User talk:Constant314/Archive 6

Budgerigar revert

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit to Budgerigar. It is considered inappropriate to use lower-case for the word Indigenous when referring to Indigenous Australians, as can be seen here on the Australian Government's style manual. Could you please reinstate my edit? 159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have approved it now. Constant314 (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for being receptive to my concerns and approving my edit. Hope you have a good day! --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In the future, on these semi-protected pages that require a pending change approval, almost any reasonable explanation will get it approved. I'm just an uninvolved editor with no subject knowledge that is working to reduce the pending changes backlog. Hope you have a good day, too! Constant314 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Early muslim conquests

Even though the edit summary was misleading, this IP was actually restoring content that was previously changed without explanation, and that's the reason why I accepted the revision. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for contacting me. I am new approving pending revisions and am open to advice. In the absence of edit summaries, it was hard to tell what was going on. It looked to me like additional material added without explanation was a good faith attempt to improve the article. The edit I reverted looked like it was leading into an edit war so rather than allowing it, I reverted it for no edit summary. I figured that the IP editor could revert my revert with an edit summary should he or she be so inclined. If there had been almost any kind of reasonable explanation for the removal of content, I would have most likely approved it. Constant314 (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

the forgotten genius of Oliver Heaviside

I bought the book because of how backward the Oliver Heaviside article is on Wikipedia. I also emailed the author of the Website that credits Heaviside to Reactance. He said people on Wikipedia are either stupid or intentionally trying to sway attention away from Heaviside being mentioned in multiple articles. The author also said Heaviside was responsible for Reactance being developed. Steinmetz never really achieved the celebrity status as Heaviside and what he did develop he largely accredited Heaviside's operational calculus. K00la1dx (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Unblock my contributions

The links i mentioned are not trying to spam or promotional purpose. I (Zahoornoman0 (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)) am a Electrical and electronics engineer by profession and i blog the problems of students on my website and i have valuable blogs related to the Wiki articles that i linked to my website in external links. You told me to read external links guidelines i read them already and my contributions are not spam. Don't revert my changes or contributions.

External links must be high quality and must contain unique information that could not be added to the article. Blogs never make the cut. Constant314 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Heaviside made electrical reactance popular

Here is my reference that Heaviside made electrical reactance popular: "Heaviside was an English self-taught mathematician and physicist who brought complex numbers to circuit analysis" Oliver Heaviside K00la1dx (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That is possible a quote. To evaluate its correctness, we need to know the source of the quote. When we ask for a reference, we are asking for enough information to check the source ourselves. That lets us verify that (1) you correctly interpreted the source and (2) the source is reliable. Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable sources for all the information in the articles. Constant314 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

On Reactance: I provided a secondary source (a reliable website), a primary source (Heaviside's electromagnetic theory), and Wikipedia's own article on Oliver Heaviside. You won't see any articles wrote in the IEEE, and here is why: The folks at such "credible" places, saw how Cambridge University slandered and disowned Olive Heaviside.

Is that your "good faith" you pretend to be an open website on information but in fact the real principle of what information gets posted: "might makes right." above truth. Many people know Heaviside coined the term reactance, not the French. And Heaviside made popular and simplified some complicated mathematics to make Reactance a popular term. I am not a professional researcher. I don't know what kind of source you are looking for. Please find it for me and post it in the Reactance article. K00la1dx (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Heaviside got poor treatment by his contemporaries. Yes, he deserves recognition. I admire him, especially his contributions to vector calculus. We have an article about him. Actually, you do see articles about Heaviside in the Proceedings of the IEEE. I even have a couple ripped out and thrown in a folder somewhere.

Let's look at your references:

• Wikipedia: It is not reliable. It is written by people like you and me. We have no credibility. See WP:NOTSOURCE, Wikipedia:Academic use. Here at Wikipedia, we do not use Wikipedia as a source because of the danger of creating self-sustaining fake facts.
• Secondary source (a reliable website): It is not a reliable source. It is a blog. Its purpose is to sell product and not to disseminate reliable information. It could be a reliable source for claims made by that source about products that they sell, but not general information. Wikipedia is full of misinformation. Here on the STEM articles, the concerned editors are more discerning.
• a primary source (Heaviside's electromagnetic theory): It is a reliable source for what Heaviside wrote, but it only establishes that Heaviside mentioned the word "reactance" and not that he coined it. Heaviside is also a reliable source for the fact that he said he got the term from the French. QED, by his own words, he did not coin the term.

I cannot find the source that you are looking for because by Heaviside's own words, he did not coin the term.

I do share your frustration. There are a lot of facts that I know that I would like to post, but I do not because I cannot find a reliable source. I wish I had easy access to a good university library, but I don't. That is how the good articles on Wikipedia work. No facts without a reliable source, even if it means that true facts are left out. Constant314 (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge University wrote slander about Heaviside. That is why these so called credible sources won't write about it. They are intimidated. The way this whole organ works, it is a complete jargon for misinformation. K00la1dx (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That is irrelevant for Wikipedia. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Constant314 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

What you need to know is the history:

1. Heaviside wrote ground breaking mathematical techniques

2. Cambridge University used slander to bash Heaviside

3. Heaviside continued to write in secondary journals.

4. It eventually got word in France, where the idea of creating new norms (and words) struck heart

5. Heaviside credited the French who were listening to him, rather than try to argue against Cambridge

6. Heaviside further developed the ideas coming from France to make it easier to the average joe.

(This is what led to the verbiage in the electrical reactance article) K00la1dx (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I found a reliable source that credits Stienmetz to Heaviside and thus Heaviside to reactance. It is on page 232 of The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside by Basil Mahon.

I am having trouble with the wikipedia editing tool. Can you please add it for me? K00la1dx (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Spinningspark:You need to make that request on the talk page of the article. You need to say exactly where you want to add a reference. Also, you are making an inference. Unless the source explicitly says Heaviside is credited with reactance, then you cannot use that source as a reference for crediting Heaviside with reactance. This has been explained to you before. Finally, this case is so contentious, that I would not add the reference unless I could see for myself exactly what the source said. Constant314 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I talked to the man who runs a website crediting Heaviside to reactance. He said that Stienmetz greatly referenced Heaviside in his creation of complex numbers being used in circuit analysis, and it is in the book, "The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside." K00la1dx (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That is hearsay. WP cannot accept hearsay as a reliable source. Constant314 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Article in progress moved to userspace

Hey Constant314, just wanted to know that I moved your article in progress to User:Constant314/Winfly from User Constant314/Winfly; the MediaWiki software needs the colon to interpret namespaces correctly. Thanks, Silikonz💬 02:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Constant314 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Stewart Tolman Effect

Yo ! .. It was so hard for me to make that edit .. Further it was my first ever edit. (╥﹏╥) What was wrong with my Edit in Stewart Tolman Effect ? .. I was about to provide citation , but the book from which I took it wasn’t available online . STUDYALWAYS (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia needs a reliable source. See WP:V. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a textbook. We don't publish example problems. See WP:NOTHOWTO. Constant314 (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

good faith

You keep reverting my edits due to "good faith." Please enlighten me of what this good faith is. To me good faith is and hindoo and a christian having a wife swap. If you know that Heaviside is very much connected to reactance... why don't you put in whatever you think the correct credential is and edit the article? I come up with things and it pulls a punch but it is still not what you want. No one knows more what sources to put in than you, so show my some good faith and do it yourself if you know that what I am telling you is true. K00la1dx (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You are reaching an incorrect conclusion. I do not question your good faith. I believe that you believe that you are making a valuable contribution. I always give a reason for reverting. In the most recent case, I want to verify that the information was accurately paraphrased. Constant314 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you use the word good faith when you edited me out. I assure you my paraphrase is in the sources I cited when I posted. In good faith, primary sources should trump secondary source. I should be able to take Electromagnetic Theory and say that Heaviside greatly developed the use of reactance. You said you wanted a secondary source because the use of primary sources cater to original research. So I cited the book, The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside. It also states Heaviside was a key player in the use of reactance. In good faith, I will send you the book, I will mail it, I really think Heaviside should be mentioned in the reactance article as it is essential in his theory of the ionosphere. Heaviside's Electromagnetic Theory is available on google books for free. Why don't you check it out? K00la1dx (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me review two Wikipedia policies.

If, after you add new material, another editor reverts it, then discuss it and reach a consensus. If you cannot reach a consensus, then you don’t put it in. If you keep putting it in without a consensus, that is considered to be disruptive. That will get you blocked.

The second policy is what can go into Wikipedia articles. There are only two categories: material that is accurately and concisely paraphrased form reliable sources and material that is quoted from reliable public domain sources. You do not need to send me the whole book to establish that you have paraphrased the material accurately, because if you did it would take no more than a couple of pages. Typically, it only takes one sentence. If you combine facts from different places in the book, that is synthesis (WP:SYN) which is not allowed. Constant314 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It is in the book, than Stienmetz cited his sources when he used complex numbers for circuit analysis, and Heaviside was heavily cited.

It also says in Heaviside's electromagnetic theory, that Reactance is used to describe the Heaviside layer also known as the ionosphere, the earths upper atmosphere.

Those are really the only two points I need to make to put Heaviside in the Reactance article. I am not combining facts from different places in the same source, I have 2 sources.

Is that what you mean "Combine facts from different places?" K00la1dx (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Spinningspark: has already refuted that. However, if it were true it would be marginally notable on the Heaviside article and nowhere else.
• Whether or not Heaviside used the term "reactance" in his writings is not notable.
• Here is an example of combining facts. You find the statement the A implies B. Elsewhere you find the statement the B implies C. You combine the two statements to say that A implies C. It seems reasonable, but that is synthesis, and it is not allowed.

Constant314 (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not using synthesis. Just saying that Heaviside was a key player since the beginning in regards to reactance. If I have both key points that Stienmetz developed his complex circuit theory based on Heaviside's operational calculus and that Heaviside used reactance in his infamous wireless transmission theory, it deserves a mention in the reactance article.

By the way: I e-mailed the guy whose website stated that Heaviside is credited to reactance, he said that Stienmetz cited Heaviside multiple times and it is in multiple articles. K00la1dx (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• If you want to add "Heaviside was a key player since the beginning in regards to reactance" then you need to find a reliable source that says exactly that. But I would not bother because it is still not notable for a Wikipedia article on reactance.
• It does not matter what a guy with a website said to you in an e-mail. It is still hearsay. If you want to add "Stienmetz cited Heaviside multiple times and it is in multiple articles," then find a reliable source that says exactly that, in print, where it can be reviewed. But again, don't bother because it is not notable for Wikipedia.

Constant314 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As long as you think The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside is a reliable source, I will find it and post it, even if it contradicts Sparkles source K00la1dx (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how I am in bad faith. I did not post anything that is not factual. I would like you to explain to me how Wikipedia has a creed of faith. I thought Wikipedia was unbiased and free from political opinion. Saying I can't post blatantly obvious truths (that Oliver Heaviside furthered the development of Reactance from the beginning, even Stiemetz cited him, and Heaviside used reactance in his theory of the ionosphere)

So this good faith is a creed, that I can't post something that we all know is true. That contradicts the mission statement that Wikipedia is unbiased.

Please help me post to the Reactance article. K00la1dx (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@SpinningSpark:The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside probably is a reliable source; however, it may not have as much weight as other sources. But, if you post again, you may be blocked because the material has already been reverted more than once. Instead, post on the talk page and seek a consensus. Do not post without a consensus on the talk page of the article, else you may be blocked.

No one is accusing you of bad faith. What you consider as blatantly obvious truths still need cited references that include page numbers. That is Wikipedia policy. You have been reinserting material that has been reverted. That is disruptive. That can get you blocked.

I know that Heaviside is under credited. However, I do not know that "furthered the development of Reactance" is one of those things. I have read The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside, but I do not remember everything I read. I need to see it in print.

Once again, I advise you: Do not post in an article without a consensus on the talk page of the article, otherwise you may be blocked. Constant314 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me how some sources have priority over other source?

Can I please see the Wikipedia policy page on how that works?

K00la1dx (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If no one is acusing me of being in bad faith, how come whenever you edit me out of the articles, you site that it is a good faith edit, as if my faith is bad? K00la1dx (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Some sources are better than others. For example, a college text book takes precedence over a 6th grade text book. The determination is made by a consensus of the concerned editors.
• I wish Wikipedia policies were easier to find. I have already pointed out many of them such as WP:BRD, WP:RS, WP:COATRACK, WP:SYN. WP:NOTABLE, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia operates on a combination of codified law and common law or case law. If you are not from a common law country like the United States or Briton, this can be very frustrating.
• When we say we believe that you are editing in good faith, we mean that we believe that you are honestly trying to improve Wikipedia. It is not a question of how strongly you believe certain facts. A lot of good faith edits are reverted. They can be reverted for many reasons, such as they do not have proper in-line citations, not notable, poor grammar, in the wrong place, inconsistent with the style of the article, and just plain wrong.

Constant314 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to improve Wikipedia. Not mentioning Heaviside in reactance is a great disservice to a great hero. I believe Sparkles is in bad faith because he knows that something is true and it is all politics that he wants it not to be mentioned.

In the United State we have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I think Britain has the same thing. What you are doing violates my constitutional freedoms.

I will tell you when I find where in The Forgotten Genius it really links Heaviside to Reactance and I will post it in your talk page and you can edit it and make it good, then I will post in the reactance article. K00la1dx (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside, ISBN 978-1-63388-331-4

page 230 -231, "All this fell out of Heaviside's operational calculus. It was a simple special case: when a regular sinusoidal oscillating voltage was applied to a circuit, has a differential operator p become jw, and the rest followed. Heaviside had worked this out long before AC power systems came into commercial use, but he never presented the results in a form that power engineers could easily assimilate, and it was Steinmetz who took up Heaviside's ideas and demystified complex numbers for them."

I want to put this in the reactance article. Can you please convert this into a tag? K00la1dx (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You are on the right track, but it isn't clear to me what the word "this" includes. Can you forward me a quote which establishes what the author is referring to with the word "this"? Constant314 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"One of Steinmetz's achievements was to get colleagues and students to accept a mathematical device that allowed the theory of DC circuits to be extended to AC circuits.... The scheme worked because the bizarre-seeming symbol j, regarded as the operator, had a simple physical meaning -- it had the effect of advancing the phase of the current or voltage- it had the effect of advancing the phase of the current or voltage on which it operated by a quarter of a cycle." page 230 ..." All this fell out of Heaviside's operational calculus"

That is what "this" is. The passage is directly saying Steinmetz got his ideas from Heaviside's operational calculus. I want to put "this" in the reactance article K00la1dx (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You are close to something that could be part of an article. However, I donnt think that reactance is that article. I think that this information might fit in with the phasor article. Constant314 (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Why can't I put it in the reactance article? K00la1dx (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Because it is not notable for that article. Constant314 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)