This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, sorry it took me more than 1 year to get back to answering your reply to my question about the goodness of fit article. I can no longer find any missing reference, but the statement that chi squared red< 1 means a model is over-fitting (although it is stated as a rule of thumb) in the article is clearly false without some assumptions. You correctly said there can be measurement error, but on the talk page I mentioned that, for instance, for the ideal gas law, the measurement error due to something like brownian motion would be very small, and chi squared red would be very near zero. For another example, dropping a stone from a particular height in gravity and measuring when it lands, would give a chi squared near 1 if you purposely give the wrong value of the acceleration of gravity (so a purposely slightly low or slightly high value of g gives a better model, but the correct value of g is an over-fit?). Maybe it is a good 'rule of thumb' for particular types of statistical models, and particular assumptions about randomness of data, but if these aren't included in the discussion then the article only makes sense to people already using a particular type of statistics, and is wrong to include in a general encyclopedia in that form. Createangelos (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
To try to clarify the example, suppose someone decides to fit the distance an object falls as a function of the time, and wishes to fit it to a function of the form distance=1/2 a t^2. Here a is unspecified, they are going to make ten measurements to try to find the value of a. I'm not sure what they will say is their number of degrees of freedom, but anyway that is fixed. They will, if they do the measurements carefully, find a value of chi squared red very near zero. But if they change the exponent, trying distance = 1/2 a t^2.01, say, then since it is no longer possible to fit the parabola exactly no matter how accurately their measurements are done, they will get a larger chi squared reduced. If it is not near enough to 1, they can try d = 1/2 a t^2.02 and so-on. Eventually, the model will be a bad enough fit that they have achieved chi squared red =1. They could also get chi squared red to be 1 by decreasing the exponent using d = 1/2 a t^1.9 and so-on. So that if you know what you are doing, you can intentionally introduce errors, making the model intentionally inaccurate, to achieve chi squared red =1. Now, you might say that you shouldn't do it in this situation, where you are doing it by varying a parameter away from what it should be. But this issue certainly could arise in ways disguised, where different models of falling objects are somehow available with different exponents 1.8, 1.9, 2.0, 2.1, .. where the experimenter does not realize that this is what differentiates his models. He will choose not the best model, but one which is distorted.Createangelos (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You are seriously confused about the topic. I have commented on the article's talk page.
The ChiS_R statement is sourced to Bevington, a reliable source published by McGraw Hill; the requisite assumptions are stated.
You do not understand measurement error. After doing careful measurements, "they" should not find a ChiS_R "very near zero" even if they perform the measurements in a vacuum.
Nobody should claim that choosing a worse fit to get ChiS_R equal to one is a good idea.
If ChiS_R is less than one, then the fit exceeds the measurement variance. A fit cannot be better than the measurements, so something is wrong. That is not superstition. Maybe the measurements are more accurate than believed or maybe the model has enough degrees of freedom to eliminate some of the measurement error.
Yes, I think you are right. Since I don't know the technical definition of 'measurement error' I think that is what I was misunderstanding.Createangelos (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
First, I believe your indicated reason for the revert of the previous version "being good enough" does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for a revert.
Secondly, what I was trying to point out is that in the usual analysis of sorting algorithms, the distinction between comparison sorts and the rest is not as much about them being capable of comparing arbitrary items with each other. That is a given as soon as you can sort anything at all, in any way at all. The salient point is that if you have to compare them *pairwise*, suddenly your sorting power is going to be limited in many models of sorting computation. As such, what you reverted in my addition, was in fact the whole *point* of why we point to the article handling comparison sorts, in the first place.
I hope you'd reconsider your revert, and after that undo it. Or perhaps work with me, or others, to make the point I was trying to raise even clearer. Decoy (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Your insertion, "and contrariwise it only relies on pair-wise comparisons", is confusing. A comparison sort relies on comparisons. There is nothing "contrariwise" about it. The Quicksort article is not the place to draw generalities about other sorting models. Glrx (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The most obvious typos are often the hardest ones to spot. I don't mind at all, and I doubt Steve does either:-) (You know, I didn't name him that. The people down at Chili's Restaurant did. After his mother was killed by a car, they kept him alive through the winter by feeding him scraps.) Anyhow, thanks for the assistance Glrx. Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Next time you find an edit of which some was wrong, only undo the wrong parts. Not the entire edit. Okay? --bender235 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Why? So you can remain blissfully ignorant of your mistakes? You didn't take the hint with my first revert ("hyphenated pages not a range"); instead you repeated the mistake; I reverted again ("hypenated pages"), and you repeated your mistake while professing that you did not understand what was wrong ("may I ask what was wrong this time?"). Mindless. I don't want you to repeat the mistake, but I doubt you have learned anything from this episode. Your comment above suggests that you wish to continue to make errors and require other editors to fix the messes that you make. Why don't you learn not to make the mistakes in the first place? Actually look at the edits you're making and decide if they are absolutely correct before you commit. Although you may use scripts to make changes, it falls on you to make sure those changes are accurate. The other changes that you made to the page (such as http: to https:) are edits that a bot can do eventually; there's no pressure for me to do them right now; I'm happy to let the bot do it. Furthermore, I don't see why I should spend any time saving the good parts of your 2 minute automated edit campaign. Glrx (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
So you intentionally reverted my edits just to make a point rather than just fix mistakes. I see you understand the pillars of Wikipedia...
And just so you know: the edit that you complain about (hyphens replaced by en dashes) was done by AutoWikiBrowser automatically. --bender235 (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Blowback
If you're interested, I've heard of this "blowback" phenomenon used in forensics from several different sources. The book Ballistics: Theory and Design of Guns and Ammunition talks about what happens as the bullet exits the barrel in great detail. As the bullet is accelerating out of the barrel it's followed by a pressure wave of expanding propellant, burning in an under-oxidized reaction. The expanding gas has mass of its own, therefore it resists acceleration and deceleration. At the speeds of a bullet this becomes a big factor. When the propellant comes into contact with the outside air, it finds more oxygen and flashes in a second burst. When this happens, the moving mass of propellant still in the barrel rushes out with the pressure wave and burns. This does create a momentary partial-vacuum in the barrel, creating a second surge of a tiny volume of inrushing air, which in turn burns much of the remaining propellant left in the gun. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ref; I'll track it down sometime.
There's a huge confusion about what the term means and the vigor of any "vacuum" in the barrel or behind the bullet. The wikipedia article suggests the feature is some sort of vacuum-driven "suckback" rather than "blowback", and I, being the naive fool that I am, just don't see that as a major contributor. Source definitions also vary.
The simple version of blowback is combustion products at the muzzle (and some other ports) are at high pressure and diffuse in all directions (including blowing back). A CRC Press book about GSR has pictures of weapons being discharged. The mean free path of the propellant gases is short.
A more complicated version of blowback involves gas injection into a close-by target and its subsequent rearward ejection. That can throw material all over the place -- including into a still pressurized gun barrel. One does not need a barrel vacuum as long as material has enough energy to move against the tide.
There will be an inrush around the muzzle cloud. At first (whether or not more combustion occurs outside the barrel) there will be a large volume of hot gas around the muzzle. That volume will expand until the pressure equalizes, but then it will cool and contract. A silly version is to imagine a balloon at the muzzle that captures all the combustion gases. The balloon inflates to a large volume: PV = nRT; after a time, P = atmospheric and T is still hot. As the gas cools, the balloon deflates -- but the balloon never deflates so much that it gets sucked into the barrel. At 25 liters/mole, there should be enough moles of propellant gas to fill the barrel.
There will be a barrel vacuum, but when it occurs and its strength is not clear. The combustion gases are hot. They've transfered heat to the barrel walls while propelling the bullet. After the bullet leaves, the pressure decays to atmospheric eventually (not instaneously; it takes about 8 milliseconds for a 48-inch 20mm barrel to decay to atmospheric. The gas in the barrel is hot, so it is expanded. As the gas cools, it will contract and allow outside air into the barrel. If the contraction is fast, it will be sucking in gas that was just radiated; that will be the back end of the combustion gas pressure wave (and would not be rich with other contaminants that are being blown out of the way). If the contraction is slow, it won't have the power to suck much in.
The displacement vacuum behind the bullet will be pulling material toward the bullet's path (and not toward the interior of the barrel). Near the muzzle, the gases are traveling faster than the bullet and have no trouble filling the displacement vacuum: the bullet is still getting pushed by the propellant.
Yeah, I get what you mean. So many variables involved. I see a lot of these shows like Forensic Files and so on, and it's all just standard science (collecting facts and creating theories), except they often present the theories as facts. Since it's often the cops and not the scientists making the theories, I notice a lot of "target fixation" (a dangerous habit in air combat), where the detectives work to make the evidence fit the suspect rather than the other way around.
A friend on mine showed me that book, because he is really into ballistics. I was asking him about this photo, because (being curious about supersonic flows) I wanted to know why the mach-cone was not at the end of the bullet where it should be. Instead I found out it was at the end of a thin layer of incompressible flow surrounding both the bullet and the column of hot gas behind it, which in the photo is still expanding. Anyhow, I saw your user page so I just thought I'd share that with you. Zaereth (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not into ballistics, but my father is, so I've picked up some details. Your photo answers something that has bothered me: why doesn't the propellant momentum dominate the projectile momentum due to the propellant's faster velocity? Books say propellant momentum is only about 30% of the total momemtum. Your picture shows the propellant velocity is constrained because it must push on the atmospheric wall. I'm also wondering if adiabatic expansion will cool the barrel gases below the temperature of the inside of the barrel -- so the barrel vacuum cannot happen until the barrel wall cools down. If there were prompt barrel vacuum, there would not be a "smoking gun". Glrx (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
For the revert of your revert, and thanks for asking for WP:BRD. I had forgotten I made the edit only a few days ago, therefore viewed my "revert" as the first one, and expected you to defend your edit first. Glad we have a discussion on talk now. -Darouet (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
So I spend 1-2 hours improving an article on WikiPedia and within FIVE minutes of completion you feel so utterly discontent that you have to go and revert my entire work. My rage meter is off the chart. It doesn't help when you add a comment which could as well have been written in Greek for all I know ("OR; needs source not for the quote, but that DK is related to quote"). What are you talking about? Do you even understand that people put a lot of work and time and try to do their very best to help everybody who uses WikiPedia? You are like some kind of bully when you destroy peoples' work like this. I will NEVER again try to help humanity by adding my research and knowledge to WikiPedia articles because of what you did. It's a waste of time as long as assholes like you exist.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorb78 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 31 July 2016
@Sorb78: Your rage is regrettable, but that is how WP works. Other editors may challenge or remove another editor's work.
Although you supplied references that indicated the speakers said the quotations, you did not supply references that said the quotations were related to the DK effect.
Aristotle ("The more you know, the more you know you don't know")[1], Albert Einstein ("The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know")[2],
WP requires that inserted material is verifiable. Many editors have inserted quotations that they believe are relevant to the DK effect. There have been many discussions about such insertions at Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect; for example, see Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/Archive 1#Shakespeare quote? and following. The current talk page consensus is that quotations may only be inserted if there is a reliable source that states the quotation relates to the DK effect; without such a reference, inserting a quotation that seems related to the DK effect is taken as WP:OR (original research). Notice that your message above says "try to help humanity by adding my research and knowledge to WikiPedia articles"; WP is not the place to publish personal insights or research. Glrx (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sorb78: Yep, get used to it. Power corrupts, and there are plenty of Wikipedia editors who haven nothing better to do than use their power to "make things right", without really caring about the intentions of those new to Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I also find Glrx's behavior to be bullying. -- Dandv 23:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
If you have nothing better to do...
...than to keep reverting my edits that actually add to Wikipedia, claiming they are unsourced, why don't you spend that time actually going to google.com and starting to type "Janet Jackson wardrobe". You'll see how Autosuggest does ban the query. Before you tell me that would be OR, and me replying "What are you going to demand be sourced in an RS next, that the sky is blue?!", I'd like to suggest revisiting IAR—since you seem to be really fond of policies and love throwing their WP acronyms around in the faces of GF contributors like Sorb 78 (you seem unaware that to the rest of the world you may come across as a slavish enforcer of rules that were not even designed to be *always* enforced, and certainly prioritize the spirit over the letter). -- Dandv 23:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikilove
I do hope that you can help me come back as an unhindered editor. IRL forces me to make no edits this week. The simple fact is that I follow the MOS and if it says to use a dash I use one and if it says to use a hyphen or emdash I do (I created a chart at File:Dashes.png that explains the difference). If you look at my most recent update I think I used the right one, but while I can change it on commons it would be silly to not allow that on Wikipedia. I will admit that many of my charts use a hyphen because it is on the keyboard, and I have no idea what the preference is of the 200 languages where they could be used. This will probably be my last edit anywhere on any of the WM projects for at least a week because I am simply way, way too busy IRL. Wikipedia has a relatively low per edit pay rate. Even if it was $100/edit I would still not be able to edit this week. Cheers. Apteva (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Replied there. Glrx (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Harvard refs in footers, Marian Rejewski
Glrx (also @Laser brain:). I have come around to your point of view on referencing footnotes. Since they are primarily intended to be used for metadiscourse, and thus must mention author's names, they should be given Harvard refs. I apologize for the fact that the opinions I expressed so firmly at the time not ones I would now support. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I had a teacher who insisted that we not footnote the footnotes. If the reader is looking in a second place for more information, don't send him to a third. Glrx (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Colt 1911
Why did you revert my edits? Article isn't about original Colt M1911 really but about family of the pistols. I'm OK with getting rid of what I did but where's the logic? Thanks! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
First, I would say the article is primarily about the original M1911. Before your edits, the article was about the military weapon and some variations (A!, officer model). There's a paragraph about customizations (e.g., accessories and checkering). There was a paragraph in the design section that starts, "The same basic design has been offered commercially and has been used by other militaries."
Second, your insertions were into the WP:LEAD. "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The lead should be a summary of what is in the body. It is not a place to insert material that is not addressed in the body.
Third, the M1911 is single action. Modifying the first sentence to say that there are "rare mods" that are double-action is wrong, misleading, and poor exposition. A modified M1911 is not an M1911. Introductions should not deep dive into details.
Hello, Glrx. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
According to cited N. Friedman's US submarines trough 1945, p. 311, Balao test depth was 400 ft, not 600 ft. How come you can cite source and give a different information that this source says? --Matrek (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Test depth it's something completely different than crush depth. You can't mix them. --Matrek (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You are catching me in the middle of several edits. It's been years since I've read O'Kane's book, but as I recall he did a test dive to 600 feet (design depth) during checkout because there was a war on; as an aggressive skipper, he wanted to know the limits of his boat; he had to fix several problems to reach 600 ft; that confuses the notion of "test depth". With a leaking outer door seal during combat, the sub went below 700 feet. Ordinarily, test = 2/3 design != crush. Submarine depth ratings. Glrx (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I read this book also. I know O'Kane went to 600 ft, however this depth was set by Mare Island as theoretical crush dept. In reality nobody knows on what dept her pressure hull would collapse. At least nobody who's alive. Just because of this, is always better to refer to test depth, as guaranteed by shipyard as a safe depth. Additionally you can say about safety margin, which for all US fleet submarines was officially set as 1,5 (that gives us mentioned 600ft). If you wish to answer, please answer in my talk page. --Matrek (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Elektrik Fanne (who admitted being IP 85.255.232.231 on a talk page)
Bbb23 remarked, "This deceit has been going on for years."
I recognize all user names except LiveRail, so I've crossed paths many times. I would not have put the three together.
The explanation and the reference mess at Talk:Ignition system#Please use decent references has been on my to do list for a while. I contemplated an RSN to quiet EF's claim to his sources, but so many references were obviously poor that I thought it would be a waste of time at RSN and would not persuade EF. I figured the better approach would be to write an article about contact breakdown and then come back to the Induction coil and Ignition system articles. Part of that determination was so many well-intentioned editors disagreed with me at Talk:Ignition system that progress seemed hopeless there. It was discouraging. Some editors disagreed with parts of EF's position, so I thought they might come over, and I did not suspect them as socks. Furthermore, the topic is not trivial, so I cannot expect many to understand the technical references. A contact is an extremely cragged landscape at microscopic scale; contact metal peaks melt within a few nanoseconds; a metal bridge forms to keep the contacts connected; the bridge can explode and shower the region with metal ions. It is a fantasy world that is difficult to imagine.
I don't expect sockpuppets. At Talk:Ignition system, I did have an inkling of a single IP sockpuppet, but when I geolocated that IP to Great Britain, it seemed far enough away from EF's known IP that I discounted it. Looking back now, I wonder if most of the discussion was a socknet fabrication. An engineer GB IP 86.149.141.166 who uses modeling but misapplies an ideal transformer then abandons modeling completely when the error is identified. A mysterious book that cannot be found on WorldCat but GB IP 148.252.128.92 finds it and GB IP 185.69.145.139 retrieves it from a library but never identifies the publisher. I wonder about misdirection: mention the book is a third edition and a few minor errors in the citation could be a ruse to make the book seem real. I'll go back to believing either the book does not exist or it is so minor as to be irrelevant. What a waste of time.
The episode is an eye opener for me about socking. Pull on a few sock threads, and there are alleged socks reporting other alleged socks. The murkiness makes my head spin. It's not just some misguided editor manufacturing support for a position he firmly believes.
Thank you for your appreciation. It has been a bumpy road, but the web of deception seems to have unravelled in the end. If you're interested reading about the history, I guess you'll have seen the earlier SPIs I raised, resulting in the bogus ANI thread linked above. With hindsight, perhaps I should have pinged you at some point, but I'm sure I (or we) would have been accused of some egregious policy violation if I had.
I'm not convinced either by the story about that mysterious book. I shared some more of my thoughts on that on my talk page recently. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and all the best to you. Glrx (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I am kind of confused by an edit that removed images and a list of sources from Pomona Envisions the Future by User:Mary Cummins, and I see that you had some involvement with the user's talk page awhile back. I don't know if you know anything about this, but do you mind looking at User talk:Mary Cummins#Pomona Envisions the Future. You are the only person that I am contacting about this, since several of the other users involved in the block, etc. are no longer contributors to WP. Thanks!--—CaroleHenson(talk) 00:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Glrx. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Ok, so I can start tagging them with "Per discussion at requesting deletion, claiming a copyright violation", right?--—CaroleHenson(talk) 23:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Uh, I'd hold off. Wait for people to come back from vacation and comment at media copyright questsions. Glrx (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, re identifying with LB: In my mind, she essentially just did. But, saying so outright means that she's User:MariaKRivera and other SPs, and could result in her being blocked if there is disruptive, COI, or other unhelpful editing taking place that could take her back to SPI.—CaroleHenson(talk) 23:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The circumstantial evidence that MC = LB is very strong. The recent edit by LB adds to that evidence because rather than resolving the issue it shows a continuing unity of interest between MC and LB. Family and friends are coming to dinner tonight, so I need to focus on that. Glrx (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The Wiki is unfortunately weak/out-of-date because it only refers to older analog implementations of non-Foster circuits in the article: "For example, it is possible to create negative capacitance and inductance with negative impedance converter circuits."
In 2015, digital implementations of non-Foster circuits were invented, and it would seem helpful to readers to include some sort of reference/link to modern digital implementations of non-Foster circuits. Also, note that all "spam" references in 2 other related wikis have been deleted by other editors, so there is unfortunately no reference whatsoever on any Wiki pages to new/modern digital non-Foster methods.
Therefore, please consider restoring the deleted sentence and references, ...or add any sentences/references to "digital non-Foster" as you may see fit.
For further info/references in any editing you may decide upon, gooogle "digital non-Foster" for appropriate published IEEE articles.
IMO, some reference to digital non-Foster should be added to the page.
See 152.15.236.96], whose only contributions have been to add the recent primary source to three different articles. I don't see the reference as relevant; there's little doubt that digital circuits can simulate an amplifier. Glrx (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
First, digital non-Foster is likely the only practical way non-Foster methods will ever be implemented in 2-D arrays (such as in mantle cloaks) or 3-D arrays (such as 3D metamaterials). Indeed, stability issues may be the primary impediment to practical implementation/use of non-Foster methods over the past 50 years, and digital methods clearly can have certain advantages. Such practical implementation issues are hugely exacerbated in arrays, and near impossible where the arrays require gradient changes in non-Foster values. Second, there is clearly a long-felt need to improve the practicality of non-Foster implementation, and digital addresses such needs. Such long-felt need is valid in patent law, ...as if somebody discovers aspiring cures some new disease, even if everybody knew about aspirin and the disease. Third, digital non-Foster does not simulate or replace an amplifier, as i am guessing you are aware. The situation is quite the contrary. Considerably beyond `just replacing analog,' the z-transform and sampling result in a new and important side-effects in the realm of stability of non-Foster. This results because the fastest digital signal is "on-oo-on-off..." or "101010..." And practitioners who have ever fabricated non-Foster circuits are painfully aware of the propensity to oscillate at extremely high frequency (GHz). Such high-frequency instability is impossible in digital non-Foster circuits because of the "built-in" Nyqvist limit of highest frequency "101010..." Fourth, once put into the digital domain, higher-order non-Foster networks may be realized in the z-domain or difference equation, and no longer restricted to negative inductance or negative capacitance, etc. Fifth, the ZOH (zero-order hold) of most practical DACs (digital-to-analog converters) greatly complicates the digital design, as treated in cited references. Sixth, a very active area of digital non-Foster researches the use of the signal processing to cancel imperfections of the system in signal processing, a function that is less practical and less perfect in analog approaches. Seventh, with regard to digital simply being a replacement of the analog amplifier, consider the entire field of "digital control systems" which could be similarly dismissed as a digital version of the field of "analog control systems." Certainly, nothing could be further from the truth, as digital control systems have considerable complexity and mathematical differences from analog control theory. Finally, the realizations of digital versions perform with uniquely subtle differences to their analog cousins, and such behaviors can have profound utility in stabilization. For instance, bilinear transform variants would have frequency-warped response, or impulse invariance variants would have aliased response, both resulting in uniquely different response from any analog implementation. Such perturbed responses can affect bandwidths, gain margin, and phase margin, etc.n and can be engineered to be beneficial to stability. For all of the above reasons, I would request that you reconsider omitting any reference to digital non-Foster, because it seems to be of huge importance to anybody confronted with battling the practical implementation of these systems. The original cited references at least make the reader aware of the digital non-Foster work being done and give the reader a starting point on this new and important approach. As noted above, you may wish to choose other references for wording. This extra info would seem to be of great service in providing community awareness that digital non-Foster is being studied to solve longstanding issues. best regards, t
Your work may be important, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a place to report research result or provide cutting-edge information about digital realizations. IIRC, the references were to two papers by 4 identical authors at the same institution added by IP addrs from that institution to three separate WP articles. WP:COI and WP:REFSPAM. Furthermore, User:Spinningspark also deleted the addition. Also, I see the material as WP:UNDUE. If I search for digital non-Foster networks, I get papers by those researchers, papers about non-Foster antenna matching (I'll guess analog), and comments about foster care. I do not see this area as field with many proponents, so it is not ripe for coverage by an encyclopedia. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, it should be easy for you to identify other adherents. Ideally, there would be secondary sources that address digital non-Foster networks. Glrx (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
It is trivially easy to implement a non-Foster response in the digital domain. Claiming "digital Foster" as a new thing, or a grand breakthrough is highly misleading. Certainly, parameters can be achieved in the digital domain that cannot be achieved in a real circuit, but that is just generally true of all digital circuit implementations.
The article the material was removed from is titled "Foster's reaction theorem", something that was discovered in 1922. Cutting edge research is hardly relevant to such an article.
The subsection the material was removed from is "Non-Foster networks". A digital process, running in a DSP for instance, is not a network of any kind. It might be simulating a network, but it is not actually a network. That makes the addition a tangent to a tangent so doubly needed removing.
Agreeing with Glrx, Wikipedia is not the place to promote new ideas (it is not the place to promote anything). I recall I did a gscholar check on those papers at the time and found that they were only cited by papers including the same authors. When other researchers start to take a wider interest, feel free to let us know. SpinningSpark 00:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to rebut a few technical items in case readers follow: Item 1 complaint (triviality) fails because of misunderstanding of item 3, and previously cited complexities. Item 3 is misunderstanding of a novelty at the heart of digital non-Foster circuits: they are truly digital implementations of network elements and networks, as opposed to most nearly all other "digital systems." Generally, other digital systems take some input (voltage or current) at one port, do some processing, and produce some resulting output (voltage or current) at a second port. However, the digital non-Foster takes an input (let us say voltage) at one port, and establishes the corresponding desired current for the very same port. So, in the truest sense, the digital non-Foster methods establish port impedances, not just transfer functions. The same is true for multi-port digital non-Foster. This is a very important distinction that can be easily overlooked at first glance. It is not just simulating/processing, but is truly a drop-in multi-port implementation, having impedance and transfer characteristics as any analog network (notwithstanding aforementioned differences). More coarsely stated perhaps, ...other digital systems don't ram output current right back into the very same input port where voltage is being measured. As regards item 2, it seemed appropriate to mention alternative implementation. Finally, regards item 4, the only other digital non-Foster reference is a 2015 patent by MIT on WIPO as WO2016028354 or USPTO PCT/US2015/033742 [1], published in Feb 2016. So, as you properly note, all of this is quite new. However, many new discoveries are published on wiki, such as gravitational waves (not to imply this is the same), so there may be some fuzziness to the encyclopedic line to allow newer items. best, t 172.72.195.53 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Notable example with references linking to both guys - each of them have notable wiki page - each of them has a dedicated section mentioning TED controversy.
What is required on your end to accept that addition?
SE should not have a comprehensive list of every happening that could be a SE. The article needs just a few, clear, interesting examples to illustrate the effect. If every editor added their favorite example, the article would be bloated.
Discussion on the talk page has settled on a requirement that competent secondary sources call the episode a SE by name. It is not enough for WP editors to look at what happened and conclude it is an example of SE. We want a source to make the determination. See WP:OR.
The SE also has a suppression by threat or force element. Somebody is trying to suppress a work, but the heavy handedness of the suppression backfires. In the example reverted, the publisher decided to retract the stories because they had problems/did not meet required publication standards. That's not suppression; that is recalling an article that should not have been published in the first place. Furthermore, the publisher made the articles available in another area so the retraction could be discussed. That's not Streisand suing a well meaning photographer to get him to take a photo off a website. It's not some schoolboard trying get an 8 year old girl to stop reporting on the quality of the cafeteria's food. It's the publisher deciding to stop publishing a particular work that the publisher no longer considers appropriate.
RE: my revert that restored an external link to an Ishihara-like test website
I removed the link you reverted back, as it is obviously self-promotion, you can see it was added in this edit, you can see in the user's talk page and contributions page to check, Jjean3~enwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.180.78 (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I do not see this link as obvious self-promotion. I see a reasonable optician providing an interesting application that helps explain Ishihara-like tests. The optician is not selling the application but rather making us aware of it on a relevant page.
The link you show was reverted by Ronz[2]. The link was discussed at Talk:Color blindness/Archive 2#please test it with mixed results. The link was reinserted by an IP in this edit in 2008. The link has been around for 8 years. There was no discussion on the Ishihara test talk page.
Even if we concede the two editors who added the link are the author, that is not necessarily bad. Yes, there is a WP:COI. Yes, it has a copyright notice that identifies the author, but the question is whether the work is reasonable to include. The offered test is much more extensive than the Toledo-bend website test, and the test evaluation attempts to distinguish the -anopia and -anomaly types of colorblindness. After taking the test, there is a discussion of how different symptoms interpret the images. Consequently, it discusses in more detail how results from Ishihara-like tests are interpreted. That is not addressed in the article.
Yes, the link uses advertisements to support the website, but the focus is on colorblindness. The primary goal of the website is to provide information. The website is based on sources because it apparently references two tests (Wickline?).
I see WP:ELYES #3: site has apparently accurate information.
I see WP:ELMAYBE #4: not an RS but still has knowledgeable information.
WP:ELNO #11 arises because it may be a personal website, but the author claims to be an optician, and the site covers several topics appropriate for opticians.
It is a tool that runs through some Ishihara-like images, collects answers, and then provides some interpretation of those answers. It is reasonable to include in the Ishihara article.
Not an issue, but the link is also present on fr.WP: fr:Daltonisme.
