![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Here is my opinion: The targeted audience are newcomers, who want to get informed the first time. It is a basic article for arrays in general. A basic description or overview, however, is missing (since the information is widely spread in the article and not very well condensed). There is no real red line. 1. I think the summary is necessary, since these points (which are the major advantages of this technology) are only hard to get in the text. 2. I think the last paragraph of the intro provides an overview of all relevant use cases, that are not very clear from the rest of the article, since it is more or less a broad mix, without clear order. 3. If the grammar is the problem, feel free to correct it. => If you want to add, please. 188.193.103.199 ( talk) 13:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Im out, if you think this fits in, then discuss it. I think it provides an add-on, so I dont see the point. 188.193.103.199 ( talk) 06:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments in the talk page, Chetvorno, they are much appreciated and very helpful. Amitchell125 ( talk) 06:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Transceiver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audio.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
For what arbitrary reason are vacuum tubes, which would be considered solid state by people outside the electronics field as they have no moving parts, not considered solid state electronics to those in the electronics field? I cannot find a reason for this stated anywhere I look. It would be helpful if that article said why this was. Tadfafty ( talk) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
(I rather like what you have written on your User Page about the keepers and tellers of the cultural stories. I believe they have a lot to answer for as they continually mislead their cultures through false stories (as you say) and the pursuit of the holy dollar. You give a very interesting and appealing function for Wikipedia in what you have scribed. May it prevail. )
It was a good faith edit and I had to think about it for a few moments. Your revert goes to 75 characters which defeats the purpose. With short descriptions, we have a situation where we are aiming to have a maximum of 40 characters. The driving reason is that the short description is displayed on the mobile access to the article in a search result. 65% of access to Wikipedia is now via mobile devices or tablets. With courtesy, your reversion somewhat defeats that objective to display a short description that is readable on the mobile device. Descriptions over 40 characters get chopped off. In this instance, your guidance is sought. What form of short description would you consider appropriate? -- Whiteguru ( talk) 22:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, reverting my diagram change you wrote "Reverted diagram change. The previous diagram was totally misleading, it gave the impression that the passive sign convention is used with loads but the active sign convention is used with sources" Isn't it that way? As shown by the animated GIFs below, ASC and PSC complement each other, with ASC defining signs and directions for power transfer from an active component into the circuit, while PSC defines signs and directions for power transfer from the circuit into a passive component, since active and passive components always belong together if considering electric circuits as kind of a "power transfering machine" or "chain". So what was wrong in my diagram showing both conventions as complementing each other? Greetings Qniemiec ( talk) 09:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, another issue: in your drawing of PSC from June the voltage arrow had two arrowheads, which I adapted back to the way you draw the voltage arrow in your GIFs from 2013, i.e. with one arrowhead pointing towards the positive terminal. However, continuing my studies of electric network diagrams, I found that unlike in English literature, where polarity of voltage sources is usually explicitely marked by plus and minus signs, in German diagrams polarity of DC sources is - if marked by arrows only - mostly marked by arrows pointing towards lower potential, i.e. from positive towards negative terminal. And by consequence in case of the polarity of loads as well, i.e. pointing from their positive towards their negative terminal and thus in the direction of positive current. Did you choose the direction of your arrows in your SVGs from 2012 and GIFs from 2013, i.e. from minus to plus, based on some convention I should know, while "leaving the doors" open in your ASC and PSC update from this years's June? Commenting the update you wrote: "Put arrowheads on both voltage arrows to prevent ambiguity due to differing conventions in different countries for showing the polarity of a voltage difference with an arrow". Honestly speaking, the "English way" with marking polarity explicitely by plus and minus signs is much clearer, at least for DC sources, but what to do, if text books with arrows have already been printed? ;-) Where did you find other arrow conventions than your initial one? Astounding that unlike we think of science as one consistent building nowadays, it actually still uses so different conventions in different areas, e.g. the way vectors are written in English and German mathematics, or resistors in English and German electronics... Greetings, Qniemiec ( talk) 08:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Re [1], you might be interested in my post at User talk:Pragyanc. Spinning Spark 08:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
In article Nikola Tesla , I made some mistakes, thank for your revert! I have a question about that, Tesla is not physicist, Why he belongs to WikiProject Physics? Because he used to still contributes in the field of physics? MoJieCPD ( talk) 02:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
(Copied thread to Talk:Nikola Tesla#Was Tesla a scientist?. Please continue discussion there)
WP:TLDR @ BirdValiant: @ Kent Dominic: Wikipedia Talk pages are not for discussion of the subject but discussion of the article ( WP:TALK). It doesn’t matter what you think about it, all content on Wikipedia must be supported by WP:reliable sources, not your own opinions ( WP:V) -- Chetvorno TALK 00:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chetvorno! I just wanted to say thanks for all you do around here. In particular, all your help on lighting and electrical discharges, and in general, just helping to make technical articles more accessible to the general reader. Thanks. I wish you a very happy holiday, and may the coming year bring you happiness and joy. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth ( talk) 08:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Half power beam width and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 6#Half power beam width until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
08:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Just FYI I capitalized the word germanium because it begins a new sentence. Have a closer look. -- Marshallsumter ( talk) 07:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
-- Chetvorno TALK 20:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I want International System of Units to be a featured article. Can you help me edit it so it's ready for FA nomination? ScientistBuilder ( talk) 14:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your edits on the QAnon and Ron Watkins article (re the NYT analysis of Q's "drops")! AFreshStart ( talk) 21:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC) |
This is an example shown to me by Spinningspark. Apparently, you setup a template with the content and then insert the template.  The template is Template:Elvis Presley singles. You would set state=expanded if you wanted it to always be expanded.
Constant314 ( talk) 22:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Chetvorno:. Greetings. After our discussion on Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and having admired your illustrating skills for a long time, I would like to discuss a possible collaboration to pruduce a better picture of a plane wave. Please have a look at this article in EDN Magazine [4] when you have a chance. I know the author and I agree with everything he says, but his drawings are not that good. Constant314 ( talk) 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.
The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [5] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.
Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I read your statement that you wrote most of the article without sources, and that you intend to restore the material with sources, in time. I want to thank you for conceding both points. But I would also like to know, why did you write it without sources? I'm not trying to attack you or anything; I'm genuinely interested in your viewpoint/mindset. I want to understand your reasoning at the time you wrote it. Thanks again. Nightscream ( talk) 14:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Please cease violating Wikipedia by adding or restoring uncited material to articles, as you did with these edits to the Radio article. Adding or restoring uncited material that derived solely from your personal knowledge is strictly prohibited by WP:NOR, nor can one Wikipedia article be cited as a source in another, per WP:CIRCULAR, as I stated repeatedly in the article's talk page discussion. A number of arguments predicated on fallacies were offered to justify violating policy, and after I responded to each one to explained why the were wrong or unsound, none of those participants could respond to refute my counterarguments. When one of them attempted to report me at ANI, ANI judged my talk page moves and reverts to be "no violation". I have already alerted administrators to that editor's continued policy violations and to yours. Please do not continue violating policy. Nightscream ( talk) 23:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, you added a paragraph in this article that is not complete [6]. Could you finish it, please?
Thanks -- Roberto Fiadone ( talk) 01:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that Radio waves should be improved in better way you know because that would make More strong Radio waves 41.115.34.138 ( talk) 13:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clock signal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flip-flop.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pendulum clock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Clement.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not delete content based on your personal stated knowledge, as you did with this edit to two-way radio. Since you've accumulated over 62,000 edits here since 2006, probably know by now that violates Wikipedia's prohibition on original research, verifiability, et al. If see what you believe to be information in an article that can be corrected by way of citations of sources that are of equal or superior reliability to the ones supporting that information in the article, then please fix it by adding that information, and those citations. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 19:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Chet. I just wanted to take this time to say thanks for all you do here to improve our electronics and other such articles. Your efforts are much appreciated. I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Zaereth ( talk) 21:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
This is fair warning that I've rudely pointed out several places that you put false claims in the
Cage antenna talk page, and undiplomatically labeled them as wrong: The errors appear to all arise from you conflating
unipoles with vertical
cage antennas. They're different. Please stop it. For the refutation of the mistakes, see the
talk page. I'll reply there instead of on this page, to keep the issue open to others who might have been led astray.
—
Astro-Tom-ical (K7TLI) (
talk)
05:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Gooday. Thanks for the page number on Griffiths. I have a different edition. Could you possibly give me the chapter and section. I am still a little dubious, given Jackson's derivation which took a whole lot more into consideration. Constant314 ( talk) 17:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Some inspiration for you. Do you see the loop of current propagating down the TL?
Constant314 ( talk) 21:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I see you're good at physics. May I ask for your help on the Geiger-Marsden experiments article?
Talk:Geiger-Marsden experiments
I want to know if I got my maths right with this one. I haven't done physics since high school, I'm rather rusty. Kurzon ( talk) 14:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
There was an IPv6 who reverted some obvious vandalism. I have reverted it again. T3h 1337 b0y 21:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Here is my opinion: The targeted audience are newcomers, who want to get informed the first time. It is a basic article for arrays in general. A basic description or overview, however, is missing (since the information is widely spread in the article and not very well condensed). There is no real red line. 1. I think the summary is necessary, since these points (which are the major advantages of this technology) are only hard to get in the text. 2. I think the last paragraph of the intro provides an overview of all relevant use cases, that are not very clear from the rest of the article, since it is more or less a broad mix, without clear order. 3. If the grammar is the problem, feel free to correct it. => If you want to add, please. 188.193.103.199 ( talk) 13:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Im out, if you think this fits in, then discuss it. I think it provides an add-on, so I dont see the point. 188.193.103.199 ( talk) 06:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments in the talk page, Chetvorno, they are much appreciated and very helpful. Amitchell125 ( talk) 06:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Transceiver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audio.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
For what arbitrary reason are vacuum tubes, which would be considered solid state by people outside the electronics field as they have no moving parts, not considered solid state electronics to those in the electronics field? I cannot find a reason for this stated anywhere I look. It would be helpful if that article said why this was. Tadfafty ( talk) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
(I rather like what you have written on your User Page about the keepers and tellers of the cultural stories. I believe they have a lot to answer for as they continually mislead their cultures through false stories (as you say) and the pursuit of the holy dollar. You give a very interesting and appealing function for Wikipedia in what you have scribed. May it prevail. )
It was a good faith edit and I had to think about it for a few moments. Your revert goes to 75 characters which defeats the purpose. With short descriptions, we have a situation where we are aiming to have a maximum of 40 characters. The driving reason is that the short description is displayed on the mobile access to the article in a search result. 65% of access to Wikipedia is now via mobile devices or tablets. With courtesy, your reversion somewhat defeats that objective to display a short description that is readable on the mobile device. Descriptions over 40 characters get chopped off. In this instance, your guidance is sought. What form of short description would you consider appropriate? -- Whiteguru ( talk) 22:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, reverting my diagram change you wrote "Reverted diagram change. The previous diagram was totally misleading, it gave the impression that the passive sign convention is used with loads but the active sign convention is used with sources" Isn't it that way? As shown by the animated GIFs below, ASC and PSC complement each other, with ASC defining signs and directions for power transfer from an active component into the circuit, while PSC defines signs and directions for power transfer from the circuit into a passive component, since active and passive components always belong together if considering electric circuits as kind of a "power transfering machine" or "chain". So what was wrong in my diagram showing both conventions as complementing each other? Greetings Qniemiec ( talk) 09:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, another issue: in your drawing of PSC from June the voltage arrow had two arrowheads, which I adapted back to the way you draw the voltage arrow in your GIFs from 2013, i.e. with one arrowhead pointing towards the positive terminal. However, continuing my studies of electric network diagrams, I found that unlike in English literature, where polarity of voltage sources is usually explicitely marked by plus and minus signs, in German diagrams polarity of DC sources is - if marked by arrows only - mostly marked by arrows pointing towards lower potential, i.e. from positive towards negative terminal. And by consequence in case of the polarity of loads as well, i.e. pointing from their positive towards their negative terminal and thus in the direction of positive current. Did you choose the direction of your arrows in your SVGs from 2012 and GIFs from 2013, i.e. from minus to plus, based on some convention I should know, while "leaving the doors" open in your ASC and PSC update from this years's June? Commenting the update you wrote: "Put arrowheads on both voltage arrows to prevent ambiguity due to differing conventions in different countries for showing the polarity of a voltage difference with an arrow". Honestly speaking, the "English way" with marking polarity explicitely by plus and minus signs is much clearer, at least for DC sources, but what to do, if text books with arrows have already been printed? ;-) Where did you find other arrow conventions than your initial one? Astounding that unlike we think of science as one consistent building nowadays, it actually still uses so different conventions in different areas, e.g. the way vectors are written in English and German mathematics, or resistors in English and German electronics... Greetings, Qniemiec ( talk) 08:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Re [1], you might be interested in my post at User talk:Pragyanc. Spinning Spark 08:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
In article Nikola Tesla , I made some mistakes, thank for your revert! I have a question about that, Tesla is not physicist, Why he belongs to WikiProject Physics? Because he used to still contributes in the field of physics? MoJieCPD ( talk) 02:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
(Copied thread to Talk:Nikola Tesla#Was Tesla a scientist?. Please continue discussion there)
WP:TLDR @ BirdValiant: @ Kent Dominic: Wikipedia Talk pages are not for discussion of the subject but discussion of the article ( WP:TALK). It doesn’t matter what you think about it, all content on Wikipedia must be supported by WP:reliable sources, not your own opinions ( WP:V) -- Chetvorno TALK 00:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chetvorno! I just wanted to say thanks for all you do around here. In particular, all your help on lighting and electrical discharges, and in general, just helping to make technical articles more accessible to the general reader. Thanks. I wish you a very happy holiday, and may the coming year bring you happiness and joy. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth ( talk) 08:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Half power beam width and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 6#Half power beam width until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
08:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Just FYI I capitalized the word germanium because it begins a new sentence. Have a closer look. -- Marshallsumter ( talk) 07:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
-- Chetvorno TALK 20:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I want International System of Units to be a featured article. Can you help me edit it so it's ready for FA nomination? ScientistBuilder ( talk) 14:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your edits on the QAnon and Ron Watkins article (re the NYT analysis of Q's "drops")! AFreshStart ( talk) 21:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC) |
This is an example shown to me by Spinningspark. Apparently, you setup a template with the content and then insert the template.  The template is Template:Elvis Presley singles. You would set state=expanded if you wanted it to always be expanded.
Constant314 ( talk) 22:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Chetvorno:. Greetings. After our discussion on Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and having admired your illustrating skills for a long time, I would like to discuss a possible collaboration to pruduce a better picture of a plane wave. Please have a look at this article in EDN Magazine [4] when you have a chance. I know the author and I agree with everything he says, but his drawings are not that good. Constant314 ( talk) 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.
The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [5] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.
Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I read your statement that you wrote most of the article without sources, and that you intend to restore the material with sources, in time. I want to thank you for conceding both points. But I would also like to know, why did you write it without sources? I'm not trying to attack you or anything; I'm genuinely interested in your viewpoint/mindset. I want to understand your reasoning at the time you wrote it. Thanks again. Nightscream ( talk) 14:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Please cease violating Wikipedia by adding or restoring uncited material to articles, as you did with these edits to the Radio article. Adding or restoring uncited material that derived solely from your personal knowledge is strictly prohibited by WP:NOR, nor can one Wikipedia article be cited as a source in another, per WP:CIRCULAR, as I stated repeatedly in the article's talk page discussion. A number of arguments predicated on fallacies were offered to justify violating policy, and after I responded to each one to explained why the were wrong or unsound, none of those participants could respond to refute my counterarguments. When one of them attempted to report me at ANI, ANI judged my talk page moves and reverts to be "no violation". I have already alerted administrators to that editor's continued policy violations and to yours. Please do not continue violating policy. Nightscream ( talk) 23:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, you added a paragraph in this article that is not complete [6]. Could you finish it, please?
Thanks -- Roberto Fiadone ( talk) 01:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that Radio waves should be improved in better way you know because that would make More strong Radio waves 41.115.34.138 ( talk) 13:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clock signal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flip-flop.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pendulum clock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Clement.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not delete content based on your personal stated knowledge, as you did with this edit to two-way radio. Since you've accumulated over 62,000 edits here since 2006, probably know by now that violates Wikipedia's prohibition on original research, verifiability, et al. If see what you believe to be information in an article that can be corrected by way of citations of sources that are of equal or superior reliability to the ones supporting that information in the article, then please fix it by adding that information, and those citations. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 19:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Chet. I just wanted to take this time to say thanks for all you do here to improve our electronics and other such articles. Your efforts are much appreciated. I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Zaereth ( talk) 21:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
This is fair warning that I've rudely pointed out several places that you put false claims in the
Cage antenna talk page, and undiplomatically labeled them as wrong: The errors appear to all arise from you conflating
unipoles with vertical
cage antennas. They're different. Please stop it. For the refutation of the mistakes, see the
talk page. I'll reply there instead of on this page, to keep the issue open to others who might have been led astray.
—
Astro-Tom-ical (K7TLI) (
talk)
05:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Gooday. Thanks for the page number on Griffiths. I have a different edition. Could you possibly give me the chapter and section. I am still a little dubious, given Jackson's derivation which took a whole lot more into consideration. Constant314 ( talk) 17:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Some inspiration for you. Do you see the loop of current propagating down the TL?
Constant314 ( talk) 21:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I see you're good at physics. May I ask for your help on the Geiger-Marsden experiments article?
Talk:Geiger-Marsden experiments
I want to know if I got my maths right with this one. I haven't done physics since high school, I'm rather rusty. Kurzon ( talk) 14:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
There was an IPv6 who reverted some obvious vandalism. I have reverted it again. T3h 1337 b0y 21:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)