Misplaced Pages

So now a dinner break is an etiquette violation? Gee, sorry. I'll look at those links and see what you're going on about. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please undo your revert for these reasons, I don't want to do it because I will be accused of edit warring

• (Regarding the MEDICAL findings, one by one, in the article, that I deleted, one by one. None of the following is a secondary source, and the alternative medicine journals are not peer reviewed by scientists or doctors, so are not allowed for medical conclusions.
• (1) Here is from the header in bold red face of the first 1997 “MEDRS” ref – “This statement is more than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes. Due to the cumulative nature of medical research, new knowledge has inevitably accumulated in this subject area in the time since the statement was initially prepared. Thus some of the material is likely to be out of date, and at worst SIMPLY WRONG.”
• (2) Here is the second ref, a PRIMARY source study in an “anyone can publish as long as they pay us” journal that says - “To provide open access, PLoS journals use a business model in which our expenses—including those of peer review, journal production, and online hosting and archiving—are recovered in part by charging a publication fee to the authors or research sponsors for each article they publish. For PLoS ONE the publication fee is US$1350.”
• (3) The third ref is a PRIMARY source study
• (4) The fourth ref is a PRIMARY source study in an acupuncture journal, peer reviewed by acupuncturists, which picked an authoritative name “Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine”, and has a Wiki article of its own with no RS supporting any of it, so should also be up for AfD.
• (5) The fifth ref is not about medical claims
• (6) The sixth source I did not delete.
• (7) The seventh ref is a PRIMARY source study in this journal – “Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan / sponsored by All-China Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine”
• (8) The eighth ref is a PRIMARY source study –
• (9) The ninth ref is a PRIMARY source study in this jounral – “Journal of alternative and complementary medicine”
• (10) The tenth ref is a PRIMARY source study.
• (11) The eleventh ref is a proposal of a hypothesis
• (12) The twelfth ref is a PRIMARY source study
• (13) The thirteent ref is a PRIMARY source study
• (14) The fourteenth ref is a review in an acupuncture journal, peer reviewed by acupuncturists, which picked an authoritative name “Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine”, and has a Wiki article of its own with no RS supporting any of it, so should also be up for AfD.
• (15) The fifteenth source is a New Age alt med pop diet book, “The Complete Guide to Sensible Eating”
• (16) The sixteenth source is an alt med published book, “Acupressure's Potent Points: A Guide to Self-Care for Common Ailments”
• (17) The seventeenth ref sources content that I did not delete
• (18) The eighteenth ref is is a dead link
• (19) The nineteenth ref is a acupuncture website
• (20) The twentieth ref is in Chinese
• (21) The twentifirst ref is a book of nomencalature
• (21) The tweentisecond ref is in Chinese PPdd (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your keep vote

Separate from the above section, I do not understand the basis of your keep vote WP:CONTENTFORK.

• If you do not know of a single example of content that should be in the acupuncture point article, and not in the acupuncture article, then you should stike your "keep" vote and change to :redirect".
• If you do know of an example, then I should strike my merge merge and "redirect" vote and change it to "keep".
• If you don't know enough to respond, then your vote disrupts consensus with noise, and you should strike your vote entirely. :) PPdd (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

acutalk & entry

Thanks for keeping an eye on it. the few of us who are , pro-acupuncture, are outnumbered and "out experienced" by editors with stated anti-acupuncture pov on the talk page. To my mind this does show in the some wording of the article. The wording is going through changes where more experienced editors are removing pov wording that the regular editors on the page do not find pov, but any help in that direction is welcome. On my part, I encourage your edits or comments on the appropriateness of the talk page. Soll22 (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not pro-acupuncture, but pro-information; I don't want to take on a fight, but I'll see what I can do. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture points

Note that in my opinion your revert did not improve the content of the page in several ways:

• numerous primary sources making claims that are not supported by reliable secondary sources were replaced
• several large blocks of text that were completely unsourced and made several dubious claims (most notably, the idea that "acupuncture points" can be used in the martial arts) were replaced
• two new sources, one a book by Joseph Needham, possibly the most respected scholar of Chinese history of science in the west and the other by Edzard Ernst, arch-critic of CAM, were removed

I realize the page is up for AFD, but my additions would have increased the chance of the page surviving an AFD, not worsened it, in addition to improving the sourcing. That being said, after the AFD has closed, would you be opposed to me undoing your change? I firmly believe my edits improved a fairly terrible page. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you should feel free to improve it, but more slowly, not reducing the article to half size quicker than any other editor can react, being very clear about reasons when you remove something, and preferably keeping your edits independently undoable. I haven't had time to really look at them, just object to decimating the article in such a rush. It took 4.5 years to double from 13KB to 26KB; we don't need to take it back to 10KB in one session. Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, re-reading my original post, it came across as far too snippy a reply for your extremely defensible edit. I posted in a hurry and didn't revisit it before saving. I've added the rather inadequate "in my opinion" to the first line and reworded. My apologies for my earlier curtness.

Consider that removing an entire section of unsourced material is one edit though, and there were two large sections that were either completely lacking in sources (and extraordinarily dubious in one case - the martial arts points) or contained two dubious sources for a single line while lacking sources for the rest. I made a total of nine edits. The first removed a series of primary sources per WP:MEDRS and WP:PSTS. The second replaced a single primary source that was unrelated (it was about moxibustion) with a Cochrane review that was relevant. The third, fourth and fifth removed wholly unsourced content. The sixth added a very good reference. The seventh rewrote the lead per WP:LEAD to summarize the body, taking out a bunch of detailed information on FMRI that shouldn't be in the lead (and was replaced in my eighth edit that consolidated several sections). My ninth simply removed a red link and should be uncontroversial. I believe a substantive review of what I actually did would illustrate my edits were actually very solid ones (supported by Anthonyhcole and probably PPdd) even with an ongoing AFD - it's not fair to gut a page to an easily-deletable nub during the discussion, but removing blatantly inappropriate material while adding the kinds of sourcing that help a page survive, that seems well-within acceptable mores to me. Taking it from 26K, half of which was unsourced, to 10K of solidly-sourced, policy and guideline-appropriate material, really seems like a good thing to do at any time, even during an AFD. I won't be taking any further action until the AFD has closed, I just would like the positive changes I have made to be kept.

With my tendency to beat dead horses with walls of text, I'll stop here but if you do take the time to look at the changes I made in substance, I hope you'll agree they genuinely do improve the page, even if they do appear in rapid succession. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice walls, WLU, but mine are bigger because this is where i drink my coffee from.

I understand Dicklyons frustration with my own edits not. Trying to follow step by step each of WLU's edits takes a lot of time, so my own greater series of steps is worse. However, WLU's edits are all valid, and the time taken to read them, meticulously edit summarized, is not a reason to revert them. Editors all have different backgrounds and move at different speeds.

I have to admit that I am at an advantage over Dicklyon in that I have now seen many of WLU's edits on a step by step basis, and I don't think I ever disagreed with one, even when they reverted my own edit, as WLU's edit summary or talk page entry was dispositive. So when I saw WLU's multiple edits at this article, I was able to assume they were essentially the same as ones I had made since all my edits were based on learning from WLU and a couple of other editors, whereas Dicklyon had a lot of work to do reading. PPdd (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dicklyon has a very good core point though - massive edits to pages that are under an AFD are normally not seen positively and 90% of the time they are bad edits that are made by an editor trying to get the page deleted. It was an unusual situation in that I deleted half the page, but then !voted "keep" on the remaining half. I can't criticize his argument even if I disagree with it. And the definition of a "valid" edit is always, always subject to question, revision, change and argument. If I thought Dicklyon was flat-out wrong, I would have reverted with a catty summary, but I didn't because he did raise a very good point, one I tried to address through the original posting in this section. Always remember that editors are doing their level best to improve the page, irrespective whether you agree with the edit or not, and all should have pointed out to them the reason why the edit may not be ideal. Dicklyon did so by referencing the practice of not deleting page content while it is being discussed at AFD, I'm trying to do the same thing here. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Great walls. OK. I did leave a catty edit summary when I reverted, and regretted it the moment I saw it in history. Sorry Dick. That was rude and insensitive of me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Geodesics

In regard to your reversion of my edits to the articles on Geographical distance, Geodesy, and Gnomonic projection: The link I included is to an article which I have submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Judging from previous experience with this journal, the earliest that this is likely to be accepted is a year from now. I'm happy to wait before updating (by me or by someone else) these Misplaced Pages entries until then.

A larger problem is that there's no Misplaced Pages article on geodesics in the geographic context. The main Geodesic article is way off in the mathematical corner of the field. So the information on this subject is scattered awkwardly between Geodesy, Geographical distance, Great-circle distance, Haversine formula, and Vincenty's formulae. I would start this article myself except that I don't really have the time at present.

P.S. I encourage you to download (and read!) my paper from http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1215

Cffk (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing my point. It's simply that your interest in this material makes you the wrong person to decide. Take it to the relevant talk pages, and let other editors decide. You'll find people there who are more able to do that than I am. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 15:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(classes of) control systems

Dick Lyon, You appear to be intimately familiar with this article. Perhaps you could help me. The reference to "Logic and sequential controllers" maps to simply "Logic gate". Would you have any better suggestions on where in Misplaced Pages I can read about "Logic and sequential controllers"? It is after all a purportedly major class of control systems. Vonkje (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with that class of control systems, or even what logic means there. But certainly shouldn't link to logic gate. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard,

Thanks so much for your prompt response. In my copious free time I plan to rework that paragraph that begins with:

"There are two common classes of control systems, .. logic or sequential controls, and ..",

to fit the more standard way control system design texts categorize these systems. More importantly, I will be citing my edits. Vonkje (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Galleries

Thank you. That was a lot of work. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The fingers just get into a rhythm sometimes... Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I know the feeling. :-) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Britannica Logarithm

Hi, there is an issue with a file you uploaded at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Logarithm/archive1. Could you come over and have a look? Thx, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You reverted an edit of mine on logarithm. I removed the ref because apparently the page 179 does not contain anything related to logarithms, see this scan here . I cannot see the page in the http://books.google.com/books?id=m2pJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA179 books.google url that you provided]. In any case, please undo at least part of your revert: with the same edit, I added a couple of publisher locations, which have been requested at FAC. Your revert removed this addition. (A few weeks ago, I remember you once reverted a more involved edit of mine, only because you disagreed with parts of this edit. This was not so helpful then and is especially unhelpful in the FAC context, since I have to keep reviewers up to date. I kindly ask for a more careful editing. Thank you.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image is volume 2; the google books link is volume 17 as the citation says. Just redo your edit without removing it and all will be OK. Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the mess I created last night on the log-normal distribution. Apparently I was even too tired to save the version I actually intended to save. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

History of the camera partial revert

As I understand it, the lead of an article is supposed to be a summary of what's in the main body. Not so? - Denimadept (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. Did I do wrong? Ah, I see you put back the section that contradicts the lead, since my removal left nothing related; I'll fix. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

En dashes

Hi Dick: I hope your book is going well (I noticed the yellow box at the top); you're probably too busy for WP at the moment. However, I've seen your work on vision, colour, and related technologies, and I've noticed in particular your decision to use an en dash for such compounds as "red–green" and "blue–yellow". I am presuming the dash carries special meaning here, beyond what a hyphen would convey. Is this right? I guess you've noticed that debate is ongoing in several places at the moment about en dashes (such as WT:MOS, Talk:Mexican–American War and Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War. What is your view of the dash in its role as an indicator of opposition? Tony (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes; red-yellow would be OK for a reddish yellow color, but there's not such thing as a red-green or blue-yellow color. The en dash signifies "to" or "between" or "versus" when connecting nouns of a similar type. So it's the red-to-green dimension and the blue-to-yellow dimension that we're talking about. In things like Mexican–American war, the en dash is logically correct, but the tradition may favor a hyphen, especially if "Mexican-American War" is regarded as a proper name; hence the arguments. If you don't want someone to think that the war was over Mexican Americans, use the en dash and not the hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; interesting last point. Tony (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am genuinely indebted to you for joining the chorus of personal attacks; but I hope that it will not be necessary to present the growing evidence that MOS cannot be defended as it now is without massive incivility.

I think you linked the wrong diff; that one is about me, not about you. Did you intend the one where I talked about how you eat babies? Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I dislike the Manual of Style - I bother, instead of ignoring it as it deserves, because I would prefer to have one - but like Lovelace, I like other things more: I like an encyclopedia written in English, the language "understanded of the people". Also, I like guidelines which mean what they say; since MOS does not require Mexican–American War (the normal and massively attested form comes under WP:HYPHEN 3), please stop inflicting it on Misplaced Pages. I have no objection to a handful of editors engaging in constructing a novel form of English; I am not here to watchdog the Foundation's resources. But if you want an encyclopedia written in what you have made up, ask Wikimedia for a :mos-en code. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't inflicted it, but explained that is within typical normal English style guides to use the en dash there, and that I support our style guide in specifying such usage. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Our style guide does not specify such usage; several of us have read it, and see none: CWenger, Headbomb. Wareh,.... The claim that this is typical or normal usage is without evidence, indeed against evidence, save for what you remember from English class. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I can accept that there might be different interpretations of when the points 2 and 3 at MOS:ENDASH apply. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. If everybody did so, this would be a lot calmer. For myself, the lack of a clear decree from MOS is less important than the quantity of evidence that the dash is vanishingly rare, and those guides which recommend a dash are quite rare and largely Oxford - of limited relevance to American English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

These usages are centainly not vanishingly rare, nor rarely recommended. See for example "American usage and style, the consensus", which says "The hyphen joins, the dash separates — a principle that, when fully grasped, will help prevent many errors in using these marks." or "Bugs in Writing" which says "Use en dash for ranges of numbers, and equal-weighted pairs that are used as adjectives." Some have an over narrow explanation of the concept, as in "About face: reviving the rules of typography" saying "to signify a partnership (as in Smith–Jones)", but the idea is there. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea is there (if you are sufficiently selective about guides); the practice is not. Have fun inventing rules, and making the encyclopedia less readable; do let me know if Noetica ever posts xer tons of sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dick. Great to see you taking an interest in this issue. Like you, I have writing commitments and cannot justify any more time on this beyond the full-time week I've already wasted. I'm just dropping in to answer your question about where the proposal is. Easy to miss, on that turbulent page. It's above the ten points I posted: Talk:Mexican-American_War#Statement_of_the_Proposal; and there's discussion underneath. I'm holding off coming in with a mass of evidence I've accumulated from sources, especially style guides (and analysis of histories for WP:MOS and WT:TITLE). I don't want to squander it, or any more valuable days, for a mere single-article RM. There are several much larger issues, within which an RM at Talk:Mexican-American War is a tiny innermost nesting. Best wishes, and good luck! No more from me for now. –_⊥Noetica!– 01:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Dick, I see Noetica has posted just above, and that this link might be of use to you (Noetica's 10 points, to which I've added an amendment at the bottom, presuming he is OK with it). Thanks. Tony (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Dick, the action at Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War would be hilarious if it didn't promise creeping disruption, far and wide. I still have no more to say about it at this stage; life's far too short, and a living has to be earned. Glad you're still countering with well-placed rejoinders. The more focused theatre for all of this is now here. Who knows where to next? I really can't do much more from this end. I hope others around the place will take up the baton, after us. –_⊥Noetica!– 04:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

For your background information:

This section of your talkpage has been mentioned, though not as an issue of any consequence (see these, and the preceding posts). More importantly, the discussion progresses with a new section initiated by PMAnderson: . O, and WP:TITLE has been protected, with this version in place for now:

• Provide redirects to non-keyboard characters: If the use of diacritics (accent marks) is in accordance with the English-language name, or other characters not present on most standard keyboards are used, provide a redirect from the equivalent title using standard English-language keyboard characters. In particular, provide a redirect from the equivalent hyphenated form to any title using an en dash (for guidelines, see WP:ENDASH and WP:HYPHEN, at WP:MOS); even though many keyboards have dashes, many don't.

That protection is not an endorsement; but this is incidentally the neutral version that I had argued for.

–_⊥Noetica!– 00:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute".Thank you.  Sandstein  20:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

BS170

As you merged BS170 to 2N7000, you might want to redirect BS170 there... I'm not going to do it, since I don't want to pick up a vandalism warning for redirecting the article. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I thought I had done that, but apparently slipped up. Fixed now. Dicklyon (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality factor (video compression)

Just a note that I undeleted this article per a request at WP:REFUND. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Baker clamp

Your edit at Resistor–transistor logic about Baker clamps is wonderfully elegant. It hits the issues and side-steps the doubt.

I also appreciate your edits and comments at Baker clamp.

I am less happy with C-D's Baker clamp edit and its "nonlinear parallel negative feedback". Looks like I said too much... Oh, well.

Thanks for your efforts. Glrx (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Stressing me out

I appreciate your thoughtful comments and replies through the course of discussions on the punctuation stuff. I'm sorry about sidetracking the discussion by mentioning my disdain for your username. Its really not that bad, and it doesn't change that I felt you made a great argument for the dash. This Admin Noticeboard thing started by Sandstein is making me less than happy with things. It just feels like it was done in a bit of a mean spirited way, not for truly helpful reasons. Anyway. Just saying hello. -- Avanu (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, wikipedia gets way too dramatic. I've learned to make my arguments and not get upset when they lose, as sometimes happens. I tend to forget to WP:AGF in the face of these arguments, which isn't good for anyone; but I try. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

As a person who (a) never really got the endash/emdash/hyphen argument and (b) never really cared, I did find your examples of Mexican-American people versus Mexican–American trade agreement to be a very useful demonstration of the distinction. I don't tend to edit in places where this even comes up, but you have educated me a bit; so, thanks. LadyofShalott 22:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I like it better when it said educasted. Either way, happy to help. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with Lady's sentiment above. You were the one voice in the din that convinced me also with a very useful bit of logic. Although I do still have to say, I don't think I would mind too much if it simply ended and was merely a hyphen. Most people would still comprehend it just fine (one hopes). Now that the AN has ended, I think I will focus on content again. I was quite distracted by it all. -- Avanu (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me also, Dicklyon, for your words of support. As expected, they have immediately vanished over Sven's rather tight-fitting event horizon; but the whole episode there can be reviewed in the history of his talkpage for historians yet unborn. You will be interested in this humorous development. It may have been edited since I added something to that section. See the talkpage also.

You will understand my reluctance to join the present "discussion" at WT:MOS, where five or so intersecting issues are still not teased out for orderly treatment, with the chaos I have always predicted again emerging. Some day the need for rationality will be more apparent to the multitude – though many rebel spies and true believers will have met an ugly end by then, I fear. Noetica 07:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be time for one more RM to repair the mess. So far, no reasons have been given against moving it back, in response to my request for same. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I am about to take this matter of an accusation against you to PMAnderson's talkpage. I urge you just to wait and see what happens there, before pursuing any conversation with this editor at Talk:Mexican-American War or anywhere else at all. Noetica 03:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Noetica 03:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

MOS:DASH represents your opinion of best practice; a small group of Wikipedians agree with you; most of us - and, even more importantly, most writers and readers of English - do not. The arguments of your cabal have included deliberate and repeated falsehoods and continued revert-warring for something with less than no value to the encyclopedia. Please desist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep calling us liers without saying what we've lied about. It's not about us – it's about good typography, as represented in the WP:MOS. I see no evidence that most disagree with this, though I admit most are unaware. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

MOS does not represent good typography, any more than the post to which this replies represents sound spelling. (Speaking of which, you have recently responded to a post which cited two lies: your own claim that an 8-2 discussion not consensus and Tony's that the closing admin is corrupt.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I get your point: things that you disagree with are lies. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it is only reasonable for you to conclude that everyone behaves as you and your allies do. If "good typography" is whatever Dicklyon likes, why shouldn't the truth be whatever subserves Dicklyon's cause? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My arguments about best practices are based on independent style guides and on our WP:MOS. Your focus on me violates WP:NPA. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are based upon an unrepresentative handful of style guides (which nobody appears to follow in practice), one of the most controversial sections of a guideline which is based on revert-warring, and the repetition of falsehood about what happens on Misplaced Pages. I do not claim that you are worse than other editors; you aren't. But you are the one who asked.

I invite you (indeed, beg you) to consider that you may be mistaken; the last scandal about Battles of the Mexican–American War may yet be a blocking offense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We can hope so. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lyons

Hello Dick Lyon, are you the same person who co-wrote these articles published in 2003 & 2004? I published the "Standing Wave Discrete Fourier Transform" (SWDFT) in 1990, and a Wiki page about SWDFT is currently redirected (not by me though) to the Sliding DFT Wiki page which references below. --David Johnson

E. Jacobsen and R. Lyons. \The Sliding DFT", IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, Mar. 2003, pp. 74-80. E. Jacobsen and R. Lyons. \An update to the Sliding DFT", IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, Jan. 2004, pp.110-111.

Davidmeo (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not me, it's Richard G. Lyons; I'm Richard F. Lyon; different last and middle names. We live near each other, but have never met, as far as I can recall. We've both done columns in signal processing magazine. I did the redirect to there and pointed out at the time that I'm not the author. Also pointed out that the sliding DFT appears in the 1975 Rabiner and Gold book on signal processing, and that your method is just frequency shifting each channel to DC and doing a well-known efficient rectangular-impulse-response filter at baseband. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright and permission

Hi Dick: Can you please elaborate on the this comment: (document doesn't declare a wikipedia-compatible license as is presumed to be copyrighted by its author.) my problem is that I do have the authors permission to use it word for word so not sure why it keeps getting deleted? Please explain...Thank You LCarulli LCarulli (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC) LCarulli

I have taken the liberty of putting a note about Wikimedia:Commons:OTRS on your talk page. Hope that helps, and I hope Dick doesn't mind my moving stuff around on his talk page. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill. In this case it wasn't about a file uploaded to commons, so the OTRS is not so relevant, but about text copied into an article. Same problem, though; somebody's copyrighted content can't just be copied into wikipedia without them granting a license. It's better to paraphrase or summarize the source, or put a brief attributed quote. Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Should have checked out you guys' context before charging ahead. Be well, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry its been a few weeks and I am just now reading over the comments. So from my understanding I cant just copy the text even though I do have permission. How do I obtain this License that you mentioned above? and if I paraphrase the information what does brief attributed quote mean? Sorry for all the questions just trying to learn the wonders on wikipedia. I appreciate your comments and help. LCarulli (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of you having permission, but of the copyright holder granting very liberal rights (no restrictions like non-commercial, no prohibition against creating derivative works, etc.); see the OTRS link above if you think they'll be willing to do that. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Uniformity

I have restored the substantive edit to Mexican-American War obliterated by your -er- ill-advised edit; the punctuation is now as uniform as the misguided titles of other articles permit; this includes the elimination of the eccentric "Mexican–Americans" , which is supported by nobody.

I do not pretend to compete with your expertise on being "sneaky and underhanded"; to my mind, a copy-edit is a copy-edit.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The enforcement arm of the policy WP:3RR, which you should perhaps read before acting against the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pitch and melody

Oy vey.

I'm thinking you're just being mindful of distinctions between "pitch", the psycho-acoustic concept, and "notes". Luckily, HDM tells us what they mean when they use the word "pitch" to define melody: "A stretch of sound whose frequency is clear and stable enough to be heard as not noise". Do you see this as a problem, since the "pitch" in "a succession of pitches" is something with both a perceived f0 AND duration?

I really don't think the ASA explanation of pitch's relationship to melody is usable. Sorry. It characterizes melody as a variation of pitches, and the HDM seems to be saying that variation is not an essential attribute of melody. Instead, they emphasize "coherence"--i.e. the pitches sound like they belong together. Also, saying melody is associated with pitch, or variations in pitch, just sounds horrible... like defining water by saying it's associated with hydrogen and oxygen. I have no problem with folks who study psychoacoustics having a different concept of melody... I just don't see how that particular characterization could be correct! It could very well be there's something I'm missing.

I'd be open to fine-tuning the HDM definition, so that we're not saying "pitches" when we really mean "notes".

Also, sorry to bother you if you're sick of this already and would rather leave it alone!--Atlantictire (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The ASA doesn't say anything about melody. The definition you're commenting on is Plack's. It's a pretty useful one the psychoacoustics realm, and he explains how it follow the ASA's definition, but with some clarification by associating the "high to low" dimension with the concept of melody. Are you saying throw it out? Why not just supplement it with a musician's definition? Propose one. It's not clear what you want to do with the bit about melody that you quoted above. Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And it would be better to keep this on the article's talk page, wouldn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure. You just seemed to be getting lost in the thicket of haggling (understandably) and I wanted to make sure you had a chance to vet the HDM definition and identify any serious problems with it. Enjoy your weekend!--Atlantictire (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You, too. Thanks for helping make it good. Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

help me understand where and when to bold changes

is it in the discussion section?Mkoronowski (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Bold is used in articles only for the subject in the lead sentence. And few other things. See MOS:BOLD. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fresnel equations and energy conservation

About an hour before you reverted my deletion about the statement of conservation of energy in the Article Fresnel Equations

Maybe you are right about the authority of the citation, but I just mean that the formula of R_p and R_s in the article are definitely from another source; the Fresnel Equations contradict with the statement R_p+T_p=1.

I have started a section to discuss this issue, please feel free to voice your opinion: Talk:Fresnel_equations#R.2BT_must_not_equal_to_1--Antonysigma (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, I already posted and changed my opinion several times there. Confusing stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Kirchhoff's diffraction formula

I recently created a new page for Kirchhoff's diffraction formula - there was no such page in existence. At the moment, it just gives the expression for the formula, but I have written an expanded version which is currently at user:epzcaw. It is based on Born and Wolf, and Longhurst. I would be grateful if you would look over it and give me comments/criticism/errors before I publish it. Epzcaw (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's coming along very nicely. I made a few edits, mostly style nits. You might want to move it to a subpage like User:Epzcaw/Kirchhoff's diffraction formula; or just go ahead and develop it at Kirchhoff's diffraction formula where others can jump in and help if they're inclined. I'm not that familiar with the content, but I assume you're saying what the sources say, and it looks plausible. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is mainly based on Born and Wolf's treatment. I have re-written in my own words (obviously), changed the variables used and changed the development of the argument in places. Some is alsobased on Longhurst's work. I will have one last go at editing, and then transfer to the proper location. I have also added a section on how the Fraunhofer and Fresnel approximations are derived from it, but this needs more work, and certainly more proof-reading. It is a never ending task ... Epzcaw (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

a "binding" RfC

(Since you asked at ANI) It is exactly like any other RfC. The RfC makes a question, a few editors present their views in their own section, and many editors read the views and endorse the ones they find satisfactory. There are only endorsements, no opposes. Lenghty siscussions are mostly banished to the talk page. At the end of the RfC, after people have commented and endorsed, an uninvolved admin will read all the RfC, summarize the results, and reach a conclusion.

The only difference is that the participants have agreed to be "bound" by the results before the RfC starts (the RfC questions are drafted before the actual RfC starts, so the participants can see what they are agreeing to). This means that they will respect the decision reached by the closing admin. It doesn't matter that they like the result or not, they have already agreed to respect the result.

This is usually because the editors involved have realized that they can't solve the situation by themselves, and they agree to present their arguments in an ordered and brief fashion, and then let other people judge which is the most compelling argument. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

P.D.: This is to prevent the typical case when someone agrees to a RfC, then at mid-RfC he realizes that things are not going his way, and then he decides to reject the RfC and its results. By agreeing in advance to abide to the results (by "binding" oneself to the result), one reassures the rest of the participants that they are not going to waste their time. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So draft some questions and let's see if we agree. Dicklyon (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you support this?

Okay, forgive me if I'm missing something, but as near as I can tell the pro-dash position is ultimately based on trying to make Misplaced Pages look professional and credible, yes?

If so, it seems to me that the only way to accomplish that while using dashes where dashes "should" be used is to have every use individually policed to maintain consistency with some set standard. But we just don't have the kind of editorial control that print publications have. There are thousands of editors typing in content and titles as they wish. Of course, a determined cadre of editors might be able to achieve consistent usage within some specific set of articles according to a clear-cut example (like the ndash in Mexican-American for the Mexican-American War family of articles), but I just don't see how it's workable on the broad scale. Further, in many cases the answer to the dash/hyphen question might not be so clear, and there again we don't have a single typographical editor or editorial board to consult for a quick resolution. Debate-fests and quagmires are guaranteed.

On the other hand, if we chose to go with all hyphens, except maybe in a few very special cases (like in the article about dashes), no human policing would be required. A bot could easily brute-force convert all dashes to hyphens, without regard to meaning, except in a few hand-picked and clearly identified articles. It might not look quite as good as a publication that can consistently and reliably manage dash vs. hyphen usage, but at least it would be consistently reliable, which should be more than good enough to be professional and credible. After all, there are professional and credible publications that use all hyphens and no dashes, so why can't we? Due to the freewheeling nature of Misplaced Pages, I really think it's the only way we can manage to address this problem in a manner with professional, consistent and credible results.

What do you think? Would you support a proposal to change the MOS to say to use hyphens almost exclusively throughout all article content, titles and URLs in WP, except for a few very specific exceptions (like the article on dashes, not like the article on the Mexican-American War), and to have someone implement a bot to enforce this? If not, why not?

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, leave it as it is. Just like we wouldn't say to use phonetic spelling almost everywhere, and correct spelling only in special articles; or skip all commas except in special articles. What could lead you to even propose such nonsense? We don't need policing, we just need editors to allow other editors to implement the MOS guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What could lead you to even propose... Can you really not tell? I'm trying to come up with a solution that everyone agrees is better. So my approach was to take a step back, and look at what we're really trying to achieve. A professional, consistent and credible, look, right? (you never answered that). If so, what's the best way in practice to actually achieve that as best as possible? The inconsistent mess with Mexican-American War usage alone strongly suggests that leave it as it is is not the answer, and that it's not possible to even come close to consistently and reliably achieving what the current MOS hyphen/dash guidelines call for. We need to try something else, and I think a simple consistent hyphens-only convention (which is not unprecedented in the publishing world) does exactly that. What's the harm, and how serious is it compared to the current mess? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll assume good faith, but hasten to point out that "a solution that everyone agrees is better" this is not. It would be very easy to get a net velocity toward consistency if it were simply allowed and encouraged, as with spelling, grammar, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was "a solution that everyone agrees is better"; I said that's what I'm trying to come up with. And part of that process is approaching key players like you and PMA with a specific proposal, and see what you think of it, and, if you wouldn't support it, trying to understand why to hopefully come up with something more amenable.

I'm still having trouble understanding your objection, other than you simply prefer having dashes used. I definitely don't understand why you feel so strongly that dashes, in some cases, are much more preferable to hyphens.

You believe it would be very easy to get a net velocity toward consistency if it were simply allowed and encouraged. Really? Who doesn't allow it? Who doesn't encourage it? It has been in the MOS for years and we have never had anything close to consistent usage, and, as far as I know, the controversy about what to do about that is relatively recent. Your position seems to be, never mind that it hasn't worked... more of the same!. I suppose that means you're ultimately okay with the inevitable inconsistency. Of course you would prefer consistency, but you're not bothered much by the inconsistency, or so it seems to me.

You don't seem to have addressed my points about the inevitable lack of specificity of what to do with respect to hyphen vs. dash usage in many cases, and the lack of a single decisive source to resolve the conflicts quickly. You don't seem to see the hyphen/dash usage as being much more arbitrary as compared to spelling, grammar, etc. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I prefer to use standard best-practice English typography, in which the en dash has a clear and meaningful role different from that of the hyphen. If we have a war about Mexican Americans, it can be called the Mexican-American War, but a war between the two countries ought not to be confused with that when our MOS says to go ahead and use en dash to indicate the different meaning. Other style guides allow to tolerate that ambiguity by just using hyphens, but why should we adopt that least-common-denominator approach when we have a good approach that's working? Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much lack of specificity. I've worked with editors, and we've had no trouble deciding when an en dash was appropriate. Sometimes the editor would have to ask me, if I had used a hyphen, whether I really meant en dash, because it depends on the intended meaning. Like Bose–Einstein, but Springer-Verlag. Neither would be correct the other way. If you don't know or care about en dash, just leave it as hyphen, and someone who knows and cares will eventually migrate it to the en dash if that's more appropriate. Inconsistency is part of wikipedia, but it does gradually get ironed out. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful please

dammit... this is the second time this kind of thing has happened to me in the last week. (The first was someone else's fault, but still...) In this edit, you nuked my comment. I assume that it was an accident, probably caused by an edit conflict. All I'm asking for here is a bit more caution, and awareness, please. :)

Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I'm usually more careful in dealing with edit conflicts, but screwed up there apparently. Dicklyon (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Can you please semi-protect Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (film). It is really annoying to restore sentences coated with bad words. Thanks!--Mike28968 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You should ask an admin. Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey Mr. Lyon: You posted on my talk page that you "liked" my statement at ArbCom or whatever its called. Were you referring to my position, or was it because you think I committed "Wiki-suicide" by posting it? :-)

Also - I'm pretty new around here, and this is my first "Wiki-brawl". What do you think will happen? Just curious is all.

Finally, very best of luck with your book! In 1991, I finished my first and only book, entitled "Forensic Chemistry for Defense Attorneys". It is an AWESOMELY written monstrosity of 520 pages or so, and the VERY BEST of its genre ever written. It remains here in a box in my office, very lonely, unpublished, and arguably in need of update :-O

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC) User:Uploadvirus

No, I just liked how general-purpose it was, with lots of YELLING at miscreants in general, taking responsibility for being one yourself, bemoaning the sad state of wikipedia and the amount of work to done, and how much better it was before certain unspecified people made it worse, without actually saying anything specific. I can use that...

On reflection, it occurred to me that maybe you were serious. Sorry if so. Dicklyon (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize to me either way, sir - but I thank you nonetheless for your words. The occasional caps, BTW, are meant for EMPHASIS, and not intended to be rude ... but then I've never been able to convince ANYONE that's the case!

This whole thing is rather surreal, quite honestly, and becomes more so the further I dig into the record. Sad thing is that I really enjoyed writing here a LOT before this all happened, and now - for what reason, I'm not quite sure - this mess has soured me on the project quite a bit.

Very strange how, in one sense, this whole matter has been so silly and trivial, yet in another (deeper?) sense, some of this stuff just enraged me to the point where even *I* was surprised! Interesting psychological experiment, this place.

I haven't paid any attention to where you stand on the whole issue, Mr. Lyon, so I don't know if you're "friend" or "foe" (LOL). Truthfully, there's really just been one individual that really ticked me off severely, and I have exhaustively checked out his record, which is quite interesting to say the least. I sure don't want to "fight it out" any more with anyone, because the events I personally saw as a "big problem" have stopped, and I'm grateful for that.

As I said, though - if it turns out in the end that the "community consensus" (or whatever) is "favorable" to my position, then there will be a HUGE number of "errors" to fix. Doing so will consume a TREMENDOUS amount of time and effort, and as I said, in my opinion the probability is close to zero that those who changed things like that will ever fix them. Therefore, I'll probably have to do most of it myself, and I'd MUCH rather spend the time writing content.

In any case, thanks for your courteous reply, and best wishes to you and yours. Talk to you later, sir.

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Film Grain

The picture in the film grain article has significant moire from an interference between the scan and the original. I think that picture should be replaced. That artifact significantly detracts from the picture. Victor Engel (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I now know how to get a better scan of it. I'll give it a try. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I replaced it with a slightly better one. Let me know if it looks any better or not. Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the moire. Am I missing something? There are reticles in the images.... Glrx (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I was seeing the reticles as moire. Sorry. Victor Engel (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I see now that what I was seeing was not moire at all but is actually a scale. Can you add some text describing the scale? Victor Engel (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the picture is slightly higher res now anyway. You can add something from the linked book if you find it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

turbomachinery is still red???

hello dick, did you see that the category link was invalid? it was red when i put 2 entries in. i was trying to figure it out. it is still red, can you help on this? martin Mkoronowski (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The link is not invalid, but there's no category page. Your page Centrifugal compressor is in Category:Turbomachinery, but there's no page there; I think you can make one. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

huh? aaarrrrggghhhh! to much to learn. if you have the time can you help me understand?Mkoronowski (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

When you click the red link, you go to a page that's inviting you to enter some text. Click another category and "edit" to see what's typically there, and copy it. I have not ever created a category, so I'm not familiar with what's expected. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I hope you take greater care identifying tagging vandalism in article space than you did here . Vandalism as a very specific meaning and the edit you reverted was not within the definition. RxS (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. But it was intentionally disruptive and did not contribute to the purpose of the talk page, and the vandalism button was right there, so it was the easy way to slap down that a------. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Using Twinkle to slap someone you don't agree with down is a fast track to loosing that tool. WP:TW#Abuse And I see you used to it revert me. I'd suggest reverting yourself and let someone else handle it. RxS (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll revert myself if you tell me that that will be a better thing for that page, not because I'm afraid of being punished by having my twinkle taken away. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I kinda know the both of you. I at least know both of you well enough that you have the best intentions of the project in mind. Beeblbrox does as well, for that matter. I could argue with the edit summaries Dicklyon used myself, but at the end of the day I also agree with removing the section that Beeblebrox added to the RFC at WT:MOS. I almost did it myself earlier, but I had to go take care of something offsite first. Somehow I get the feeling that Beeble isn't going to care that his "comment"/"vote" has been removed anyway. So, all that being said, why don't we just let this drop now, OK?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped it unless RxS speaks up again. I also informed Beeble about it, in case he cares, which I'm sure he probably doesn't. I still say he was acting like an ..., but then we have quite a few people being extremely vocal about how little they care, don't we? Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem dropping it. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who touches that page gets slimed just by contact. But....I have a big pet peeve about throwing the word vandalism around. And using Twinkle to slap someone down is right out. I'll leave you with that. One last piece of advice though, be more careful with Twinkle usage...later. RxS (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. I wasn't really aware that this was a sensitive issue; seems like my vandal-reverting finger is pretty sore, though, so maybe I'm over-doing it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have paraphrased you as I have, because it seems to be what you are saying; it is true that your perpetual dogmatic opposition to any compromise is wearying.

To put it yet another way: of course we should listen to what reliable sources - such as style guides - say; it is our hypothesis that they know more than we do. When they contradict each other, and we must decide, then we must weigh them against each other; but this is not an issue on which we need to decide.

Incidentally, this move is a violation of the moratorium which you have presumably read; you objected to it. I do hold that to be controversial, pending a review of the sources; but if it, and the accompanying changes, are reversed, I see no reason to mention it elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So, now that it's clear there's no moratorium, you now think it's controverial? Can you explain why? Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: MoS matters

Please confine them as responses to what I post there. Please refrain from posting anything about MoS on my talk page. Thank you. -- llywrch (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see you regarded my suggestion to compromise as a "stupid post" . Oh, well, I tried. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thxs for your help. Mkoronowski (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your corrections

Thanks for all your help concerning style, format, etc. Note, however that changing back the "shot noise" part of Noise (electronics) was incorrect. The original text was highly erroneous. I am changing back the text to the revised version while adding some related references. (Note, I am expert, published some 300+ articles on noise; have been teaching graduate courses about it, etc). Htavroh (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tamás, I know you're an expert, but I think you're off-base there. Shot noise is a simple property of discrete electron charges, not the more elaborate sort of noise that you are describing. Since you didn't link online sources, I can't look at what they say, but I'll work on it later, linking sources that support the simple model of shot noise. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Electrical shot noise requires a barrier. I'm not sure his claim of a "steep" barrier is needed. "Shot noise is associated with current flow across a potential barrier." (Henry W. Ott, Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronic Circuits, John Wiley, 1976, pg 208.) Without the barrier, you won't see your "discrete electron charges" -- there will be a cloud of electrons slowly migrating through the material. With the barrier, the entire current is carried by a small number of discrete charges. Glrx (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it requires current; unclear what "barrier" means here, though; any potential difference, like across a resistor, will do. Dicklyon (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The contributors above represent partial truths. Here are some facts to support the discussion.

1. Shot noise is a quantum noise; it would be zero in classical physics, where electrical charge is continuum (it can be arbitrarily small) because the power density spectrum of shot noise current is S(f)=2Iq (where q is the charge of the particloes that carry the current). If q=0 then the shot noise current is zero.
2. Shot noise indeed needs a potential barrier. It must be short and steep. It is like a mountain. The electron will get up to the top of the "mountain" by random thermal activation (thermal motion) and it will slide down at the other side of the "mountain" in an accelerating fashion by the electrical field.
3. To have electrical shot noise we need a) quantization (quantized charge); b) random timing of the charges; c) independence of the charges. A short steep potential barrier with height E>>kT satisfies these conditions. Any violation of the (a-c) conditions changes the spectrum. For example, skipping a) or b) will result in no noise. Skipping c) results in increased or reduced shot noise.

In conclusion, the present short claim about shot noise in the text is basically fine, even though it does not give the full picture, only the common electrical engineering facts. The forward-biased diode (including basic-emitter diode in transistors) and the quantum dots in single-electron transistors (nanoelectronics) are the typical systems in electronics that gives shot noise. No resistors, MOSFETs, etc. generate shot noise. Superconducting Josephson junctions generate double shot noise because double charge (Cooper pairs of electrons) pass the junction. I hope this helps. Sorry for the typos (if any). Good luck. Laszlo B. Kish LKish (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If you don't have the sharp barrier and accelerated charges, you still get a shot noise, but perhaps not such a white one, as the charge arrivals may seem less impulse-like. I agree on the independent random arrivals of discrete charges being the effect called shot noise. But you can get it in resistors and transistors, where the shot noise of the two directions of diffusion current are more conventionally called thermal or Johnson noise. See White noise in MOS transistors and resistors. Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny that you were able to dig out this old debate point. The fact that a termal noise formula can be constructed (but only in the low-frequency limit) by supposing two shot noise sources (which are called shot noise incorrectly) is well known for a long time: I think, I saw it first in the book Heinz Bittel, L. Storm, "Rauschen", Springer, New York, 1971. However, it is only a fortunate (or unfortunate) artifact. There is a similar artifact that an exponential voltage-current characteristic (such as in forward biased diodes) will produce "half" thermal noise Si=2kT/Rd, if the differential resistance Rd of the forward-biased diode is used to calculate a thermal noise, which should be Si=4kT/Rd. (Note, a non-exponential diode would violate this relation of "half" thermal noise). There are such "numerical" coincidences in physics but they do not justify a method. The easiest way to see that thermal noise and shot noise are essentially different: a) Reduce the charge quantum q to zero. Shot noise current disappears because for shot noise Si=2Iq. Termal noise current remains unchanged because, for thermal noise, Si=4kT/R. b) Thermal noise is a thermal equilibrium process. Shot noise is an out-of-equilibrium process. c) Concerning the situation of MOSFETs in the Ohmic, thermal equilibrium, range: Si=4kT/R . If it would be a diode, it would have shot noise Si=2kT/R and to see this you would need non-equilibrium situation: forward bias implying power dissipation and thermal gradients. LKish (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW: something to add. In general, you are right that it seems, to have shot noise, we do not necessarily need potential barrier. For example, a mechanical flow of randomly positioned shot-gun-bullets would constitute shot noise. The key here again, flow = non-equilibrium process, quantization (particles), and randomness. However, in electronics the question comes up in the following way: what do you need to make that random flow from the original thermal equilibrium system where the particles execute a Brownian motion? This is the point where the need for the potential barrier enters. If you simply start to drift the system of Brownian particles to represent a flow, it will not be a shot noise flow. It will simply be a DC current and thermal noise superimposed. The thermal noise will not depend on the strength fo the flow (at practical situations, where the drift velocity is much smaller than the thermal velocity). LKish (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In your free time...

I don't know if you have seen Harmonic pitch class profiles yet. It seems vague and opaque at the moment. As near as I can tell, the aim is to stuff an audio signal into constant-Q buckets to generate sequences of vectors in aid of quantifying "similarity between two songs" as a distance in some space or other. Without seeing much claim of notability, I'm tempted to propose it for deletion. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Free time isn't something I have. But it looks like it's been referred to by dozens of authors by now, so I'd say it's notable. It's not clear how it differs in concept from a chromagram. Looks like some authors equate chromagram with PCP, and some with HPCP, so I suppose those are just variant chromagrams. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing context. I suppose I need to go do some copyediting then. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/June 5, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Misplaced Pages doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 04:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The logarithm of a number is the exponent by which a fixed number, the base, has to be raised to produce that number. For example, the logarithm of 1000 to base 10 is 3, because 1000 is 10 to the power 3: 1000 = 10 = 10 × 10 × 10. Logarithms were introduced by John Napier in the early 17th century as a means to simplify calculations. They were rapidly adopted by scientists and engineers to perform computations using slide rules and logarithm tables. These devices rely on the fact—important in its own right—that the logarithm of a product is the sum of the logarithms of the factors. Logarithmic scales reduce wide-ranging quantities to smaller scopes. For example, the decibel is a logarithmic unit quantifying sound pressure and voltage ratios. Logarithms describe musical intervals, measure the complexity of algorithms, and appear in formulas counting prime numbers. They also inform some models in psychophysics and can aid in forensic accounting. (more...)