DJ7BA

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eviolite was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:DJ7BA/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:DJ7BA/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

eviolite (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DJ7BA! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! eviolite (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi DJ7BA! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft moved

Hi, just to say that I've moved your draft from your sandbox to the Draft space, which is the preferred location for drafts undergoing the AfC review process. You can now find it at Draft:Gamma-SLIM. It wasn't entirely clear from the contents what the article name should be, so if you're not happy with the name I've chosen, let me know and I can always move it again. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, DoubleGrazing.

I have edited many things meanwhile with also special attention to reliability of sources.. Does that look ok now? If not, could you kindly identify the places needing care to me, being an all new wiki editing newcomer? Thank you so much for your good work.

Regards, DJ7BA DJ7BA (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Impedance matching

Please stop reposting your stuff at Talk:Impedance matching at the top of the page. The convention on talk pages is that new discussions go to the bottom of the page under a new sub-heading. I moved your first post in accordance with that convention. Please make any additional comments in that section. SpinningSpark 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

When to use bold

Kindly review MOS:BOLD and MOS:NOBOLD before making any more article edits. In particular, bold is not used for emphasis. Constant314 (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks

When you speculate on another editor's likes, dislikes, feelings, intentions, personality, maturity, etc., that can be construed to be a personal attack. That can cause a disagreement to escalate into a squabble and can get you a formal warning. Stick to commenting about the other editor's actions without trying to attribute their intent. Don't write "Editor X deleted my edit Y because he wants to suppress information about topic Z." Instead write "Editor X deleted my edit Y. That tends to suppress information about topic Z."

We know that you are new. No one is trying to bite your head off, although it may feel that way. It takes a while to get the feel of the community expectations. And it is a community. Constant314 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Gamma-SLIM has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Gamma-SLIM. Thanks! Justiyaya 12:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

DJ7BA (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Justiyaya. I had planned to be working on that - as well as on a better title. But it will take time. But:

HELP !!!

As it looks, there are reverters not wanting to accept that on the page "Impedance Matching" ambiguous, misleading equating of two most subject-relevant, though actually different, impedance matching coefficients is unmistakably addressed and taken care of.

Unless someone positively helps me now to overcome this problem, I will completely give up wiki editing rather than being involved in contraproductive revert war. DJ7BA (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Your recent editing history at Impedance matching shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the (well known to me meanwhile) general advice.

That talk was done. Instead of answering my proven points, everything was brainwashed away with methods not acceptable. For example: My citing Orphanidis was not accepted on the ground, I should have better used a very old, outdated version. The version that I used was downloaded by me 2019 and today is still the same. It fully supports the equation I wanted in wiki, very pertinent to the subject. The response was, that some claimed (not available to me) older version contained manipulated equation. No supporting evidence was given at all, no quoting, even not a link to what that bad author accusation was claimed to be. I told that the actual version is unchanded sinc 2019 and the link works. That was not answered. See: No way of answering that type of revert reasoning. The match I showed mathematically is totally easy and provable. It has the very same contents as the Orfanidis source. However I used another index that Orphanidis, as he had indexes with respect to another (for wiki unneeded) further study of only sidetracking details, so I used an Index to make that very, often confused, matching coeffiocient unambiguous, plus i gave the name, explaining the index in the direct context: "The Souce Load Impedance Mismatch Coefficient \Gamma_{SLIM} = ... " Also this was not answered. Just reverted. And I was told that my contribution - though provable by math and supported by source Orpahnidis, be "WP:NOR. With respect to fully convincing math, I was told, that somene knowing no math at all should be able to understand. However, the somewhat technical subject "Impedance matching" needs some teenage understanding of math to start with, and the article already contained similar school age grade math at other places as well. Also I had wikilinked the match approach "relative difference". Thus it is absolutely easy to follow. I beleive, that people reading this subject do have the basic match background the subject means. I am not reeventing the wheel by teaching basic match on wiki, that readers interested in the subject usually hav, and if not, they are well informed by the given wikilink.

Also this was not answered. It feels like trying to communicate with an iceberg. Wiki help page, however, sais: "Consider very carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?" This was not at all done that way. No supporting attempts at all.

I tell you: It doesn't make sense to talk with peoplewho don't read, only delete, and will not answer any provable and supported by acceptable source citation I gave. Unless some kind of mediator, who reads and answers supporting evidence takes care, I must finally give up. This report is a final goodbye. It comes with a suggestion to bann such unfriendly behaviour. I didn't have the time to study all these user's history on wiki, but one of them at least has a vandalism report history already.

No point for a wiki newcomer to deal wit absolutely non-cooperative people who defend a status of a "Impedance Matching" page that doesn't permit the relavant impedance matching coefficients, nor the supporting source - even though Orfanidis (another chapter) was used by some subject related other wiki page, too.

Thanks for considering the suggested ban. You may not be the person to address that suggestion, though. Please be so kind and forward it.

But I see no hope in that, either. Try it or not - so be it. Period.

I see I must give up. No point in being part in such system. Rather let the readers read what is incomplete by missing very subject relevant coefficients, nor even fully correct. Why should I continue to care?! DJ7BA (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Usernames and bolding

Re your comment on this at Talk:Impedance matching. The guidelines for usernames, talk page posts, and article content are three entirely different issues. They are definitely not the same rules for the three cases. The guideline for use of bolding in articles can be found at MOS:BOLD. Hope that helps. SpinningSpark 14:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know that. Yes, that helps.

I also found a very encouraging wiki page: reading is recommended: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers .

I really had felt like bitten by rattlesnakes - that certainly you are not. But the reverting was overwhelming.

I am sure, I have something precious to contribute. So with regard to my wiki rule mistakes: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, please, rather have patience with me:

Instead of reverting and using WP: abbreviations, I would prefer answers with wiki-acceptable alternative suggestions, so I can comply better. That would have made things mach faster, shorter and better.

There is room for improvement.

Regarding boldface, I meant impressions - just as that also was kindly suggested to me - not wiki rules, that you certainly didn't infringe: On the wiki page about user names I didn't find boldfacing usernames mentioned. It is ok. DJ7BA (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This edit is an entirely unacceptable personal attack, and so is your subsequent rambling attempt to justify it. It is not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially not on an article talk page where discussion should be centred on what is in the article, not the abilities of the page editors. If you have a problem with an editor, take it to their talk page, or in serious cases to an administrative page, but even there, do not make accusations you cannot substantiate. We should assume good faith of other editors, and in any case, the content of Wikipedia is judged against reliable sources, not the opinions of editors.

I am going to archive that entire thread. Do not restore it. SpinningSpark 14:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Gamma-SLIM has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Gamma-SLIM. Thanks! HenryTemplo (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gamma-SLIM (August 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kvng was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gamma-SLIM and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Kvng (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

DJ7BA (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Kvng, for your understanding of the substance involved:

The difference between:

1. a reflection coefficient on a line that has a load impedance different from the characteristic line impedance , and

2. a coefficient describing the effect of complex source impedance and load impedances being not conjugate complex of each other.

I first tried to help improving the wiki "reflection coefficient" article, but was reverted on the grounds that impedance mismatch is actually no "reflection", as no reflection occurs in lack of a medium on which propagating waves can be reflected. That is correct. I was told to start a new wiki article instead, which I tried: Gamma-SLIM.

I also tried to improve the wiki "impedance matching" article, but there it was reverted as being WP:NOR, as nobody else knwe the word "Gamma-SLIM" before, and this is new, but not a quotation of reliable knowlege published already. Also my derivation, where I used the words "relative difference" to excplain Gamma, was said to be WP:NOR, though this is just an existing math term, adequate to describe both coefficients in question, if only the different goals are taken in to account.

It seems, people are quick to revert a newcomer, though this is not nice. And they are slow in cooperation, too.

A 100% convincing derivation is reverted, but a quotation of what is proven to be false is acceptable to continue instead.

I had to learn some in this case not so helpful wiki rules.

Not so helpful in this particular case, as:

Shepard Roberts, who in 1946 first described a derivation of what I called Gamma-SLIM, called it

"reflection coefficient" in analogy to the usual image impedance coefficient.

This coined a misnomer, as soon the quotation marks were omitted as well as the difference meant by using "in analogy". Instead, literature used and quoted it without these, with the false result, that literature and even standardizing authorities misunderstood and published both coefficients as being the same "in a broader sense". One can easily quote the false descriptions, but finds no suitable descriptive name published yet.

My contribution wants to correct this half century old, often published over and over again, and even standardized error, that both coefficients be identical.

S. Roberts had made it very clear in his text, that both coefficients are different, and he gave the derivation.

Nevertheless the proven to be false error continues.
In the following the asterisk denotes conjugate complex:]

I will continue to help improve wiki's "Impedance Matching" article. But I will have to avoid any so far unknown terms.

Question:

How should I call "Gamma-SLIM" instead for wiki?

Any solution to this problem?

Is it wiki compatible to say:

"Because wiki rules do not allow to give it a better name, it must not be called Gamma SLIM or Source Load Imperdance Mismatch Coefficient, as this would be WP:NOR.

As the word "relection coefficient", however, is a very bad misleading misnomer type of description, we will have to wait, until two literature writers both used another better name, that we

afterwards may use on wiki."

I never saw any such silly sounding excuse for anything on wiki so far.

The double problem: 1. wiki WP:NOR and 2. a terrible

misnomer, seems to not be solvable in compliance with wiki rules.

Any suggestion on how to overcome this?

Thanks,

DJ7BA (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC) DJ7BA (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Gamma-SLIM

Hello, DJ7BA. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gamma-SLIM".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 09:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)