John Siau

February 2016

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Transmission line because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Please don't promote a company as you have done in the images of star quad cable that you put into the article, the images carrying a prominent Benchmark logo. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Star Quad

I read your page. It was interesting. However, I fear that the pictures with the Benchmark logo are copyrighted. If so, you should remove them immediately. You can use copyrighted material by permission, but the permission has to first be logged through a formal system. Constant314 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say that any image with a Benchmark logo would be too promotional for that company. The logos should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The drawings were created by me for another paper that I wrote on the topic. I granted Attribution (BY) permission for these drawings (I am an officer of Benchmark Media Systems, Inc. and I have the authority to grant this permission). I will create a new version of the drawings without the large logos so that they will be more appropriate for use on Wikipedia. My intention is to provide educational information and not commercial promotion. Thanks for pointing out the problems with the current drawings. Revised drawings will be created and posted shortly.

--John Siau (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I am taking down the current drawings until the revised drawings are ready.

--John Siau (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Good morning John. Since the pictures appeared in copyrighted material, they are still copyrighted for Wikipedia purposes. The policy is designed to keep Wikipedia out of legal trouble. However, since you are the owner of the copyright, you can give Wikipedia permission to publish the drawings. There is a little bit of bureaucratic record keeping, but it is straight forward. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The purpose is to establish that you are giving the proper rights to Wikipedia and understand what those rights are. Again, I find that the article is interesting and the fact that you cite technical info from other manufacturers goes a long way toward establishing that the article is not spam. Constant314 (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Constant314. I am new here and you have been very helpful. It is not easy to do everything correctly the first time around, but I am starting to learn the ropes. The three drawings in question were created with small copyright notices in the lower right-hand corner. You can read the copyright notices if you expand the drawings. They read" Courtesy of: Benchmark Media Systems, Inc. CC-BY-SA-4.0" We have created these drawings for public use under the terms of CC-BY-SA-4.0 Since we have put this notice in the drawing, is anything else required? I used the wizard to upload the drawings, and I thought that properly selected the CC-BY-SA-4.0 copyright information, but maybe I missed something, or did something wrong. Thanks for your help. I would be glad to do whatever housekeeping is necessary.John Siau (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not an expert. It just seems that you may be having the same issues that I have had. If the pictures were published under the appropriate public use license then you are probably OK. The worst thing that will happen if it is not right is that someone may delete them and give you a warning. You can always get help by putting a "help me" request on your talk page. You will generally get an answer within an hour or so. Most Wikipedians love to be helpful. See Template:Help me for how to do that. Wikipedia has many policies and essays on how to do things, but sometimes they are hard to find. I find more Wikipedia help by using Google to search for "Wikipedia <whatever topic I'm looking for.>" like "Wikipedia getting permission to used copyrighted". One thing to watch out for is that Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia although they are related. You have a user talk page there as well as here and if there is something wrong with your pictures, you may get a message there. Constant314 (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To be safe, I used the email template for declaration of consent and sent it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org The declaration covers all three drawings.John Siau (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That's what I would do.Constant314 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Siau (February 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon 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 Draft:John Siau and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! John Siau, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I was attempting to create a User page not an autobiography. I seem to have followed the wrong link. I have now created a user page: User:John_Siau Is this content appropriate on a user page?John Siau (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to starquad

John, there has been recent edits about using starquad to deliver split-phase power. My understanding is starquad is for audio of signal delivery and not power delivery. True, a four conductor cable could deliver power if it had the voltage and current rating, but, I think, that it would most likely not have a strict four point symmetry. Comments? Constant314 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Constant314, there are a number of problems with the recent edit. While it is true that a four-conductor power cable can be wired in this fashion, the analysis and discussion about why it works are somewhat incorrect. This scheme keeps the ground quiet by balancing the hot-ground crosstalk with the neutral-ground crosstalk, but the same balancing can be accomplished with a 3-conductor cable. The four-conductor scheme described does not reduce magnetic radiation because the ground conductors are not carrying the same currents as the line and neutral conductors. If two pairs of L and N conductors were used, then the magnetic interference could be eliminated, but this is not what is described in the recent edit. The cable would also need a ground. The ground could be a 5th conductor located in the cable core, or it could be an outer shield. However, I don't know of any existing cable like this that is rated for power applications. There are enough technical errors that it should probably be taken down until things are corrected. What is the proper action?--John Siau (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I already started two discussion topics an the article's talk page indicating objections to both the use of star quad to deliver split phase power (actually, it is a waste of copper to use two ground wires; I would not expect that configuration to be used for power) and the conjecture about capacitance. I would suggest that you make your comments there and then edit as you feel is appropriate. The material added did not contain references. In such cases, if the information is essentially correct, the Wikipedia way is to help the edit by finding references. But those edits look like conjecture to me. If you feel that it it wrong and it is uncited removing it is reasonable. I would remove it except that I do not consider myself sufficiently expert to know that it is incorrect. I merely think it is incorrect and I am surprised at times by the existance of things that I never knew. Anyway, whatever reason you give, it never hurts to be kind. Constant314 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)