User talk:GRAHAMUK/Archive 4

A word of encouragement

Hi Graham. It's been a while since we interacted. I was a little (but not too) surprised to see that you've added an essay on the downsides of Wikipedia to your user page. For what it's worth, I don't know if I would have become a regular contributor if it were not for your kinds words when I was a total n00b editor. So you're having a positive effect on Wikipedia. As for the "monkeys", I left for a while because of that. I'm still undecided about whether Wikipedia's problems, e.g. abusive editors, rogue admins, etc., will bring it down, but until then, I figure I might as well give it a go and work with some people I respect and do my best to create something worthwhile. --C S (Talk) 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, it is nice to know that I have had some small influence! I think the project is still heading in the right direction overall, and the general breakdown of civility and respect is really simply a reflection of the sheer number of contributors - there will always be rude people, and they are increasing in number along with all the other civil contributors. I also think that the recent negative press that Wikipedia has received will, in the long run, only help us, because it's only saying what I've been saying - that articles need to improve in quality and accuracy - some ouside criticism might shake some editors out of their very narrow view of what we are trying to do here. Anyway, for me it's still very worthwhile, though I don't always get the time to spend here that I'd like. Thanks for the encouragment! Graham 03:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to ditto Chan-Ho Suh's words. I sometime's think: where would all the information go if Wikipedia "died"? Would it just get deleted? Or would it remain online, the pages slowly deteriorating, drowning in endless histories of vanity and spam edits? Makes me want to stay around and watch over a couple of pages. Karol 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

RF amplifers

I was well aware that for a good AM transmitter that there is a need to apply some modulation to the the more early stages. I did not want to put every single detail about the design of AM transmitters into the page as it would overwhelm the average reader. I think that the information should be moved to a new page or as part of AM.

I have decided to rewrite the section which had been in the electronic amp page, the Am modulator electronics has gone off to the amplitude modulation page. I would value your input on the third way which you describe where low level modulation with class C stages, and some feedback loop is used. I think that the best place to put that would be after the disscution of low and high level modulation.

I was not trying to say that all class C amps have a lower gain than class AB, for instance an tuned grid 4CX250B class C amp will have a higher gain than a 4CX250B passive grid (50 ohm damping resistor between grid and RF ground) class A design. I am sure that a 50 Ohm damping resistor is a bit of a silly value (way too low in my view) but silly designs can prove a point.

About AM modulators, I have gone through the RSGB radio communication handbook and I have found about 10 different design options for high level modulation, the option I was considering was anode modulation using an audio transformer.

The big influance on my thinking is the very old book (the radio designers handbook, big red thing written about the design of valved radio gear but it has all the theroy which still applies to solid state).Cadmium 10:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the text definitely has a more natural home at amplitude modulation, though as you say perhaps there's even a case for amplitude modulator as a separate article, but we'll see how it goes down over there. I might tidy the text a bit if you don't mind to turn it more into an encyclopedia article and less into a sort of hands-on textbook style of writing. If I don't, someone else will. I have no practical experience of building transmitters with valves - all the stuff I ever worked on was solid state, so I can't comment on the specific valves you mention. I do recall (and was told numerous times by the old-timers I worked with!) however that valves were actually better in many respects because they required much lower drive power, so you could excite them with a few hundred milliwatts and get tens or hundreds of watts out. This high gain meant that modulating the drive stages was unnecessary, and all that was required was a powerful audio amplifier and a transformer in the anode circuit. With Class C solid state however, the gain of the final stage is only 10dB or so, so with 3 watts into the base for only 30 watts output, to get the modulation to go really deeply enough you had to turn down some of that drive power on the troughs, otherwise it just tended to push straight through the final device on troughs, which distorted the AM envelope quite substantially. Usually this was just a case of hooking the collector drive for the second-to-last stage into the modulated collector of the final stage, or a mix of this and the straight DC rail. The earliest stuff I worked on used an audio transformer, so we had a 30W audio amplifier driving this and a 30W Class C transmitter. Needless to say this was quite bulky (and that was a mobile set!) which is why we turned to the feedback/feedforward approach for later designs which took up a lot less space. This approach worked really well, with one caveat - if the antenna was badly matched (poor VSWR), the feedback detector circuit would often pickup an erroneous signal, which led to all sorts of modulation problems. So a good VSWR was essential for good modulation. Later still we solved that one with some even more strange circuitry though this involved a stripline detector which took up a fair amount of room so the advantage was not so great as it was with the simple detector. Anyway, forgive my rambling, you just got me reminiscing! I'll add some stuff on the class C with feedback if you like. Graham 12:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• AM modulation, you did a good job here on modulation systems.

By the way a good AM VHF design using a anode modulated (a audio transformer is used) was used until only a few years ago in africa by some police services. It was the PYE westminster, this used a QQZ-640 twin tetrode which is the fast heating version (directly heated) of the QQV-640.

• RF amps, I think that it should remain in WP maybe on a different page. We should include something on how valved stuff works, as electronics predates the invention of the transitor. In and before WWII it was possible to make all manner of useful gadgets with just passives and valves. I see valved electronics as a useful but small area of electronics which should be taught. I have included a few valve numbers in case a person wants to look on the web for details of how it is done, I do not claim to be a valve expert I only know how to make a few things with valves. The valve familys which I know best are the ceramic external anode valves (eg 4CX250) and the twin tetrodes.

I have created a small page on valved RF amps, and I have added a link to it on the amplifier page. I think that your charge that I was making a textbook for budding designers is not quite right. I had left out many of the design details and I had said so.

For instance neutralization has been left out, as have power pack design, and the detailed design of the passive networks

I think that the three ciruits which I included as the basic building blocks from which all non microwave RF amps are made from. I think that if altered slightly these amps can make other things like mixers. I have added a reference to the RSGB's radiocommunication handbook which is a detailed text which would allow a bright undergrad student to build a large RF power amp from scratch.Cadmium 13:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is an excellent approach and the right one. There is still plenty of scope for many more radio topics in WP, even one for Pye Westminster - definitely a classic deserving of its own article. I worked for Dymar by the way as an R&D engineer, one of Pye's main competitors in its day - maybe you've heard of them, not many have though. I agree with you totally about teaching valve stuff - it's highly relevant especially with regard to MOSFET circuits, which have very similar characteristics and many of the same circuits can be adapted to MOSFETs with very few changes (though usually losing the HT rail!). I hope you will contribute many more articles or edits along these lines - I for one enjoy these topics immensely. In that vein perhaps you'd like to look over my edit and comments at talk:automatic gain control. I noticed your comment about AGC and FM at amplitude modulation, and I feel some correction is in order there - AGC is vital for good FM performance though it is quite different in its approach to that for AM. The main error was in the text at automatic gain control however, where someone had stated the opposite of what I consider to be the truth. I woiuld value your input there, if you have one. Thanks! Graham 01:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for the reply. I suspect that I am younger than you but in some ways I am rather 'old skool' in terms of electronics. I think that to the user who uses his brain before moaning that valves are old that they are jolly good teaching models of MOSFETs, sadly I could not find things like dual gate MOSFETs in Klunky.

I will need some time to formulate my thoughts about AGC in FM and AM equipment, you are right about the need for AGC in a good communications FM RX. I recall the time in my youth when I was using a ERP of 4 KW on 144 MHz, my RF was starting to do funny things to RXs tuned circa 200 KHz away from me. I can imagine how AGC will mitigate the effects of such a strong in band signal which is 200 Khz off from the wanted signal, as it will reduce the compression and overload effects in the RF stages which exists before the IF filter. The AGC page needs plenty of work, I think that the idea that a AM RX is linear is somewhat silly, I know that the detector is very non linear.

It might be best if you rewrite the part of the article on AM where I fell into the trap of assuming that AGC was not needed for a FM RX. Maybe you should divide the article into several subsections, AM, cheap WBFM for domestic sets (where I think AGC will not be needed much) and NBFM equipment where it is needed.

About the Pye Westminster, I only know about part of it. Somehwere in the UK was a firm which would saw the PA and the HT pack off the end of the rig. They would then sell this as a kit for a home brew VHF power amp. So I only know part of the rig in detail. Cadmium 09:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

About the AM RXs and AGC, I am about to add a few pictures to the AM page of schematics of RXs for AM and cheap FM. I would value your input on how exactly a good quaility FM RX works. Is a good FM RX a multimode (AM/SSB/FM) RX which has some bits pruned off or is it something else.

The schematics are well produced and interesting. However I have some question in my mind about whether they are appropriate in the context in which you've placed them. Certainly the FM block schemeatic has no valid place in an article about amplitude modulation - I understand the motivation, you are making a comparison between the designs for AM and FM - but the article simply isn't about FM, so a comparison is irrelevant. I'm sure there is a place for it though - perhaps something like radio receiver design. I have a similar problem with the two example transmitter modulator circuits shown - it adds little to a discussion about the principles of AM in general to show two different modulator designs, since that's not what the article is about. Again, something like radio transmitter design might be more appropriate. I note that neither article exists yet. I don't wish to discourage you, I think the diagrams are excellent and very interesting. But one of the criticisms of Wikipedia which I think is justified is that it is often perceived to sometimes be a project that is more entertaining for its writers than its readers. That is wrong - always remember that we are writing for a reason, and for a reader. Demonstration of knowledge simply because you possess that knowledge is wasted if it's not relevant to the topic, or so marginally relevant that it belongs elsewhere (perhaps not even in another article - "elsewhere" could be a textbook on the subject to which a more interested reader is directed). An article like amplitude modulation, by its very title, is going to be read by somebody who might not even have the first idea of what it is, as a basic concept. So to jump straight into certain kinds of tetrode circuit for making it happen is not going to help - in fact I can imagine that the sight of such diagrams might scare them off altogether as being too technical or too detailed. At every step you have to put yourself in the shoes of a bright but perhaps uninformed reader, and ask yourself just what is it that they would want to know. Leaving out certain less vital details is as much a part of this process as putting in all the key facts, and as many details as necessary (but no more). Personally I would like to see more detailed articles about radio design here, but I definitely don't want to see that in a general article about AM, the concept. Others may feel differently so if you don't agree with this, feel free to make a case on the article's talk page and see what sort of consensus emerges. In the meantime I think it's best to remove at least those two diagrams. Graham 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Graham,

I think that the diagrams of modulation systems should be included, and added to. I think that in the long term a detailed circuit diagram should have a schematic to go with it to exaplin what each part of the system is doing. I think that tetrodes are quite simple, but I am aware that many people are rather HTphobic and valvephobic these days.

I would be more than happy to muck in with a radio transmitter design set of pages.

I see that the following topics need to be addressed on the TX side.

1. Frequecncy generation

• VFOs
• Crystals
• Direct FM

2. Multipliers 3. Mixers 4. Modulation 5. Power amps for RF 6. EMC issues

I have already written some on topic 6

On the RX side (radio receiver design), I think that WP already contains much more of what is needed. I think it needs to be brought together and the philliosphy explained behind some of the circuits.

Cadmium 12:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ABBa related category

I'm sorry. I just created the ABBA related category because I thought it's necessary a category to include anything about ABBA like albuns, songs, singles, solo works, tributes and ABBA-related artists such as Gemini, Josefin Nilsson, Osra Spelman and so on... I don't think is suitable to put some of them under the category ABBA. fizzerbear 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what the category ABBA is for (otherwise what?). I am currently changing all ABBA related to ABBA - I would be grateful if you could help, since it's a lot of work you've created there. Graham 23:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed the categories. I'm really sorry.

fizzerbear 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

ABBA categories

This is a little spooky.. I was irked today by the appearance of the ABBA-related category, and very nearly put it up for deletion myself - I even thought of YOU as a no-nonsense ABBA editor who would probably agree. And so you do!

So yes, I certainly wish to see the back of the ABBA-related category and will nominate it for deletion forthwith. I'm undecided on the categories such as Category:Agnetha Fältskog albums as I don't really think that the contents of this category fit comfortably within Category:ABBA. I'll give that one some thought. But in the meantime, I'll make a start by nominating Category:ABBA related for deletion!

(Sorry - forgot to sign the above comment...) 'Tis done now. I'm off to bed! CLW 00:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

About Apple

Hi,

I am an Mac developer, too, and I know all about Cocoa vs. Carbon and such... but let us keep our opinions out of the article about Apple, whether they be positive or negative, and keep to facts that are verifiable. We are writing an encyclopedia entry, not an editorial! MathStatWoman 11:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

Let's just stick to the facts that are verifiable, ok? And no personal comments? Alright? MathStatWoman 12:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'facts' you added are incorrect, though I'm pleased you are not persisting with them. You need to understand that writing about opinions is not POV, if it is clear that the opinions are being reported, and not stated. Careful reading of WP:NPOV will show this. The text in question (regarding open source, etc) is long standing in that article and has not proved contentious. Unfortunately personal comments seem to be needed as your have committed a bunch of gaffes against an experienced editor with a long track record of not writing POV pieces. So all I'm suggesting is that you stop, think and take stock before persisting with your constant reversions. Graham 12:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cadence braking

(reply)
Hey, I'm just saying what I was taught :P. I was taught threshold braking was better. Cadence braking used to be taught a lot though, but I think teaching threshold braking instead is catching on more. Basically, with threshold braking you apply the brakes hard, but not hard enough to lock the wheels. It ends up being almost the same thing--I'd say it's more "refined" cadence braking. You brake until you start to skid then let off just until you regain traction and then press down a touch more (and if you start to skid again, repeat step 2). That way you get maximum braking power. You don't go for "lock-release-lock-release" so much as you want to push your brakes to the limit. You want to get as much stopping power out of your brakes without locking them. Pumping the brakes is better than just slamming them on of course (well, as long as you're not jumping up and down on them), but threshold braking is better.

So, I'm not trying to bash the technique that, as you say, twice saved your butt, and I'm sure you're good at it (that you are even interested tells me that heh). I definitely agree it is worth knowing--better to have learned cadence braking and gotten good at it than nothing! But I think...if I may be bold: better to have learned threshold braking than cadence braking. So, mainly when I say it is "bad" is that it is not quite as good to learn cadence breaking, as you can learn threshold breaking instead (which is what I learned--and I say "better to learn," because, as creatures of habit, trying to change from one to the other would probably end up not so good.)

And, of course, neither are any better than ABS... (well, technically, when you get right down to the physics, threshold braking is, but I was also taught to use the ABS in cars that have it, since ABS is really good and the difference is marginal). I could ramble all day about this :P. --Ben 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually when I think about it that is what I'm doing! Threshold braking I mean... I just call it cadence braking - since in practice you usually get to a point where the wheel locks, then have to back off, reapply, as you say... as the surface changes in practice holding a constant threshold isn't really going to work unless the road is really dry. Both times when I had to stop in an emergency it was wet - in one case the surface was utterly slick on some very poor tarmac, going downhill quite steeply. I managed to stop just in time before hitting an oncoming car - thinking back I'm amazed I actually had enough time to think about it and threshold/cadence brake instead of locking up in panic. So maybe we are really talking about the same thing - in which case maybe some changes to the articles might be needed. Graham 12:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok. Then I think we are talking about the same thing. Cadence braking is pumping the brakes up and down and since threshold braking is better it really shouldn't be under "Performance Driving Techniques" in Vehicle dynamics. As for other changes, I don't know these articles very well, but maybe other references need to be reviewed (heh, especially if you were adding references to cadence braking in but thinking it was the same threshold braking!) I also found a pretty good reference on the matter (I had actually never heard "pumping the brakes" called "cadence braking" before and I wanted to be sure what was what so I was searching around for "cadence braking" and "threshold braking"). It's a newspaper article I found (by a racer and skid school instructor) that I think it sorts it out really well: Pumps are shoes, not braking techniques. --Ben 01:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, I'm still questioning it now. Reading through the article again, maybe cadence braking is different than pumping the brakes. From what the writer is describing it sounds more like what was taught as cadence braking was more along the lines of skid-steer-skid-steer with the emphasis on the skid part (i.e. skid until you need to steer--which according to the ABS article is good on snow and gravel, which is what the writer says it used to be taught for). So, then that would make the current cadence braking article more about "pumping the brakes" and not cadence braking, which is different. Possibly. :P Agh!--Ben 01:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wrote most of the cadence braking article originally - I don't think it has changed fundamentally since then. I certainly didn't MEAN "pumping the brakes" in the sense of skid/steer/skid/steer - that would be pointless and ineffective. As I talk about the optimum 11% point being the ideal, I mean to imply that this is the point which you should aim for, but in practice it's almost impossible, so what happens is that you go beyond this point and back several times, so at least you are on that point for some of the time, and close to it the rest. Simply banging the brake pedal up and down is useless, and not what I meant to convey - so if the article does suggest that to you, it definitely should be changed! I'm wondering if merging the two might be best, so we can discuss the various techniques together - I guess what I'm calling cadence braking is what you are calling threshold braking, and neither of these are the same as "pumping the brakes". That should be made clear. Graham 06:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring on Apple Computer

Hi Graham. I noticed you are in the midst of a dispute with MathStatWoman. I cautioned her about 3RR on her talk page. I also told her to please discuss things on the article talk page. Perhaps it would be good to take a break from this article for a bit. Let other people join the discussion and get some consensus on this please. It does no harm, and I think will cause you less stress. --C S (Talk) 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want to know?

Do you really want to know how you were uncivil to me, in an immature manner? If so, I shall tell you. If not, I shall not communicate with you. MathStatWoman 13:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake... now who's being immature? I really don't have the energy for this, and I have better things to do with my time. Do as you please, I care not. I don't know you, I'll never meet you, and it's nothing personal, OK? If you persist in behaving like a fool I will treat you like one, and not suffer you gladly. That is all. Graham 13:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, can't we all just get along? From reading a little of your correspondence I got the impression you are quarreling over nothing. Let's just agree that you forgive one another for any mistake they may or may not have made, forget about all this unfortunate argument, and try not to get into fights (between you two and with others) in the future. --Meni Rosenfeld 14:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The original quarrel is over something fairly trivial, but what really irrritated me was that the other party edited my user page (not my talk page) to lecture me on how to go about things properly, and how to sign my name. Oh the irony! She has been here a few days; I've been here for three years and have made many thousands of edits, largely without complaint from others. I'm afraid I don't take kindly to smart-alecs telling me how to do something I already know how to do, in spades, while simultaneously demonstrating a complete inability to do things correctly herself. If she can't understand that THAT is what pissed me off, then there isn't much common ground is there? In addition, using sockpuppets and anonymous edits to try and wheedle other editors onto her side is laughably transparent and childish. Graham 15:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

But this is a classical case of escalation. Perhaps at some early point you said something that offended her, which is what caused her to act inapproporiately. Perhaps being new makes her overwhelmed, and she doesn't know what is or is not right. Also, I am not sure you are off the hook completely; Being new myself I'm not very knowledgeable about the process of sockpuppetry accusation, but it seems to me you have branded DeveloperFrom1983 a sockpuppet of MathStatWoman without sufficient grounds or consensus, and consequently redirecting DeveloperFrom1983 to MathStatWoman was inapproporiate (correct me if I'm wrong). Ultimately, I am confident that you both have very good intentions but have just gradually built up anger against each other without any real reason. I am sure forgetting about this whole incident will guarantee a future of fruitful contributions to us all. --Meni Rosenfeld 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment. But when one user suddenly disappears, to be replaced by another minutes later with no edit history, editing the exact same article, using the exact same turns of phrase, there is strong circumstantial evidence. Perhaps an admin can confirm it or otherwise by checking the IP addresses. If I am wrong I am out of order and I will make amends; however if I'm right then the other user has some work to do of his/her own to reclaim credibility. At least from me. One has to wonder about the motivation of a person that does that - certainly assuming good faith is rather hard in the circumstances. Graham 15:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In the case that your suspicion turns out to be justified, all I can say is that people often do all sorts of weird stuff when pressed into a corner. I have had some correspondence with MathStatWoman in the (recent) past and she doesn't seem inherently evil to me. I think you and I have reached an understanding, we'll have to see what MathStatWoman has to say about all this. --Meni Rosenfeld 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Socks

Sorry, the "check user" capability is very limited, basically just developers, Arbcom, and a couple of their designees (theory is that it's somewhat of a privacy violation). I'm not inclined to suspect sockpuppetry in any case, the language use and attitude seem quite different, based on looking at talk page additions (article additions can sometimes seem alike because editors are consciously following "encyclopedic style"). Stan 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Plea for reconciliation

[This entire text is also being posted to MathStatWoman's talk page]

Looking through the history of the dispute, it seems that Graham lost his cool after MathStatWoman's comment put on his user page (instead of his talk page). Up until then, it seems a reasonable (although sharp) discussion of editing issues was taking place. I urge MathStatWoman to try and understand why in light of the content dispute that was occurring, this comment upset him. I also urge Graham to realize his response was harsher than necessary and led to escalation. I think once apologies are made on both sides, everyone can get to discussing the issues that first arose and have largely been overshadowed by this back-and-forth. --C S (Talk) 20:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse"

I have added this to the Redirects for Deletion page. Click here to add your vote:[1] Camillus (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Saw your lengthy post on other page

Ok, let's just forget everything with no apologies. You do not see that you did anything wrong, and I do not see that I did anything wrong. But really, for someone who complains about not having time for all this, you surely can write long diatribes. MathStatWoman 07:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I type fast. Graham 08:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Language

I'm not so sure you used insulting language ("sockpuppet" would not be an insult to a newbie for instance), but I've noticed in general that what a Brit would consider only slightly peppery is taken as mortal insult by many Yanks. Even though I've worked with Brits for many years, I'm still taken aback from time to time by what they feel comfortable saying to or about other people. You can imagine how that kind of cultural difference could inadvertantly escalate things in a WP dispute! Stan 13:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what nationality this user is, but to me it seemed fairly obvious that it was a sockpuppet. I'm afraid I have little respect for that sort of behaviour, so if the remark was insulting, so be it. As it turns out, I have been vindicated, CheckUser confirms the alias. Now can we get on with writing some articles? By the way, the Brits are a model of restraint and decorum compared to the Aussies when it comes to plain speaking! Graham 00:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, looks like I was fooled by that one! For telling that kind of whopper, MathStatWoman daren't show her/his/its/whatever face around Mac or Apple articles again, so that should smooth the way. Stan 13:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

QuickDraw regions patent, bitmap/pixmap rotation

Greetings: I have been unable to locate the patent regarding QuickDraw regions - have you been more successful? It should be referenced in the QuickDraw article.

I also refined the text you entered about bitmap/pixmap rotations - for other than 90 degrees the quality is highly dependent upon the algorithm and the amount of auxiliary storage employed, the worst being composite shearing with unenlarged image, then reduced by simple sampling (e.g. Quickdraw CopyBits), improved by shearing on an enlarged image with various sampling methods employed to produce a grayscale image at the appropriate reduction. The higher quality methods (such as employed in popular image processing programs) employ detailed geometric considerations to determine the sample contribution from rotated source to destination, and of course other methods are available, each with time, space, and quality trade-offs.

Best wishes and thanks for your contributions, Leonard G. 03:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

DeveloperFrom1983

It's come to my attention that you and DeveloperFrom1983 have had an unfortunate unpleasant interaction recently. I'm not sure if you're aware that DeveloperFrom1983 is a very new user, and really needs to have more experienced users give him a hand with learning how Wikipedia works. I'm sure that you never intended to bite him, and that you know how important new users are to Wikipedia; your long history of contributions is testament to your interest in seeing Wikipedia grow. I'd appreciate it if you could look back over the communication the two of you have had and see where the miscommunications may have occurred and what you can do to help him out. I really appreciate it, and thanks for helping to make Wikipedia a better place. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition of Kelly Martin's checkuser report to DeveloperFrom1983's user page - the notice should go on the talk page. The admins will have to decide whether to block the user, and if so, place a notice on the user page. David | Talk 00:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, no probs. Graham 00:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm blocking as a sockpuppet used to circumvent policy. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

answer to your query

My colleagues, friends, and family told me that the Wikipedia is unreliable, and no better than internet chat rooms. I disagreed with them. I had used Wikipedia as a reference; then, I decided that I would contribute my time and effort without remuneration, with no emolument, as a public service, to add information to articles. My additions to Apple Computer, although factual and backed by references, were wiped out, and I was given insults: called a "fool", a "sockpuppet" although I always signed in (so that was not a valid accusation), told I was "crowing about gaining from investments" (which I had not; I do not have money to invest), and told that I was "annoying people" by contributing to articles. What a sophomoric, cowardly attitude; insiders who call themselves "experienced editors" are controlling Wikipedia. It is not free. I was hopeful, but now I know that I was really naive, and my associates were correct: Wikipedia is indeed like any other internet chat room. Donations of time, effort, and money to Wikipedia? I think not! DeveloperFrom1983 08:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a valid accusation? Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser :- CheckUser confirms that user:DeveloperFrom1983 (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of user:MathStatWoman (talk • contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Graham 01:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, from the little I've read about this issue, I agree. -- user:zanimum

ResEdit

Don't agree with it technical? (have you seen some of the computer articles... let alone some of the math- on wikipedia?!), but don't really mind either. As for it being a recent edit... it couldn't have been less than a month old ;-)

You look stressed...=

Hey I heard that you were stressed out. I am a member of Ezperanza and I would like to tell you that there is someone out there who does understand. I read your userpage and would like to kind of stress you down a bit. So if you would like to talk to me please go to my tlakc page. Thanks I would like to discuss stuff. Thanks. 5aret 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Also,

File:Esperanza.Fhloston.jpg

Esperanza hopes that your stress will blow away soon.

plea for an end to all this

I never posed as anyone else, although it is possible I occasionally forgot to sign in, but that would have just been an error, and I am not even sure if I did that, but it is possible. But I did not make up any other user name. Often, I use computers in an office, and these machines are used by many, many other people: students, professors, professors emeritus, consultants, visitors...could this have caused this confusion? I am sorry if I caused you any problem, but that would be only as myself, and because I am a noobie at Wikipedia, and b/c I am sensitive to harsh words and names; they make me sad. Yes, the info on my user page is true. Why don't we start over, on the basis that we have much in common? ok? peace? please? MathStatWoman 08:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You are about to be a father???!!! How totally wonderful, awesome, amazing! Honestly, best of luck...may all go well with the new little one... MathStatWoman 10:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I have no interest in prolonging any personal disputes - I prefer an easy life and want to get on with people as much as possible. Peace indeed. Our original dispute is trivial in any case. I wrote a comment on Kelly Martin's talk page that basically says 'forget about it'. There comes a point where protesting is not going to help, it just saps everyone's energy and exhausts whetever credit people are willing to extend to you. You can reverse that by just contributing positively. I think the mathematical articles you have added are just fine (though as a layman I don't understand them, so perhaps some basic introductory paras explaining what it all means would help, for dumbos like me), and more of the same will win you plenty of credit. If the sockpuppetry accusations are unfounded, then that's unfortunate, but the evidence doesn't stack up very well on your side. Sometimes that happens, in real life too. Luckily here you don't have to do any time for it! You ought to know that universities etc usually set up their networks with fixed IP addresses (though not always) so if the sockpuppets are not you, then they are almost certainly known to you.

For what's it's worth, I disagree with Kelly Martin that you have disrupted WP enough to deserve a ban - in fact I would defend you against such a move. I too am sensitive to harsh words; most people are. Sometimes it's easy to forget that everyone who participates here is a real person, so if I was excessively harsh, I apologise. But since we are all pretty anonymous and faceless, the only way to win respect etc is by what we contribute (including all the meta-comments) - by our works alone are we known.

I'm more than willing to put an end to all this, but on condition that I see no more attempts to blacken my name on other editor's talk pages, etc. I enjoy contributing to wikipedia - it's fun - and part of that comes from the collaboration with others. If I end up just having to spend all my time in silly arguments then it ceases to be fun and I simply shan't bother. I have more than enough other interests (and chores) to spend my time on!

P.S. I appreciate your best wishes, thankyou. And you might be interested in the fact that I live under a night sky totally free from all light pollution - absolutely stunning. Yes, there are still places on the planet that sodium lighting hasn't ruined! I hope to be able to set up my camera with my telescope soon, and if I can get any decent results I'll post a few on my user page. Also, as a Mac user and programmer, you may be interested in some of my Mac-related stuff, such as MacZoop (C++ framework, now a little outdated and no longer being actively worked on, but still useful with Mac OS X), a trivia quiz game called iKnow [2] and some other toys:[3], [4]. There's some newer stuff in the works too, a bit more ambitious.

Best of luck, I hope we can collaborate on something more positively in future. I'll keep a look out for more of your articles! Graham 00:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Thanks for putting all this silly/trivial arguing aside; it is neither your fault nor mine, I think, just an unfortunate misunderstanding. I really did not intend to disturb your user page; it was an error on my part. I did not intend any disrespect about discussing signing with tildas; someone had just told me to do so, and I did not know how experienced you are; sorry. We just both seem to be sensitive people, and that is not a bad thing. Anyway, friends now? Yes, I do suspect who DeveloperFrom1983 is; if so, he is indeed a very reputable comp scientist with tales from the past, but a bit of a curmudgeon. If it were he, he actually wanted to add different info on Apple Computer than I did. About other users who might have signed onto the same machine(s), I don't know who they are or what they did. We have many giggly students.

You have dark skies? Awesome. My skies are way too illuminated; I have to travel to get decent views. What kind of telescope do you have?

About the math/other articles to which I have contributed: (a) thanks for the positive comments. I admire your contributions, too. About Macs: may I discuss my ideas with you first, and then determine if they are worth adding?. (b) I would contribute more to the math articles, but I am having difficulty with the mathematics markup language...it is not quite LaTeX or TeX or ???... I struggle with it. (c) Yes, indeed, I would want to elaborate on the meaning of the math articles, and I have done so, but have had my explanations wiped out by other mathematicians, with editing comments, such as "anyone who would read this article would already know that". ***sigh***we can't please everyone, can we? I really would want to explain more. e.g. What do we humans know about probabilities? Do we really know the true, underlying probability measure P? Actually, we know only what we observe. So we humans collect data, and take averages. That is the motivation of empirical processes. I wish I could write about that, but such exposition is not acceptable within the math articles, it seems.

Cheers. MathStatWoman 09:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You can write pretty much anything you want (as long as it is notable and verifiable) but you also need to know where to write it. Perhaps some of the objection to your writing resulted from a poor choice of article to place it. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

anyone who would read this article would already know that. I find this type of justification a bit strange. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means that the entire encyclopedia would be blank! Surely a mathematician who knew the subject wouldn't be looking it up on Wikipedia, except perhaps to check its veracity. By definition, articles should be written for people who do NOT know the subject, and are looking it up here to expand their knowledge. I often feel too many articles are written to please their writers, not their readers. Graham 02:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)