User talk:Oli Filth/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assistance?

Hello Oli. You always seem to have a good insight in data transmission. I am involved in a few discussions where perhaps you can assist. If and when you have time. I don't want to publish anything before I get response from at least one person.

  • Can the OFDM article further emphasize that OFDM is a modulation scheme, but is based on FDM plus inverse multiplexing? (See the discussion.)
  • Can the Nyquist rate article and related articles be rewritten to reflect to what extent it is valid for baseband and passband channels? I made a suggestion but it was completely deleted by someone. See the talk page.
  • A similar question for the Shannon–Hartley theorem. However, here I am not sure if the theorem valid is for the passband case, and why. I teach in this area, and it is a problem for me that I have not found a good intuitive explanation to this topic.

Mange01 (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I will add my comments to these in the near future. Oli Filth(talk) 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Apple on GSM page

I re-did the edit on the GSM page removing Apple. The guy who did it originally did it in good faith and started a discussion point on the GSM page to explain why. I pretty much agree with him. But if you dont can you explain why, maybe I'll agree with you too  :) I'm sure we can agree on a way forward through discussion and explanation of our views rather than simply spend the rest of our lives editing backwards and forwards. The GSM discussion page is probably the place for this Beardybloke (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nofootnotes on Hilbert transform

I removed the template you added to Hilbert transform, since that article uses Harvard references, and there are quite a few scattered throughout the text. Although I think there should be more citations, it is not the case that there are no citations. I'm not sure if you were aware of this when adding the template, so I thought I should notify you here. Regards, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; I didn't notice the Harvard style! Thanks for letting me know. Oli Filth(talk) 12:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of pages

The pages you've marked for deletion are significant scientific contributions (in combination). They have been posted here because the review process is very lengthy - sometimes it has even taken decades to get new and important work published (e.g. the Davidon-Fletcher-Powell_formula), and sometimes a whole field of established researchers need convincing (see e.g. Fuzzy logic which took several years to get published by Zadeh). The pages you're threatening to delete represent a new step in direct-search / evolutionary optimization. My techniques are the first that make this new step forward possible for the average practitioner without access to a super-computer or without advanced mathematical skills. I am using Wikipedia to sync research and to inform interested researchers of this new work; which is what wikipedia is really good for! You will also see that the work is indeed documented elsewhere, in the source-code that is listed under external links. This work is already being used by other researchers. So please stop threatening to delete these pages and your general harassment. Chipchap (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

First, please note that I have no ability to delete pages, as I am not an administrator. I have simply proposed them for deletion; see WP:PROD.
Secondly, and more importantly, Wikipedia is not a repository for you to make other researchers aware of your work. All articles should be about topics that are notable and well-documented by secondary sources. Currently, the topics of your articles do not satisfy these requirements. If, at some stage in the future, these techniques do become notable and well-documented, then that would be an appropriate time to create articles about them. But not before.
Oli Filth(talk) 11:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of links

I now also see that you're deleting the links I've contributed. You are correct that some of them are from takehome exams and the like, but these are from advanced level university courses, many of which contain elaborate descriptions, discussions, and implementations of algorithms and data-structures. And some of the source-code (e.g. regarding Kruskal's algorithms and heap datastructures, etc.) are getting 50 downloads per day! So they are very popular and useful to many people! Besides, they're posted under 'external links', often alongside other source-code links! Regarding the NeuralOps links it was posted on a page specifically for software libraries! The library is published under the GNU license which makes it freely available, so what is the problem here?!?!? Similarly my links to SwarmOps and RandomOps have been removed, yet these are also listed in the correct sections alongside other source-code libraries, and are also getting downloads every single day! Please stop harassing me like this! You are actually taking value AWAY from wikipedia! Chipchap (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

maNga

Hi, I saw you moved maNga to manga (band). May I ask you to revert it? The band uses the capital N as a distinction from the Japanese cartoon style and their logo also contains the capital N. The band is not called manga, it is called maNga. manga and maNga is not the same, there are other bands named manga with lower case n. Please take a look at their official wesite: http://manga.web.tr Thank you. --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 12:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization, WP:MUSTARD#Titles and section headings, and more generally, WP:MOSTM, for Wikipedia guidelines on capitalisation issues such as this. For a consistent encyclopaedic approach, the generally-accepted practice is to use standard English capitalisation. Oli Filth(talk) 19:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
And what about Five.Bolt.Main, AqME, RIBO, 4Lyn, BooSkills, B.o.B., Lil iROCC Williams and the rest, just to mention a few musical bands/performers with unusual naming? What I am trying to reflect on is that you can't change a band's name just because of a naming convention that wikipedia finds out. it's like you would suddenly decide to call Madonna maDonna or something. These bands might use their names as a trademark, which maNga already does as they sell merchandise with their logo printed on them. You also don't rename eBay and iPod, or PayPal, do you? :) What's the difference, then? Just because this is a band and not a company? A name is a name, whoever the owner is. --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 11:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the revert. --Zimmy (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the band's name, it's a choice of typography (e.g. just as Korn choose to use a backwards "R", or Adidas choose to use all lower-case). However, these are essentially trademarks, and are covered by the style guidelines I linked to above. I don't necessarily believe they're the best idea in all cases, but they're the rules as they stand, and at the very least, they enforce consistency. If you wish to pursue this specific example, the best place would be at the talk pages of the respective guidelines above.
As for the counterexamples you cited, one article going against the guidelines is not a reason for another article going against the guidelines; they should probably be fixed too. PayPal is camel-caps, which according to the guidelines, is optional (I don't know why!) eBay and iPod are cited as specific counterexamples in the guidelines (again, I don't know why!). Regards, Oli Filth(talk) 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

SHA links

Dear Oli,

I see that you've removed the link to Anylyze.com (provided by me). I am sorry for posting that link directly (as I now know after reading WP:EL) However, as the hashemall.com link seems to be dead, could you please replace that link by something else that works? Jospedia (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

DAB signal delay

Hi!

I noticed you edited the paragraph I added to the article on DAB Broadcasting about the reasons behind the 2 second delay a listener might hear when comparing a DAB service to it's FM cousin. I'm not sure what you mean by "Cyclic Prefix" but I can assure you that the reasons I gave are valid. Here's how it works:

After the sub channels in a DAB ensemble are multiplexed the result is put into ETI (Ensemble Transport Interface) frames ready to be sent to the transmission network. There are two types of ETI frame... ETI(NI) and ETI(NA). The former refers to Network Independant ETI frames which are compatible with the G703 transport format and can be used in a local environment or for broadcast by a single transmitter. The second refers to Network Adaptive ETI frames, which include a Timestamp, is G704 compatible and is the only format used in the UK.

This is because the signal must be transmitted simultaneously by all transmitters, but the time it takes to get the signal to each transmitter can vary. For example, in a National DAB network the ETI(NA) signal may be carried to one site using a telecomms circuit with a relatively short propagation time, whereas another site may receive the ETI signal by a telecomms circuit then a Satellite uplink/downlink, and a third may get it's signal via a telecomms circuit, a Satellite uplink/downlink and then a further telecomms circuit. There are SFNs in the UK where all three of these methods are used. Therefore the broadcaster has to consider the worst-case scenario for the longest amount of time it might take for the signal to reach the transmitter.

The multiplexer (where the sub channels are combined into the ETI frame) has a UTC (or similar) clock reference which is derived from a GPS receiver. Pre-programmed into a device in the multiplexer is a TIST Offset (TImeSTamp Offset) taking the above into account. The ETI frame has a header into which is placed the TIST (TImeSTamp) which is generated by taking the exact current time and adding the TIST Offset. The ETI(NA) signal is then carried to the transmitters over whatever path. The transmitter also has a GPS Rx from which it reads a clock reference and on arrival the signal is held in a part of the transmitter called the Network Adaptor which buffers the data until the current time is equal to the TIST. This is called the Transport Delay. The ETI(NA) is stripped of it's TIST and the resultant ETI(NI) signal proceeds to the COFDM modulator. There it is subject to encoding delay plus a further Static Delay is applied to the signal. This Static Delay allows the network to be tweaked if it becomes desirable to move the transmitters' perceived position in the SFN. This is known as the Transmission Delay.

All of this, plus the MPEG layer II encoding and multiplexing, adds up to about 2 seconds, plus there is a fairly complicated relationship with the application of timestamping and it's reliance on the 1PPS (One Pulse Per Second) reference which is obtained from the GPS Rx. I won't go into this, but the result is that the delay is usually very close to a multiple of 1 second, and in my experience it's usually 2.

This why the audio reaching the DAB listener is 2 seconds behind the source audio. I know this because I maintain the multiplexing systems for virtually every DAB network in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.174.71 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there I go showing my ignorance! (and also my inability to read). I'm fairly familiar with the physical-layer operation of OFDM-based systems, etc., but not the backhaul infrastructure of DAB. The wording that you used ("propagation time") rang alarm bells in my head, as in the context of a wireless system, that's often used to define the through-air delay, which of course isn't anywhere near 2 seconds. If you can find a way to avoid this terminology, or make it clear what it refers to, that'd be great.
Incidentally, by "cyclic prefix", I'm referring to Cyclic prefix, which serves a dual purpose in DAB, enabling the easy recombination of the multiple transmission paths in an SFN. It is generally set to be proportional to the maximum through-air propagation delay. Oli Filth(talk) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you can find a suitable source that describes any of this, that would be really useful! Oli Filth(talk) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'm with you.. what you call "Cyclic prefix" is I think what in the DAB world we call the Guard Interval. The ETI frame is later converted into a Transmission Frame which is made up COFDM Symbols. Each COFDM symbol is modulated onto it's own COFDM carrier, and has at it's header a Guard Interval equal to 246μs. This corresponds to around 70km at speed of light, which is incidentally (or not) the maximum spacing of adjacent transmitters when we design our networks. The guard interval must overlap for multiple incoming signals in order for the receiver to make sense of the data. We engineer the network so that signals from >70km will be low enough that the Rx rejects them.

As far as a suitable source to describe this, unfortunately most of what I know is working knowledge! We have documents, but it's all internal stuff within the company. If I find anything in the public domain I'll revisit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.174.71 (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of patents

Motionless Electromagnetic Generator

My personal preference goes towards reading what all this chit chat is actually about. Any chit chat either pro or debunk lends nonsense credibility to things but it also removes credibility from the good points. So your only argument was that the reader interested in the MEG should by nature not be interested in the patents the invention cites. The invention is based on those other inventions. You are not going to make any sense of the technology without them. There is no advantage in clarity by this deletion.

Be honest! What are the actual things Bearden has show us? His articles are based on controversy alone. The patent references seem to me to be the only absolute fact in the article. Just the Radius boots[[1]] are far more interesting then the whole MEG, honestly. At least those work. The boots do make a person think of MEG like devices. It's not a miracle. Gdewilde (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wireless energy transfer

Radio was not invented by Marconi, X-rays where not discovered by Roentgen, the vacuum tube amplifier was not discovered by de Forest. But like radar, alternating current, the AC motor, haarp, the fluorescent bulb, neon lights, speedometer, the automobile ignition system, the electron microscope, the microwave oven, just about any transistor circuit we have today, the Tesla coil and the transmission of intelligence over distance(Internet) it was all invented by Tesla.

Nicola Tesla knew there was a big difference between rich and poor on this planet so his big dream was to give the world free energy, he accomplished this dream but it harmed to much special interests so he was stopped by his funding collapsing.

How and why and when is not important, it's important that we do have the Wireless energy transfer technology today.

Nicola Tesa's wireless energy patents:

The article only exists because Tesla invented it. Wireless electricity was invented by the same man who envisioned your computer,

  • 1903 AD - Nikola Tesla patents an electrical logic circuit called a gate or swich.
  • 1971 AD - Intel announces the first microprocessor, the 4004. John Blankenbaker

Tesla filed in 1897, granted in 1900. Marconi's first patent on November 10, 1900, was turned down. Marconi's revised applications over the next three years were repeatedly rejected because of the priority of Tesla and other inventors. The Patent Office made the following comment in 1903:

"Many of the claims are not patentable over Tesla patent numbers 645,576 and 649,621, of record, the amendment to overcome said references as well as Marconi's pretended ignorance of the nature of a "Tesla oscillator" being little short of absurd... the term "Tesla oscillator" has become a household word on both continents [Europe and North America]."

The AC electricity we use! In 1888 Tesla demonstrates AC motors to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) And how to make weather, earthquakes, tsunami etc![[2]]

No way anyone is making wireless electricity without the use of radio or microwaves, they all use a Tesla invention either way. The patents do deal with wireless electricity specific.

I click one at random patent:U.S. patent 1,119,732 A picture of Wardenclyffe Tower? The patent has it's own Wikipeidia page? Hummmm? I do understand why you feel it was not important it's more the reason behind that that I find upsetting. Nothing seems ever to be important on this planet? lol?

Likle a wise man one's said: People are funnier than anyone.

I know it sounds stupid and I know I'm rather naive to think that, but hey? I kind of like to think we are going to feed the starving population of our planet some day. This wireless electricity might not be the perfect solution, it's a thought in the right direction. Much better as blowing everything up. lol

Here[[3]] (at the end)

Enjoy :-)

Gdewilde (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Inane?

Re Self-modifying_code#Example As distinct from the rather obscure desire to determine some recondite detail of the functioning of a cpu? NickyMcLean (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My guess is you're implying that the existing example is equally, if not more so, inane. If so, I agree with that sentiment. I've removed that example too, as it completely breaks the flow of the article, not least because it's just a wad of code with no explanation. Oli Filth(talk) 23:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see you've returned the part about patching parameter addresses in the code of a subroutine. That was actual behaviour, perpetrated by a big-name company. I though my example was simple, involved meeting a straightforward need, was understandable without headscratching, and in showing the conflict with other such patching warned of the weird conflicts that can arise. "Inane" (senseless, silly) seems an inappropriate word to me, as the facility was put to productive use, and not just by me. But so what, nebulous generality is to be preferred. NickyMcLean (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, yes "inane" was an inappropriate term to use, so my apologies for that. What I intended to mean was that the 4-paragraph example you added was, by its very length, an extremely long-winded and overly-detailed way of demonstrating one very specific example. In my opinion, whilst the underlying concept may or may not be straightforward, the amount of text one would have to digest in order to understand the example would be off-putting, and in itself require "headscratching". If the example could be summarised in far less text, (and avoiding phrases such as "Alas, all is not quite so simple"). then it would probably be more suitable for an encyclopaedia article.
Best regards, Oli Filth(talk) 08:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Sock

Hey there.

...I have reason to believe that Twinkletester is a sockpuppet of OrgasGirl. What should I do?? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC?

Have you ever filed an RfC before? I'm thinking it might be high time for User conduct RfC re: Gdwilde/go-here. I've never done filed an RfC, so I'm not really sure. Or maybe start a WP:ANI thread? I'm not really sure what the best venue would be, but it seems clear that someone uninvolved needs to explain to him that his behavior is unacceptable, because clearly he's not listening to us. Yilloslime (t) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've indicated to him ([4]) that if he does anything else untoward, I will add a thread to ANI. We have to assume that as he's deleted that comment, he's read it and understood it. We will see! Regards, Oli Filth(talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you

Thank for the fuel cell reference. It's ironic that yesterday I was just looking at that same reference (popular mechanics article) and was thinking of adding it sometime today! You got to it first! It's also nice that it's been re-publish by what appears to be popular mechanics... no arguing there in terms of authorativity! (even if you do support the theory that we can have water-fuelled cars, this reference, I believe represents a fair view of what we've been arguing about and what most of the people have been saying.) It's a valid WP:POV which should be included, and I've never contested that... I've simply contest the fact that it needed references! Thank you again. And, I'dd be happy if you tell me what you think about the comment #124. "Chemistry may actually be able to explain this... This article needs more points of views". Cheers. --CyclePat (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that comment is trying to say. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enought. p.s.: I've added a link to the afformentioned article. --CyclePat (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at MySQL

Hi,

I've left a comment on the guy's talk page. He's a new user. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Money & You and Robert Kiyosaki

[This article in Money magazine http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2003/01/01/334706/index.htm] provides some information on Money & You and Robert Kiyosaki. Perhaps if people had seen it the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money & You might have gone differently. --Eastmain (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that article does make it sound as if M&Y was, at least at some point, notable. There's nothing stopping re-creation of an AfDed article, if appropriate material comes to light. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

current flow on an Inductor

What was wrong with the formating of this equation.
Finding the current flowing in an inductor at any given time past when voltage was applied.

is inverse natural log or normally on most calculators. Eadthem (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See my response at Talk:Inductor. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 22:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ka‘bah - WP:BRD

Hey there,

Sorry I'm slow on the draw, I had MSG poisoning. See WP:BRD if you are unfamiliar - I have a "1RR" policy ("be Bold, then if reverted, discuss with the reverter and see if your changes were a good idea").

I'm writing to ask about Ka‘bah/Kaaba. I am aware that the name of the article is "Kaaba", which is a common English spelling. However, shouldn't we go with the correct spelling, especially given that it employs no special characters? The consensus on other Arabic names is to provide redirects to the correct spelling of the name with the exception of country names etc (Iraq, not al-‘Iraq).

A quick googling shows that "Kaaba" nets about 400,000 English results and "Ka‘bah" nets 110,000, so it's not completely out of the blue. Shouldn't we make an effort to provide correct information?

Just FYI I have spent a lot of time disentangling horrific transliterations of Arabic and Persian over the years (with varying success, lol). This is a high-usage word and it is in a spelling flux, so I figured "Muslim over Moslem if you can" (my motto on Arabic words: when in doubt, use standardised Arabic transliteration over someone's random attempts to "spell" a word).

Thanks for your efforts. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Personally, I have no particular preference either way on the spelling. However, the spelling in the article really should be consistent with the article title. I don't know whether it's something that's been discussed before in the article's history, but if you feel strongly about the spelling, why not bring it up on the talk page, and suggest a page move? Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 17:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see you already have! Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 17:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Java

Whats wrong with my Java edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.82.41 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They are unsourced (see WP:Reliable sources), and are written from a non-neutral point of view (see WP:Neutral point of view). What's more, they don't seem to be relevant. What do compiler directives, C or C++ have to do with Java? Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 21:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rybka

Hi, what's wrong with the paragraph I added to the Rybka page, about the hypothesis Rybka (1.0 beta)=Fruit, which is currently debated on Talkchess. The paragraph clearly states that some computer programmers (including prominent ones such as Hyatt or Theron) believe that Rybka started as a clone to Fruit. This is fully backed by the content of the threat I have associated as a reference. Since the paragraph describes an opinion (i.e., something some persons believe, not an indisputable truth), it is fully correct in the way it states things, and it provides the reference to the place where the persons in question express their opinion. Obviously this is a forum, but this is where this opinion is expressed and it won't probably be expressed elsewhere, so I can't see why the paragraph has to be removed because it quotes a forum (which is, once again, the only source of information here). Please also note that the paragraph in question is completely neutral. It describes an opinion from some programmers. And by the way, the importance of this thread, how the topic is discussed on Talkchess and in the Rybka forum, posits the importance of having a reference to it here. The issue is serious of course. If Rybka is indeed (or started as) a Fruit clone, and given the fact that Fruit is covered by a GPL licence and Rybka is a commercial product, this is of importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.117.12 (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, forums are pretty much never considered a suitable source.
Secondly, this topic is speculation, and therefore its encyclopaedic merit is, at best, questionable. What's more, if, as you suggest, the only place this speculation is going to be expressed is on a forum, it's hardly notable, and therefore hardly worthy of mention in the article.
Regards, Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Oli, while I approve of your edit in this particular case, things are a bit more complicated than that: there are in fact many situations where forums are perfectly reliable sources - "speculation" or not. I'll try to elaborate on that at Talk:Rybka shortly. GregorB (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Oli, I would tend to agree with GregorB regarding the forums as reliable sources. In many cases you have no other source, especially if this is the place where a specific question is debated. How do you want to quote something that is happening ONLY there if you cannot reference forums?Regarding the second point, speculation and lack of encycopaedic merit, if we follow this line of reasoning, we also have to remove the mention earlier in the page of the hypothesis Rybka=Fruit (associated with reference 15 if I do remember well, which is also by the way a reference to a forum, and which should therefore, according to your first point, also be deleted), and the whole Strelka controversy paragraph, since it obviously resorts to mere speculations, as well as the Rybka=Fruit hypothesis. Once again, as I said initially, I have tried to be neutral and describe things as they are, that is not the fact that "Rybka=Fruit", but the fact that "some people think that Rybka=Fruit". Given that these people are highly qualified to make this judgment (far more than most posters in the Talkchess and Rybka forums) possibly gives them some credit, and hence the importance of mentioning this in the page. From my point of view, when an hypothesis or an opinion is of importance, it's worth mentioning it (i.e., it HAS encyclopaedic value). Think for example of the hypothesis that the US has invaded Irak for geopolitical reasons and notably for petrol, and not, as they say, because they felt threatened and believed there were WMD in Irak. This is not fully proven, is still an hypothesis, and the opinion of some (or even many...), but is certainly worth mentioning in the page on the Irak war, or of the Bush administration (which I think is indeed the case). For me, the paragraph I have added just intended to inform the reader about the fact that some people, rather qualified to do so, believed that Rybka=Fruit. Nothing more. And by the way, I LOVE Rybka, have bought it twice (v.2.0 and now v.3.0, with Aquarium). That's not the point. I'm not an anti-Rybka guy. I felt shaken when I did read the threat I was mentioning, and thought it would be correct to inform the reader about this state of things. Sorry, English is not my natural language. I hope this is ok. Denis

Cfd umbrella nominations

Dear Oli Filth...I happened to be editing today's categories for discussion when I saw you adding a lot of categories to be deleted. When nominating a group of similar categories for deletion, you can group them together into one entry. That way the other editors who contribute to the consensus can see the pattern and decide to support or oppose to them all at once. When tagging the categories, you would use the following:

{{subst:cfd|Group heading name}}

Then when you are listing them for deletion, you can make the entry by hand starting with... 

==== Group heading name ====
* [[:Category:Sample 1]]
* [[:Category:Sample 2]]

What you want to happen and why. ~~~~

Just something to make your life a little easier so that you don't have to list each individually. There is also a greater chance of success if you group them. You can also use it for renames as well. I hope this helps you in the future. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 20:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I will convert my additions to use this format. Regards, Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What to do with empty categories that appear at CAT:CSD

Hello Oli. Recently I speedy-deleted a category as a C1, that you had nominated for deletion: Category:Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation members. I often see categories showing up at CAT:CSD as candidates for deletion. Is it necessary for admins to delete these, or is there a bot or process which handles this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the first time I've ever nominated a category, so I don't know, I'm afraid! Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 09:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Professional Development

Hello Oli Filth,

Thank you for your working in maintaining Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know there was know mal intent, nor promotional intent with the content added. Honestly, I am not interested in promoting a project. I've asked administrators to to remove all references in the history to NPDCI is possible, please do so. I'm much more interested in the public having access to quality information.

I'm also asking persons editing the page in the last week for their insight in making a solid contribution to Wikipedia on this topic and am very interested in your insight/recommendation.

The history of the contribution goes like this: I maintain a network listserv (not a group or organization, but an open network) of 1,030 professional development providers representing well over 100,000 early childhood educators in the field. After a recent national conference many persons on the listserv were interested in improving Wikipedia's definition of "Professional Development". This is where our method (pre-vetting) may have gone awry.

In an effort to make a solid contribution, we called for nominees and had 40 persons end up participating in a pre-Wikipedia sandbox representing a range of education, experience and expertise across the country (including persons with publications on professional development running into the thousands). Over the course of 2 months, together we created an open, uncopyrighted, well-vetted, synthesized joint definition of professional development elaborating on what Wikipedia had in place. We then ran it through a variety of other listservs for vetting. Last week we made a contribution to Wikipedia. Unfortunately that was perceived as spam and self-promotion. I definitely can see how this could have been perceived as promoting our organization. The flip side is if it were posted by Bob2008 there would have be no reference to the effort that went into the contribution. The contribution repeatedly coming down in the last few days has very much confused and frustrated a loose-nit network of individuals with no real intent but expanding an existing definition that needed expanding.

I read through the reads you and others recommended in editing our posts. These folks and I really want to operate within bounds. Do you have any recommendations on relaying the good work contributed by so many knowledgeable, well-meaning persons to the public via Wikipedia? For example, should we abandon all prior month's efforts and steer folks directly to Wikipedia for edits? Other ideas, suggestions or recommendations? Thanks again for your insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan d green (talk • contribs) 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Electronics collaboration

Hi, I am writing to you because you have listed yourself as a member of the Electronics WikiProject. Sadly, this project is pretty dead, but I propose to resuscitate it with a collaboration. The idea is to have a concerted effort on improving one article per month, hopefully to GA or FA status and nominate the very best of them for the front page. I have prepared a page to control this process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Collaboration (actually, I mostly shamelessly stole it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals where a collaboration of this sort was succesfully run). There you can make nominations for articles for collaboration or comment on the nominations of others.

If you want to take part you might like to place this template {{WikiProject Electronics Collaboration}} on your userpage which will give you a link to the current collaboration. If you are no longer interested in Wikiproject Electronics, please remove yourself from the members list, which is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Members

Thanks for listening, SpinningSpark 14:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Data Structures and Algorithms

Hello. I found you from the Bubble Sort history page and I want to ask you to add link to my article http://simpleprogrammingtutorials.com/tutorials/sorts/bubble-sort.php, if you consider it interesting enough to be placed on wiki. Thanks in advance.

Otto Bláthy

Why are you barbarian vandal? why did you delete all sentences? Why do you want an edit war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, but my edits to the Ottó Bláthy article (and several others) were to remove material that was copied directly from another website, which is probably a copyright violation. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha, Wikipedia contains 50% copied text from other pages. Please delete all! :))))))))))))

You are not a jurist dr, therefore you know nothing about copyrights.

protected text: The author spell his name, and "all rights reserved etc..."

There aren't such a spell or name in my copies. So, they are absolute free texts. And don't forget: copyrights are not based on your private (laymen) opinions, copyrights based on laws (wich are facts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 3 January 2009

It's clear that you know nothing about copyright either, nor have you read the Wikipedia policy I linked to above (and on your talk page). Material published on the internet is, by default, under copyright, unless it explicitly says otherwise. See, for instance, Wikipedia:Copyright problems#What's copyrighted?.
If you're claiming that you're the original author of the material (i.e. the website it came from is yours), then that's a different matter. However, you still need to explicitly release the original material as public domain or under GFDL before it may be used on Wikipedia. Regards, Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

When the Fourier transform is defined and when is it continuous.

Hello,

I am trying to improve the quality of this site, but you keep changing my contributions. You should not change an entry unless you know what you are talking about. Let me enlighten you:

1) The Fourier transform does not exist unless a function is integrable. That is, if the integrable of the absolute value of the function exists and is finite. The proof of this is elementary and can be found in any Analysis textbook. (Like the one I referenced and you deleted.)

2) The Fourier transform of a square integrable function also exists, BUT this is only due to a complicated limiting argument starting from functions that are both integrable and square integrable. I don't think this is relevant to this article so I do not go into details.

3) The important part was that the Fourier transform is only guaranteed to be continuous if the function is integrable. (So, you have reverted the article (twice!) to something that is false!) Square integrable functions sometimes have non-continuous Fourier transforms. THIS IS THE RELEVANCE. I was changing something that was incorrect.

Just in case you are thinking that square integrable functions are integrable or vice-versa you are wrong. Neither set contains the other.

One should not have to go through all of this trouble to make a small improvement to a site. You are limiting the quality of this page by your actions. 65.60.217.105 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps post this at the article's talk page, rather than here. There's already a discussion started on these edits... Regards, Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally:
  1. I wasn't aware that "integrable" was shorthand for "absolutely integrable".
  2. I'm aware that absolute integrability is sufficient for the FT to exist
  3. I'm aware that absolute and square integrability are not the same
  4. I don't see what the relevance of continuity is. When we talk about the continuous Fourier transform, we're distinguishing it from the discrete-time Fourier transform, etc. We make no claim as to the continuity or otherwise of F(w). Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

North Filter as the Matched Filter

Hi Oli,

Came back to this article after a long time and slightly disappointed that my minor contribution (North Filter as the matched Filter) was ditched based on the fact that it's "not in Google" (great as it is, it still doesn't have all the world's knowledge!).

This doesn't surprise me too much as even when I used these things (in the relatively distant past) they were hardly ever referred to as North Filters. Either Nick Kingsbury (my then Director of studies) or Peter Rayner mentioned it at the time.

And amazingly to try and win you over I've even found it on Google here: http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/10513/37896164.pdf;jsessionid=72E8FC9A902A9A792FD3398C272C014C?sequence=1

Any objection if I re-add it?

Cheers,

Alunwyn (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry if my removal seemed a bit abrupt; it's just so easy for articles to pick up non-notable stuff. I'd never heard of the synonym, and my casual Google search indicated to me that although it clearly is used occasionally, it's virtually never used now. However, I think I will re-add it, with a slight re-phrasing along the lines of "originally known as". Best regards, Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks!
Alunwyn (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed Trice lawsuit

You removed the link I added about the lawsuit Trice lost, saying that it wasn't mentioned in the article. Perhaps it should be in the article. The lawsuit involved the fraud over My 61 Memorable Games, see My 60 Memorable Games. Bubba73 (talk), 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess yes, if it can be considered notable, and extremely-reliably sourced, considering BLP... Regards Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed Trice and Checkers

Hi, saw you changed my checkers repost of the older stuff already there. I did put info in the "talk" section but you didn't read it. Been playing checkers 60+ years I know what I'm about. Some of the stuff you guys say there don't seem to match up what I know. Seems like you should talk more and remove less. Trice's paper on checkers was very well done and it's good stuff.

Octogenarian 1928 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Actually, you didn't post on the talk page until after I made the reversion that you're talking about. As it happens, I'm just about to post a reply there too, so hold on to your hat... Regards, Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 17:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Riff driven

Well done, Oli Filth! Please see my reply. I'm very interested in your response, and (quoting from the movie Josie Wales), "it is good that warriors like me and you meet in the struggle..." Geĸrίtzl (talk)


Disagree with proposed deletion

  • I have removed the {{prod}} tag from James "Jim" Acho, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
  • Might you have any suggestions on making the wikipedia page James "Jim" Acho more "notable" so i could work to improve this page? The subject is undoubtedly notable.

Rtanz (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you now have sources that assert notability (ESPN etc.). That's all that's was needed, really. At the time that I added the template, the article didn't really have anything but trivial references to Acho, which was the concern at the original AfD process. Best regards, Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Intuitive understanding"

I notice you have reversed a contribution [[5]] to the article on diplacement current entitled [[6]] on the grounds that "Not sure that's valid; please find a source." Perhaps this will do Electric current where it says "Electric current is the flow of electric charge." Now I think the important thing about "flow" in this instance is the movement which is dQ/dt; of course this means that the whole field (which extends infinitely) associated with electric charge moves also, this movement of charge shows itself as an electric current. The contribution makes a very valid point that a changing field in a capacitor produces a current. He might have gone on to say that changing the capacitance does just this. His magnetic analogy is perfectly valid, Faraday established the magnetic aspects in the early 1820s Electricity and magnetism. I cannot agree that useful contribution such this should be deleted, surely Wikipedia contributions are for intelligent people who can go further to understand a subject better and it is absurd to require every contribution backed with a source. The very great difficulties some have with the concept of displacement current generally arise long latin words like "displace" instead of shorter ones like "move" (Of course I don't have a source for this!).

I suggest you undo the deletion. --Damorbel (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

DEAR Oli Filth,

I am not used to the Wikipedia and do not know whether this is the correct place to answer. My name is: see first reference in the "Probabilistic Interpretation of Taylor Polynomial"-contribution, which I have improved according to the comments I have seen (yours and Tsirelson's). Please let me know your opinion by email (email address is on my homepage) - Thanks,FTB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.232.251 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oli_Filth/Archive_5&oldid=1073935899"