User talk:Tubenutdave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 27 December 2006 2 Talk:Valve audio amplifiers 3 regards interleaving 4 Tone 5 BTW 6 I quit 7 Mediation, arbitration, dispute resolution 8 Editing whilst logged out? 9 Someone misunderstood a move?

[edit] 27 December 2006

With regard to this edit, please be sure to familiarise yourself with WP:CIV and WP:NPA. No matter what the provocation, you shouldn't be writing material like this about another editor here.

Atlant 12:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the comment. I think I should begin by saying that I myself agree with the CIV and NPA policies, and while you may disagree I went considerably out of my way to remain civil (compared to what I would like to have written), nor is it (imho) an "attack" to simply relate my experiences, which are a matter of fact.

As you can see from the preceeding comment from one of the editors of the capacitor page, I am not the only person that Lightcurrent has pushed beyond tolerance.

Lightcurrent himself claims to have edited over 1,000 pages, and seems hugely self impressed by that fact. Sadly, and for the record here, the page where I crossed paths with him (regarding tube amplification) would appear to be an area he knows little about, just as one example as demonstrated by the fact that he (early on) actually posted a question asking <from memory here> if "tubes could be parralleled to reduce impedance", ... which of course is a common and widely used technique that anyone knowing much about tube amps would be VERY aware of (notably so called parrallel push pull (PPP) output stages, although far from restricted to to PP).

One wonders just how many of the other 1000 pages he has editted he is competant regarding, and how many other editors he has irritated along the way.

Notwithstanding his ignorance of the subject, My experience of him regarding his editting of the tube amp pages, was that he dives in and grossly & repeatedly vandalised the entry, removing a large amount of salient information, and instead put in text that is (imho) at best questionable, for example confusing his apparent personal interest in tube amps for guitars (not required to be highly linear) with objective and generic statements about tube amplification generally, vagueness regarding the distinction between a transmitter and an amplifier (I agree transmitters typically have gain, but a transmitter schematic is not purely a or typical of an amplifier only).

He also seems an obsession with tube vibration table amplifiers (?!) .. which is at best an *extremely* niche application, that in fact has no specific reasons for using a tube rather than silicon these days... which he considers worthy or more space in an article about tube amplification than circuits for audio use (imho of immense historical interest, even if one is prepared to ignore thier continuing appeal and widespread use in the upper end of so called "audiophile" HiFi / UberFi.

My Experience was that once Lightcurrent has dived in, he sets himself up as some kind of editor in chief, and was unwilling to consider, far less discuss or accept any opinion (or fact) contrary to his own. He lays down his own (imho unreasonable) demands about anyone else should behave (ie asking him first before they make edits etc, at the same time as refusing to discuss anything off line with private email, and going so far as to delete wholesale any discussion inside the wiki that he doesnt like the sound of .. ie rewriting history as he goes), and he simply (& repeatedly) deletes anyone elses changes that dont fit with his imho ill-informed view of the subject. To the point that it is impossible to deal with him, or stand in his way. He seems to have nothing better to do, and I do. I gave up. As the contributor to capacitors seems on teh verge of doing .... Lightcurrent is right and everyone else is wrong, or ?

It is my view that Lightcurrent is doing huge damage to the wikipedia project, both actively (by editting and in some cases vandalising pages on subjects about which he is not competant) and passively (by irritating other - sometimes more knowledgable ? - contributors to the point they simply quit putting time into the project, leaving pages that are substandard that they would otherwise help improve. In my case since my run in with light current (months, maybe a year ago ?) I have only made one (very small - one line) change, anywhere.

I see great significance that - entirely by chance when surfing I just happen to come accross lightcurrent again on another page - and what is the first thing I find ? another contributor who seems totally hacked off with him and asking "Does Lightcurrent own this article" ? Whoa, does thats sound familiar !

I expressed my experience in support of the writer of that comment. I consider my comment was extremely civil, and niether is it an attack. It isnt uncivil to state your experiences or to be critical, so long as that is done politely and reasonably. If Wiki is to maintain its quality, there has to be the possibility for critical opinion and discussion (although not with Lightcurrent it seems)

With respect, if you consider my my comment "out of order", I suggest you consider what response is appropriate towards Lightcurrent. imho an analogy of my offense might be a small cough without politely covering ones mouth, compared to someone committing serial rape.

Regards the tube amp page : I would suggest the entire page is removed, allowing someone new to write something better (and with a clean structure, starting from a clean sheet)

BR / Dave tubenutdave 23:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No matter what the provocation, on WIkipedia you do not have the right to use words like "high handed,hypocritical,condescending,meglomaniac attitude" to describe another editor. The children's defense of "well he did it first!" carries no weight here. Please consider yourself officially warned regarding personal attacks.

Noted. Although

• I trust that out of fairness equal censure has been accorded to the other offending party.
• factual statements descibing someone behaviour are not, imho, an "attack" - simply statements of fact. Please contact me off line by email if you wish me to cite explicit examples of Lightcurrents text which I consider are fully justify the descriptions you cite above.

I'd also hope that approach your edits with an eye towards building consensus, and perhaps consider that your opinion isn't necessarily the absolute truth either.

I am throughout at least trying to write objectively and state only things which are absolutely true. Something Light Current himself has acknowledged. Of course we are all human and sometimes mistakes occur .. (especially perhaps while shaking with anger)... but in such cases I am very happy to correct any error if I realise or it is pointed out

I noted an edit comment where you said "The comment about "High power Class A amplifiers are inherently very inefficient, ... thermal considerations ... problematic for high power designs." is totally incorrect." It's pretty well accepted in engineering circles that class A amplifiers are the least efficient mode of amplification, so to call that statement "totally incorrect" is, well, incorrect.

With respect, I think not, please look closely at what was written. I of course *entirely agree* that Class A is the least efficient. But lack of efficiency is NOT the same as there being a "thermal problem". And indeed there is no thermal problem. Let me try to clarify / explain :

Lightcurrents original statement was that THERMAL CONSIDERATIONS are PROBLEMATIC, in the context of TUBE amplifiers, and implying that consequently transistor amplifiers are superior

Tube Audio amplifiers are invariably cooled simply by passive airflow over the valves themselves, there is no need to add heatsinks. The surface temperature of a given tube operated at the dissipation is the same, regardless of if the circuit it forms part of is operating in class A or class B. I have personally designed and built an audio tube amp that - passively and without any added heatsinks etc - disipates ~ a KW per channel, mostly (92% if we shall be specific) as heat. There is no problem at all as far as the amp is concerned. If there is a "problem" at all, it is only in the very loosest sense that the column of hot rising air that comes off them is wonderful in the winter (who needs a log fire ?) but can be a burden in the sumemr if teh windows are closed. Fortunately in Manchester the summers are rarely so hot thats an issue. And I agree its a problem in the sense of global warming. But not from an amplifer design perspective. - - I agree there is an issue with class A's inefficiency. It means you need a bigger design (power supply, output stage) for a given rated output power level. But thats not a thermal problem, is it ?. Just a financial one. There are many problems building high power ampilifirs (regardless of the topology / technology). thermal considerations are not one of the most complex ones for a designer to deal with. Just an expensive one. I once saw a review of the Astom Martin V8 vantage, which complained that it had poor fuel consumption. We can agree, it does. But that isnt a major problem (or even concern) for most Aston Martin owners, and to the extent that it is a problem - they have much more serious things to worry about.

cf transistor class a designs, where for high power, cooling actually IS an EXTREME problem. Large heatsinks are expensive and even they may not be enough, sometimes extreme measures such as fans are needed (eg Krell KMA-100's) - something incompatible with the idea of "audiophile" systems (who wants extraenuous noise being added in ? shall we count that into the measured noise and distortion spectrum when we discuss how "good" (or oterwise that product is ?) I have myself built a *water cooled* amplifier that wasn just class but exceptionally inefficient (in the interests of better linearity .. around 5% efficient to be specific, a Nelson Pass designed Son of Zen for the record - actually it sounds very nice indeed, its a very interesting design, within its context)

So, with respect, I believe the statement that THERMAL CONSIDERATIONS due to class A are PROBLEMATIC for TUBE amps is in fact incorrect, as originally stated.

And significantly (which motivated my original reply), Light Currents original statement is imho potentially seriously misleading since far from the <non existant> problem being an argument for the superiority of transistor circuits, in fact if anything the opposite is the case, since transistor power stages have a much bigger problem with thermal issues than tube power stages do.

QED, do you agree ?

for completeness, I of course agree Class A can and is widely used in small signal stages (where the dispation issues are much less significant anyway) using both tubes and transistors. Although again there is a *tendency* that even low power transistor circuits (eg Op-amps) often use class AB rather than pure class A, even though these are small signal stages. with consequences for this in terms of distortion. Again the reasons for this are complex aand I dont expand fully, except to note that very low power consumption is an issue for batter powered devices (almost never teh case for tube circuits) and that ultra miniturisation makes even very small disipations important (again rarely an issue for tubes). As a result, Tube based small signal linear circuitry is almost invariably class A. Because its better (ie is more linear) and there are no compelling reasons not to when using tubes

That Thermal consequences of class A are a severe problem for (*transistor*) power amps <which imho has no place being stresed on a page devoted to TUBE amplifiers> , also risks becoming confusing for some readers due to the way Light Currents original writing often seems to suggest a causal correlation between class A, tubes, and not using NFB, when these ar in fact orthogonal.

Lightcurrents original text may suggest to a naive reader that due to <issue> "thermal problems", <conclusion> class A is bad (which from his text overall may further infer that thus tubes are bad generally and avoiding NFB is bad .. which are in fact all completely orthogonal issues and we end up having misled everyone.

Class A is good because everything else being equal it reproduces *audio* (cf need constant amplitude signals such as carriers) with much greater open loop linearity. Yes there is an efficiency price for that. There is a price for *everything* in engineering, you have to balance the compromise as appropriate to the application. Whats the point here ? (NB the context, this was written regarding TUBE amplifiers where there isnt a THERMAL problem at all ?)

For the record, it is equally possible to make High power Class A transitor amps (I cite Krell KMA-100 as an example). And yes that is also very inefficient. Despite using NFB ! (of course that it uses NFB is irrelevant to it being inefficient, I write this because of the way Lightcurrent keps mixing and jumping between these ortoganal factors) And it needs a fan. Which irriates intensely. So much for audiophile aspirations

Regards efficiency, I of course agree with you, it is widely understood that Class A is less efficient, everything else being equal (which it isnt necesarily). I cant be bothered to look it up since this is discussion not the main article, but from memory the theoretical max efficiencies are something like 34% class A PP, 50% for class A SE, and 76% for class B ? ..

NB these are maximums. Audiophile equipment will usually be designed conservatively, the consequences of clipping destroy any aspirations to linearity, real world designs will be even less efficient. A class A design operated at a signal level far below the clipping point will be even less efficient - but even more linear. (CF a class B design, in which distortion will get WORSE as power level is reduced) My own class A designs designs usually AIM for about 10% efficiency only, since my personal design choices set a compromise in favour of sonic excellence rather than a smaller power bill.

For completeness, an amplifier using the same output stage components (and thus typically having a similar sized power supply and similar overall disipation) but designed for class B will normally have a paper power rating that is much higher than a class A design - everything else being equal.

But that has nothing to do with anything regards efficiency in actual real world use. If you sit in your room and listen at an arbitrary level - lets say 10W "music", the max power RATING of you amplifier is irrelevant (so long as it is greater than 10W).

A 15 W class A amp capable of says 25% efficiency at full power is only 16% efficient at 10W. A hypothetical commercial class B amp "rated at" 30 W class AB1 is maybe 50% efficient at full power .. and maybe able to sustain 25 W without overheating .. is much less than 50% efficient when you are sat there listening at just 10 W .. indeed, it might even be in class A at that power level if a class AB1 design (as most class B amps really are). The consumption of a class B amp (unlike class A) varies as a function of the input signal, but it may well be that the hypothetical 30W class B amp may actually use a similar amount of electricity (and dump a similar amount heat) when playing at 10W, as a 15W class A one, with the same output tubes, a similar capacity power supply and playing at the same level. So which is more efficient in real use ? In the above scenario they are about the same

if we were to push the point, we could note that commercial class A power amp disigns typically have an extreme focus on sound quality, whereas the bulk of commercial production is "commodity" product where marketting demands strongly encourage stretching the claimed rated power to the limit - often to levels that the amp cannot sustain without overheating and/or distorting badly. A commercial amp designed for a claimed 75 or 100 W per channel - due to marketting pressures - may well actually use more power and kick out more heat that a 15 W class A design, when in use in a normal apartment playing music that is averaging ~ 10 Watts. Now which is the more efficient ? A 4 litre V8 may be marketted as being capable of doing 150mph in style. When you are sat at a red trafic light, it isnt very efficient.

My point here is that max rated power is of very limited relevance to audio. Music and speech both have an extremely wide dynamic range. Audio amplifiers are requied to perform well over this entire dynamic range. S/N ratios and distortion performance one two or even three orders of MAGNETUDE below max rated power matter a lot. Yet the reduction in volume you get by having "only" a 15 W amp rather than a 30 watt amp is barely audible - subjectively linear sound pressure level increases require logarithmic increases in power. If efficiency (ie power consumption) is really the driving concern, then (a) this probably isnt an audiophile application (by definition) and (b) attention to reducing the max rated power level to being no greater than that really required may bwell be a more fruitful road to follow than worrying overly about the class of operation. The use of class A in an audio power amp is primarily driven by *sound quality* being the primary concern, and in that case, by definition, efficiency os a secondary issue, a minor issue, or possibly of no consideration at all

Atlant 16:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

tubenutdave 14:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Valve audio amplifiers

Dave, Im sorry to see the above about your feelings. Believe me Im not trying to prevent you from editing, but to make sure that what we write conforms to the rules of WP:V WP:POV ec etc. The edits that I make are not personally aimed at you. They are aimed at improvment to the articles.

If you do have a problem with any of my edits, I shall be pleased to discuss with you if you bring them up on the talk page in a polite manner.

I have had to 'refactor' the talk page as it was getting very confused and confusing and quite large. I have archived the older stuff and un interleaved your responses in my posts.

I have also put some small headings in to try to separate out the different topics. THis is the only way to prevent the page becoming undecipherable. I would be grateful if you could a have a look to see that I havent misrepresented what you have said.

Also i think its a good idea, if we havent got a heading for a particular topic to add the new post at the bottom of the page to avoid confusion. Do you agree this would help our communication?

--Light current 03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hummm. smooth words. Tony Blair also comes out with smooth words that not everyone can correlate with his actions. I have found some of your comments to be highly personal. And many of your edits imho are imho equally contrary to POV, eg suggesting that audio amps are not a "serious" application for tubes, or suggesting that tube amps are inferior to transistor ones, or that distortion (cf no distortion !)is just a matter of taste etc. It may be that some people dont mind listening to grossly distorted sound. But imho we should exclude them from any discussion about *audiophile* reproduction and electronics, (which is after all what we are discussion here) by definition, or ?

I would appreciate the same courtesy. CF what you have done in the past which has often been to remove vast tracts of text that at least seeks to provide a coherent explaination of the complex interplay of considerations, and replaced them with a single sentence that while possibly true for some designs, is not generically true, and may even be the opposite in others, and or may be misleading or oversimplified. That, imho, has not been "an improvement" tubenutdave 15:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As you have previously acknowledged, I go out of my way to stress the transistor alternatives and the advantages and DISadvantages of both approaches (ditto for class A vs class B, SE vs PP etc. I am an engineer. As normal in engineering there are very few absolute truths, there are alternatives and what is best is often a function at least of the target scenario. ie small signals tend to favour class A, very high power outputs clearly does not.

It is my POV that 2+2=4. I think that its OK to state something that is generally accepted, by people qualified to hold an opinion, as being correct, even if that happens to also be you own POV. Many audiophile amplifier designers agree that Tubes have merits, notably that triodes are very linear - accepting they also have demerits in nother respects. Many electronics guru's share the view that while NFB has many advantages, it is itself imperfect. Most electronics guru's would agree that Class A is more linear than class B.

I have noted that there is no one truth and at this level you can find all alternatives, but the fact remains that for audiophile grade amplifiers (and I will arbitrarily define audiohile as being where sound quality matters and price and thus cost effectiveness etc does not) there are still today very many amplifiers using tubes, form many vendors and designers, and there are evry many enthusisasts pursuaded to part with very large amounts of hard cash to buy them, in preference to transistor alternatives. Which must support the idea that there is something worth having here. And it is possible (And I have tried) to indicate theoretical and technical reasons to support why this is so. is that a POV ? yes. But its also a fact ?!

I will next time. Sadly, for the second time in a row, my entire available time has one on "discussion" and I have not had time tio even look at the page. Which I think is a pity

You may have a POV that transistor amps are better, or at least are just as good (or "good enough" at least). But equally, that is just your POV .. and some/many would disagree with you about that, too. Maybe you can state what you think are the merits (in a balanced way of course) of transistor amps on a page deveoted to *transistor amps*, rather than dragging down every statement on this TUBE amp page into a discussion of how the transistor equivalent compares or possibly is better ? As seen above just as spin out from thermal implications ... , there is an incredible amount to say just about tubes,.. more than we have time or space for ... without going through transistors endlessly here as well. Just my 2c worth.

certainly. However in these cases the text I think belongs in line as it is answering existing comments. Its a problem to deconstruct things too far, at least regarding tube amps. Good designs have to be very holistic and issues that may superficially appear unrelated in fact are seen to be very related when considered more deeply. For example as above. Tubes cost more than transistors. But by the time you add in the cost of huge heatsinks, the price difference isnt necessarily so great. (it of course remains true that good output transmormers are very expensive. However as an example I just got some new electrostatic speakers. One option is to direct drive them using transmitting tubes. In this case no output transformer in the amp is needed. (and the step up transformer in the speaker - which also degrades the sound - can be removed. Is this a way to go ? it would probably sound wonderful. But it would also probably be LETHAL, since the tube amp could provide a continous current of 100mA or more at > 1 KV, to plates that you can touch with your hand. Which wasnt mentioned in the discussion about output transformers, was it ? OR that an OPT in a normal design will also - as a side effect - ensure that there is never a DC offset which may damage your speakers - even in a fault condition. Everything is complex if explored completely.

tubenutdave 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] regards interleaving

Regards your 17:42 on 7/1/07 edit to de-interleave my reply to your points above, which you claim feel makes the text confusing :

I would argue the exact reverse. By de-interleaving it you have imho degraded the entire thing into an incoherent mass, where the salience and relevance of my focussed and point by point responses is destroyed, and in destroying the structure of my response you have destroyed to power of the counter argument I was making, and the meaning of what I wrote. imho, you have committed vandalism here. Responding to your point stanza by stanza allows the reader to clearly understand exactly what response relates to what comment, the arguments remain focussed and coherent. To follow the argument

Since you like citations, I would note that such interleaving is considered to be good technique in eg netiquette "Quoting should be interspersed, with your response following the relevant quoted material. The result should read like a conversation, with quotes indented to aid in skimming", from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette

NB this is exactly my criticism of some of your edits to the main article : that the salient and coherent referencing of related considerations to the ASPECT of the subject at hand at that point in the article is lost, degrading the understanding the reader can gain. The explaiantions become oversimplified, giving a misleading impression.

The importance of a coherent awareness of the inter-relatedness of factors being especially important in a field such as audio amplifiaction, where (as in many engineering design problems) the holistic and synergistic nature of the design is as important or more so that the design elements taken in isolation

This is also a very good example of the way that you unilaterally make major edits destroying the work of others, (cf your request I discuss any edits I wish to make with you first, which I have alledged is imho hypocritical .. I think justifiably, exhibit 1 m'lud ?)

More time has been lost due to back and forth edits of this article than has been invested in adding positive improvements. Which is why it remains so woefully weak. It is impossible to make progress on the main article when much of any time invested is simply ripped out a few minutes later for no good reason, or in some cases it would seem based on an incomplete appreciation of matters. tubenutdave 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, please dont intterupt or modify others' posts. Its just not done OK? BTW we work here on Wikiquette [1] Hers a nice extraxct from that doument:

** Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies.

• • In responding, make it clear what idea you are responding to: Quoting a post is O.K., but paraphrasing it or stating how you interpreted it is better. Furthermore, qualify your interpretation with a remark such as "as you seem to be saying" or "as I understand you" to acknowledge that you are making an interpretation. Before proceeding to say that someone is wrong, concede you might have misinterpreted him or her.
  • Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.

my bolding 8-)--Light current 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, not only is it done, it is considered good style, see the netiquette citation above. And if its not done, how do you justify that you have grossy modified my reply be de-structureing it ? Can you understand why I am equally irritated ? I would argue that interleaving is a GOOD thing since .. to quote from the wikiette citation YOU chose .."Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies.", .. which interleaving is the best way of doing. The real world requires balancing conflicting considerations and going with the strongest. For the record, only the lower bolding was done by you. But we loose that insight if we cant interleave. see ? tubenutdave 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I note the way you dropped ("my bolding") above right in the middle of my flow of discussion .. the very "crime" you are accusing me of. So you break your own rules. ("more guidelines" perhaps to qyote pirates .. ;-) .. BTW not sure if thats worthy of bolding in any case, is the communities following this REALLY the most important issue being discussed here ? Are many other people following this ? I agree its good style we write in a way that can be followed, but Im *most* concerned about my text being systematically destroyed and the structure and focus of presented arguments being undermined by the way you change my sequence when it suits you to destroy its meaning.

If good indenting discipline is followed the intelligability and attribution of comments are not even disturbed ! (rather the opposite regards intellibaility imho)

I entirely agree that a single coherent argument about a given point should not be broken up in a manner that destroys the agrument. However this has to be balanced with placing the responses together with the point the relate to. The real world demands compromises. As Netiquette noted

The argument you cite from "Wikiette" (which I note doest even exist and redirects) is a good one in principle so long as the block of text is short enough to be considered as a whole, and addreses a single subject. However thats not the case here, rambling text that addresses many unrelated issues does not merit being kept together simply because it was submitted in one go, if the structural advantages of interleaving the comments where they relate too overall contribute more to readability and intelligability. As noted, if correctly indented, attribution is perfectly clear so thats a non issue

tubenutdave 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to address multiple issues, use headings! 8-)--Light current 19:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, its difficult to drop headings into the middle of a long comment by someone if we arent allowed to interupt it or interleave, isnt it ;-). For he record it was me that separated your original comment anot intrleaving out into a separate heading. Which i note you neglected to do yourslef now youfork the discussion to headings. Not so good at your own advice are you ? tubenutdave 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to address multiple issues, use headings in your own posts then I or others can respond under those headings. Do not alter anyone elses posts under any circumstances. 8-)--Light current 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

citing multiple considerations that directly relate to a matter you have raised as a single comment belong with that single comment.

That you seem to not fully appreciate the subtle interactions that LINK superficially different issues is a problem here : (for example the way that a differential stage operating in class B (more efficient, see above) presents a dynamic current draw on the pose rail and thus inevitably modulates the power rail, introducing distortion in other stages - something that does NOT happen significantly when the exact same stage is biased into class A .. ie there are distortion implications for an amplifier as a whole, QUITE ASIDE from the distortion implications of class A vs class B per se within that one stage )

Finally, you have no authority to impose your views about how I should structure my posts any more than I have, so please refrain from lecturing me. I am trying to follow wikis guidance about how to make it clear what point i am addressing in the manner I feel is most appropriate (ie interleaving in this case). Your opinion about how you would prefer it done is only that your POV, and has no greater strength than that. I note that you grossly altered my post by de-interleaving it in a manner that profoundly degraded its meaning anmd value (which may have been your intent). Please follow you own advice before you hand it out so freely to everyone elsetubenutdave 20:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

Also it would be nice if you could adopt a slightly less confrontational tone in your posts. We are not here to fight but to help write an encyclopedia of which this is only one of 1.5 m pages. Thanks 8-)--Light current 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am trying very hard to write objection and reasoned text and responses.

I regret if you find tightly argued explainations of why some of your comments are incorrect and.or incomplete "confrontational", however you have requested and demanded such rather that simply making a straight forward statement about things as they are, which is where we came in

I am not trying to write 1.5m pages. I am trying to improve just one, well maybe a couple (thouse related to tube ampification of audio, which seem to have multiplied over the years.) But seem to be blocked by you at every turn. Whereas you claim to contribute to some huge number of pages. You have admitted this is not a subject in which you re an expert. I am reluctant to present myself as an expert in anything but in this case it seems to me that my knowledge of this subject is substantially greater than yours. The main victim of this argument is this page. I do know something about this, but progress on this page has been very sporadic, slow and in some cases backwards, due entirely to endlessly having argue with you

tubenutdave 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the article, thats best done on the articles talk page. More personal comments are best put on the users talk page. Is that OK with you? Again I would really urge you to read Wikipedia:Etiquette if you have not already done so, and to read it again if you have already done so. --Light current 19:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

well, you started this subject ("tone") and you placed it here, so please dont lecture me about if this is the right place for it tubenutdave 19:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

and please lay off endlessly asking me to read wiki guidelines I am aware of and which you yourself choose to ignore whenerver suits you. Im simply replying to comments you have made, and quite frankly I am tired of doing so, I dont have time for this. tubenutdave 19:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would rather (and it would be more profitable) to work on improving the actual page. Were it not for the fear that you would just shred anything I wrote shortly afterwards out of spite. tubenutdave 19:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also please be aware that others (maybe including Administrators) maybe watching your comments on this and other pages. So please take care not to say things that might lead them into action. I notice you have been formally warned once by Atlant. Further warnings may not be issued before you get blocked (I know how it works and I have a feeling you may be straying into dangerous ground), so please be careful 8-)--Light current 19:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ditto ? sorry I felt taht had to be interleaved

So its a race to see if you can get me so frustrated and angry that I give up before you wind me up so much I say something that should get me blocked is it ? ;-) I note that other contributors have given up in frustration under your relentless onslaught. I did so once before and didnt touch wiki for six months. I am close to doing so again, permanently. I got into this because of the woeful tate of an article on a subject I know and care about. Sadly the attempt to improve it has been systematically blocked by you, notwithstanding this is a subject you dont consider serious and are not an expert in. As has been suggested by the less than encyclopeadic nature of some of your edits on the page, which have been imho misleading, oversimplistic and in some cases irrelevant and/or wrong. You have indicated tat you work on many thousands of pages. i am trying to work on just one or two related to just this one subject.

Your concern for my welfare is touching (almost theatrical), I would be far less likely to write something I shouldnt if you didnt bait me so much. Thanks, but I grow weary of your numerous "advices" and drawing my attention to miniscule application of guiding Wiki principles that you yourself ignore as suits you, worrying about the trees rather than the forest perhaps.tubenutdave 20:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to frustrate you. I am trying to advise you of the proper protocols used here. If you persistently ignore them, you are likely to attract attention from the administrators (as you have already done) who have the power to block you from editing WP. Thats all. BTW sarcasm (as you have used in a few of your posts) is considerd incivil. See WP:CIV 8-) --Light current 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not appeciate your "advice". False concern is itself a form of sacrasm, n'est pas ? The administrators can block anyone including you. In fact thats an EXCELLENT idea. I would like the administrators to block both you and I from the valve amplifier, tube audio amplifier and valve sound pages, and then blank those pages and replace them with a stub in the hope that someone else who knows and cares about them will write something, free from your harassment. My sole concern is that these pages are brought up to a better standard. I am not convinced that is your primary objective. tubenutdave 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think thats going to happen. 8-|--Light current 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A shame ;-) . But in the absence of such an decisive intervention, (which actually I seriously think would be a positive move ..) please stop threatening me with the boogie man. Im not impressed.tubenutdave 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not threatening. Im advising. Please take it from me as one who knows about such things 8-(--Light current 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BTW

after all this light hearted banter about tone, indenting, headings etc here on the discuss page. I note a deafening silence regards the problems caused by thermal consequences of Class A's ineficiencies in the context of tube amplifiers

I would prefer to work on improving the article, not waste time on petty banter here.tubenutdave 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please bring that up on the article talk page.--Light current 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the discussion on the 27 december section of THIS page, above

I am not interested in endless petty edits on the user talk or article talk pages, anything to stall actually improving the article itself.I am interested to improve the article itself.

If you have nothing substantive to add to that discussion, Arguing about minutae with you is just wasting my time when the page is so in need of improvement, and I do not have any further time to waste.tubenutdave 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Im afraid thats the way WP works Dave! If it wasnt me arguing about the page content it would be someone else! And believe me, the page content is all Im worried about! 8-)--Light current 20:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I know how it works
• oddly there doesnt seem to be a great que of people shreding my efforts, only you. How about you let some elses work stand for long enough to see if the rest of the community has an opinion abot if its good on not ?
• no, I dont believe this page is primarily what you care about. Starting from your own comments about if it is even a serious subject.

tubenutdave 20:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you seem not to, judging by the number of errors you are making. I really do advise you most sincerely to take the advice I have offered in good faith. Also, I have not 'shredded' your efforts: I have edited some and moved others to the appropriate page. I dont believe I have actually deleted any major part of what you wrote.--Light current 20:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is all just your POV, yes ?. Which you advise me to avoid ?

My pov is that you have shredded it. And I am concerned with you making statements in the article itself which are factually incorrect, incomplete in a substantive manner that is misleading etc. Im rather less interested in your opinion about errors I may or may not be making regards your interpetation of Wikis guidelines on minutae that wouldnt arise if it wasnt for this endless argument with you, in which you - in my POV - seem to be baiting half the time. tubenutdave 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I tried. 8-(--Light current 21:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I quit

Likewise. 8-(

I have referred this to arbitration

This is an issue I care deeply about, and I have devoted many hours to the desire to improve these few pages. You claim to have editted many thousands of pages and your text suggests that you do not even consider this subject to be serious, and is not one you are an expert in. imho you have actively baited me at times, and have done great damage to the progress I was trying to make at others.

The result is that you have left me angry, frustrated nd disillusioned. imho your actions have been a prime example of the disadvantages of allowing people to edit pages of an encylopaedia on subjects which they are not authorities on and do not themselves care or know about in any depth. The looser here is the pages.

I quit the Wiki project.

Hope you feel you proud of yourself

My hope is that someone else who cares about these things will take up the burden to write something better. As a parting comment I think that "valve sound" should be merged int o the valve audio amplifier page since the subject matter is mostly the same, and what isnt is largely wrong, in the sense that it is referring to the sund of various circuit topologies rather than of certain types of gain device

tubenutdave 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave Im sorry you feel that way and I have tried to show you the proper way of editing WP. If you cannot (or do not wish to) abide by the rules, then maybe its better you go. 8-(--Light current 23:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As stated repeatedly your advice on how to edit is neither asked for, appreciated or needed, and I am perfectly able and willing to abide by the rules. With respect you are not enthroned as overseer or imvited to be my mentor. Aside from you enthusiasm for wikilawyering, its a shame so much time has been wasted with trying to explain to you the technical side of the subject matter the article at the heart of this is actually about, given that I now realise that seemingly has never been of interest to you. My sole interest has been to improve the product <the valve audio amplifier and related pages> You seem to have taken it upon yourself to harass me endlessly about petty process. I might be better if you editted a few less pages and gave some others a chance. Just my POV. tubenutdave 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation, arbitration, dispute resolution

Hi. In the hope that you're still reading here, please note that your request for arbitration seems not to have come through on the requests for arbitration page. Please check it and if you want it there, adjust the coding so it comes through.

thanks for letting me know, I will look at it and do whatever to get it through

In reality though your dispute is probably not ready for arbitration. I do recommend that you seek some type of mediation or assistance. Let me know if you need help finding the mediation pages.

I agree this is a very severe step which I have taken only with great reluctance. However I am not prepared to be sat here shaking with anger any further.

With respect I think this is beyond mediation. A quick glance into Talk:Valve audio amplifiers/Archive2 may indicate why ;-)

Alternatively, if you want an administrator to take a look at the situation and maybe give some advice, let me know that and I'll see if I can find someone to look into the matter.

yes please, do so.

Please don't give up on Wikipedia. I don't know enough about the subject-matter of what you and User:Light current are arguing about, but there are people here who do. What you have described is not a typical Wikipedia experience and I hope you'll give us another chance. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the standard of the rest of Wiki is very high and my frustration lies in being denied the possibility to try to bring these pages up to a better level. There are indeed a huge number of tube enthusiasts out there, (especially in the wider internet) many of whom are extremely knowledgable indeed. My hope is that one of them will take up the mission to fix this page and its near relations - and that Light Current will stand aside and allow the rest of the community to make progress with this

best Regards / Dave tubenutdave 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have posted about the situation to the administrators' noticeboard WP:ANI with the hope that someone there can either help you or refer you to a good resource. I would urge you not to pursue the request for arbitration at this stage, as the Arbitration Committee does not accept cases without a showing that there have the previous steps in trying to get the dispute addressed have been attempted. Mediation might be effective, despite your doubts, but I don't know enough about the subject-matter of the page to know what sort of dispute exactly we are dealing with so hopefully an admin who is in a better position to assess the page will have a view. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing whilst logged out?

I noticed you've been making a lot of your edits whilst logged out (and from several IP addresses). Is there a problem that prevents you from logging in?

Atlant 17:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

can I also ask the same Q?--Light current 10:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I in fact noted in one of the discussion pages I was editting at teh time, the last two weeks I have been travelling accross Europe (from Riga down to Ljubjana) and accessing via public internet cafe's. These you will appreciate are a far from secure environment, not one I feel I can trust, so I do not log in to anything when using them except where I have other security measures in place

whatever I am now home again. For a while (one or two weeks) at least . When using my own computers I am logged in automatically, as now

I took great care to indent and sign my post - albeit manually - during my travels. Attribution has always been clear. OK ? tubenutdave 21:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone misunderstood a move?

Someone undid this edit of yours- Probably because they noticed a chunk of the article had been pulled out, and didn't understand you were going to insert it elsewhere. It may be helpful to do this sort of move in one edit instead of two, to prevent confusion. Friday (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know ! .. next time I'll try that ! (Im slowly getting better at mastering the techniques of editting here ;-) tubenutdave 17:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)