User talk:Glrx/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fisher–Yates shuffle, "Algorithm P" C example.

Hi,

On the Fisher–Yates shuffle history page I notice that you wrote the following comment when you reverted the page to the version before the addition of my C language example:

"(rvt C implementation; have pseudo code imp already; rand() % index is biased without accept/reject)"

I was slightly confused by the bias point, as I had looked up and followed "Algorithm P" from Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming Vol 2. I decided to have another look today. By chance I looked in the 3rd edition and saw the description was slightly different. On investigation I realised that the version I had looked up originally was from the 2nd edition. The 2nd edition makes no mention that "division by j should not be used to determine k" (j being the index and k being the random number), that requirement was added in the 3rd edition.

In the past I've always used the % operator to get random numbers within the required range and had no idea that this was not good practice. If instead I had used the following line, would that resolve your bias concerns? The line is suggested in the FAQ of the comp.lang.c newsgroup.

int randomNum = (int) ((double) rand() / ((double) RAND_MAX + 1) * index);

The full amended code can be seen here: http://pastebin.com/MW7TUTJ4

I would also like to understand why you feel there's no need for a C example of "Algorithm P"? I was just trying to improve the page by adding it. Is it really superfluous rather than helpful?

Best wishes, Matthew Mattstan (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

re Fisher–Yates shuffle

Your "improved" expression for randomNum is at least as bad as the original modulo. Think of the mapping the output of rand() onto the desired index range; if the index range does not evenly divide the number of possible outputs of rand(), then there will be bias -- some values of randomNum will be slightly more prevalent (by one count) than others. Floating point may introduce other ugliness. Accept/reject is needed. That's also why WP wants verifiable sources and not an editor's WP:OR or belief. The article itself explains both the modulo and floating point problem at Fisher–Yates shuffle#Modulo bias.

WP articles about algorithms generally prefer a single implementation in pseudocode rather than an explicit language. I should have that link handy, but my mind fails me right now. Many editors want their favorite language represented, but that ends up being a nightmare. If everybody added their favorite language to an article, then the article would be clogged with multiple implementations that don't say anything new. WP is not a code repository. WP wants to convey the idea of the algorithm and need not get lost in details about declaring variables or the exact syntax required for a loop.

I do not follow random links, so I'm not looking at pastebin.com. The original C code[1] had a lot of superfluous details in it -- such as initializing the random number generator, initializing the array to be shuffled, an awful ARRAY_SIZE macro that cripples the code, and comments about including header libraries rather than actually including the libraries. Such detail is tangential to describing the algorithm.

That's my thinking.

Glrx (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Could you expand on your "There is a small concern that he wants perfect information" comment as I'm intrigued by it. Dpmuk (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I wish you well on your RfA.

By reading your answers and going through some of your contributions, I get the sense that the level of proof you require for a statement might be very high. Consequently, you might stall on making a decision or reject marginal statements for lack of proof too easily. It's the downside of being too cautious. I'm not suggesting that you lower your standards; it's just something that crossed my mind. (I know you gave a pass to an admin for not having all the facts when he acted.)

Generally, I'm happy when someone claims that he's not qualified to answer a question. It shows that he's aware of what it takes to understand an issue. But I get leery if he starts invoking it too often. I'm not hot to trot on BLP issues either, but when I ran across one a couple weeks back, I looked at and tried to understand the the list, and then reverted the edit for no RS. If I didn't do it, then maybe nobody would. Begging off has a downside. If I don't start dealing with simple questions, then I'll never be qualified for more complicated ones.

Glrx (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I take your point and thank you for expanding - it's useful to know. I'd like to think that when I beg off I do at least try to ensure it isn't forgotten. I suspect the high level of proof may well be an unintentional consequence of being an academic researcher where having to make a retraction can put a real blot on a career - and I'm not further enough along in my career to be likely to survive such a blot. I'll take on board what you say and try to bear it in mind when making marginal decisions. Dpmuk (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For the kittens -- could you consider smerging Joe Dan Mills Elementary School into the Austin schools article?

Bearian (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Copied material from prod target to Austin Independent School District. Glrx (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Feedback in oscillations

Hi Glrx. Have moved the Talk:Electronic oscillator discussion here as per Chetvorno's suggestion. Hope that is okay with you - please advise otherwise.

I agree that there is confusion around feedback - unfortunately the replies I'm getting aren't useful. I'm not trying to be disruptive; I have encountered a lot of confusion about what seems to be a simple enough concept, and most of that confusion I put down to the use of ambiguous terms. So I'm looking for some sort of guiding context to sort out the ambiguity.

Your comments about the restorative force may be a point in question. Agreed that the sign of the quantity isn't important. The fact that the force is "restorative" is enough to label it "negative feedback" (isn't it?) After all, the point of NF is to restore the status quo by opposing the change (positional difference) that gave rise to the feedback. Regards a positional difference vs a force... I understood that the direction of the force defines the type of feedback: positive = increasing the difference, etc.

And with that understanding, I don't see positive feedback as having any part in either oscillation or amplification. Where do we differ? What is your understanding? Trevithj (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can help you. Oscillators are a difficult subject. I don't see ambiguous terms.

The sign of the loop gain is important. One cannot look at a particular gain (such as a spring rate k) within the entire loop, notice it is negative, and then assume that the entire loop gain is negative. My sense is that is what you are doing. Ditto for seeing anything that says "restorative" must mean negative feedback.

You cannot compare apples (position) and oranges (force). To see the loop, you must take the force and figure out how it subsequently influences the position. That negative restoring force is actually going to cause the pendulum to swing to the other side of the equilibrium point. A negative force on the positive side will create a negative position -- that's another negative factor. Very technically, the force gets integrated twice to develop a position; each integration introduces a sqrt(-1) factor. The loop gain at resonance is positive, so the feedback is positive.

To get an idea that something strange is going on, look at the velocity of the pendulum. As the pendulum mass is rising, that restoring force is decreasing the pendulum's velocity (a negative effect), but as the bob is falling, the restoring force is increasing the velocity (a positive effect). I have no trouble with that because I see a force being integrated and producing a 90 degree phase shift for velocity. If I integrate the velocity, I get another 90 degree shift for a total 180. With a negative spring constant, I get a positive feedback loop.

Oscillation and amplitude control are two different beasts.

Glrx (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You have been very helpful - I begin to see my source of confusion. It seems to come down to the point of reference, and so what therefore counts as a positive or negative quantity.

While I'm still not convinced that oscillation isn't a case of delayed amplitude control, hey - I've been wrong before!

Can we work an example to clear up one point? If I take an amplifier A with an input signal of 1mW, and an output signal of 10mW. I say A has a positive gain. I add a feedback loop B with a gain of (say) -3dB, so the feedback signal will be 5mW. I say B has a negative gain, but the overall loop gain is positive (5mW > 1mW). Is this terminology okay so far?

If so, does it necessarily follow that the 5mW feedback signal must reinforce the original 1mW signal, or can it negate the input somehow? Likewise, does a negative loop gain mandate a negation of the original signal, or can the smaller feedback still reinforce the input?

This is where I am hazy. Trevithj (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you are confused. Do not use dB. B has attenuation (that what < 0dB means); the sign of the gain is in doubt. Glrx (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Light shines! Of course, I'm assuming a log scale. So a negative gain does mandate negative feedback (and v.v). But wait a minute, dBs are a pretty common measure of gain. What measure are you using?

Also, going back to the above example, if the loop gain is positive, then the original input to A should keep increasing, as will the output. I would expect A to switch fully on, but instead it oscillates. What stops A from saturating? Trevithj (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In your amplifier example, in addition to a loop gain of at least 1 (0 dB), the loop must have the correct time delay (phase shift) so the signal shifts in phase by an exact multiple of one cycle of the oscillation frequency (360N degrees) as it traverses the loop. Then the feedback sine wave will be in phase with the initial sine wave and they will reinforce. This is positive feedback. If the phase shift is an odd multiple of a half cycle (180 degrees) the feedback sine wave will be out of phase with the initial sine wave and they will cancel. This is negative feedback. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chetvorno. Is that where the sign of the loop gain comes in... something like the cosine of the phase shift? Or does the loop gain have nothing to do with frequency? Trevithj (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

@Trevithj. Just look at numbers on a linear scale; the topic is (mostly) linear oscillators.

There are still many points of confusion, and I'm not sure how to point them out. When we're talking about a pendulum, we have an almost lossless system. The restoring force and loop gain arguments are in a resonator loop. A loop gain of (almost) one follows from lossless and conservation of energy. In the lossless ideal, the amplitude of the oscillation is set by the energy in the system. Start the system with a lot of energy, and the amplitude is large. The amplitude is not set by the loop gain.

In a resonator based electronic oscillator, there's an amplifier loop, but its purpose is not to create the oscillations but rather to compensate for the energy losses in the resonator. At small amplitudes, the amplifier adds energy to the LC resonator, so the amplitude increases (just like the pendulum swing would increase). At some point, the amplifier starts saturating, so it no longer adds energy to resonator but starts taking some out. That nonlinear mechanism sets the amplitude of the oscillator; there's an equilibrium point where energy into the resonator is balanced by the energy lost from the resonator (averaged over a cycle). But it is a subtle effect; the amplifier doesn't get stuck at one rail forever; there's a dynamic solution. Just because a gain is greater than one and there is positive feedback, that does not mean the output of an amplifier instantly goes to infinity.

Glrx (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm wiling to accept that the amplifier is operating with positive feedback. Glrx, I don't think the amplifier "instantly goes to infinity", but it follows that after a time "the amplifier starts saturating". That is what I would expect positive feedback to do.

The above explainations seem to take the oscillation for granted. The impression I'm getting is that the resonator is being treated as a black box, and its details are ignored except as a source of the input signal. So the context of talking about the amplifier assumes an existing input signal (sine wave of desired frequency) that is presumably amplified to saturation via positive feedback.

My difficulty is that this comes across as a bootstrap argument: "an LC oscillator consists of an LC oscillator and an amplifier with positive feedback". It seems to avoid the issue of oscillation completely.

Trevithj (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Good description. BTW, a mechanical analog of an electronic oscillator is a mechanical clock. The pendulum is the harmonic oscillator (analogous to the LC circuit or quartz crystal) and the escapement functions as a (very nonlinear) mechanical amplifier, forming a feedback loop to apply energy from an external source (the clock's mainspring or weights) to the pendulum with the correct phase for positive feedback, to keep it going. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chetvorno. Sorry about the indent. We seem to have cross-posted. But the clock example is a case in point - the pendulum's oscillations are taken for granted, and we are left with a discussion about how losses are compensated for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevithj (talk • contribs) 01:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

@Trevithj. Careful about the amount of positive feedback. If the feedback is positive but the loop gain is less than one, then the oscillation will die out. There's reinforcement and ringing, but there's not enough reinforcement to keep the system going.

@Glrx. Semantic differences here - I'd say that if the oscillations die out then by definition there wasn't reinforcing. Again, an issue of frame of reference? Trevithj (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, what if there were no feedback, the resonator is injected with energy, and the resonator took 1 second to decay to the noise floor. Then some feedback is added, the resonator is energized, but not it takes 100 seconds to decay to the noise floor. I'd say there was reinforcement -- just not enough. I don't see it as a frame of reference issue. Glrx (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oscillator start-up is another difficult topic. Some clocks must be started externally. A grandfather clock, for example, needs somebody to start the pendulum swinging. I think that is also required for the typical chronometer escapement. Some clocks are designed to be self-starting, but its been a long time and I've forgotten the details.

Electronic oscillators are usually started with noise. The gain of the amplifier at low amplitudes is greater than one, so any noise near resonance will be amplified and grow. Oscillator start time is a function of the thermal/shot noise level (thermal noise power is kTΔB), the number of times that level must be amplified by the loop gain to get to the desired output level (the number of times around the loop), and the time it takes to make one loop. I said don't use dB, but it is often used to look at oscillator startup. The noise power might be -174dBm in 1Hz; assume the BW is 1Hz. Say the oscillator output is 10dBm. Therefore the noise must be amplified by 184dB. If the loop gain is 1dB, then we need on the order of 184 loops to start.

That makes sense. Good example. I suggest that an oscillator that has looped 183 times sounds like it has already started though. Reference point for started? Trevithj (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

But if the gain is only 0.1dB, then 200 times around the amplifier only gets the output 20dB above the noise floor. It's not the number of times, but rather the output power level. Glrx (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So there's a design trade-off. To guarantee quick starting, the gain must be significantly larger than one. A large gain, however, implies there must be significant limiting, so there will be a lot of distortion and poor stability. See Meacham's article at Wien bridge oscillator.

@Chetvorno. Yes, and some escapements are fabulous machines.

Glrx (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the stumbling block is the harmonic oscillator (LC circuit). An electronic oscillator doesn't necessarily have to have a harmonic oscillator (for example, RC oscillators don't) (although I believe it does have to have energy storage devices such as capacitors or inductors to create a phase shift) All it needs is a circuit that forms a feedback loop, with an amplifier in it to replace the energy dissipated in resistances to give a loop gain of one, and the correct phase shift around the loop, 2πN. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you're right re the stumbling block. Perhaps separating the oscillating from the amplifying would be useful. It is the former that I'm trying to fathom.

If the LC circuit was replaced by a resistor of equal reactance - what would the circuit do?

If the LC circuit wasn't amplified in any way - would it oscillate? Ever?

130.216.36.84 Trevithj (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many stumbling blocks. Using a resonator-based helps keep some notions separate. In an RC oscillator, the amplifier must must create complex poles and control the amplitude.

Resistors don't store energy, so the modified oscillator might just hiss slightly above the noise floor.

Without an amplifier (and not energy source), the LC tank would just sit there. If it had some initial energy, it would have a damped/decaying oscillation.

Glrx (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe an initial explanation in the Electronic oscillator article of how the LC tank oscillates would be helpful. Then PF can be introduced as a way of preventing the oscillations from decaying. Trevithj (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There's already a good explanation in LC circuit. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Its a very good explanation. Clearly LC oscillation is due to a causal loop, but positive or negative? This is very frustrating! Conclusive literature refs are hard to find.

BTW, I humbly accept that PF is a significant contributory cause to oscillation. My original concern stemmed from it being neither necessary nor sufficient cause. I'm now less sure how much emphasis to place on that. Trevithj (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think from the beginning your understandable questions stem from an unfortunate difference in meaning of the term "harmonic oscillator" between physics and electronics.

• In physics, a "harmonic oscillator" is a passive physical system with a restoring force which causes it, when displaced from its equilibrium position, to oscillate. Examples are masses on springs, pendulums, and, in electrical circuits, LC circuits and quartz crystals. But it doesn't have a source of energy, so it cannot produce continuous (constant amplitude) oscillations. Because it has friction, or (in an LC circuit) resistance, when given an initial energy in the form of a push, it will produce damped oscillations that die away to zero. The restoring force that returns a mechanical oscillator to its equilibrium position is not the same as feedback, positive or negative. It is a conservative force, which means that it doesn't change the net energy of the oscillator over a cycle. The gravitational restoring force that accelerates a pendulum when it is swinging down toward its bottom equilibrium position, converting its potential energy to kinetic energy, decelerates the pendulum when it swings back up, converting the kinetic energy back to potential energy. It can't add energy, it just switches the energy back and forth between two different forms (analogous to the LC circuit where the energy flows back and forth between an electric and a magnetic field). This leaves the friction force, which always opposes the direction of motion, to dissipate the energy, slowly reducing the amplitude of the oscillations to zero. Without an external driving force giving it "pushes" each cycle, this kind of harmonic oscillator cannot function like an electronic oscillator and produce continuous oscillations.

• In our Electronic oscillator article, the term "harmonic oscillator" is used for a circuit consisting of an amplifier with a feedback loop around it. The amplifier is a source of energy; it converts the DC electric current supplied to it to sine wave energy; it produces a signal at its output which has a greater amplitude (greater energy) than its input. Therefore it acts like an external driving force, giving the oscillations electronic "pushes" to replace the energy dissipated by resistance in the circuit. The sine wave of each oscillation passes around the feedback loop. As it passes through the feedback network the resistance in the network dissipates its energy into heat, reducing the amplitude (voltage) of the oscillation when it reaches the amplifier input. The amplifier adds energy to the oscillation, restoring it to its original amplitude by the time it gets back to the beginning. If the amplifier was taken out of the loop, or if its gain was reduced so the loop gain was less than one, the feedback loop would still oscillate if given an electronic "push" in the form of a pulse of current. But the oscillations would die out exponentially to zero , just like in the physics harmonic oscillator above. Only the energy added by the amplifier each oscillation to replace the energy dissipated in the resistance, can produce continuous oscillations.

You can see that the two meanings of "harmonic oscillator" are different. Roughly, if you add a positive feedback loop with a source of energy (amplifier) to the first ("physics") kind of harmonic oscillator, you get the second ("electronic") kind. We really should take the term "harmonic oscillator" out of this article, replace it with something else. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If "harmonic oscillator" in electronics naturally implies amplification, and amplification naturally implies PF, then yes, I can see the difficulty. Regards a new term - how about "driven harmonic oscillator"? But then we're back to the division between the amplifier and the LC circuit again. (sigh) It is still difficult to distinguish between negative feedback and restoring force - the latter sounds like an example of the former. -- Trevithj (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. When you recently edited Binary search algorithm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recursive (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) 10:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Plummer v. State

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have on for deletion. The nominated article is Plummer v. State.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plummer v. State. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You are welcome to edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Objection to Proposed Deletion Notice of 27 March 2012

=Please Remove {{proposed deletion/dated 27 March 2012}}== and Refer to "Talk:SpiderGraph chart" for Author's "Objection to Deletion" and Response to the concerns mentioned in the 3/27 "Notice of Proposed Deletion" of the WP Article "SpiderGraph chart." Gregory L. Chester 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 00:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

email address added: [email address deleted by Glrx] Gregory L. Chester 00:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

I removed my proposed deletion of SpiderGraph chart, but I still believe the article should go. I will nominate the article for deletion later. Glrx (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.210 (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Primer (firearm), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Muzzle and Notch (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) 10:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Afd/SpiderGraph chart - WP:Requests for Adminship/Mabdul/Question #5

ATTN: Glrx

Per your request, I read Mabdul's response to your question #5. In my opinion, as a new Author and having dealt with him from the beginning, when I first contacted the Help Desk, Mabdul & others teased me & gave me the run-around & even placed a 4 letter word in the middle of my article's title! I was so mad that I almost threw in the towel, but I didn't want to let kids get me down. I wanted to report him to his superior, but I didn't want any retaliation!

When I responded to your proposal for deletion, Mabdul was the one that I referred to as being one of the non-technical kids. Mabdul was not totally truthful with you when he mentioned in Question #5that he explained why he deleted my article's Additional reading section. He did not, all he said was "what does this have to do with a spider chart, not realising that the article is also trying to clear up the confusion between the types of charts.

I think the only way to really be fair & impartial, is to reprint his & Charlie's concerns and my reply:

Hi, I was rechecking my decline and it was simply correct. This "diff" (a difference between the last decline and your resubmit) shows that you only removed a new line and didn't changed anything. Since I trust User:Ktr101 (the last decliner) and I'm familiar with this draft - I had defacto nothing to check since nothing changed. Moreover I could have declined the draft as advertising or maybe being not neutral because containing: ®, ©, many boldings and italics, advises for readers ( "NOTE: None of the above 6 obscure limitations of Radar charts exists when using SpiderGraph charts, because area is not a factor and all measurements are linear and straight foreward! Consequently, trade-off decisions can be calculated and not estimated, as done with Radar charts!") (which aren't encyclopedic), etc. I also don't believe that the references you included show any notability since most referring to "radar charting", are unreliable (blogs) or have other problems. Regards, mabdul 12:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mabdul,

The previous last change to my article was to remove underlines from the "6 Comments section." The person that declined it said that the article would be "GOOD TO GO" after the underlines where removed! After I did that, I was declined because of Notability, which I answered and then waited several days. After not hearing anything, I resubmitted to get someone's attention, thinking that the objection was corrected. I still haven't heard anything about my reply since it was entered on the 15th. You said that nothing changed. WRONG, the thing that changed was that I answered a Notability decline and heard nothing about my answer.

This article is definitely not about advertising! It's an impartial comparison of two charting methods that the public is confused about! Unfortunately for the Radar Chart, I can't help it that my research turned up so many negative articles about using the Radar Chart, while I was trying to be neutral! I didn't write the articles, I just referenced them!

The NOTE you mentioned, only points out the difference between the two charting methods, which is what the article is all about. Also, I don't understand the ® & © comment?? In the Wikipedia articles that mention Microsoft, it's always followed by ® symbol. The word SpiderGraph also has a Registered Trademark, why can't that be followed by a ® too! A trademark symbol only shows creditability!

I don't think you understand! The Notability is NOT about the references that find fault with the Radar chart, it's about Wikipedia having an article on Radar Charts and NOT HAVING an article about a competitive charting method that's being confused with the Radar chart by the public, that appears to be better after reading all the user comments! By not clearing up the confusion, it says Wikipedia is promoting the confusion!

In the "6 Comments section" you pointed out a problem, so per your comments, I have removed ALL italics, quotation marks and BOLD areas that highlighted the difference between the two charting methods. Unfortunately, that's the reason for the article, which points out the differences between the two charting methods and explains where the confusion may have come from, as well as references 8 examples (out of approx. 45 confused articles that I found).

To address your comment about Blog References: My two (2) largely used references were 1) Ref #1 is from Microsoft and 2) Ref #2 is from a Microsoft & Sun Microsystems Partner by the name of Scott Logic LTD., a rather large technical consultancy with offices in the London, Bristol, Edinburgh, and Newcastle, England. Below is an excerpt taken from their website:

Our (Scott Logic's) Logical Approach The market for nearshore outsourcing within the global financial sector is vast, and is set to grow in the future. Scott Logic is a world-class consultancy geared towards attracting, developing and retaining elite talent to offer world-beating consultancy and create enterprising solutions for our clients.

Our corporate ethos is founded on three central beliefs that underpin all of our team and client management decisions: We build unique working relationships with all our clients, continually striving to appreciate and work in line with their cultural values.

We attract, develop and retain truly world-class talent, and forge tight bonds with our region’s academic community, to assist the development of our client services. We provide a thriving and creative workplace for our team, which helps to deliver the very best results for our clients. END

May I suggest that you look up their website (www.ScottLogic.co.uk). You will discover that it is not your run-of-the-mill Blog! Their Blog critiques on any and all of the latest technical achievements!

In fairness, I would say that most Blogs, in general, have a reputation to guard and only try to offer their comments as a user, finding a problem and offering a possible solution to other users.

Respectfully submitted, GregLChest Gregory L. Chester 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

MABDUL's REPLY:

Hi Greg, "The person that declined it said that the article would be "GOOD TO GO" after the underlines where removed!" - I was really sad that a new (==unexperienced) user was declining with this reason - because it is simply untrue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I don't think that there is really a place for your article. "After I did that, I was declined because of Notability, which I answered and then waited several days." - "we" reviewers should read a draft independently and with a neutral and fresh opinion and checking all. Mostly this is rather easy, but if somebody thinks that your draft is "good to go" and the next has another opinion - well that's life. I requested User:CharlieEchoTango (an experienced reviewer and administrator) to help us.

"Also, I don't understand the ® & © comment?? In the Wikipedia articles that mention Microsoft, it's always followed by ® symbol. The word SpiderGraph also has been Registered, why can't that be followed by a ® too! A trademark symbol only shows creditability!"

Huch? Please show me where in the article Microsoft is a (c) or a (r) or a tm symbol is - moreover show me any article - if you find any - it should be removed! Please read our policy at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." Companies, music related topics, books, etc. have different notability criteria (e.g. a single was/is in a national chart) - but to verify and prove that, we need third party, reliable, independent references - and I don't see that in your draft. There might be a difference between a radar chart and your spider chart - and it is not a easy topic to write an article for an encyclopedia. Please read also related WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. mabdul 13:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My problem with your MS and Scott references are - they are either talking about radar chart, or they are not independent. You stated somewhere (can't find it at the moment), that you license the spider chart - how do I/the reader know that Scott logic haven't/hadn't licensed your product (and thus not being independent any longer)? You didn't included any references with an editor review! mabdul 13:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(Charlie) intervening in discussion after request at my talk page GregLChest, first, three things : you have a conflict of interest as you apparently coined the term in 1985, the article is largely unsourced to the extent required by WP:V, and all instances of (r), (c), (tm) as well as most instances of italics and repeated wikilinks should be removed. That said, the article is not suitable for an encyclopedia in its current form. The 'charting method' paragraph is unsourced, and reads like a how-to. That's a WP:NOT right here. The 'not to be confused' section is completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Some of it seems to be original research attempting to prove a point, e.g. “may have begun between the two types of charts”, “where the simularities should end”, “The answer however”. Some parts read like an advertisement, e.g. “that help you make better, smarter decisions”. In any case, the tone is wrong. Wikipedia should not provide “the answer”, nor should it address the reader directly as a “you”.

I fail to see how the rest of the article is relevant. “Comments regarding limitations...”, etc, these are all unsuitable paragraphs that may have editorial value, but have very little encyclopedic value. Bottom line is, there might be a potential article here given some of the sources, but it would have to be written from scratch as an encyclopedic article, not something one would read in a specialized magazine with the kind of in-depth comparison, advantage vs. disadvantage sales pitch, comments by vested parties, etc, we see here. The conflict of interest issue is a serious one, it is very hard for someone with one to understand how having an editorial tone and purpose is incompatible with an encyclopedic tone and purpose. This is why we strongly discourage editors with a conflict of interest to edit articles about topics they are involved with. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mabdul & CharlieEchoTango,

Thanx for your input! I sure hope you can help me make my article more encyclopedic! I also hope I can prove to you both that this is definitely a neutral and impartial article, that's very worthwhile and notable, as well as being long over due!

Mabdul, you were right about the Wikipedia articles that I read, so as you will see, I have followed your advice and removed all Trademark & Copyright Symbols found in the article. I just didn't realize that encyclopedias must have some exception to the laws governing registered symbols, that the outside world doesn't have.

I am referring to the Online Technical Writing: Book Design article, found at URL: http://www.prismnet.com/~hcexres/textbook/book_design.html#editionnotice Referring to: Edition Notice - Copyright & Trademark paragraphs and also the following Trademark Section.

As you can see, I have defined what a SpiderGraph chart is and tried to explain in this article, just how easy and straight forward the SpiderGraph charting method (1981) is by using just three simple steps, which will aid in making "directly calculated and visual" trade-off decisions. Also, noting that there has been a lot of disappointment & confusion regarding the Radar charting method, I have tried to impartially compare, item for item, the SpiderGraph charting method to that of the Excel Radar charting method (9-30-85), to help clear up any misinformation and confusion.

Charlie, whether or not I coined the term SpiderGraph is immaterial. How can you say there's a Conflict of Interest on my part, when I go out of my way to make an impartial comparison, item for item, between the two types of charts? In addition, the 6 Limitations were quoted from other users comments and a little lower, you will see that what they said has been backed-up by a Wikipedia article!

Even you Mabdul, seem to be confused, by stating: There might be a difference between a radar chart and "your spider chart" - and it is not a easy topic to write an article for an encyclopedia. You state that you are quite familiar with my draft, which is about "the SpiderGraph being confused with the Spider chart," and yet above you say "your spider chart!" Consequently, I guess it's also not easy to discern a technical difference, if you're not to technically inclined.

Unfortunately, Microsoft (a competitor) won't be to pleased to learn that they spent millions of dollars to develop the Excel (Geometric) charting method software that uses spreadsheets to indirectly make Radar charts that aid in making "trend estimated" trade-off decisions, that are not as precise as desired. This is attested to in my article by mentioning articles written by some of their unhappy Radar chart users. Wikipedia itself has said as much! (Refer to Wikipedia: Microsoft Excel, under the section labeled "Quirks - Statistical functions.")

My problem with your MS and Scott references are - they are either talking about radar chart, (they are definately talking about Radar charts; Scott is the MS partner/consultant that writes a blog!) or they are not independent. You stated somewhere (can't find it at the moment), that you license the spider chart (I never said that!) - how do I/the reader know that Scott logic haven't/hadn't licensed your product (and thus not being independent any longer)? You didn't included any references with an editor review! (I'm not sure what that meant, but it sounds like you're grabbing at straws!) mabdul 13:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Charlie, after Mabdul's comment: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I don't think that there is really a place for your article." and your comment, I went to WP:NOT per your instructions and here's what I observed:

WP:NOT#DICT 2. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural significance (is public misrepresentation & confusion of cultural significance?) or mathematical significance (is estimation vs. calculation to obtain an answer, a mathematical significance?) of individual numbers (45 companies exhibiting confusion in their articles) are also acceptable.

Reading the above clarification, it seems that my article is exactly the type of material Wikipedia is looking for!

I would also think, that anyone writing an article for Wikipedia "must cover the topic in the most factual and comprehensive way possible!" I also believe that if the writer uncovers any confusion or misinformation, it would be necessary to clear up that misinformation with the facts, in order to eliminate any confusion regarding that topic in the future! And if that confusion developed over 27 years, who could pinpoint where it came from? Knowing that there is confusion after reading 45 different articles, to play safe, one could not make accusations, but one would have to simply imply that "the confusion may have happened in such & such a way!"

Charlie, when you accused me of saying “that help you make better, smarter decisions” or addressing the reader as "you," I guess that you didn't notice that it was followed by my Citation #8, which was taken directly from the Microsoft Excel 2010 product information sheet, word for word!

We're sorry, but we cannot accept unsourced articles, or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please cite reliable, third-party sources in the article. Third-party sources are needed so the information can be verified, and so the notability of the topic can be established.

I'm not sure how you could say that this is an unsourced article, you must have overlooked Citations #5 and #15. As far as a reliable third-party source and notable topic, Citation #15 is a reference to an Industry Handbook that can be found in the Library of Congress, which includes a description of the SpiderGraph chart. I would say that for anything to be included in an Industry's Standard Handbook, it would have to be very Notable before that could happen!

The main reason there aren't more sources to reference about the SpiderGraph chart is very obvious, that is, if you know anything about how Internet Search Engines work. Many companies make their living keeping websites on the first page of a search. Without their help, your website moves away from the first page and soon into obscurity and then attrition takes over! However, even though the SpiderGraph chart has been obscure for a few years, it deserves its place in History and that's where your help and Wikipedia come in!

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester

Gregory L. Chester 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

SpiderGraph chart - your 3/15 removal of "Additional reading"

Resolved

Dear Mabdul, These "Additional reading" links that you removed questioning their value, have everything to do with the SpiderGraph chart article's Creditabilty! After all, the chart is a "decision-making tool" and these references further the reader's understanding & knowledge regarding the art of making decisions and they definitly compliment this article!

I would appreciate it, if you give the reader more knowledge than they expected from Wikipedia, by putting them back in! After all, they're not hurting anything!!

Thanx for your consideration and professionalism, Gregory L. Chester 21:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) I restored them and removed the article from my watchlist. I simply don't have the faith to discuss any more! mabdul 14:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

SpiderGraph chart - Additional reading section return

Dear Mabdul, Thanks for reconsidering the Additional reading section and returning it! I'm glad you agreed with me! I think the article works much better now, because of your help! Sincerely yours, Gregory L. Chester 17:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Respectfully submitted, GregLChest Gregory L. Chester 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Reply

I'm not sure what I should say here. The debate on this topic should be at WP:Articles for deletion/SpiderGraph chart rather than here.

I'd read all the material above before, so copying it here was not appropriate. Please learn how to use links/diffs, how to indent comments on WP:TALK pages with colons, and how to sign your name with four tildes. Dates should not change with pastes; formatting should be preserved.

My sense is that you do not understand the comments that the other editors have made about the SpiderGraph article. I agree with the previous editors criticisms, and they have not been corrected in the current article. You may believe that Mabdul ultimately agreed with you when he reverted the additional reading section, but my view is that Mabdul got tired of dealing with the article and moved on to other things. In effect, you wore him down. The article was copied over from WP:AfC, but I believe that was premature.

What WP wants to see is pretty simple. The SpiderGraph has been around since 1985. If the SpiderGraph is notable, then it should be easy to find some independent secondary references that discuss SpiderGraphs. It's easy to find references (and even criticism) for the radar chart and its many aliases. Even NIST covers them in a guide to statistics.[2] Where is that sort of coverage for the SpiderChart? The original journal article, a narrow industrial automation handbook, and where else? Why aren't SpiderGraphs on Friendly's comprehensive list? (Chernoff face charts made it.) Why isn't it covered in data visualization texts? If the SpiderGraph is not being noticed and reported on, then it is not notable for WP's purposes.

You claim that SpiderGraphs are better than radar charts, but that claim is original research or synthesis without independent, reliable sources that actually make those observations. WP is driven by reliable sources. Without such sources, material may be challenged and deleted.

Pulling back to the present, any debate belongs on the SpiderGraph chart page at WP:AfD. That's were it counts, and I am only one voice. The debate there should be concise -- it should not be walls of text of previous interactions with editors. The main FeatureLine of interest is WP:N -- how many independent, secondary, reliable sources can be found that discuss SpiderGraphs by name.

Glrx (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)