Welcome!

Hello, Drizzd~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Low-pass filter

edit

Regarding your reversion, of course it makes a difference what it was designed for. That's a bit like saying a brick is an example of a paperweight. No it isn't, you can use it as a paperweight but it is still a brick. Frankly, I don't think it should be in there at all - it would be more straightforward to say that a simple RC circuit is an example of a one-pole filter. And if we are talking about an ideal integrator, that really does not have any useful filtering characteristics as it is going to attenuate everything above DC! SpinningSpark 02:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

So your analogy does not make any sense. A brick is rarely a paperweight. But an integrator is always a low pass filter. It is a very general concept that is not specific to electric circuits. It is also very common. That makes it the perfect example of a low-pass filter.
I still do not understand your issue with the current wording, but perhaps the following would be more to your taste? "An integrator has low-pass filter characteristics." --Drizzd (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's what I was trying to say in the edit you reverted. It really is the case that an integrator only acts as an LPF when it is a non-ideal integrator. An RC circuit is a filter, and also approximates to an integrator within a certain range. But an op-amp integrator circuit comes close to an ideal integrator which will have a 1/f frequency response. The pole is at f=0 and that will also be the knee frequency. That is, an ideal integrator is not a low-pass filter, it is a DC-pass filter! SpinningSpark 10:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you are still not convinced, try considering what an ideal integrator will do to a square pulse in the time domain compared to what you expect from an ideal (brick-wall) filter. SpinningSpark 10:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
If my suggested wording above is what you were trying to say, then let's go with it. Why are we still talking?
I am not buying your argument with the ideal interpolator, however. That's a special case in this context just like the ideal interpolator is a special case of interpolation. And it's not even a counter-example, because it can still be interpreted as a low pass filter, albeit with a rather low corner frequency. --Drizzd (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Also, do you have a citation for this claim? There should be nothing going into Wikipedia that cannot be referenced to a reliable source. Material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. SpinningSpark 10:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wow, hold on. Previously, we have been discussing the best wording for the relationship between integrator and low pass filter. But now you are disputing that the idea of an integrator acting as a low pass filter has merit at all? Please stop wasting my time. --Drizzd (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
There is no need for the bad temper. There is a place for this, but it needs a better explanation than just a misleading listing as an example. SpinningSpark 16:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Plastic SCM

edit

Hi, is there any reason why you have removed the information i put in the scm comparison about Plastic SCM? dont we have the right to put there our information just like the rest of companies there? You´re doing so continually, so tell justo tell my why.Alejandro66 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

ironically enough, there's more than one editor reverting changes to promote Plastic SCM. TEDickey (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's a matter of policy. Please see the talk page, as I already commented in the revert. --Drizzd (talk)
I was referring to the probable sockpuppets who've been promoting it for a while. TEDickey (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

edit

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your account will be renamed

edit

23:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

edit

12:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply