Hi Graham. It's been a while since we interacted. I was a little (but not too) surprised to see that you've added an essay on the downsides of Wikipedia to your user page. For what it's worth, I don't know if I would have become a regular contributor if it were not for your kinds words when I was a total n00b editor. So you're having a positive effect on Wikipedia. As for the "monkeys", I left for a while because of that. I'm still undecided about whether Wikipedia's problems, e.g. abusive editors, rogue admins, etc., will bring it down, but until then, I figure I might as well give it a go and work with some people I respect and do my best to create something worthwhile. -- C S (Talk) 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I was well aware that for a good AM transmitter that there is a need to apply some modulation to the the more early stages. I did not want to put every single detail about the design of AM transmitters into the page as it would overwhelm the average reader. I think that the information should be moved to a new page or as part of AM.
I have decided to rewrite the section which had been in the electronic amp page, the Am modulator electronics has gone off to the amplitude modulation page. I would value your input on the third way which you describe where low level modulation with class C stages, and some feedback loop is used. I think that the best place to put that would be after the disscution of low and high level modulation.
I was not trying to say that all class C amps have a lower gain than class AB, for instance an tuned grid 4CX250B class C amp will have a higher gain than a 4CX250B passive grid (50 ohm damping resistor between grid and RF ground) class A design. I am sure that a 50 Ohm damping resistor is a bit of a silly value (way too low in my view) but silly designs can prove a point.
About AM modulators, I have gone through the RSGB radio communication handbook and I have found about 10 different design options for high level modulation, the option I was considering was anode modulation using an audio transformer.
The big influance on my thinking is the very old book (the radio designers handbook, big red thing written about the design of valved radio gear but it has all the theroy which still applies to solid state). Cadmium 10:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way a good AM VHF design using a anode modulated (a audio transformer is used) was used until only a few years ago in africa by some police services. It was the PYE westminster, this used a QQZ-640 twin tetrode which is the fast heating version (directly heated) of the QQV-640.
I have created a small page on valved RF amps, and I have added a link to it on the amplifier page. I think that your charge that I was making a textbook for budding designers is not quite right. I had left out many of the design details and I had said so.
For instance neutralization has been left out, as have power pack design, and the detailed design of the passive networks
I think that the three ciruits which I included as the basic building blocks from which all non microwave RF amps are made from. I think that if altered slightly these amps can make other things like mixers. I have added a reference to the RSGB's radiocommunication handbook which is a detailed text which would allow a bright undergrad student to build a large RF power amp from scratch. Cadmium 13:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I will need some time to formulate my thoughts about AGC in FM and AM equipment, you are right about the need for AGC in a good communications FM RX. I recall the time in my youth when I was using a ERP of 4 KW on 144 MHz, my RF was starting to do funny things to RXs tuned circa 200 KHz away from me. I can imagine how AGC will mitigate the effects of such a strong in band signal which is 200 Khz off from the wanted signal, as it will reduce the compression and overload effects in the RF stages which exists before the IF filter. The AGC page needs plenty of work, I think that the idea that a AM RX is linear is somewhat silly, I know that the detector is very non linear.
It might be best if you rewrite the part of the article on AM where I fell into the trap of assuming that AGC was not needed for a FM RX. Maybe you should divide the article into several subsections, AM, cheap WBFM for domestic sets (where I think AGC will not be needed much) and NBFM equipment where it is needed.
About the Pye Westminster, I only know about part of it. Somehwere in the UK was a firm which would saw the PA and the HT pack off the end of the rig. They would then sell this as a kit for a home brew VHF power amp. So I only know part of the rig in detail. Cadmium 09:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
About the AM RXs and AGC, I am about to add a few pictures to the AM page of schematics of RXs for AM and cheap FM. I would value your input on how exactly a good quaility FM RX works. Is a good FM RX a multimode (AM/SSB/FM) RX which has some bits pruned off or is it something else.
Dear Graham,
I think that the diagrams of modulation systems should be included, and added to. I think that in the long term a detailed circuit diagram should have a schematic to go with it to exaplin what each part of the system is doing. I think that tetrodes are quite simple, but I am aware that many people are rather HTphobic and valvephobic these days.
I would be more than happy to muck in with a radio transmitter design set of pages.
I see that the following topics need to be addressed on the TX side.
1. Frequecncy generation
2. Multipliers 3. Mixers 4. Modulation 5. Power amps for RF 6. EMC issues
I have already written some on topic 6
On the RX side ( radio receiver design), I think that WP already contains much more of what is needed. I think it needs to be brought together and the philliosphy explained behind some of the circuits.
Cadmium 12:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I just created the ABBA related category because I thought it's necessary a category to include anything about ABBA like albuns, songs, singles, solo works, tributes and ABBA-related artists such as Gemini, Josefin Nilsson, Osra Spelman and so on... I don't think is suitable to put some of them under the category ABBA. fizzerbear 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
fizzerbear 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a little spooky.. I was irked today by the appearance of the ABBA-related category, and very nearly put it up for deletion myself - I even thought of YOU as a no-nonsense ABBA editor who would probably agree. And so you do!
So yes, I certainly wish to see the back of the ABBA-related category and will nominate it for deletion forthwith. I'm undecided on the categories such as Category:Agnetha Fältskog albums as I don't really think that the contents of this category fit comfortably within Category:ABBA. I'll give that one some thought. But in the meantime, I'll make a start by nominating Category:ABBA related for deletion!
Hi,
I am an Mac developer, too, and I know all about Cocoa vs. Carbon and such... but let us keep our opinions out of the article about Apple, whether they be positive or negative, and keep to facts that are verifiable. We are writing an encyclopedia entry, not an editorial! MathStatWoman 11:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's just stick to the facts that are verifiable, ok? And no personal comments? Alright? MathStatWoman 12:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
(reply)
Hey, I'm just saying what I was taught :P. I was taught
threshold braking was better. Cadence braking used to be taught a lot though, but I think teaching threshold braking instead is catching on more. Basically, with threshold braking you apply the brakes hard, but not hard enough to lock the wheels. It ends up being almost the same thing--I'd say it's more "refined" cadence braking. You brake until you start to skid then let off just until you regain traction and then press down a touch more (and if you start to skid again, repeat step 2). That way you get maximum braking power. You don't go for "lock-release-lock-release" so much as you want to push your brakes to the limit. You want to get as much stopping power out of your brakes without locking them. Pumping the brakes is better than just slamming them on of course (well, as long as you're not jumping up and down on them), but threshold braking is better.
So, I'm not trying to bash the technique that, as you say, twice saved your butt, and I'm sure you're good at it (that you are even interested tells me that heh). I definitely agree it is worth knowing--better to have learned cadence braking and gotten good at it than nothing! But I think...if I may be bold: better to have learned threshold braking than cadence braking. So, mainly when I say it is "bad" is that it is not quite as good to learn cadence breaking, as you can learn threshold breaking instead (which is what I learned--and I say "better to learn," because, as creatures of habit, trying to change from one to the other would probably end up not so good.)
And, of course, neither are any better than ABS... (well, technically, when you get right down to the physics, threshold braking is, but I was also taught to use the ABS in cars that have it, since ABS is really good and the difference is marginal). I could ramble all day about this :P. -- Ben 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Graham. I noticed you are in the midst of a dispute with MathStatWoman. I cautioned her about 3RR on her talk page. I also told her to please discuss things on the article talk page. Perhaps it would be good to take a break from this article for a bit. Let other people join the discussion and get some consensus on this please. It does no harm, and I think will cause you less stress. -- C S (Talk) 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you really want to know how you were uncivil to me, in an immature manner? If so, I shall tell you. If not, I shall not communicate with you. MathStatWoman 13:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the "check user" capability is very limited, basically just developers, Arbcom, and a couple of their designees (theory is that it's somewhat of a privacy violation). I'm not inclined to suspect sockpuppetry in any case, the language use and attitude seem quite different, based on looking at talk page additions (article additions can sometimes seem alike because editors are consciously following "encyclopedic style"). Stan 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[This entire text is also being posted to MathStatWoman's talk page]
Looking through the history of the dispute, it seems that Graham lost his cool after MathStatWoman's comment put on his user page (instead of his talk page). Up until then, it seems a reasonable (although sharp) discussion of editing issues was taking place. I urge MathStatWoman to try and understand why in light of the content dispute that was occurring, this comment upset him. I also urge Graham to realize his response was harsher than necessary and led to escalation. I think once apologies are made on both sides, everyone can get to discussing the issues that first arose and have largely been overshadowed by this back-and-forth. -- C S (Talk) 20:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added this to the Redirects for Deletion page. Click here to add your vote:
[1]
Camillus
(talk)
23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let's just forget everything with no apologies. You do not see that you did anything wrong, and I do not see that I did anything wrong. But really, for someone who complains about not having time for all this, you surely can write long diatribes. MathStatWoman 07:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure you used insulting language ("sockpuppet" would not be an insult to a newbie for instance), but I've noticed in general that what a Brit would consider only slightly peppery is taken as mortal insult by many Yanks. Even though I've worked with Brits for many years, I'm still taken aback from time to time by what they feel comfortable saying to or about other people. You can imagine how that kind of cultural difference could inadvertantly escalate things in a WP dispute! Stan 13:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings: I have been unable to locate the patent regarding QuickDraw regions - have you been more successful? It should be referenced in the QuickDraw article.
I also refined the text you entered about bitmap/pixmap rotations - for other than 90 degrees the quality is highly dependent upon the algorithm and the amount of auxiliary storage employed, the worst being composite shearing with unenlarged image, then reduced by simple sampling (e.g. Quickdraw CopyBits), improved by shearing on an enlarged image with various sampling methods employed to produce a grayscale image at the appropriate reduction. The higher quality methods (such as employed in popular image processing programs) employ detailed geometric considerations to determine the sample contribution from rotated source to destination, and of course other methods are available, each with time, space, and quality trade-offs.
Best wishes and thanks for your contributions, Leonard G. 03:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
It's come to my attention that you and DeveloperFrom1983 have had an unfortunate unpleasant interaction recently. I'm not sure if you're aware that DeveloperFrom1983 is a very new user, and really needs to have more experienced users give him a hand with learning how Wikipedia works. I'm sure that you never intended to bite him, and that you know how important new users are to Wikipedia; your long history of contributions is testament to your interest in seeing Wikipedia grow. I'd appreciate it if you could look back over the communication the two of you have had and see where the miscommunications may have occurred and what you can do to help him out. I really appreciate it, and thanks for helping to make Wikipedia a better place. Essjay Talk • Contact 10:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm blocking as a sockpuppet used to circumvent policy. -- Essjay Talk • Contact 17:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
My colleagues, friends, and family told me that the Wikipedia is unreliable, and no better than internet chat rooms. I disagreed with them. I had used Wikipedia as a reference; then, I decided that I would contribute my time and effort without remuneration, with no emolument, as a public service, to add information to articles. My additions to Apple Computer, although factual and backed by references, were wiped out, and I was given insults: called a "fool", a "sockpuppet" although I always signed in (so that was not a valid accusation), told I was "crowing about gaining from investments" (which I had not; I do not have money to invest), and told that I was "annoying people" by contributing to articles. What a sophomoric, cowardly attitude; insiders who call themselves "experienced editors" are controlling Wikipedia. It is not free. I was hopeful, but now I know that I was really naive, and my associates were correct: Wikipedia is indeed like any other internet chat room. Donations of time, effort, and money to Wikipedia? I think not! DeveloperFrom1983 08:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't agree with it technical? (have you seen some of the computer articles... let alone some of the math- on wikipedia?!), but don't really mind either. As for it being a recent edit... it couldn't have been less than a month old ;-)
Hey I heard that you were stressed out. I am a member of Ezperanza and I would like to tell you that there is someone out there who does understand. I read your userpage and would like to kind of stress you down a bit. So if you would like to talk to me please go to my tlakc page. Thanks I would like to discuss stuff. Thanks. 5aret 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Also,
I never posed as anyone else, although it is possible I occasionally forgot to sign in, but that would have just been an error, and I am not even sure if I did that, but it is possible. But I did not make up any other user name. Often, I use computers in an office, and these machines are used by many, many other people: students, professors, professors emeritus, consultants, visitors...could this have caused this confusion? I am sorry if I caused you any problem, but that would be only as myself, and because I am a noobie at Wikipedia, and b/c I am sensitive to harsh words and names; they make me sad. Yes, the info on my user page is true. Why don't we start over, on the basis that we have much in common? ok? peace? please? MathStatWoman 08:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. You are about to be a father???!!! How totally wonderful, awesome, amazing! Honestly, best of luck...may all go well with the new little one... MathStatWoman 10:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting all this silly/trivial arguing aside; it is neither your fault nor mine, I think, just an unfortunate misunderstanding. I really did not intend to disturb your user page; it was an error on my part. I did not intend any disrespect about discussing signing with tildas; someone had just told me to do so, and I did not know how experienced you are; sorry. We just both seem to be sensitive people, and that is not a bad thing. Anyway, friends now? Yes, I do suspect who DeveloperFrom1983 is; if so, he is indeed a very reputable comp scientist with tales from the past, but a bit of a curmudgeon. If it were he, he actually wanted to add different info on Apple Computer than I did. About other users who might have signed onto the same machine(s), I don't know who they are or what they did. We have many giggly students.
You have dark skies? Awesome. My skies are way too illuminated; I have to travel to get decent views. What kind of telescope do you have?
About the math/other articles to which I have contributed: (a) thanks for the positive comments. I admire your contributions, too. About Macs: may I discuss my ideas with you first, and then determine if they are worth adding?. (b) I would contribute more to the math articles, but I am having difficulty with the mathematics markup language...it is not quite LaTeX or TeX or ???... I struggle with it. (c) Yes, indeed, I would want to elaborate on the meaning of the math articles, and I have done so, but have had my explanations wiped out by other mathematicians, with editing comments, such as "anyone who would read this article would already know that". ***sigh***we can't please everyone, can we? I really would want to explain more. e.g. What do we humans know about probabilities? Do we really know the true, underlying probability measure P? Actually, we know only what we observe. So we humans collect data, and take averages. That is the motivation of empirical processes. I wish I could write about that, but such exposition is not acceptable within the math articles, it seems.
Cheers. MathStatWoman 09:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Graham. It's been a while since we interacted. I was a little (but not too) surprised to see that you've added an essay on the downsides of Wikipedia to your user page. For what it's worth, I don't know if I would have become a regular contributor if it were not for your kinds words when I was a total n00b editor. So you're having a positive effect on Wikipedia. As for the "monkeys", I left for a while because of that. I'm still undecided about whether Wikipedia's problems, e.g. abusive editors, rogue admins, etc., will bring it down, but until then, I figure I might as well give it a go and work with some people I respect and do my best to create something worthwhile. -- C S (Talk) 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I was well aware that for a good AM transmitter that there is a need to apply some modulation to the the more early stages. I did not want to put every single detail about the design of AM transmitters into the page as it would overwhelm the average reader. I think that the information should be moved to a new page or as part of AM.
I have decided to rewrite the section which had been in the electronic amp page, the Am modulator electronics has gone off to the amplitude modulation page. I would value your input on the third way which you describe where low level modulation with class C stages, and some feedback loop is used. I think that the best place to put that would be after the disscution of low and high level modulation.
I was not trying to say that all class C amps have a lower gain than class AB, for instance an tuned grid 4CX250B class C amp will have a higher gain than a 4CX250B passive grid (50 ohm damping resistor between grid and RF ground) class A design. I am sure that a 50 Ohm damping resistor is a bit of a silly value (way too low in my view) but silly designs can prove a point.
About AM modulators, I have gone through the RSGB radio communication handbook and I have found about 10 different design options for high level modulation, the option I was considering was anode modulation using an audio transformer.
The big influance on my thinking is the very old book (the radio designers handbook, big red thing written about the design of valved radio gear but it has all the theroy which still applies to solid state). Cadmium 10:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way a good AM VHF design using a anode modulated (a audio transformer is used) was used until only a few years ago in africa by some police services. It was the PYE westminster, this used a QQZ-640 twin tetrode which is the fast heating version (directly heated) of the QQV-640.
I have created a small page on valved RF amps, and I have added a link to it on the amplifier page. I think that your charge that I was making a textbook for budding designers is not quite right. I had left out many of the design details and I had said so.
For instance neutralization has been left out, as have power pack design, and the detailed design of the passive networks
I think that the three ciruits which I included as the basic building blocks from which all non microwave RF amps are made from. I think that if altered slightly these amps can make other things like mixers. I have added a reference to the RSGB's radiocommunication handbook which is a detailed text which would allow a bright undergrad student to build a large RF power amp from scratch. Cadmium 13:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I will need some time to formulate my thoughts about AGC in FM and AM equipment, you are right about the need for AGC in a good communications FM RX. I recall the time in my youth when I was using a ERP of 4 KW on 144 MHz, my RF was starting to do funny things to RXs tuned circa 200 KHz away from me. I can imagine how AGC will mitigate the effects of such a strong in band signal which is 200 Khz off from the wanted signal, as it will reduce the compression and overload effects in the RF stages which exists before the IF filter. The AGC page needs plenty of work, I think that the idea that a AM RX is linear is somewhat silly, I know that the detector is very non linear.
It might be best if you rewrite the part of the article on AM where I fell into the trap of assuming that AGC was not needed for a FM RX. Maybe you should divide the article into several subsections, AM, cheap WBFM for domestic sets (where I think AGC will not be needed much) and NBFM equipment where it is needed.
About the Pye Westminster, I only know about part of it. Somehwere in the UK was a firm which would saw the PA and the HT pack off the end of the rig. They would then sell this as a kit for a home brew VHF power amp. So I only know part of the rig in detail. Cadmium 09:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
About the AM RXs and AGC, I am about to add a few pictures to the AM page of schematics of RXs for AM and cheap FM. I would value your input on how exactly a good quaility FM RX works. Is a good FM RX a multimode (AM/SSB/FM) RX which has some bits pruned off or is it something else.
Dear Graham,
I think that the diagrams of modulation systems should be included, and added to. I think that in the long term a detailed circuit diagram should have a schematic to go with it to exaplin what each part of the system is doing. I think that tetrodes are quite simple, but I am aware that many people are rather HTphobic and valvephobic these days.
I would be more than happy to muck in with a radio transmitter design set of pages.
I see that the following topics need to be addressed on the TX side.
1. Frequecncy generation
2. Multipliers 3. Mixers 4. Modulation 5. Power amps for RF 6. EMC issues
I have already written some on topic 6
On the RX side ( radio receiver design), I think that WP already contains much more of what is needed. I think it needs to be brought together and the philliosphy explained behind some of the circuits.
Cadmium 12:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I just created the ABBA related category because I thought it's necessary a category to include anything about ABBA like albuns, songs, singles, solo works, tributes and ABBA-related artists such as Gemini, Josefin Nilsson, Osra Spelman and so on... I don't think is suitable to put some of them under the category ABBA. fizzerbear 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
fizzerbear 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a little spooky.. I was irked today by the appearance of the ABBA-related category, and very nearly put it up for deletion myself - I even thought of YOU as a no-nonsense ABBA editor who would probably agree. And so you do!
So yes, I certainly wish to see the back of the ABBA-related category and will nominate it for deletion forthwith. I'm undecided on the categories such as Category:Agnetha Fältskog albums as I don't really think that the contents of this category fit comfortably within Category:ABBA. I'll give that one some thought. But in the meantime, I'll make a start by nominating Category:ABBA related for deletion!
Hi,
I am an Mac developer, too, and I know all about Cocoa vs. Carbon and such... but let us keep our opinions out of the article about Apple, whether they be positive or negative, and keep to facts that are verifiable. We are writing an encyclopedia entry, not an editorial! MathStatWoman 11:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's just stick to the facts that are verifiable, ok? And no personal comments? Alright? MathStatWoman 12:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
(reply)
Hey, I'm just saying what I was taught :P. I was taught
threshold braking was better. Cadence braking used to be taught a lot though, but I think teaching threshold braking instead is catching on more. Basically, with threshold braking you apply the brakes hard, but not hard enough to lock the wheels. It ends up being almost the same thing--I'd say it's more "refined" cadence braking. You brake until you start to skid then let off just until you regain traction and then press down a touch more (and if you start to skid again, repeat step 2). That way you get maximum braking power. You don't go for "lock-release-lock-release" so much as you want to push your brakes to the limit. You want to get as much stopping power out of your brakes without locking them. Pumping the brakes is better than just slamming them on of course (well, as long as you're not jumping up and down on them), but threshold braking is better.
So, I'm not trying to bash the technique that, as you say, twice saved your butt, and I'm sure you're good at it (that you are even interested tells me that heh). I definitely agree it is worth knowing--better to have learned cadence braking and gotten good at it than nothing! But I think...if I may be bold: better to have learned threshold braking than cadence braking. So, mainly when I say it is "bad" is that it is not quite as good to learn cadence breaking, as you can learn threshold breaking instead (which is what I learned--and I say "better to learn," because, as creatures of habit, trying to change from one to the other would probably end up not so good.)
And, of course, neither are any better than ABS... (well, technically, when you get right down to the physics, threshold braking is, but I was also taught to use the ABS in cars that have it, since ABS is really good and the difference is marginal). I could ramble all day about this :P. -- Ben 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Graham. I noticed you are in the midst of a dispute with MathStatWoman. I cautioned her about 3RR on her talk page. I also told her to please discuss things on the article talk page. Perhaps it would be good to take a break from this article for a bit. Let other people join the discussion and get some consensus on this please. It does no harm, and I think will cause you less stress. -- C S (Talk) 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you really want to know how you were uncivil to me, in an immature manner? If so, I shall tell you. If not, I shall not communicate with you. MathStatWoman 13:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the "check user" capability is very limited, basically just developers, Arbcom, and a couple of their designees (theory is that it's somewhat of a privacy violation). I'm not inclined to suspect sockpuppetry in any case, the language use and attitude seem quite different, based on looking at talk page additions (article additions can sometimes seem alike because editors are consciously following "encyclopedic style"). Stan 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[This entire text is also being posted to MathStatWoman's talk page]
Looking through the history of the dispute, it seems that Graham lost his cool after MathStatWoman's comment put on his user page (instead of his talk page). Up until then, it seems a reasonable (although sharp) discussion of editing issues was taking place. I urge MathStatWoman to try and understand why in light of the content dispute that was occurring, this comment upset him. I also urge Graham to realize his response was harsher than necessary and led to escalation. I think once apologies are made on both sides, everyone can get to discussing the issues that first arose and have largely been overshadowed by this back-and-forth. -- C S (Talk) 20:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added this to the Redirects for Deletion page. Click here to add your vote:
[1]
Camillus
(talk)
23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let's just forget everything with no apologies. You do not see that you did anything wrong, and I do not see that I did anything wrong. But really, for someone who complains about not having time for all this, you surely can write long diatribes. MathStatWoman 07:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure you used insulting language ("sockpuppet" would not be an insult to a newbie for instance), but I've noticed in general that what a Brit would consider only slightly peppery is taken as mortal insult by many Yanks. Even though I've worked with Brits for many years, I'm still taken aback from time to time by what they feel comfortable saying to or about other people. You can imagine how that kind of cultural difference could inadvertantly escalate things in a WP dispute! Stan 13:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings: I have been unable to locate the patent regarding QuickDraw regions - have you been more successful? It should be referenced in the QuickDraw article.
I also refined the text you entered about bitmap/pixmap rotations - for other than 90 degrees the quality is highly dependent upon the algorithm and the amount of auxiliary storage employed, the worst being composite shearing with unenlarged image, then reduced by simple sampling (e.g. Quickdraw CopyBits), improved by shearing on an enlarged image with various sampling methods employed to produce a grayscale image at the appropriate reduction. The higher quality methods (such as employed in popular image processing programs) employ detailed geometric considerations to determine the sample contribution from rotated source to destination, and of course other methods are available, each with time, space, and quality trade-offs.
Best wishes and thanks for your contributions, Leonard G. 03:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
It's come to my attention that you and DeveloperFrom1983 have had an unfortunate unpleasant interaction recently. I'm not sure if you're aware that DeveloperFrom1983 is a very new user, and really needs to have more experienced users give him a hand with learning how Wikipedia works. I'm sure that you never intended to bite him, and that you know how important new users are to Wikipedia; your long history of contributions is testament to your interest in seeing Wikipedia grow. I'd appreciate it if you could look back over the communication the two of you have had and see where the miscommunications may have occurred and what you can do to help him out. I really appreciate it, and thanks for helping to make Wikipedia a better place. Essjay Talk • Contact 10:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm blocking as a sockpuppet used to circumvent policy. -- Essjay Talk • Contact 17:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
My colleagues, friends, and family told me that the Wikipedia is unreliable, and no better than internet chat rooms. I disagreed with them. I had used Wikipedia as a reference; then, I decided that I would contribute my time and effort without remuneration, with no emolument, as a public service, to add information to articles. My additions to Apple Computer, although factual and backed by references, were wiped out, and I was given insults: called a "fool", a "sockpuppet" although I always signed in (so that was not a valid accusation), told I was "crowing about gaining from investments" (which I had not; I do not have money to invest), and told that I was "annoying people" by contributing to articles. What a sophomoric, cowardly attitude; insiders who call themselves "experienced editors" are controlling Wikipedia. It is not free. I was hopeful, but now I know that I was really naive, and my associates were correct: Wikipedia is indeed like any other internet chat room. Donations of time, effort, and money to Wikipedia? I think not! DeveloperFrom1983 08:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't agree with it technical? (have you seen some of the computer articles... let alone some of the math- on wikipedia?!), but don't really mind either. As for it being a recent edit... it couldn't have been less than a month old ;-)
Hey I heard that you were stressed out. I am a member of Ezperanza and I would like to tell you that there is someone out there who does understand. I read your userpage and would like to kind of stress you down a bit. So if you would like to talk to me please go to my tlakc page. Thanks I would like to discuss stuff. Thanks. 5aret 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Also,
I never posed as anyone else, although it is possible I occasionally forgot to sign in, but that would have just been an error, and I am not even sure if I did that, but it is possible. But I did not make up any other user name. Often, I use computers in an office, and these machines are used by many, many other people: students, professors, professors emeritus, consultants, visitors...could this have caused this confusion? I am sorry if I caused you any problem, but that would be only as myself, and because I am a noobie at Wikipedia, and b/c I am sensitive to harsh words and names; they make me sad. Yes, the info on my user page is true. Why don't we start over, on the basis that we have much in common? ok? peace? please? MathStatWoman 08:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. You are about to be a father???!!! How totally wonderful, awesome, amazing! Honestly, best of luck...may all go well with the new little one... MathStatWoman 10:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting all this silly/trivial arguing aside; it is neither your fault nor mine, I think, just an unfortunate misunderstanding. I really did not intend to disturb your user page; it was an error on my part. I did not intend any disrespect about discussing signing with tildas; someone had just told me to do so, and I did not know how experienced you are; sorry. We just both seem to be sensitive people, and that is not a bad thing. Anyway, friends now? Yes, I do suspect who DeveloperFrom1983 is; if so, he is indeed a very reputable comp scientist with tales from the past, but a bit of a curmudgeon. If it were he, he actually wanted to add different info on Apple Computer than I did. About other users who might have signed onto the same machine(s), I don't know who they are or what they did. We have many giggly students.
You have dark skies? Awesome. My skies are way too illuminated; I have to travel to get decent views. What kind of telescope do you have?
About the math/other articles to which I have contributed: (a) thanks for the positive comments. I admire your contributions, too. About Macs: may I discuss my ideas with you first, and then determine if they are worth adding?. (b) I would contribute more to the math articles, but I am having difficulty with the mathematics markup language...it is not quite LaTeX or TeX or ???... I struggle with it. (c) Yes, indeed, I would want to elaborate on the meaning of the math articles, and I have done so, but have had my explanations wiped out by other mathematicians, with editing comments, such as "anyone who would read this article would already know that". ***sigh***we can't please everyone, can we? I really would want to explain more. e.g. What do we humans know about probabilities? Do we really know the true, underlying probability measure P? Actually, we know only what we observe. So we humans collect data, and take averages. That is the motivation of empirical processes. I wish I could write about that, but such exposition is not acceptable within the math articles, it seems.
Cheers. MathStatWoman 09:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)