All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort." Per Wyatts this allows us to separate concern about tagline from concern about advisement of readers. Per me this gives a separate WikiMedia structure area to fine-tune the text. Edits and reverts can be focused there instead of the main tagline. -- Sitearm | Talk 16:04, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

NOTE: I am making this into a section so I can point to it from the proposed page Talk -- Sitearm | Talk 01:39, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

I have made a change request here. -- Sitearm | Talk 20:41, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

I was so pleased to get your conciliatory message, that I have put it at the top of my talk page so I can look at it every day.(especially when we are about to enter another slight difference of opinion)

I thank you for your kind comments and I know that both of us, each in his/her our own way is trying to help WP become successful. Now that we seem to have agreed an understanding, I will try not to stress you up to much if you promise to do the same. I hope that you are convinced of my motives for doing the things I do. I am not trying to wreck WP; I am trying to improve it by removing some of the more obviuos mistakes. As I learn more about the operation of WP, I will try to become more tactful in my edits.(but I will still be BOLD and maybe controversial)

I too could do with rest, so shall we call a truce and start to cooperate on these pages in a friendly manner???

:-))Light current 18:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to change our opinions on what belongs in the articles and we're still going to clash. But it can be argued that that's what makes Wikipedia great; many differing viewpoints are distilled together until an article emerges that everyone can agree with. The problem is, it can cause a lot of back and forth squabbling and wikistress in the "converging" process.

So if we can find a shortcut to the end result while still keeping our own opinions, that will be best. And no, I don't know what that shortcut is.  :-) Just being cooperative, I guess.

I'm pleased that you changed the word "argument" to "discussion". Makes me untense a little. - Omegatron 00:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

CAn U have a look at Talk:Current source when U have a moment. THis bootstrapping thing is just not right and I have asked for explanations on the talk page. THis is what I mean about bad editing O. (:-( Light current 21:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking... - Omegatron 00:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is a good link O : [2]

You may find it interesting. :-)Light current 02:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was reading about those. Very cool. I added a mention to Diode#Types_of_semiconductor_diode but nobody has started the article yet. - Omegatron 03:03, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

hello, can you confirm that for the bug of the same title as this post, you have got the "mozilla tweaks ON" and "mozilla tweaks OFF" the right way around? I agree that there are issues with the translation of something like "20^3", but when mozilla tweaks are switched on, the problem shouldn't be nearly as bad as when it's switched off. When I've got confirmation from you about this, I'll explain in a little more detail what the underlying issue is. Thanks, Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 14:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1)It is not my intention to engage in personal attacks on anyone unless they happen to start it.

From what has been going on, it seems that it IS your intention to engage in unprovoked personal attacks. Writing something on wiki which does not agree with what you think is NOT a personal attack on you, but you have always taken things personally. Rohitbd 08:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

2)In the case of USER:Rohitbd however, I have tried to point out his erroneus thinking by a number of carefully constructed questions I put on the talk page. He seems to have ignored these questions and gone right ahead putting even more confused nonsense on the talk page and sometimes using sockpuppetry to do it

You have asked questions and I have (although there's no obligation) answered. And in return all you have done is mounted a personal attack on me. If you find something wrong with what I have written, why don't you simply give a better alternative instead of name-calling and slander? You even mangled my username to "Rotbild" (See this). Rohitbd 08:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

3)It is obvious to me that he has very little understanding of electronics and is not prepared to learn from others to be careful about what he writes. I was truly trying to save this person from making himself look even more foolish by talking utter tripe.

Voltage sources (zener source, Vbe multiplier), current source (simple transistor sources) were ALL started by me. And you haven't written anything more than one-liners and that too stuff like "potential divider voltage source" which doesn't even qualify for a voltage source. But you have simply managed to bully it into the article with your rather unreasonable stand. Rohitbd 08:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

4)It is difficult to critise someones inaccuracies and save them from themselves if they are not prepared to take gentle hints. THe fact remains that the attacks are not on the person per se but what they write and why they write it. Personal attacks in my opinon are those irrelevant comments about a persons parentage, eating habits, etc that have nothing to do with the argument. But pointing out a persons lack of knowledge and advising them to update it, I do NOT regard as a personal attack. You have pointed out my lack of knowledge in certain areas. I do not hold that agianst you and you are right to make these observatons if you have evidence of them.

All this is just lame justification of your actions. Rohitbd 08:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hope this explains my actions. If you can advise an alternative way please feel free to give me the benefit of your experience on WP :-| Light current 17:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you will please be patient with me, I think I can eventually convince you that the two ideas are in fact one and the same. Actually the case of max power transfer fits with the conjugate matching idea. I'm half way thro editing this page so would you please be prepared to wait until I have finished then we can have a nice discussion about it. Thank you very much.

BTW the book refernce at the bottom of the page is good. I have printed it read the first bit and I think I understand what he's on about. I dont agreee with his first diag though. It has matching networks at each end of the line when they're not needed. Have a look.

I'm going for a short Wikibreak to listen to some cool jazz now so please look after things while I'm away ;-) Light current 19:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you're an Immediatist but you're going to leave the article in a halfway-finished state?  :-)

I will be patient and see what you do to the article. I keep forgetting that everything is backed up and I can revert whatever I want. I just don't want the live version to have errors in it. I guess I have some Immediatist blood in me, too.

Hooray for wikibreaks and cool jazz! - Omegatron 19:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Dear 'O' , but it is not I who is confused, but you. This has been borne out by the many discussione have had where I have been seen to be correct. Please do not use that condescending tone with me. Light current 00:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK --- JUST AN OBSERVATION Whilst you appear to be quite intelligent, it is obvious to me that your knowledge base is unfortunately severely lacking in many areas of electronics/electrical engineering/physics. I therefore suggest that you gain more experience before trying to teach others about how to do things. After all, what gives you the right to tell others how to edit?? If you do have some authority on WP, why dont you tell everyone what it is? Only a suggestion!! Light current 01:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible , do you think , for you to keep your nose out of my conversations with others . Thank you. Light current 02:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All this petty wrangling about how transistors work, what is 2+2, what is the reason for air, why am I here etc, is doing my head in. I am going to edit other pages that even you do not know about. But as someone once said "I'll be back"......????

My last posting of this on the talk:impedance matching seems to have been deleted so I am posting agian on all the relevant talk pages including this one.

I quote from the book "Understanding Telephone Electronics" by John L Fike Ph.D, PE. Adj Professor of Electrical Engineering, Southern Methodist University, Staff Consultant , Texas Instruments Learning Center. and

George .E. Friend, Consultant, Telecommunications, Dallas, Texas and Staff Consultant, Texas Instruments Learning Center. Chapter 1, page 15.

"The amount of echo delay depends upon the distance from the transmitter to the point of reflection. The effect of the delay on the talker may be barely noticable to very irritating, to downright confusing. Echo also affects the listener on the far end but to a lesser degree. Echos are caused by mismatches in transmission line impedances which usually occur at the hybrid interface between a two wire line and a 4 wire transmission system. The effect of echo is reduced by inserting a loss in the lines." (Italics and bolding all mine).

I rest my case, but an admission of error and an apology from Omegatron would be nice.

Whats up 'O'. You've been very quiet today (and yesterday). Are you getting tired of our little game? - User:Light current

Just a small note on spoken etiquette over here. When you issue a bald question like: "What do you mean(by that)", it can have the connotation (depending on the tone used)that:

A) You dont believe what I've said B) You think I'm insulting you by my previous statement C) You are squaring up for a fight

Hence if you really want to know 'what I mean' without being provocative,, the phrase to use is: " I don't really understand your meaning there/on that one/ etc, could you explain a little further?" or something like that.

WE are quite sensitve creatures over here You know!!

Hope that is useful to you.Light current 14:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try not being so sensitive.

civil.- Omegatron

Tell you what 'O', if you dont understand any of my comments, just ignore them. Its not worth the hassle trying to explain every word to you.Light current 14:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your comments just fine; what I don't understand is their relevance to our cooperative efforts to write an article. Care to explain yourself?

It's not worth the hassle to explain any of your argumentative actions, apparently... - Omegatron 15:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well 'O' I think some of these pages that we've been editing together have really seen some great improvements and expansion over the past couple o' weeks. Don't you agree?? :-) We may have quite differing views on how to 'Wikiedit'(is that a word?), but I don't think as much work would have been done if we had not 'crossed swords'. Any way, I feel that most of the the major howlers on these (our?) pages have been sorted and maybe its time to think about some collaboration on new articles where we can work but not get in each others way. What do you say? Any suggestions on how we might avoid future arguments whilst still improving WP? I'm going out soon for a short Wikibreak to take in some music (and some liquid refreshment). Please look after things while I'm gone. See you later!

-)Light current 18

22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the articles are improving, and were stagnating before you got here.
• Yes, that's why Wikipedia is good; many people with differing viewpoints contribute to articles and the articles reflect all these viewpoints.
• No, "crossing swords" is absolutely not necessary. Many other articles were improved by collaborators who completely disagreed with each other, but without any animosity or argument. I hope we can prevent this sort of thing in the future. - Omegatron 18:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

As you have agreed with me on the first two of my statements, I am willing to rephrase my third. Delete "crossed swords" insert "had full and frank discussions". Hopefully, we can now both fully agree on this joint statement?? ;-) Light current 20:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.  :-) It's really not necessary to be angry and accusatory. We can achieve the same results without it. I really hope it stops and we can continue in a relaxed, cooperative way. - Omegatron 20:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

But I'm not Angry. I just present my argument robustly, and defend my ideas when I feel compelled. 'Accusatory' is a difficult word. All I do is present the facts as I understand them. AS we say over her 'if the cap fits, wear it'. BTW my last message was meant to be conciliatory. We must reach some common ground. :-) Light current 21:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omegatron — A quick, random question: Are the three abreviations derived from Latin above the only ones you disaprove of? Or did you mean to say "i.e., e.g., etc., and other such Latin derivatives"? Obviously I'm going on the assumption that you wouldn't want to use the phrase "etc." in English, so as it stands I guess you're saying it's just those three you don't like.
:-D. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I use etc. a lot, but try not to use it in articles.  :-) And yes, I took Latin for a year, so I pronounce it correctly. Still don't like using Latin phrases in English speech. The paper I read said that the abbreviations are completely unnecessary for the internet because we don't have space limitations, and only some groups of people will know what they mean, so they're segregationist. - Omegatron 15:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Article is off base. Needs to mention ESI power factor correction and user PFC. Am in process doing that at moment Light current 17:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(This is already announced on Pump and Rfc but I'm adding it here because I know you're interested.) -- Sitearm | Talk 04:51, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

You seem to be openly hostile to templates in general, while I spend a lot of time trying to make them work. This has the potential to set us on other sides of many a disagreement, and I'd like to avoid that.

You see, I agree with you that template transclusion is often a substitute -- an inferior one -- for improvements to MediaWiki. The latter is, quite frankly, a terrible piece of work -- outstanding only for what it is: an amateur effort, something some guys do in their spare time. Developers are, almost without exception, unpaid. You get what you pay for.

I've reacted to this overall poor level of quality in 2 general ways:

1. Since we can pay nobody without money, I've tried to seek ways and means of increasing funding for the Project; and to raise awareness of the issue of underfunded, amateur development.

2. Since we cannot browbeat the developers into a slew of emergency improvements, I've tried to compensate for some shortcomings with the clever use of templates.

What I'm going to ask of you is that you support me in one cause or the other, forgo any negative stance on both, or come up with a third, superior alternative remedy. It's easy to see the problem; much harder to fix it. I'd like all the support I can get. — Xiong熊talk* 22:14, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

You seem to be openly hostile to templates in general, while I spend a lot of time trying to make them work.

Yeah. I, Omegatron, am openly hostile to transclusion in general. That's why I, for instance, defended {{prettytable}} or created {{float_begin}}.

Where do you get this stuff?

This has the potential to set us on other sides of many a disagreement, and I'd like to avoid that.

You're the only one trying to set sides.

The latter is, quite frankly, a terrible piece of work -- outstanding only for what it is: an amateur effort, something some guys do in their spare time.

So write a better one.

1. Since we can pay nobody without money, I've tried to seek ways and means of increasing funding for the Project; and to raise awareness of the issue of underfunded, amateur development.

So give them money for finishing features that you want.

2. Since we cannot browbeat the developers into a slew of emergency improvements, I've tried to compensate for some shortcomings with the clever use of templates.

That's fine, and I've done the same. I don't think it's appropriate for the two things I pointed out on the Village Pump, though.

What I'm going to ask of you is that you support me in one cause or the other,

I'm not going to support you in general. This isn't a war. I will judge your ideas and solutions on their merits, and support the ones I like individually. - Omegatron 15:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

You said: Maybe we should do an opinion poll on how many people think a change is necessary and get their reasons first?

I've started a page to document proposed updates here. It's a little dry but it might... just... work... -- Sitearm | Talk 05:47, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Hi Omegatron, can you tell me which program you use to make the circuit diagram images? Thanks, --Abdull 10:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote about it here User:Omegatron#Electronics_diagrams - Omegatron 12:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Always remember to delete the text when you add a copyvio notice. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Never done it before. - Omegatron 22:20, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I created Image:Chebyshev_response.png from your lovely Butterworth image; please advise if the licensing tag is not appropriate. Pfalstad 04:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful! As far as I know, the license is fine. It would be nice if it was on Commons, instead, though. — Omegatron 06:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of this page? Read the talk page to learn more about my plans... it's related to the conversation from a few weeks ago about changing the tagline. Mamawrites 09:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped using it because of a really annoying problem: on some diffs, the right column would be extremely thin, making it really hard to read. I just need to find a way to force both columns to have the same size, and I will start using it again.

It also sometimes does not work (and again, forcing both columns to have the same size and filling the whole screen would probably fix it). I have no idea of what makes it not work, unfortunately.

Take a look at User talk:CesarB/monobook.js for some of the problematic diffs.

--cesarb 19:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In real English like we speak over here, output is not a verb (even though it may be in American dictionaries as such). Its use in that manner here is deprecated.Light current 00:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. — Omegatron 02:15, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Omegatron,

I stumbled across your recent discussions with Light_current this morning and remembered my own personal battles with some of the concepts you have been grappling with (particularly for me it was the op-amp concept of a 'virtual earth' - that was decades ago when the 741 was 'hi tech'!). So I started this new article, which I hope will help. I've linked it into some of the relevant places. Maybe it'll help you if you can consolidate some of your thoughts into it, maybe simplify some of the other articles a bit and then link it out from some relevant places?

Just trying to help. --Nigelj 13:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/05/08/30a

I'm still watching it, but I really don't have the desire or patience to deal with it anymore. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please have your opinion on whether to split opamp apps to separate article or (as Alfred Centauri suggests)put it all in WikiBooks. [Talk:Operational amplifer]. THanks! Light current 19:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Lupin mentioned, it's easier to reach me via my own talk page (since I usually unwatch talk pages after mirroring). Anyway, to cut to the chase, yes, there is a difference between the middot and the sdot.

middot is B7 (183 dec), middle dot, part of Latin-1.

sdot is 22C5 (8901 dec), dot operator, part of Mathematical symbols.

Although a given typeface might assign the same glyph to both, this is generally not the case, and the two symbols shouldn't be considered "the same" in any way.

Yours sincerely, Shinobu 14:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving a large number of imags from Category:Diagrams to Category:XY plots, since Category:Diagrams is overcrowded. And I hope that is OK! LoopZilla 09:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. There's already a Graphs category. They should really be categorized by subject in addition to the type of picture they are. — Omegatron 13:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the first part of your post (that bit about usability...), but I can confirm that there is such a thing as a mouse logger, just not as a separate program. Some keyloggers double as a mouse logger by recording the name of the button as you click it, or even by taking a screenshot. Wacky stuff. - 210.4.9.120 14:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find patterns of behavior that I did frequently that could be simplified with usability tweaks. For instance, I found myself highlighting a URL, copying it to clipboard, clicking in address bar, possibly making sure entire address bar is selected, pasting into the address bar, and pressing go or enter. This can be simplified to a single step with the linkification extension that allows me to just click on a URL as if it were a link. Then I was wondering if there were other similar patterns that I did repetitively and unnecessarily but didn't notice I was doing. You could use a keystroke/mouse logger and then mine the data for repeating patterns and find aspects of your user interface that could be simplified. — Omegatron 15:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O: After reading your proposal, I looked up Wikiproject and learned what it is :). As I read it, a Wikiproject is a way to organize and coordinate a group of interested contributors which sounds like a good idea but I also read that the overhead isn't worth it for just a few contributors. If you think that a large enough group can be put together, then I'm game. Alfred Centauri 14:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of LC, myself, AC, User:Heron, User:wjbeaty right off the top of my head who contribute significantly to electronics or electricity articles. I am sure there are several others who aren't as prominent but contribute just as much.

I don't know what the overhead would be. I just see it as a central place to write "to do" lists and get more knowledgable people in discussions about articles that might not be on each other's watchlists. — Omegatron 15:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The project was already started by another user, though I think we can consider it a prototype. You should bring up any concerns on the talk page. — Omegatron 13:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you invited User:Atlant to join the project yet?. He's quite a regular contributor on electronics.--Light current 17:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. You don't need to ask. I haven't left a comment on User talk:Atlant, as you can see. Feel free to tell him about it yourself. — Omegatron 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O: Do you know if there is a Wikipedia policy regarding the editing of article talk pages so that the original order and context of comments in the discussion is changed? Alfred Centauri 00:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages :-) — Omegatron 04:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just headed over to microphone to do those myself. Great job! Thanks! --Gmaxwell 08:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-) — Omegatron 04:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Omegatron,

I have added some more stuff to the bridged amplifier article. I also created a paralleled amplifier article. I have merged both articles into a new one (

article. Please check it and see if it is ok. Thanks!!

Rohitbd 09:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. I'll check it out. — Omegatron 04:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I read the two things you wrote me on my talkpage. I absolutely agree about creating a a WikiProject for Electronics, it would be useful for a sort of unification of the style and planning of the further work.

The main problems are: 1) decide a common style and create some templates, but we can start from an existing stub template 2) we'll have to suggest a common programme to draw circuits, to export in SVG.

I have few ideas, if you agree I'll start writing the article about the wikiproject now, then we'll discuss all the other improvements.

About using Dia for drawing: I tried using it once, but as you can see I made all the other circuits after that with Xcircuit. Dia has some strong limitations: most of the devices are not in the library (I drew only resistors with it!) and you can't rotate objects. In my Image:Star-Triangle transformation.png I made a draft with Dia and I postprocessed it with Gimp (rotating and connecting the resistors, etc.). Drawing something more complicated would be crazy.

I took a look at the Inkscape you told me about: it's the most promising programme, but there are few issues. There is a lot to say about this topic, and if you agree I will write properly on the page of the future wikiproject about electronics. I thought about contacting the developers of the programme, too: wikipedia is important and to be a programme suggested by wikipedia could be important for them, so I think they won't mind adding a few features for us, hopefully with our help.

Tell me what you think about it (please reply on my talkpage) Alessio Damato 13:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Wikiproject, I just see it as a nice place to discuss things and organize our efforts. "Standardizing" on the electronics articles could be useful, too.

I agree that the interface for Dia is very poor. Inkscape has a pretty good interface and nice output, but it's meant for artistic drawing and not diagramming. I was reading around and they plan to introduce some more diagramming features in the future, but don't want to go too far in that direction for fear of bloating past their primary art focus. They've just added the ability to create program extensions, though, which could be very useful. — Omegatron 04:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did it: I started a Wikiproject about electronics. The home page is here. Take a look and tell me what you think about it: after that we'll start diffusing it :-) Alessio Damato 18:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've started adding to it. I think this is a good idea! — Omegatron 20:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I was looking at the Template:prettytable page and I see class="wikitable". As much as I try, I can't seem to find any page that helps me to understand what this is. Can you provide a short explanation and/or links? Thanks - PAR 21:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are in the process of changing the prettytable template into a css class called wikitable. See Template talk:Prettytable and MediaWiki talk:Common.css — Omegatron 21:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been watching User:Sidams edits? Do you think anything should be done? If so, can you do anything?--Light current 00:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism, so I can't block him. If you can fix what he writes, fix it. If he posts really strange stuff just revert it and leave messages on his talk page. Maybe put {{disputed}} or {{cleanup}} tags on his new articles. He's only made a few edits so far; he'll come around. — Omegatron 00:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks for advice.--Light current 00:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]