User talk:Constant314/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Pending changes

I see that you have recently been granted Pending Changes Reviewer permissions. Please don't even accept edits that add unsourced material to BLPs as you did at Joe Swash; I added Pending Changes protection precisely to prevent the type of edit you accepted. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm still getting the hang of this. It didn't look harmful, so I let it go by. It won't happen again. Constant314 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

You might have added a citation The content you approved was accurate. The choice to remove the edit after an article with the baby pictures and video was published was an unfortunate choice. https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/mother-and-baby/20230213164217/stacey-solomon-joe-swash-huge-surprise-baby-girl-birth/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11829721/Stacey-Solomon-shares-family-snap-Joe-Swash-children-compares-Brady-Bunch.html PolychromePlatypus (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Please use more care editing Electrical Engineering topics

From the edits you make and revert and your comments you are under- qualified to edit the technical aspects of the articles. The related Wikipedia articles tend to be dominated by content created by hobbyists, enthusiasts and other unqualified individuals citing similarly poorly qualified sources. PolychromePlatypus (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss any specific edits or reverts that you question. Constant314 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I could, but I don't think going over details of old edits would be of any real help to you in the future. I've read enough of them to know you're not an EE so I urge you not to assume that you understand the material.

The only thing I can tell you that might help is that almost everything that's suitable for a general audience isn't new. Be skeptical of cited sources that sound like hobbyists, or inventors, or hold that conventional wisdom about (whatever) is wrong. That and mistrust extrapolations from the simplifications used to make everything from college physics to Popular Mechanics accessible. PolychromePlatypus (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Pending Changes Reviewer's barnstar
	Congratulations on being in the top 5 most active pending changes reviewers of the last 30 days! Great work. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Quality rather than uantity is important in this case. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR at Electrical wiring

Regarding this change], it's even less subjective than that. WP:ALUM is a MOS entry specifically prescribing "aluminium" in all science-related contexts regardless of the article's general ENGVAR. DMacks (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I reverted my revert. Constant314 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The word prescribe means "to instruct to use". Perhaps you were thinking of proscribe? Be sure to read linked items for more information. DMacks (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I think I miss your point. Constant314 (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I cannot think how I can explain this any clearer. As the "Manual of Style]] tells us, to use "aluminium" in all science-related contexts regardless of the article's general ENGVAR. DMacks (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I get that. I was having vision problems that day and when your first comment came, I just assumed that I had made a mistake and reverted myself. The point that I am missing is your discussion of prescribe and proscribe. Constant314 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay that makes more sense. In my original comment, I used the word prescribe when I said what the MOS said. Based on your next edits and response here, I thought you were mis-interpretting that word and tried to figure out how you might have been mis-reading what I wrote. My best guess was the word proscribe. DMacks (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Got it. That makes sense. Have a good day! Constant314 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

User page issue

Hi, for your information, in your user page you have a wikilink to Category:Inline cleanup templates. This makes your page appear in said category, which I assume was not intended. PRmaster1 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Corrected. Thank-you very much. Constant314 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

loop antennas

thought you might want to take a look at these changes. knowledgeable, but I'm not sure if they fit the scope of the article. my professional field, not something i wiki edit, Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been watching. Constant314 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Telegrapher's equations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Current.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Inductor / Inductance good faith revision

It's not my page, so whatever you think is best, but you reverted Induction from the "see also" section of Inductance with the comment "already in the article". While leaving the duplicate references to electromagnetic_induction. The first in the list, and "already in" the lead paragraph

FWIW, I think that "see also" is a good idea because of the massive overlap between the two articles. If I was going to do a clean up, I'd start by deleting most of the overlap, so that the difference was not hidden in the common content. Then the cross-reference in the body of each would be of value. But since there is such a massive overlap, it's the reference in the body of the article that could be removed -- a cross-reference to duplicate content is the opposite of helpful. 1.159.36.184 (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for the reply. I am sure the article needs a lot of clean up and likely has a lot of redundance. I try to keep that from increasing, but don't have the time to do anything about the redundance that is already there. Constant314 (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:ALUM

Thanks for reverting the 4 "aluminium" edits on Wire bonding. You missed another 17 instances where "aluminum" was used as the spelling. Ewen (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Electric field difinition issue

Conversation moved to Talk:Electric field. Constant314 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Waveguide

You have reverted my most recent edits, stating "Minimal loss is not a requirment to be a waveguide." That's how the page was before I made any edits. I'm going to go ahead and undo your most recent edit to restore the content. 96.227.223.203 (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

If that is what it said, then it was wrong. Waveguides can be very lossy. Constant314 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, what caption says J-band radar? Constant314 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It's in the original description on the wikimedia page 96.227.223.203 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I love you 96.227.223.203 (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that the file name includes J-band but I don't see anything about radar. Care to give me the link? Constant314 (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. I see it now. J-band radar it is. Constant314 (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You made my day! Constant314 (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Detailed referencing of a citation in Biot-Savart Law

Regarding the text and equation immediately before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biot–Savart_law&diff=prev&oldid=1179796320

I noticed a typo in the equation above that and will fix it.

Around a year ago I was relatively new to Wikipedia, we had a discussion regarding how best to compactly refer to a specific section, equation, etc. for a cited reliable source as used in the above referenced text. I am working on another article that has numerous text inline referring to specific section, equation, etc. and wanted to find out how to determine if this is an acceptable formatting style. Are there place(s) where I should pose this question or does it conform to a specific style guide that you know of? A snippet of that conversation is here User talk:Dmcdysan#Multiple cites to the same source

We also had a discussion regarding how many citations are appropriate and I recall you indicating that one is preferred, possibly two. I have been trying to follow Wikipedia:No original research##Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and have been trying to limit cited sources to one or two, or less than three.

In the Magnetic sail#Magnetohydrodynamic model preceding Equation MHD.3 there is an Invisible comment "Common practice in citations for this article to cite multiple references to indicate concurrence," which could be viewed as contradicting the above policy. This is an evolving area of research and the fact that these various authors came up with the same result only differing by two constants is quite significant. Is there an acceptable way to show that multiple reliable sources came up with the same result (albeit with different variable names, algebraic forms and/or constants as identified by citations in other nearby text) since an editor could cite the NOR policy and delete some citations and lose this information?

Some cited references use the style [Author_name yyyy] where yyyy is year, which is not the Wikipedia style. One approach could precede each of the citations with the (principal) author name. I can modify the text there if that would help clarify my proposal.

BTW, I am currently discussing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers the appropriate usage of units and parentheses and how the number of (units) instances could be reduced to improve readability. I am also studying the Manual Of Style that was recently pointed out to me.

I want to get these formatting, unit referencing, detailed sec/ch./eqn. formatting and MOS policy issues understood before making an editing pass through the entire article at which time I also plan to add explanatory text in strategic places to make the topic more accessible so that readers don't have to understand the equations but can focus on only the most significant points.

This is not an urgent matter since there is a lot of discussion in the units formatting thread and that may take some time to reach consensus.

You were most helpful the last time we talked, and thank you in advance for any help or pointers that you can provide. Dmcdysan (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Greetings. When there are many references, that is evidence of an edit war in the past. There are featured articles (FA), good articles (GA), and the rest which vary from junk to almost good articles. There are also importance scales. Biot-Savart Law is an important subject. Magnetic sail is less important. One of the criteria for a good article ( WP:GA ) is that all the disagreements have been settled. When the reviewer sees a lot of references, he wonders whether the squabbles have really been settled and usually flags it as an issue that must be resolved before the article can be recognized as a GA. Unless you are working on an article that is close to GA status, it may not be worth the effort to fix it.

For example, on the Magnetic sail article, I see five references for equation MHD.3. The first two look questionable to me. The third one is NASA. It is rock solid. Assuming that it supports the statement, that is all you need. There is a good case to delete the other four references and delete the words "as reported by many researchers", which is not encyclopedic language and is also evidence of a squabble. The hidden comment has no authority at all. You are free to ignore it, but you might set of a brouhaha.

You have two ways to proceed. You can post your suggestion on the talk page and see if you get buy-in from the other editors. Or you can be bold and just fix it. If somebody reverts your change, you can open a discussion on the talk page, or you can just walk away. Your time is important. If you get pushback, you may want to walk away.

The important thing is that if you get reverted, don't become upset. You didn't commit an error. You did not do anything wrong. You have not been rebuked or insulted. Simply, someone disagrees. Take as an invitation for a discussion. Constant314 (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Aloha,

This is not the result of an edit war, I liken it to reporting that Newton and Leibniz independently discovered infinitesimal calculus; although obviously not as important. The cited references arrived at the same conclusions independently in different geographic regions; albeit with some different assumptions regarding the type of pressure balance that make the results differ by only a few constants. The authors did not reference each others work.

The first reference actually refers to the second (which IMO is also rock solid and is backed by the most theoretical and simulation work) and is the one that I will delete. The last four are from experts for the major magnetic sail proposed design and using the author name preceding each citation should help a reader to identify this instead of having to look at each citation separately.

I will delete the hidden comment, I put it there hoping that another editor would see this and think twice before deleting some of the references. I will also delete "as reported by many researchers," since my edit will acknowledge them individually.

I looked for our discussion from last year on your Talk page and it was several archive events old, you are a busy individual! I reverted an edit of yours on Biot-Savart law and you took the time to educate me on BRD and pointed to other helpful Wikipedia policy pages.

I will be bold and make the change I suggested and be prepared if there is pushback. I recently went through the BRD process with another editor. It did upset me some, but the civil policy was helpful to me and avoided an edit war. I offered an olive branch and the issue was resolved. Dmcdysan (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I had the other question: "Around a year ago I was relatively new to Wikipedia, we had a discussion regarding how best to compactly refer to a specific section, equation, etc. for a cited reliable source as used in the above referenced text. I am working on another article that has numerous text inline referring to specific section, equation, etc. and wanted to find out how to determine if this is an acceptable formatting style. Are there place(s) where I should pose this question or does it conform to a specific style guide that you know of? A snippet of that conversation is here User talk:Dmcdysan#Multiple cites to the same source"

Is this OK since as an experienced editor you suggested it? IMHO it is an improvement in stye and would reduce some of the clutter in this article. No one has commented to the changes I made over a year ago using your suggestion in two places in the Biot-Savart law article . Do I need to seek any approval before making this change in many places in the article during my editing pass? Or, just be bold, do it and be prepared for any pushback?

The other editor also create the discussion on the MOS Talk page and that is proceeding amicably and I hope to get resolution at some point, not urgent and I can wait for others to weigh in and hopefully reach consensus.

Mahalo Dmcdysan (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)