User talk:Light current/archive4

Greetings from fellow music/bass topic editor

Hi Light current, I have come across your work in the music, bass guitar, and double bass pages. I agree with your removal of POV statements about how so-and-so is "the greatest bass player in the world." I am inpressed with your dedication to Wiki, with so many edits on so many topics. What do you think of my proposal to have a short, crisply-written history of influential bass players in the bass guitar page. NOT a laundry list of everyone who's ever played in a bar band, but say 3 key innovators/influential players per genre. If you assume that the genres with electric bass can be whittled down to say, 10 broad genres (1950s/Motown, rock, funk, fusion, metal/punk, and so on), that would be a few paragraphs tracing developments made by about 30 players. BTW, have you noticed how much vandalism the Music page is attracting?NatMor 16:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Its going to be very difficult to get everyone to agree on who are the most influential players in any genre and therfore not a good idea I feel. THats the reason I proposed removing it. We already have a page dedicated to bass guitar players, maybe you could put the influential ones there. But I predict constant changes by other editors. THe only way is to report things in a true encyclopedic factual fashion- then no one can argue about whos better than who. THis style may be acceptable, but then editors will argue that so and so should/should not be included. Sorry to be so pessimistic 8-( --Light current 16:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nominations

In order to nominate me for adminship you need to follow the instructions here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. Your other edit was removed. Maybe provide a edit transcript of the questions you asked me and my reponses (or whatever you want). — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK done it

How about instead of putting the part where you warned me, you put the part where I actually make a case for nomination. Plus it needs to be listed on the WP:RfA page. And yes, I accept the nomination. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 01:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the fact that you accept the nomination in light of the 'dire warnings' gives you more credibility than oyur own statement. Trust me!--Light current 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well they would certainly be nice to include. And it still needs to be listed. I can just nominate myself if you're not up to it. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 01:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated you. But I may not have completed the process correctly. Doesnt seem to work right. Any way you can nominate yourself: I will support.--Light current 02:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated myself. Thanks — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 23:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I withdrew my nomination. I will have a lot of support when I come back a little but later. Thanks for the help. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 02:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well - better luck next time!--Light current 02:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

How's going Light current?

If you dont mind, it would be nice if you would verify your e-mail or send me an e-mail through wikipedia so we communicate about the double bass article or other matters. Thanks! — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Im confident that my messages on wikipedia will be communicates efficiently, but I was thinking it would be nice to be able to communicate about subjects not directly related, or in other situations. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bottesini's RfA

Well anyways, how do you feel about a possibly making an WP:RfA nomination on my behalf? I think I can seriously help improve alot of articles in a more effective manner if I were an administrator. Plus, alot of the people I help think I'm an administrator, and I can only help them to a cerain point and then I have to direct them to an administrator. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 21:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I see! Ok well just tell me why you think you would make a good admin. THen I will ask you a few questions on how you would deal with certain situations. If I think you would be OK, I will propose you. Hows that? 8-)--Light current 21:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. If you review my talk page, contributions, etc. I think you'll find that I'm more than active in helping new users and resolving minor disputes. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Im going to need a candidates statement (from you) first on why you think you would be a good admin. If you make something up now it will help you gain further support later 8-)--Light current 22:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I am a quialified Administrator for Wikipedia due to my broad, well-balanced edits and my helpful nature. I am more than willing to help new users when they request it, or when it seems they are in need. Unfortunately, sometimes my lack of authority often forces me to redirect new, eager users to an administrator for the required actions. I feel that having the ability to mediate disputes (I am already a member of the mediation cabal) and deal directly with those seeking help would create a less confusing environment for users that might be discouraged by Wikipedia's steep learning curve in areas of WP policy, etc. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 22:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Now I will ask you 3 simple questions. (When ive thought of them)

Question 1

You are trying to resolve an edit war between two editors who each have a previously good record, and have 7000 edits each under their belts (thats 10 times more than you). How do you assert your authority as an admin?

This is a situation that does not require adminship to resolve, but such authority is often helpful. In the process of reviewing the case, I would read over each argument (with a grain of salt), review past edits, and check the factual accuracy of the argument. In making my decision, I would be sure to consult a fellow administrator to keep any decisions in check and make take the proper actions. As you say, the users have good records, so any disciplanary actions would be based upon that. P.S.: I have more than 700 edits. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Question 2

Im an newish evil editor who has not been registered for very long. You and I have got into an argument over an article (say I'm vandalising etc). I threaten to hunt you down and cause you harm etc etc. What do you do?

First off, as I believe in respect on Wikipedia, I would never have gotten into an argument in the first place, even if provoked. A (sometimes unfortunate) fact about the internet is its anonymity. I have a hard time imagining someone getting so upset about an article as to find out my street address and come harm me, so I would not take it seriously. As an administrator, if the user was vandalising (as you say he was), I would take the appropriate course of actions, even if it results in him being permanently banned. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 23:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well actually there have been many threats of physical harm /murder posted by certain people against editors and admins!

I never said it doesn't happen. I just made a case as why to not be intimidated by it. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 00:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Question 3

After 6 months of adminship, you recieve a personal email from Jimbo Wales saying that he is impressed with your performance and would like you to consider promotion to the nexte level (whatever that is). What do you reply?

Honostly, that is a question I can't really answer until the situation arises. I can tell you that if I was an administrator right now and the offer was made, I would decline. I don't know if I have the technical skills or dedication to accept. But trust me, if I recieved a e-mail from Jimbo Wales, I would be more than flattered. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 00:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok You have answered my 3 questions I believe honestly. I would now like you to think very carefully about what is involved in being an admin.

It means:

• Giving priority to sorting out other peoples problems even handedly, not considering your own views.
• Getting all sorts of undeserved verbal abuse from other editors.
• Lots of vandalism patrols dealing with mindless and abusive vandals.
• Not much time left to work on pages you hold dear (like Double Bass)
• Maybe losing some past (fair weather) friends.

and probably a lot more besides.

Are you still wanting to become an admin?

I actually contribute very little to the Double bass article, if you have actually ever noticed. I just point things out when they need corrections and every once and a while to a rewrite. So I only have one thing to say: I HEART VERBAL ABUSE — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. So are you still wanting to be an admin in the light of the above?--Light current 00:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 00:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK then I will support your application. But dont say I didnt warn you that it would be tough! Tell me how to put my vote in!--Light current 00:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh BTW, I think it would be good for you to get your edit count up a bit (say to 1000) before the voting starts. That'll give you a better chance I think.

If you check my contributions, I have over 1000 edits. And I would appreciate it if you nominate me by following the instructions here. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Audio level compression

My edit on the audio level compression page was reverted! So sad.

I shall now (weakly) attempt to defend my wording change. I edited the description of ratio control to say something like "an increase of 4 dB will be needed to increase the output signal level by 1 db over the threshold." It seems that since we're talking about a compression ratio, and since ratios generally come in the form "ratio of foo to bar, my wording is easier to understand. Though perhaps I should have added a statement like "the compression ratio is the ratio of input signal increase to output signal increase", to clarify, and then included my example.

The current wording seems to imply that the compressor will allow the signal to get to 3db above the threshold, then only knock it back once it gets to 4db, and that is not what happens.

References: http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_understanding_compressors_compression/index.html

Editing

Yes, it is. Plus you didn't link them properly. Please edit only your own posts. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK It would have been nice if youd linked these terms then!--Light current 04:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

Okay, sorry. I saw you had deleted one of his posts with his IP address on it, so that's why I restored. If he's changing other people's comments, or otherwise messing around, feel free to undo, or revert me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thermoacoustic refrigeration

Light current, when you stripped Thermoacoustic refrigeration of all references to current research (why I don't know, but that's not why I'm here), you left a half sentence at the end of the "Operation" section. Currently it makes no sense; would you mind completing the sentence with something that would be acceptable to you? Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Current research is not allowed on WP that why I removed them.--Light current 01:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Jamerson large.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jamerson large.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Damping factor

moved to Talk:Damping factor

Question

do you play bass? brainybassist 23:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course!

Cool, kinda a no brainer though, I have no common sense, so I ask stupid questions sometimes.

Double bass: featured article

I have nominated the double bass article to become a featured article. As a contributer to this article, please support the nomination. -Bottesini 16:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course!--Light current 19:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rfc of Lumière

Do you remember me? There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. I will really appreciate your neutral comment on this Rfc. Their main argument is that the ratio of the number of my edits on the main space over the number of my edits on the policy talk pages is low. My answer is that it is low because I cannot work on the mainspace with the way the policy is currently applied. So, I should either give up Wikipedia or try to contribute to the understanding and the clarity of the policy. I do not disturb the policy talk pages. I just make thoughtful comments. I am respectuous of other people, etc. There is no policy that say that the ratio of ... edits on the main space over the ... edits on the policy should be large. So, I am not doing abything wrong. -Lumière 02:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comment in my Rfc. -Lumière 03:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

UR welcome. I hope it helps you and WP--Light current 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Momentum

I was wondering why you removed The first part of the definition I added in. I know it isn't at all very clear, but without it, I think its much less clear. Some sort of attempt should be made to describe the property of "momentum". The top looks very blank and unenlightening to simply say momentum is simply mv. Fresheneesz 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

revert at kinetic energy

Read the page mechanical work for mention of how "negative work" is used, it does not mean negative energy, but is energy transfered from the object of interest, to another object (not of interest i guess). Fresheneesz 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mic/mike

The way you changed it made it seem that 'microphone' is only shortened in writing, which is incorrect. 'Microphone' is shortened in both speech and writing. In speech, it's shortened to something that sounds like 'mike'. In writing, it's shortened to either 'mic' or 'mike'. The current version includes all those cases in a simple statement. Alternatives seem likely to be excessively wordy or misleading. If you'd like to try to find a better wording, please go ahead.

Also, please do not make edits such as this. It certainly strikes me as a personal attack. Perhaps you didn't mean it as such, in which case you should consider rewording it. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats not an edit- its a question on a talk page!. Look at the edit history on talk:violin before making hasty judgments on me!--Light current 03:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sections in Violin "talk" page

I removed the spurious section heading ("Tone of open vs. ...") from the section of the page with the discussion of buzzing strings, etc. The new section you put in was in the wrong place, as it included quite a bit of discussion of buzzing due to pizzicato, and would have required a massive amount of editing to segregate the two batches of comments, so I decided just to nuke the heading.

In the future, please think before deciding to forge ahead on your own and do such extensive reorganization of a discussion section, OK? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it too hard, pal. It's just Wikipedia is all. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganisation it was not. Adding headings for navigation purposes it was. The actual text of the heading is irelevant- any one can see that! I think an apology for foul and offensive language would be in order. BTW Im not your PAL! (yet)--Light current 00:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I shall not be bothering with the violin talk page in future. It seems what I want to discuss is not applicable to fiddles. Forget I ever visited it--Light current 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

so I decided just to nuke the heading. Good job youre not G.W.Bush.--Light current 01:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Noise health effects

please do not delete further images without discussion on talk pages

hello. some editors put considerable work into image creation. please do not delete further images without discussions on relevant talk pages of articles. as one example an image of roadway noise was deleted. roadway noise according to the EPA is the principal exposure source to americans for noise health effects. most people dont know this fact and its of some importance to convey this information. likewise most people dont know that elevated noise levels can contribute to cardiovascular effects. you removed the image of the heart. regards Anlace 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I had warned of these removals if no protest. There was no protest.--Light current 23:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

the entry to the talk page on noise health effects is one half hour AFTER the images were deleted. please dont try to revise history. please desist from further image removal without reasonable lengths of time for discussion.

if your intent is sincere, you will have ample dialog. you may respond here or on the articles' talk pages or you may simply revert your unwarranted edit. Anlace 00:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No sorry. Different page. The time is different here! Put it back if you like. OK I'll wait longer before I remove it again. Going to bed now. Wait for 12 hrs or so!--Light current 01:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Noise branchlist

I see you created this today. I too am looking for a better way of naming the template, but is suggest it might be a good idea to always start with Branchlist, so we could have 'Branchlist noise'. This seems better suited to automation. But then comes 'Branchlist noise white noise' and it seems we need a separater that is not a space to avoid confusion. I'm not sure we can use Branchlist|Noise|White noise without this being wrongly interpretted at present. Maybe Branchlist_Noise_White noise would be the best for now. I need help with automation or an expert on parametric templates. --Lindosland 11:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I changed it was to give more meaning to the branch names and allow editors to find them and amend manually. We do need a format for the naming of sub lists. I suggest the renaming can proceed prior to the automation and I intend to proceed on that unless you have any objection. If you want Branchlist&Noise&White noise Im happy with that.

Also can you note the post below about the template adding a speedy delete to white noise???--Light current 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC) I see what happened. someones nominated the template for deletion!!--Light current 14:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the change to "noise branchlist" on white noise because it added a speedy delete box to the article. Not sure what is going on. This is not a criticism of whatever reason you had for making the change. --agr 12:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Electrical engineering

LC, I've created a new article at Electrical engineering (terminology) that comes from the E&EE article, and I've linked to it with an explanation on Electrical engineering. I feel that that is sufficient notice for people who might be confused about what the terms mean, and I hope that you feel that while it isn't exactly what you want, that it's good enough so that we don't have to have a revert war. I know what it's like to have one's ideas shot down, and I realize it isn't a great experience, but I hope you see the reasoning behind these changes. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied on approriate talk page. THank you for your cool calm intervention. If we were all as cool as you , we wouldnt have any real heated arguments!--Light current 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Detector page

I've got an uneasy feeling about this page. Punch 'detector' into search and 'search' (not Go) and look at the list of topics. I'm wondering if this page should be turned into a Disambig or List of page instead. Thoughts? --DV8 2XL 02:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Detector (electronics) :-) The original detector page should become a disambiguation page I think!--Light current 03:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We got a bit of a problem Demodulator --DV8 2XL 23:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose demodulator is also a valid term. Sometimes the two terms are used synonymously although the term detector is I feel a more basic term and applies more generally (as in amplitude or level detector).

The term demodulator to me implies something more advanced than a basic detector! Demodulator actually implies AM demodulation to me. The term for FM or PM is discriminator.

You could link to the demodulator page or propose a merge between the two pages. Im not sure what's best ATM! Let me think about it!--Light current 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We might need the more experienced opinion of User:Omegatron to help us on this one!

You are going to hate me

I'm so impressed with the work you have done cleaning up my poor efforts I'm going to dump some more on you. (Feel free to tell me to drop dead) I've started or overhauled topics on Cat's whisker diode, Coherer, Electrolytic detector, Hot wire barretter, and Magnetic detector I also started Arc converter and did some work on Alexanderson alternator. Finally I started to overhaul Detector (it was pathetic) until I realised that maybe it should be a disambig page and I would like to hear your thoughts on that before going that route. Again if this is of no interest to you don't hesitate to ask me to go away. --DV8 2XL 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do when I have a spare moment!--Light current 21:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Completed!--Light current 00:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, I really need someone to wring out the chatty language that always sneaks in when I write and bring it around to a more encyclopedic style. --DV8 2XL 00:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ur most welcome!

--Light current 01:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)