User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 11: Difference between revisions

< User talk:Spinningspark Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:05, 9 November 2011 editDVdm (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,467 edits →FP: GG← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:19, 9 November 2011 edit undoSpinningspark (talk \| contribs)89,216 edits →FP: decline to protect talk pagesNext edit →
Line 250:		Line 250:

	:And again. Perhaps it is time to fully protect the talk page ] now. Good grief. - ] (]) 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)		:And again. Perhaps it is time to fully protect the talk page ] now. Good grief. - ] (]) 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

			::We can (and should) be substantially more tolerant on talk pages compared to articles. I would only protect a talk page under extreme circumstances. In any case I cannot see much in the way of disruptive editing by unregistered users at the moment so semi-protection would not achieve much. If you ''really'' meant ] then absolutely not, out of the question. ''']]''' 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

	== Talk:Boltzmann_constant#Archived ==		== Talk:Boltzmann_constant#Archived ==

Revision as of 18:19, 9 November 2011

SpinningSpark is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.This is especially true during the early part of the working week from Monday mornings (UTC) onwards

My archives

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

recheck your activity

--Reinstall (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad, sorry. It looked at first as if you had deleted the Finnish entry. Spinning Spark 18:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

IP block due to vandilsm

Hi, I want to note that the IP 8.20.179.66 is blocked. I have an account and sometimes use this IP because it is my High School's IP address for Every computer in the school. I'm not sure if i can edit pages if I'm logged in or not from here, but if it is possible i think you SHOULD block every edit form the IP address UNLESS said wikipedian is logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betsi-HaP (talk • contribs) 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly how it works. Registered users (those who are logged in) may edit from that IP address. See the top comments at User talk:8.20.179.66 - Glrx (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my friend tried to make an account, that way I could show her how to do the basics for when she was at home, and it also doesn't let her to that. Is there anyway to Perma-Ban the IP address for editing with the exception of non-logged in users, because I'd honestly really suggest that.

Betsi-HaP (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

When an IP address is blocked, new accounts cannot be made from the blocked IP. Have your friend make an account at her home or some other (not blocked) IP address. With her new account, she should be able to edit from school. Glrx (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Evolution as theory and fact

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Evolution as theory and fact. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

reason for deleting my edit

I have edited the wiki page of bandpass filter.There was no information about the types of bandpass filter and I have added it with reference in my own words.So what kind of edit you want or please suggest me some book to edit. and please reply as early as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitd.elec (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Suicide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

User Viraj nadkarni

Not much communication there. I really don't understand what's happening with this user Viraj nadkarni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bizarre. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to block him as disruption only but I found at least one edit which might possibly have been constructive. He has the benefit of the doubt for now - at least we now know he has read the messages so there is no excuse in the future. Spinning Spark 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you or I add the (isosceles) area formula to the Skinny Triangle article?

I see that you created and are by far the largest contributor to Misplaced Pages's skinny triangle page, so I thought I should check with you before adding it myself. We link to the skinny triangle page from the Tau_(2π) page because skinny triangles are used to derive the formula for area of a circle. (If you slice up a circle like a pizza into many slices, you can approximate those slices as skinny triangles. Then the area of the whole circle is just the sum of the ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\theta r^{2}$ areas of the individual skinny triangles. There's a drawing of it at this link.) The problem is, we have to include a short derivation of ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\theta r^{2}$ from ${\tfrac {1}{2}}base\times height$ on the Tau_(2π) page because it's not on the skinny triangle page. Would you prefer to decide how to work it into the article, or should I do it? Thanks for your help. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with you making that addition. Spinning Spark 13:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Voltage doubler.

I've not used user talk pages before so I appologise in advance if I have placed this content in the wrong place. As you have noticed I don't often log in to wikipedia.

I deleted figure 5 as I could not make sense of it. the capactitor C1 does not participate in the operation of the circuit at all. Also the unlabled switch beside is useless as both "option" terminals are connected to the same node.

With those two useless parts removed the circuit is the same as figure 6.

Looked at another way perhaps the link from the middle switch to V_in+ should be removed,

Either way the circuit illustrated is incorrect.

If you going to edit the image, labeling the switches (eg:S1_a,S1_b,S1_c would make it easier to discuss :)

Jasen betts (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the link to V+ was incorrect (incorrect version) and I have now remove it. I don't want to clutter the diagram with annotation that is not used in discussion in the article, but I would be happy to make an alternative version if you need it elsewhere. Spinning Spark 06:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool, it makes snese now Jasen betts (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Please comment on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Please comment on Talk:Ginsberg's theorem

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ginsberg's theorem. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Untitled

Thank uWill Gladstone (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, but what are you thanking me for? Spinning Spark 09:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical Puzzle Page

Hiya! There were a couple of external puzzle information links that I wanted to add to the Mechanical Puzzles page, but as the first one I tried was removed by yourself I just wanted to double-check with you before considering any further edits.

The initial two links that I wanted to add were to the Puzzle Place Wiki and the Hordern-Dalgety Puzzle Museum. If these are not appropriate please do let me know why so that I can avoid trying to add anything incompatible in the future. Many thanks. --Puzzle Paradox (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Spinningspark! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Nikola Tesla query

Greetings, I post to ask if you would take a look at some practical problems with the article. I wonder, since I have probably less time than you to spare, why is it locked? Is there a problem with someone trying to sell Chinese iphones? The main problem is there are silly statements about Tesla, which are already marked as needing citations, and they should go. There are also statements that are easily verifiable by a source already listed there: yet it seems no one working on that article has read the source properly. Thanks, I require no personal response.75.21.113.40 (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It is currently protected to put a stop to endless edit warring over Tesla's nationality, for which there is a separate discussion page where this can be debated. You can still make suggestions on the article talk page. If you have a definite and uncontroversial edit you want to make you can use {{edit semi-protected}} to request another editor to insert it. Spinning Spark 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Spinning Spark, how I like your username - well that is helpful advice but I'm afraid I always worked in a limited capacity on Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, I have noted a lack of interest in posting on the talk page.

If I may be specific with you, Margaret Cheney in her authoritative biography quotes Tesla as saying he was proud of being a Serb and equally proud of his birthplace in Croatia. Tesla ought to be the ultimate authority about his nationality, do you not think?75.21.113.40 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Sorry, I returned because I propose this: I can streamline this article (fixing the horrendous grammar to start). I can remove unsourced claims and insert the closest fact. I can also insert references to statements that are true but are marked as needing a citation.

It is clear the people editing this have read little of real value about Tesla. I always say for the purposes of this article, being conversant with Cheney's biography Man Out of Time is sufficient to clear out the errors. If you examine the arguments, who is involved now capable of filling in the factual gaps?

For example, I can cite the precise Tesla quotes, culled from Cheney's research, in which he speaks of the issues of Serbia and Croatia. Final word, end of discussion. Imagine what that would mean! I saw the discussion about his nationality, it is the most stupid quarrel I have ever encountered here in the years I've been writing!

Anyone is free to examine closely anything I do; since I am ill and disabled, my proposition is costly to me. I do it because of my abiding love for Tesla. What say you?75.21.113.40 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to unlock the page to allow you to edit it directly if I was convinced that your editing would be uncontroversial. There is a suspicion, however, from what you say that you do not want to go to the talk page because other editors would disagree with you. Issues of nationality are controversial with Tesla and the main reason for locking the page was steady edit warring over natiionality. Given the sensitivity, you need to gain consensus on the talk page first, whether or not the article is locked. I cannot agree with your comment that the talk page is ignored: it is a very busy page and has well over one thousand editors watching it.

The notability of Tesla has nothing to do with his nationality, or how proud, or otherwise, he was of it. The majority of editors with no axe to grind in this are heartily fed up with the continual bickering. The article currently says that he is Serbian-American. I can't see what's wrong with that or what else it is necessary to say. Given the importance of Tesla the article should really be brought up to featured status but I am not inclined to work on it (probably along with many other editors) because it will be an uphill struggle because of the bickering and I know full well it will never get to FA because of the edit warring.

An alternative for you is to register an account and wait for it to become autoconfirmed. Registering has many other benefits. I would be willing to confirm you immediately so you don't have to wait if you can convince me that you will be editing uncontroverially. Note that uncontroversial is not the same thing as being right. Happy editing, Spinning Spark 18:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Spinning Spark, I'm sorry, but you almost seem to be straining here. That talk page, whilst active, is far from busy and I get NO replies from what little is there now that I've posted. My offer was to streamline the article and insert references, but now I meditate on the subject, why should I? It is all easily verifiable by consulting Cheney's biography and I have absolutely nothing 'personal' to add.

As to the fight about his nationality, logic and common sense answered that question decades ago. It is beyond me why that bickering is allowed to continue unchecked, but I know people over in that region are hypersensitive about it. Sorry I bothered you. By the way, my IP fluctuates for security reasons.

I hate to repeat this so often, but I am nowhere near stupid enough to register an account here.75.21.100.100 (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have unlocked the page so you should now be able to edit. Sorry to make you jump through hoops over this. When you talked of Serbian v Croatian my suspicions where raised and I did not pay so much attention to the rest of what you had to say.

I don't know why you think it would be stupid to register an account. You are not required to reveal anything about yourself in order to register, in fact more is revealed from your IP address. Spinning Spark 07:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowing the difficulties you face, I cannot know whether or not to congratulate you for having the fortitude to unlock it. Certain factions will be at it like sharks to blood.

My good fellow editor, I do not open an account here because there are about a dozen lovely grizzlies who'd get me up on sockpuppetry charges within ten minutes. Do you catch my drift? It is sad, but there it is. I am not going through that crucifixion-via-Wikipedian-opinion again.

Believe me, as you can plainly see, my IPs reveal nothing.75.21.156.42 (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually you can use it to trace your location and ISP but an account reveals nothing you don't want it to. Rcsprinter (rap) 16:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter, if I am not in error, you are mistaken. I have seen strips torn off usernames whenever a crazy admin wants to track them down, block them or even range block. This may be before your time and things may have changed - I doubt it. In this way, with my government-level spinning IPs, I can usually edit happily and constructively without people gunning for me. Well, there are exceptions ....

I am sorry that Republican Jacobite scared you so badly that you bowed out of the situation. With your help he might have been stopped sooner. I'm still mulling over whether to try to get help reporting him for what he did. I doubt I'll receive such help.75.21.156.42 (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who you mean by "Republican Jacobite". There is no such user and I cannot recall any dealings with a similarly named user.

...get me up on sockpuppetry charges.... Are you implying that you have been previously banned for sockpuppetry? Spinning Spark 17:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Spinningspark. 75.21.156.42 is just carrying on a bit of a dispute we're involved in. And there is a User:RepublicanJacobite, but no space inbetween the words. Best, Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) 17:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Spin, I don't blame you! See what is being done?

1. this user Rcsprinter has tracked all the way here from another issue - an issue which she has allegedly refused to address any further after I asked for her help. It involves a querrulous editor called Republican Jacobite. She knows all about this. Why, by your own apparent confusion, does she come here now to comment, out of the blue?

2. Accused of sockpuppetry? Definitely, about 2 years ago. Falsely, because there were more evildoers than there are now. And I apologise, but I plan to carry this discussion no further.75.21.156.42 (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My question was not "were you accused of sockpuppetry?" My question is were you banned or blocked for sockpuppetry? Spinning Spark 17:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No. If you can't catch on or see for yourself, I do not know why I felt I should answer you but no - I have not been banned for that or for anything. Have I ever been banned? Yes. By nosey, abusive admins. Happy?75.21.145.222 (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The temperature of a single molecule

... is meaningless.

Thanks for a slam-dunk set of links! Jheald (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In "| Talk:Boltzmann_constant The_First_Line_in_the_Article Sbharris 2" you wrote "This debate could go on forever, I don't think Damorbel will ever be convinced and it is pointless to continue trying to do so. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to teach Damorbel."

This is not a valid contribution to Misplaced Pages. Please refrain from writing this kind of contribution, it is a personal comment about me based on a personal POV, not a contribution to the article. --Damorbel (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how about instead - talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the subject itself. Any further posts of this nature will be deleted without comment. See WP:TALK. Spinning Spark 16:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Penniless Tesla

Hi Spinning, I just noticed your last edit to Nicola Tesla. I had checked that modification earlier today, and apparently the quoted source says "almost penniless", so perhaps, in view the above section, perhaps it might be a good idea to put it as such in the article. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just returning the article to the previous wording and am not particularly defending that exact form. However, I suspect "almost penniless" is probably a colourful phrase not meant to be taken literally. I note the source is not an in-depth biography, but rather an encyclopedia - making it a tertiary source and therefore not the best kind. Spinning Spark 08:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite. No problem with me - just anticipating another imminent edit war. Duck and cover, so to speak :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't taken me long to regret unprotecting this article. Spinning Spark 08:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The silence in response to your last question above is telling. - DVdm (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Duh. I hope (but doubt) that this will help. Sigh. - DVdm (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it, but had lost enthusiasm for that article. Spinning Spark 12:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Spin: I hope you do not blame me and that your comment wasn't a veiled hint about unprotecting the article. It should be clear from my comments, if not the history of the article, that I did nothing to it at all - as I told you.75.21.145.222 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This thread is not about you or your edits, but while I have your attention, as long as you are not prepared to reveal the name of your original account, I am entitled to think the worst. Spinning Spark 14:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, see, I am not so well versed in the Wiki-speak that I understand you here. What do you mean reveal the name of my original account? What, the one from 10 years ago? From 5 years ago? What do you mean? It is my understanding from Alpha that you are inclined to think the worst anyway. I ask that you reconsider, and that you heed the sage input of Alpha.75.21.145.222 (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop trolling - when were you blocked and is it still in force? Spinning Spark 15:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Spin, you are making a huge error. I am not "trolling". You have made up your mind, clearly, so the conversation's over - there is nothing further to be gained from this. May I suggest you consult Alpha about this before you go berserk. This attitude you display is what disgusts me more than anything about Misplaced Pages.75.21.109.203 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this please you? Don't you ever accuse an innocent editor of trolling.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, since it does not answer my question. Spinning Spark 19:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In reply to that "question", which is "NO" - how many times must I reply for it to answer you satisfactorily?Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Spinningspark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I'm learning electronics and I have a question for an expert.

Hello!

I was just looking at your article on RLC circuits, and it made me think that I don't really understand how inductance works. It was taught to me as the opposite of resistance (and this makes sense, given the fact the the inductor in the picture basically seems to be a solenoid), but this also seems pointless in series because the net effect would be that the resistor and inductor would sort of cancel each other out and you'd be left with quite a lot of very flustered electrons and a capacitor. If you could explain to me where I'm going wrong, and/or how inductance really works, I would be extremely grateful.

Thanks! A curious mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.136.36 (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all the RLC circuit article is not my article (although I did substantially rework it). Have you read our article on inductance? Inductance is most definitely not the opposite of resistance, if you paid for the course on which you were taught that error then I recommend you ask for your money back. If you are looking for an opposite, then you could say that the impedance of an inductor is the opposite of the impedance of a capacitor. The difference between an inductor and a resistor is that in the latter the voltage is proportional to the current (Ohm's law) whereas in an inductor the voltage is proportional to the rate of change of current.

By the way, are you aware of the Science Reference Desk where you can ask any science related question? Spinning Spark 17:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

FP

Template:.ace.alm - Sigh. Ah well. - DVdm (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And again. Perhaps it is time to fully protect the talk page Talk:Nikola Tesla now. Good grief. - DVdm (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We can (and should) be substantially more tolerant on talk pages compared to articles. I would only protect a talk page under extreme circumstances. In any case I cannot see much in the way of disruptive editing by unregistered users at the moment so semi-protection would not achieve much. If you really meant full protection then absolutely not, out of the question. Spinning Spark 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Boltzmann_constant#Archived

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Boltzmann constant/Archive 2

Concerning your contribution, Talk:Boltzmann constant/Archive 2, a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history and therefore violates the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license. As a violation of the page move process, Talk:Boltzmann constant/Archive 2 needs to be temporarily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria so that the page you intended to move may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. Talk:Boltzmann constant/Archive 2 has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If not, please refrain from editing either the page you intended to move or Talk:Boltzmann constant/Archive 2 until the latter has been deleted according to Misplaced Pages's speedy criterion G6 (non-controversial housekeeping).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.

I want to be clear, I posted this here because the template I pasted at Talk:Boltzmann_constant#Archived said I should. I realize that you will see the templates there. Also, this does not reflect on whether or not I agree with making an archive, but only with the method used to make the archive. Specifically, the method you used removes the history from the main talk page and I don't think that that is the best way to make an archive. As far as I understand it, the templates I added are primarily to have the edit history restored. I have also requested (via a note) that all discussion over 100 days old be archived. Assuming that a standard template is used to do that, then the editors can agree on some time period and modify the template as appropriate.

Having said all that, I agree that the conversation appears to be going no where. However, I believe that it is beginning to wind down and can be hatted with a lot less drama in a day or two. Q Science (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

...a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history... What are you talking about? I did no such thing. The page was moved into archive along with its history. Anyway, I can't be bothered to waste any more time on it, I have unwatched the page. Spinning Spark 07:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

With the other pages I am familiar with, the talk page history is never blanked when making archives. Since you moved the page, another editor has copied the text back without the history. At any rate, I am just trying to keep you in the loop. Q Science (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just following the previously established method of archiving on that page. If another method had been in use, I would probably have followed that, although it makes sense to me to keep the history associated with the page that actually has the things in the history written on it. I know other editors have now made a mess of that, but frankly, thats not my problem. For the record, I have no intention of undoing my actions since that would be facilitating a huge WP:TALK violation but otherwise I am not going to get involved. Spinning Spark 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You then go on to say you don't agree with your own template?? Pleae try and leave more succint and to the point messages. Spinning Spark 07:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)