User talk:GDallimore/Archive 8

Thanks for protecting my user page! Edcolins (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You changed my edit, where I wrote "As described in the patentable subject matter article, there are variations on what is patentable subject matter from country to country." and justified it saying, "don't use wikipedia as a source" Just curious, what is the policy on which you say "don't use wikipedia as a source"? (If WP:SELF is your concern, the way the sentence was stated does not violate that policy) Also, why do you think I was using Wikipedia as a "source"? I don't see it that way. ThxJytdog (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, wikipedia is not a reliable source. And you must have been using it as a source to justify removing the "citation needed" tag. My view was that I couldn't understand why anybody would question the statement so it wasn't something that needed sourcing and could just be expressed as simple fact. GDallimore (Talk) 10:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your logic. I don't know that I agree that there is anything like a "simple fact" - :) - I saw the problem as being that this summary statement has many facts behind it, and is the subject of whole article; in cases like this, one refers readers to another article. We actually do this all the time in Wikipedia via wikilinks, so doing that is not at all invalid. I just did it more explicitly, in addition to adding the wikilink. You left the wikilink so I'll leave this is as.. I just wanted to understand your reasoning and explain mine. Have a great day. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page! I'll have a look at that one. --Edcolins (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I undid your archive at Talk:Starchild skull, as the most recent discussions were less than a day old. Please bear in mind that the purpose of archival is ease of navigation, not ending discussions. I added Miszabot auto-archival to the talk page, to remove discussions that are more than 30 days old. VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor raising the issue had said that he was dropping it so archiving seemed an effective way of closing the matter especially as he had threatened to canvas off-wiki support for his position. Can't be bothered to undo your edits even though they're inappropriate for at least that reason. GDallimore (Talk) 01:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are not valid reasons for hastily archiving. Consider using templates to collapse discussions instead. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why it is not appropriate to archive a conversation that has been finished. GDallimore (Talk) 22:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job re-working Psychotronics to Wikipedia standards! Cheers! Location (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind, but all I did was take the time to find the two reliable sources amidst the dross. GDallimore (Talk) 12:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have a point because it is not related to R&D, however it is nevertheless an argument against software patentability, and the pages are not linked as a source but as "some examples", so would you mind if I put it in another section? Thanks for the reply, --151.75.24.117 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not without a reliable source confirming that these are accurate examples or whatever you want to cite them as examples for. I've done loads of research into GIFs, for example, and my findings were that, despite there being loads of (unreliable) bloggers saying that the patent on GIFs was dangerous and bad, it still remained a hugely popular format and no perceivable damage was done by the existence of the patent beyond the psychological. Seems to be the same story with MP3s and JPEGs, although I haven't researched them that much. BTW, I don't think Groklaw is a reliable source so I'd be tempted to remove anything too contentious cited solely to that site. GDallimore (Talk) 01:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although some of the people cited BY Groklaw are well known enough that their individual opinions are possibly notable. So you could add something like "Microsoft thinks GIF patents are bad", citing that to Groklaw, but I wouldn't be happy with a general statement that "GIF patents are bad". You get the difference. Similarly, there's a nice post here on patently-o summarising various recent software patent legal briefs which might b useful for some quote-mining on the particular opinions of those people filing the briefs. Patently-O is one of those rare things, an arguably reliable blog given its tacit assent by the UK patent courts! GDallimore (Talk) 01:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I gained a proposal to reject the rest of my contributions. I understand your points. Unreliable =/= authoritative, calling that Groklaw article unreliable is equivalent to disclosing that you do not have the basics of CS, most of the arguments in the Wikipedia article are not attributed to a party, including Microsoft. I am not going to dig for something that I already found, no one is paying my time for that, nor do I have a personal interest towards one of the sides. I won't fight more, feel free to replace with the blog that you trust, if that makes you feel "happy" as you say. --151.75.24.117 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up fighting over that article a long time ago. I just try to make sure nothing too bad gets added these days. With your attitude, you're welcome to sod off. GDallimore (Talk) 18:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put a discussion of the flawed use of Bessen & Maurer to support the simple conclusion that "software patents discourage innovation" on my Talk page, Pjacobs2267. I think your comment appeared on an IP user page. Pjacobs2267 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared on an IP because you made your previous edit without signing in. I still firmly disagree that Bessen and Hunt's data should be removed. They have managed to have at least some of it published reliably. What is needed is for you to put, without adding your own interpretation and original research, the views of their dissenters into the relevant articles. GDallimore (Talk) 20:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These articles were complete crap -- essay like and duplicated content in the main articles. They have not been worked on for ages. They have tags saying that they suck dating from 3 years ago and more. I will nominate them for deletion and you can state your objections there. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your merge fixes the problems, why not fix them in the original article, then rewrite the criticism section as a (brief) summary of your new and improved article? Merging them just makes the patent article a mess. GDallimore (Talk) 22:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I thought was best. If you want to fix it, have at it.Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hugo Award for Best Novelette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Novelette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of the article titled "Overunity". I am waging a war against ignorance. There are entities that would prefer to keep the subject buried. Please help me to share with the public, the subject matter concerning this topic, and help me to distinguish the very real difference between "perpetual motion" and "Overunity". Please send me your ideas and I will submit them, and make corrections. My goal is to present factual and verifiable information. So any links and references, you could provide, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, in advance for your time and effort, in this matter. Firstmm5 Firstmm5 (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that there are any reliable sources which could verify a distinction between overunity and perpetual motion. If you find some, then an separate article might be possible. GDallimore (Talk) 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really believe there is no substance, related to the subject of Overunity, don't you? Answer truthfully. Do you even understand what the concept of Overunity is, or represents? I am finding many external references. It is just a matter of time, before the term becomes commonplace. If not, then it only proves active suppression of new technology by special interest groups. And that is not paranoid ranting, that is reality. Firstmm5 (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You comments make it clear your are not worth my time. I tried to persuade you to stop wasting yours. I will not waste mine talking with you. GDallimore (Talk) 00:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GDallimore, here is a somehow shocking "merge" proposal... see Talk:Unified Patent Court. What do you think? --Edcolins (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This source would seem to sugges that the EPLA is indeed part of the background to the UPC. Even though the EPLA is clearly independently notable, I do not see that a merger would be harmful. GDallimore (Talk) 22:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop redirecting this page to your page about a single scientist conducting parapsychology research. This is not a "content fork" is is a well covered distinct subject matter which you have removed from your article numerous times. This is an ongoing Russain project of sincere historical significance, and your attempts to "delete" it from Wikipedia make absolutely no sense. Stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussions to article talk pages. I am nominating your article for deletion. You need to stop edit watting. GDallimore (Talk) 20:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Psychotronic weapons shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You ahve ignored the talk page repeatedly, continually deleting the entire content of this page from both Psychotronics and Psychotronic weapons. This is historically significant and accurate information with no original research. Cease editing.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've recently commented on the report against you at WP:AN3. From what I can tell, you both seem to be rather heated from the issues you've both had against each other, however from your recent edits to articles that appear out of the ordinary for you, you may be violating WP:HARASS and more specifically WP:HOUND. I appreciate that this may be a misunderstanding, but I actively encourage you to refrain from engaging with User:Damonthesis until the issue has been resolved. + Crashdoom ^Talk 23:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went to bed before I saw this. I will be continuing to monitor this blatant POV-pushers edits to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. If that is harrassment, then you'd better block me now - or maybe you should double check the actual edits that I am reverting and my edit comments explaining why he is abusing sources and adding his own original research. GDallimore (Talk) 10:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned your name at WP:ANI, since there's been some discussion of Damonthesis there: thought you ought to know. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I came across a number of discussions about him in different places this morning. Think that's enough to make sure this will all blow over soon so going to step back and wait now. GDallimore (Talk) 14:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an ANI complaint against GDallimore. Notice to those discussing here. This users actions, as decribed there, are clearly designed to illicit conflict where none be needed. He has repeatedly posted condescending posts to my Talk page after being warned here, in addition to stalking edits throughout WP. Damonthesis (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning, GDallimore - no more messages like this. You are not permitted to hound other users, no matter how wrong you think they may be. Regards, m.o.p 18:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear - this is the first time I've posted anything to his talk page, which was an ironic link to a highly relevent guidelines, and a demented POV-pusher who is making edits which at least 7 other editors over 3 or 4 different articles have immediately reverted does not get to have his own way for even an inch by making unwarranted threats and accusations against users who stand up to him. Is that understood? GDallimore (Talk) 22:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Crashdoom rightly suggested that you refrain from antagonizing and/or harassing Damonthesis previously, on April 26. I understand you felt the need to make a point, but there are ways to go about things like this with class; we don't have a policy which says "you can taunt other users if you have a valid reason". Keep that in mind for next time. Regards, m.o.p 02:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crashdoom's warning was wholly inappropriate and unwarranted, as was yours. It was impossible not to antagonise this editor. Correctly reverting his edits antagonised him. Validly putting his articles up for deletions antagonised him. Pointing him towards a relevant wikipedia policy page antagonised him. I don't believe that there's a policy which says "leave any editor who complains that they are being antagonised alone to do his own thing" either. GDallimore (Talk) 08:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if you feel my warning was inappropriate in any way, however I just felt that it was doing absolutely no good to Wikipedia or either of you to be practically reverting and reinstating edits repeatedly. As for the AfD, I can't comment on the matter. It takes a bold person to revert edits and say they think someone is in the wrong, it takes a better person to do it once and then refrain in order to talk it through. You weren't getting anywhere with him and a lot of people could easily see that, you just ended up frustrating yourself and showed that, as m.o.p said, by hounding Damonthesis. Again, sorry if you feel that my warning was unwarranted, I just feel that it's better to step in than watch Wikipedia be disrupted and not get anywhere. Regards, + Crashdoom ^Talk 13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you didn't see the results of multiple editors trying to "talk it through". Hence the totally valid links to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on his talk page. What I see is a couple of editors with insufficient knowledge of the situation taking a complaint by a disruptive editor in good faith and laying in to the wrong person. GDallimore (Talk) 14:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It came across as excessive and unnecessary. End of story. Next time, find a better way to express yourself. Regards, m.o.p 17:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You read the situation wrong. End of story. Next time, don't post temeritous warnings on people's talk pages. GDallimore (Talk) 00:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed most of my recent contribution on Lloyd Pye. I was trying to balance the article to cover Pye's main areas of interest which are:

• His "alien" skull
• Hominoids
• Intervention theory

I feel the article is skewed towards the "alien" skull whereas Pye writes and lectures on more than just that. I think the article should give a fair representation of Pye's theories on these three subjects since these are his claim to notability. The validity of the theories is irrelevant since this is a biography of a (living) person not an article on the theories per se.

I think he can reasonably be called a "researcher" since he is organizing genetic assays of the skull's DNA. Darmot and gilad (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he can be called a researcher by anyone who's real job is doing "research". If you find a reliable source to the contrary, you can call him a researcher. I did not remove the other areas of his work, I merely cut them down to size to avoid original research which I felt suggested there might be some validity to his ideas. My edit says nothing about whether they are valid or not, which is what you seem to want, and just gives a bare bones of his ideas. More than that would require independent sources, in my view.

Notice the two key words here, reliable and independent sources. Without more of either of those, the article should not really be expanded. GDallimore (Talk) 14:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum re notability - if Pye is notable for his other work then, again, there should be reliable independent sources mentioning it. GDallimore (Talk) 14:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look for more and better sources. Darmot and gilad (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your request on fr WP beginners forum, I just inform you that unreliables facts ("it doesn't work") were deleted from both main page and talk page, as it looks a very unfair way to denigrate the french seller of the Slinky. I dare add one could understand this mismatch coming from an unexperimented wikipedian. But the fact is that the author is supposed to be a famous marketing specialist, according to his own page in the fr.main and the numerous links he inserted on other pages. Thanks for your involvment against pov-pushing. Tibauty (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! GDallimore (Talk) 20:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Magic Roundabout (Colchester), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Fbryce (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think being unreferenced is a reason for deletion, you need to read WP:Notability. GDallimore (Talk) 23:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you do read that link, you will see that being unreferenced is not a reason for deletion. The requirement is that the subject is verifiable not verified. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that comments such as this one which accuse other editors of hypocrisy and similar are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. Regardless of any comments the other party has made, there is never a reason to use ad hominems yourself. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason for not warning the other party of incivility is? GDallimore (Talk) 17:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Patent holding company, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. OccamzRazor (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just edited the Flowers for Algernon page to include the episode, Flowers for Matthew... then I saw your discussion of Lawnmower Man in the talk for that page. The episode definitely makes use of the themes and it even reflects in the title, but in researching references, I'm finding blurred results in inspiration vs adaptation vs "based on", etc. Could you take a look? Thanks. Enotdetcelfer (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A parody is certainly not an adaptation. And, when it comes down to it, of what import is it to the original book that there has been this parody? If the parody were noteworthy, the fact should be mentioned on THAT article's article, but not vice versa. GDallimore (Talk) 02:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GDallimore, please see my comment about your revert: Talk:Wear Sunscreen#The Sunscreen Song

Thank you anyway,

Cos-fr (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GDallimore, I noticed that you made some major edit to Voice to skull today. Please explain and support your reasoning in the talk page of the article. I'd appreciate the chance of discussing it with you. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that ensuring an article reflects the sources accurately or removing information only tangentially related to a topic is a major edit. Perhaps if you explain on the article talk page exactly what you think I've done wrong, there might be room for discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 10:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know rvv, but what is pointy in a revert? If you mean POV, the pixel was explicitly created to avoid the (at this time still) patented LZW, and costs two or three bytes times number of downloads compared with the compressed versions. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) not relevant to this discussion, but LZW isn't covered by any patents any more, (b) the image didn't help explain anything in the article nor did it include any useful commentary, (c) the edit summary (and the existence of the image itself) suggested that the sole purpose for the edit was to "make a point" about the patenting of LZW, not actually provide useful information to readers. If there are reliable sources discussing the creation of this image, maybe it could go in the GIF article with some discussion of it, but I don't see that it has any place in the (general purpose) software patent article.GDallimore (Talk) 11:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GIF#Uncompressed GIF is already fine, no transparent pixels needed to illustrate the section. Stallman would fit nicely in the FOSS section under conflicts, but 2005 doesn't help for the requested newer citations. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what went wrong with my edit. But see my error has been fixed and someone else removed the image anyway. GDallimore (Talk) 23:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To try to resolve our differences about keeping page Poser figures, I have started an AfD discussion for it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-removed the material you restored to the persecutory delusion article: please see WP:MEDRS for the standards required for sourcing material in articles on medical topics. I've also removed your changes to Microwave auditory effect which were based on the same source. -- The Anome (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That second revert is totally unacceptable. Do not do it again. GDallimore (Talk) 10:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the first revert, as I've pointed out, NONE of the sources on the delusion page meet medrs, since they're all over 5 years old. GDallimore (Talk) 10:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are levels and levels of WP:MEDRS. KMIR News is not a peer-reviewed medical publication. Please don't restore these again. -- The Anome (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MAE is not a medical article, and you are inserting highly POV unsourced material. GDallimore (Talk) 10:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- you're right about your edit to the MAE article, your edit to that was quite OK, please accept my apologies. -- The Anome (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards :) Also, my attempts at delusional disorder are no more than to better reflect increasing accusations of "electronic harrassment" by delusional people. There is a significant lack of sourced material on wikipedia about this, and a not insignificant lack of people trying to push the POV that they are being harrassed by government controlled satellites. The more well sourced info there is, the more these people's edits can be sidelined. GDallimore (Talk) 10:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Landmark (company) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TheLongTone (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Slow-motion edit war at Young Earth creationism. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your comments helped us improve the article in any way. We made some progress, changing the lede of the article for the better. I'd hope that's what we're all aiming for.

I'm ignoring your attacks on me as comments made in the heat of the moment. If you think they need to be discussed, let's do so. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When coming across a quotation when recording an article, should one actually say "quote" and "end quote"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkeraj (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooked this, sorry. I haven't done the spoken Wikipedia thing in ages so afraid I can't really help. GDallimore (Talk) 22:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the code i posted? Well code is not unusual in Wikipedia.

(brief mathematic code in cut&paste form, with a small 3D plot to show it works as-is)

I thought it was nice to briefly show

Also I was hoping someone (maybe you) would comment on the equations on the talk page.

I introduced two things I thought are relevant the article does not contain.

the article is "wrong"ish in two ways !

0) you may like latex equations me and some other prefer code that actually works (ie, if 0 causes divide by zero, show that). though don't get me wrong i respect your preference but on a talk page i thought you'd yeild to the other side.

1) to plot (ie calculate) (lon,lat) geodetic to a map. the coordinates are specified in geodetic means referring to earth surface, not to sphere surface. the equation i showed gives exmaple this with only a one -liner.

(however, for spheric coord plotted on sphere, which is not used in geodesy according to what i read, the artcle would be right, of course)

2) ferrari eq. et al are (newtonian) approx which using arbitrarty precision are to my knowlege not useful.

the 2 equations i showed (same result i beleives) are simpler to teach and use and yeild the same results without iteration and without un-necessary contrivance.

(the use of family of curves of ellipses i thought was maybe new and not discussed on wiki anyway)

(using scaled ellipses, no differentials or iterations or systems of equations are needed)

is that right ?

i'm thinking of making it a subtopic. though i think it's really best to show a little code in the talk page myself. i haven't a strong opinion i'm just interested in exposing how simple the code can be while exposing what lacks the "book equations" have they do not mention.

hello and thank you. hope to hear from you

Navstar55 (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are for editors to discuss how to improve the article. They do not include additional information to help readers understand the article. If you think something is wrong with an article, try to explain clearly WHAT you think is wrong on the talk page and discuss it with other editors. I have no interest in the topics in question so will not join such a discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 22:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about Fenixfeather mind your own beeswax. The hostility goes back further to previous times I edited and inqured kindly and was met with hostility and IP block unexpectedly. And I'm sure the item is as i said, belonging as much as anything is in that topic. he deletes other things i saw too. and the other joker deleting media and asking people pay: that's wrong don't bother pretentding you wouldn't be so aware.

Yes your right on Geodetic plotting per say. While i perfer code to TeX as more useful to readers, I can see why admins go the other way. And as a topic it could easily grow endlessly. I may work on a different approach.

It's wrong to say geodesy conversion is not encyclopedic wikipedia is filled with such writeups, plots, and equations. And it is an important topic (basic task) and there is a point to my submission (avoiding broken ferrari math routines that are also un-necessarily complicated). Finding if there is a right way place it right is a problem, yes.

And it probably should be policy for wiki pages to keep lengthy book chapters and plots on a subtopic (thenafter wikibooks).

It's do bad you do not to discuss validity or method I would have enjoyed. But that doesn't mean others do not.

However your right in that it's only one small conversion in astronomy which is chalk full of too many things to have and know to say, convertime time or simulate.

have a good day. sorry if you

oh btw i do physics and law. and i remember the legal debate of "Software patents under United Kingdom patent law". there was a law against it years ago and people signing protest to keep it so :)

Navstar55 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]