User talk:Wtshymanski

Cheese was unknown to Pre-Columbian Eskimos.

Grrr, Grr...go away

I'm an uncivil editor, I am, I am. I might dare to disagree with you. (I might even, rarely, be right).

Article discussions

If we're going to talk about article contents, please discuss on the article's talk page so everyone can see what's going on. If I've made a change, the article (and it's talk page) are on my watchlist and I'll see it. Also, discussing the article on the article's own talk page encourages anyone else who happens to be watching to chime in.

Edit warring

If you parse "official" narrowly enough, you can make it mean anything you want...though it helps to have an admin hammer to make consensus. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Manitoba

Oh thank you, I was *so* worried I wasn't going to have permission from some anonymous person on the Wikipedia to have my own opinions.--Wtshymanski (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If arrogance was petroleum, the Mideast and the tar sands would be out of business. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Electric bell

Hi Wtshymanski, I've restored the {{wikify}} tag at Electric bell because of the HTML formatted table in that particular section. I tagged this based on documentation that can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify, by clicking the [show] link where it says "To view the old project page". I actually wasn't aware of any changes to that project page until now, and apologise if HTML-removal is no longer included as part of it. Happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad that although you had no time to fix this or explain what the problem is, you had time to tag it twice and type this long explanation in lieu of a descriptive edit comment. Luckily someone else stepped in and spent the minute and a half required to fix the problem in the first place. Happy tagging, tags are easy and fun. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, I personally would have converted that to a gallery... but my intention was to allow the decision to be made by those who have written and regularly contributed to the article.  -- WikHead (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sarcasm. I often wonder why people tag articles instead of fixing problems. And what was the problem with HTML anyway? It rendered properly as far as I can see, it's a supported part of the Wikipedia syntax, and of all the problems the article had, obscure techno-nerd formatting issues were probably the least important. It had no bloody *references* till I spent an exhausting 7 minutes with Google Books and my own library. A mystery drive-by tagging saying "Something's wrong with this article, guess what it is while I go on with Wikiproject:Tag every article " doesn't provide other editors with any usable guidance to fix the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Superheterodyne receiver explanation

Schematic of a typical superheterodyne receiver.

The diagram at right shows the basic elements of a single-conversion superheterodyne receiver. From the antenna a wide range of carrier frequencies enter the RF amplifier. The mixer produces the difference of the local oscillator- and the input frequencies in addition the sum is generated. The local oscillator (LO) is the component that determines what frequency the receiver is will listen into. So a transmission at 100 MHz and local oscillator tuned to 90 MHz will generate a new intermediate frequencies (IF) at 10 MHz and 190 MHz. The following filter will only let the specific intermediate frequency (IF) pass. The demodulator is tailored to this intermediate frequency and output the signal. For audio transmissions the output is amplified and may drive a speaker. . . Because any carrier frequency that differ with the intermediate frequency from the local oscillator frequency will pass through the intermediate frequency filter. A frequency higher and one lower than the local oscillator can pass. To overcome this issue which is called image response, . . The local oscillator can be implemented with a PLL frequency synthesizer to make computer control possible.

The block diagram in the article is insufficiently explained. Could you provide a better one instead of just report "incoherent" and delete it? What specific function each step has in processing order and what frequencies goes where is missing.Electron9 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The above is unintelligible; perhaps a more polished explanation is in order, although I think the rest of the article does explain the function of each stage. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello it`s me again, try this one on them. It`s one I prepared earlier, as you doFrancis E Williams (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So why tell me about this? Fix the article, don't debate on talk pages. All that stuff should already be in there, if it isn't, add it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I did add. You censor. Electron9 (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend for you to study the difference between "censor" and "edit" - dropping 2 Kbytes of random word salad in an article is not helping the project. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Talk:List of 7400 series integrated circuits has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Do not use the edit summary as a soapbox, as you did when you wrote "it's a pointless endeavour even by the standards of Wikipedia compulsive editors" Guy Macon 16:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:List of 7400 series integrated circuits. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Guy Macon 21:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Demonstrably not true. Most editors are here to hurt the encyclopedia, not to help it. Look at your last 1000 edits and see how many of them are vandalism reversions, or, at best, cleaning up of text that wouldn't get a passing grade in an elementary school assignment. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guy Macon 18:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord, have I made a personal attack? What WAS I thinking? I hereby sincerely and deeply apologize to everyone I've ever met for any injury to their frail self-esteem I may have thoughtlessly caused them. And to think, I could actually be blocked from the singular privelege of taking "poo" out of 20 articles every day. Oh, the drama! --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Note: I am unsubscribing from your user pages and thus will not see any further abuse posted here. Do NOT continue your personal attacks elsewhere. Guy Macon 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please indicate where the personal attacks are? To do a personal attack, I'd have to think I was being attacked by a person. I find it's better to think of Wikipedia editing as fixing line noise; less personality involved. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I`d just like to say thank you for the enlightenment you have provided to me with regard to the structure of Wikipedia, and your persistent attempts to improve the standard of contributions to this publication. To stimulate the "thinking process" in individuals, and to clarify much confusion caused by "good faith" but "misinformed" contributors is a difficult "skill" to master. You appear to have an encyclopeadic knowledge in many subjects. It took me a long time to understand how you motivate "lateral thinking" in people with regard to their contributions. I think your method of working is appreciated by others who have knowledge at similar levels to you own. We need more people like you to move this project to a higher level. Its not all about "filling up the page", less is "more" sometimes. Keep up the good work. I don`t believe in giving "barn stars" to adult contributors, but if a real "award" were available here, I would nominate you. Francis E Williams (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

After hanging around here for several years, I don't think this project can work the way it at first appears to work. We don't have 100,000 editors contributing to any particular article, we have 1 ...let's call it "enthusiast" ...who starts an article, perhaps 3 or 4 more knowledgeable people contribute significant content, then we have a dozen hyphen-fixers and format-adjusters, then the rabble has at it with random spelling changes, things they saw on TV last night, and overt vandalism. There is so little expertise on any particular subject here, and there's no reason for real experts to spend their time fixing an article here when Randy from Boise is waiting in the wings to inject sword-wielding skeletons. I am perhaps excessively cynical, but every cynic is really a frustrated idealist; when you strip away the back-patting that dominates when Wikipedians talk about themselves, it really is a very cool notion.

To edit is also to cut; maybe educating people by "Turn in 1000 words on the coffee industry in Brazil" has made word counts too important in some minds. Better 500 words that are clear and content-ful than 1000 words with padding.

My favorite Wikipedia articles are those in which I learn something. It's frustrating to read a bunch of padding and realize there's no pony in all that manure. I can usually tell pony from pony byproduct when I'm in an electrical article, but, to take an example, I'm not certain of where to stop when looking at education, or maths articles. If I find myself at one of those, I stick to hyphen-fixing and reverting overt vandalism; no great value to the project, just maintenance.

Anyway, happy editing and as always Wikipedia:Be Bold. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, too much "blood letting" in an article leads to the "death" of it, because no serious contributor will re-edit more than once. (Recent articles included). My advice is to do what I do .... keep persisting to improve things, it will make sense to the "admins" in the end. Perhaps the founder of Wikipedia would like to be informed of what is really happening to his "child". A consesus needs to ne reached where the community "steps back" and sees the "big picture", not the "rabbit warren" of pages that make up the "rules". Rules are neccessary when editing, but they are open to "personal interpretation" and bias. Iam not in favor of "one word at a time editing" either, It gets real messy after two edits on the same sentence. "Confidence is high" as you guys say. Francis E Williams (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)