User talk:Goodphy

Hello, Goodphy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Ground loop (electricity). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Special relativity, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm DVdm. Your recent edit to the page Gravitational potential appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: as you see, there are 3 references at Gravitational potential#Mathematical form, with direct pointers to the cited pages in the sources, that support the current content. Your edit essentially destroyed that. Before you make changes to article content, please verify first whether your changes remain or are consistent with the context. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Goodphy! I think there is a mistake in the image you've added to the Flip-flop article: Should not the description of the last state reads (R,S) = (1,1) instead of (R,S) = (0,1)? Abd.nh (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding , see Google Books "having slope". - DVdm (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Goodphy! I know you mean well, but it really isn't helpful to add things like the meaning of the symbol 0 and the identity 0a=a to pages about other ring theory topics. These things will just make an article harder to read, because the main points will be surrounded by all these other statements that readers of the page likely already know. If you want to reply, you can reply here on this page, since I am temporarily watching it. Or you can simply delete my message after reading. Best wishes, Ebony Jackson (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've got your up and down, or concave and convex, reversed. Can you say what sources support? Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind; I see the Hamming ref and some others agree with you. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon and Goodphy:, I did this and then this. Hope you don't mind . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scalar (mathematics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Field. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Port (circuit theory), you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. SpinningSpark 23:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Extreme ultraviolet lithography. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Goodphy. I've seen many of your recent edits to optics articles, and noticed two things I wanted to point out to you. This edit has both of them.

• A lens has only one aperture stop, and the entrance and exit pupils are images of it. It is misleading to say that the entrance pupil is "the image of an aperture". It is the image of the aperture stop. A lens can have many apertures within it, but there is only one aperture stop, and only one entrance pupil.
• It isn't really necessary to emphasize that the image formed at infinity is to the right or to the left. It is neither. When we say that a lens forms an image at infinity this is the same as saying it does not form an image anywhere. The rays are parallel; no image is formed at any finite distance but you can treat the parallel rays as if they formed either a real image at +infinity or a virtual image at -infinity; it's all the same, physically.

Srleffler (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Srleffler. Thank you to provide a good advice. For the first advice (an aperture to the aperture stop), I accepted your advice. For the second advice, I still believe that the location of pupils at the left or the right (even if they are at infinity) is better to be mentioned for straightforward visual understanding of telecentricity. Your point may be obvious for you, but I believe it is not for others, especially newcomers in optics. Goodphy (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point. I might try to find wording that avoids describing it as an "image at infinity" altogether, if I can do so without making it more confusing.--Srleffler (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proofs of elementary ring properties, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proofs of elementary ring properties until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Goodphy. I noticed that you uploaded several different image files while refining the image for Entrance pupil, eg File:Entrance pupil - 3, 2024-07-18.png and File:Entrance pupil - 4, 2024-07-18.png. You don't have to create a new image page with a new name each time you want to make a minor update. If you go to the image's page on Commons (eg Entrance_pupil_-_3,_2024-07-18.png) and scroll down to the "File History" section, there is a link there that says "Upload a new version of this file". The new file you upload will replace the old one and articles that are using the image will automatically use the new version. -- Srleffler (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Srleffler.

Thank you to find a way of a Wikipedia feature of updating existing pictures. This is what I had searched for but I was not reaching it. I will remember "Wikimedia Commons" as a platform my contributions toward Wikipedia may be able to be updated. Goodphy (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Nice work on that diagram by the way.--Srleffler (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In the past week, you have twice added a garbled false claim that integers have integer multiplicative inverses, and added butchered and incorrect text about basic properties of functions and morphisms. Please stop damaging mathematics articles like this. --JBL (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Two months later, and you continue to do the same poor editing. Do you understand why most of your edits get reverted? Do you have any plans to change your editing style to avoid this? (Please note that communication is required on this collaborative project!) --JBL (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll Hi.

Which edits that I have made are things you are criticizing? For the recent isomophism definition edit, I think it was not wrong; It elaborated that the reverse mapping should also be structure-preserving.

You may have thought this was unnecessary edit, so you reverted it. I respected it, so I didn't touch your restoration, but I am still thinking that my editing would be better.

There may be cases that I incorrectly think or make mistakes in editing, but I am not destroying Wikipedia. I try to make it easier to read for people who have less background. Goodphy (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll I briefly noticed that you don't like something repeated in pages, and this seems one of the reasons why you have reverted my recent editing.

I respect your point of view in my next editing. For important things, I still think that multiple mentioning it in different locations is good to reduce the need to read the whole page. I will consider more about the balance between page compactness and readability. Goodphy (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel like Ebony Jackson explained this pretty well above four or five years ago: even when you aren't making clear errors (which you do far too often -- here was another recent one, since reverted by Tito Omburo), you add reiterations in a way that buries whatever new point is being made under a pile of repetition. Reiterating important things that have not been mentioned recently can be a feature of good writing, but your view of what things are important enough to merit this treatment seems questionable at best, and in general I get the sense that you read individual sentences in isolation without thinking about the bigger picture. I agree with TO below that it would be better if you stopped editing mathematics articles directly: you are obviously well intentioned, but you are not a good judge of what constitutes an improvement in a mathematics article. --JBL (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll My editing has been reverted by you guys a lot recently. Thus, it would be no meaning to keep active editing.

I will not stop my editing because I want to improve articles (in my point of view) and Wikipedia is not yours, but due to this repeatrd conflict, I would start to use the page discussion feature. If no response is made on my opinion, I will make my own editing.

This is the best I can try to fit your request. I have no duty to fully follow your style, but I will try to accept your proposal to hopefully see your view. Goodphy (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Goodphy, if you think a mathematics article should be improved, please suggest your "improvement" on the discussion page before implementing it in the future. Tito Omburo (talk)

As you no doubt have noticed, I've had to revert your edits multiple times in recent days. In fact, looking at your talk page, I see this has been pointed out to you before and apparently continues to be a problem. I don't doubt your genuine desire to improve articles, but your edits are having the opposite effect. It seems that you lack the necessary proficiency both in terms of writing in English and writing about math topics. It would probably be best to stick to fairly minor edits that you can be confident aren't going to cause any issues. If this continues, we may need to consider escalating this issue. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi.

That's why recently I have used article's TALK pages to suggest considerable changes first, and if there is no strong objection or sufficient objection explanation, then I added my own revision. (If this edit is also reverted, then I probably skip the edit and hope to come back to the issued article later.)

Escalation is your call, but I will keep suggesting my article improvement ideas to TALK pages to share first (although TALKS pages are not necessarily to be focused by users). I have studied physics (so study on mathematics was inevitable) and used English daily in work for living and I have also absorbed new English vocabulary daily, so your idea about my edit style made me little sad and uncomfortable. I will keep consider exactness (in English grammar and expressions for mathematics) in my Wikipedia activities. Goodphy (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)