EnviroGranny (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 811: | Line 811: | ||
:: "propose that the article should be renamed" != "actually go and do it." Don't you think maybe a bit of discussion was in order? [[User:Jhawkinson|jhawkinson]] 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
:: "propose that the article should be renamed" != "actually go and do it." Don't you think maybe a bit of discussion was in order? [[User:Jhawkinson|jhawkinson]] 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::I didn't really think discussion was needed, but feel free to move it back and start one if you think what I did is controversial. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
:::I didn't really think discussion was needed, but feel free to move it back and start one if you think what I did is controversial. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Warning== |
|||
*Don't post any further comments on my talk page or I will consider it vandalism and report it as such. You can post your comments on the [[Sprite (lightning)]] talk page. Bye [[User:EnviroGranny|EnviroGranny]] 02:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:29, 8 May 2007
Please add new talk topics at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~
Snell's Law
Sorry, i should have explained my comment further. It's strange, but the amount of books which include snell's law usually just expand onto wavelength and phase velocity when it's nothing to do with snell's law, implicitly. Well, good work on the change, anyway - i bought User:JCraw an optics book this x-mas for him to devour.
Still, snell's law in it's normal sense is expressed as , isn't it? In that case, the wavelengths and other things, providing they are expressed in the same units would result in a the refractive index anyway, wouldn't they? After all, the angle of refraction is expressed through the use of the refractive indecies isn't it? Well, it's been a while since i did physics.. it was 10 years ago when i did it in university :-/ James S 20:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your equation is a bit malformed, but I suppose you mean a form that is solved for an index of refraction. It's true that you an also express that index in terms of wavelengths or velocities. But that's not Snell's law, which is the law about the angles. Dicklyon 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- That equation seems fine.. i've seen it wrote that way many times, just as shorthand for the second refractive index.
J O R D A N [talk ] 12:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- That equation seems fine.. i've seen it wrote that way many times, just as shorthand for the second refractive index.
- The equation starts with a subscript 1 and has no n1 in it; if that's intentional, please explain. Dicklyon 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Electronic circuit
Thanks for your help on the circuits pages. I did not realize it was a violation of protocol to move text from one page to another. Next time, I'll check the policies first. In the meantime, can you delete Electral circuit? I think there are some redirects on the talk pages which put everything on the talk page for Electral circuit, so those should be changed first.
- You're welcome. Moving material is not a violation, but moving whole pages is. You may have been over the border. Use the move link next time. I'll add a "prod" to the electral page. Dicklyon 08:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, can you deal with the apparent contradiction between Active device and Active component? It seems there are two different usages for these terms:
1. transistors, vacuum tubes, etc. 2. power sources
It would be convenient if there were a 1:1 relationship between scientific concepts and the terms that refer to them, but we don't live in that world. I think an information source such as Wikipedia should clarify ambiguities by defining all usages, not arbitrarily selecting one and pretending that there is no other usage. Since you are an engineer, you are probably much more familiar with the literature than I am. I'd rather ask someone like you to do it than leave a {{Contradict-other|[[Article]]}}
--Cbdorsett 07:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not so clean. "Active" is used for the things that produce electrical energy as well as for things that can be used to get some gain or oscillation in a circuit. And what about a diode? Is that active? Depends on your source; see GBS. I think the different definitions need to be sourced and compared, and depending on how it looks maybe those articles should be merged. But one is more electronic and the other more general, so probably not. Dicklyon 08:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Revert to Snell's Law
Care to explain? Just curious is all.. the introduction there was referenced in the previous version.. Not pointing fingers or being nasty, i'm just generally curious. James S 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have to say, i'm happy to see another wikipedian who actually posts comments on talk pages -- you have my appreciation. I'll add in the references, and generally clean up the introduction so it's grammatically correct. I've bought myself an optics book and it too says that Snell's law is, indeed, the full formula specified further down the page on the article. I've checked it out in several physics books i've got and they generally resolve it the same.
- I've not found a book yet which lists the actual formula as it was specified by Willebrord Snellius or other contrbutors. Generally, though, they do agree that it's defined as the relationship between the angle of refraction and the refractive indeces of two materials, and is generally re-arranged to find incident/refractive angles. Still, how true this is based upon the original formula(e) is unknown to me. Cheers, James S 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
- Let's take it back to Talk:Snell's law. Dicklyon 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Question
Hello. I know that you have a lot of experience with Wikipedia so I would like to come to you with a question. I was looking at the Deere & Company page and in the external links there is a link to http://www.tractordata.com/td/johndeere.html - According to the guidelines for external links people should only place official links and that is not official. Would I be right in taking that link off? I don't want to do it if you think that would not be appropriate. As you know I used to add things to Wikipedia that would make me be considered as a Vandal, however, I would like you to know that I am not at all like that anymore. If you don't mind I would like to come to you with my questions and hope that we will be able to get along! Thanks Eric 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The critera are not so strict, usually. See WP:EL. If in doubt, mention it on the article's talk page and seek the advice of more experienced editors of that article. It looks to me like probably the work of guy who makes lots of info site to try to get some advertising revenue, but I'm not sure. Dicklyon 03:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at the history of the page and there is not really anyone that really makes a lot of consistent edits on the page. The page is really about the John Deere Company NOT John Deere tractors so i think that link does not belong there. What should I do in a situation which there are no consistent editors to ask. Should I just go ahead and remove the link? Thanks for your time Eric 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Click on "discussion". Add a new section at the bottom to say what you're intending to do, and see if anyone objects; you don't need to address anyone in particular. Or, if you're confident enough, just be bold and do it, and see if anyone objects. Dicklyon 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank You!
Read it and weep
Observe:
They are used to denote possession, for example: the dog's bone the company's logo Jones's bakery (but Joneses' bakery if owned by more than one Jones)
... but please note that the possessive form of it does not take an apostrophe any more than ours, yours or hers do
the bone is in its mouth
... however, if there are two or more dogs, companies or Joneses in our example, the apostrophe comes after the 's':
the dogs' bones the companies' logos Joneses' bakeries {Source)
As you can plainly see, I am NOT making this up. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- But we were not talking about multiple Fort Blisses, just one. See Apostrophe#Singulars. Dicklyon 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see that now. This was more of a "yes, there is such a thing as an apostraphe with no s" than an "I'm right and your wrong, so shove it" kind of thing. Ordinarilly I do not argue with, or revert, gramatical changes (or spelling changes, for that matter) in articles that I create, wrote, or moniter becuase I know that my grammar and spelling suck. In this one case though, I remembered hereing something about not adding apostrophes after the letter s if the word being apostrosized ended in an s, although it does appear that I am, in fact, in the wrong. Sorry if I offended you, as that was not my intention, and thank you for catching the mistake. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- No offense taken. Glad I could teach you something. Dicklyon 05:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Popups
You might want to be careful what you use the reverting feature of popups for. You appear to be using it to revert good faith edits sometimes, and if done at the wrong time that can make things a bit messy. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 18:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide an example? Dicklyon 18:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- This. And this. It wasn't vandalism, seems like a good faith edit. Doesn't mean it didn't need reverting. It's similar to the reasons that administrators aren't supposed to use the rollback function when reverting good faith edits. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, got it. I'll use undo and a comment next time. Dicklyon 18:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-) --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Rolf Rodenstock, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. 172.144.122.155 04:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Overexposure / Golden Hour Photography
Thanks for rewriting this - you did a much better job than I did. Good writing and fluid language are important, I enjoy them, but I can't produce it. The article reads a lot better now. ForrestCroce 07:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:CheatSheetEV.png
Thanks for uploading Image:CheatSheetEV.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Transistor images
Hi, i have changed the transistor image on the page transistor back to the newly photographed version. The old is too shiny and 3 of 6 shapes are almost never used. (And I do not consider the red background to be nice.) I think it is useful to let the reader see how real transistor looks and what size it has. It is a bit frustrating, that the change was reverted without plausible reason... --FDominec 15:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- And I am going to make new (more contrast and simplier) version of this
image.--FDominec 21:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Rodenstock
There are quite a number of people prodding and even speedying technical articles which they do not understand. It's hard to catch them, and I've been commenting on the speedy talk page.DGG 05:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, well, part of the game. I just prodded one myself: Hendy's Law. Dicklyon 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks
With regards to your comments on Talk:Standard test image: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Oden 02:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK; I'll edit my comment to a cooler version. Dicklyon 02:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
large blocks of quoted text
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Lenna article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."
You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. --Oden 08:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- What template did you subst that from? I don't find anything about "quote" on the referenced pages. The paragraphs I quoted are certainly not large blocks of text, and the largest is from a magazine, not a web page. As I pointed out in the talk page there, it makes little sense to try to paraphrase a second-hand story of a recollection and try to pass it off as verifiable information; much better to just quote the story and attribute the source; it's not a big part of the referenced publication, just a bit for historical commentary. Dicklyon 08:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have sent the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ([Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Lenna_and_quotes here]) since the article is in violation of our fair use policy. --Oden 08:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will respect their opinion on this. Dicklyon 08:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Difference between "what he said" and "what is easier to understand"
Just wanted to address a little point, which nags me a little, but i'm just addressing it. The main difference is that i agree with you all points when you're talking about referencing almost "to the letter" of what a particular physicist/mathematician said.. particularly because it gives a greater understanding of the topic, amongst other things.
Then again, i remind myself that it's the Wikipedia, and not everything that physicists say is very easy to understand by other non-physicists, because we're not poets or writers, but physicists. Sometimes it's easier to take on board what a physicist wrote, and expand upon it so it makes more sense to others reading the article for the first time than just write a half-coherent sentence that is 100% compliant.
Not to do with the S/L article, just a little bit of advice, perhaps. James S 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've editted a few hundred articles in the last day, and I don't know what article you mean to refer to by S/L or what exactly you're talking about. Care to get specific? Dicklyon 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see from your contribs that you mean Snell's law. I still don't get your point, though. Can you refer to an edit or a quote or whatever? Dicklyon 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies. What i'm saying is, even though a text by Decartes, Huygens, or any other optician may describe snell's law in a definite way, it might not be ideal to include it in the wikipedia article exactly as it is stated, because there's a different audience being addressed. On one hand, Huygens or Descartes would be publishing work specifically for it to be read by physicists in the majority, whereas the wikipedia aims to allow anyone to read it.
- In other words -- we should allow anyone who reads the article to understand it, physicist, poet, or otherwise. Sorry if my responses are somewhat cryptic, I'm not really a person who likes to post on the wikipedia talk pages, or generally reply on forums or internet-based chatter. James S
- Well, if you want to make a point you do need to speak up. I've just re-editted your changes to the article to make it more correct. I agree it needs to be accessible in modern terms, which is why I'm not quoting the original Latin and French. But it also needs to not be perverted to where what the law is is lost. See if you like what I've done, even if perhaps it doesn't necessarily make Snell's law accessible to the average poet. Dicklyon 21:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, technically, i dont have a "voice" on the wikipedia until i make a spoken version of the article :-P. But yes, the edits are good. Similarly, i'd like to think you're not adding the original latin or french because this is the english wikipedia.
- Also, yes. No perversion is good perversion. James S 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- How poetic. Dicklyon 22:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if you want to make a point you do need to speak up. I've just re-editted your changes to the article to make it more correct. I agree it needs to be accessible in modern terms, which is why I'm not quoting the original Latin and French. But it also needs to not be perverted to where what the law is is lost. See if you like what I've done, even if perhaps it doesn't necessarily make Snell's law accessible to the average poet. Dicklyon 21:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Come off it. James S 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() Shakespeare |
![]() Dick Lyon |
- Yes, the resemblance is striking. Swapped at birth. Dicklyon 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Infoboxes for optics articles
Do you think it'd be a good idea to have an infobox for optics, which contains formulae info, etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JSpudeman (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
- I don't know. I'm not a big fan of infoboxes. They tend to be sort of limiting, hard to improve or extend. What do you have in mind exactly? Dicklyon 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, i'm not too sure how it'd look, but it could be something small that lists related concepts in optics. I'm with you though, i'm not that big a fan of them if they don't look too good, but i think a nice little infobox could make it easier to browse around optics articles. Also.. i found out there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Optics.. interested in joining? James S 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. Dicklyon 16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Opinion, if you please.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/46/Refraction_reflection_as_wavelength.png/300px-Refraction_reflection_as_wavelength.png)
I've just managed to try and mangle together a picture illustrating refraction, partial reflection and marked it up with angles relevant to snell's law. I'm not the best graphic artist, but i think i did alright just using KOffice and some patience :-) The refraction is a little iffy, but it's alright i guess. James S 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Huygens_Refracted_Waves.png/200px-Huygens_Refracted_Waves.png)
- It's a good start, but slightly mangled as you say. You probably should get the theta r to line up with the refracted lines, and get them to line up square with each other. If I were doing this, I'd probably write a matlab program to draw the lines. Otherwise, it may just take a lot of care in drawing. What are you using? Can you make an svg of it? By the way, take a look at how Huygens drew it (refraction part only). Dicklyon 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, i can try to make it into a SVG, but i'm not the best at graphical tasks. I didn't include the huygens wave "markup" because it's difficult for me to do that without mangling the image even more. The image currently needs to have the incidence and reflection at the same angle, other things cleaned up, which is a lot easier when it's done with lines, as there's a few positioning problems with the software at the moment.. James S 10:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Broadening Three-CCD
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/06/TV_prism_and_tubes.jpg/220px-TV_prism_and_tubes.jpg)
Hello!
First off, I wanted to thank you for your continued dedication to improving the Three-CCD article, and for adding the excellent illustrations.
It seems to me that this article could easily be broadened to cover all imaging systems based around a trichroic prism assembly and three imaging sensors. I wanted to know if you agree, and what title you think the article should be moved to. I was thinking Three-chip but this is probably too broad.
Thanks in advance for your input!
-Fadookie Talk 08:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think it already includes three-chip cameras, just not in the title. The title is OK, I think, since that's the most common term for such a camera. Unless you find other sources that call it three-chip camera, which might be OK. When you say all, you mean to include the three-tube TV cameras? Here's a picture of the assembly from one...
- Interesting, I wasn't aware of such a device! You are clearly more of an expert on this subject than I, so I will defer to you on this matter. If you think that the article is fine how it is, then so be it. I just wanted to eliminate the possibility of having separate articles for each imaging system of this kind. If the technology for three-tube TV cameras is similar enough, it may merit inclusion, or perhaps an article of its own.
- By the way, in the future you may wish to publish your free license/public domain work to the Wikimedia Commons so it can be easily used by all Wikimedia projects.
- -Fadookie Talk 23:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Pointless image?
How is the image I added to photoshopping any more pointless than the image of the pink elephant, other than the gratuitous nudity? JIP | Talk 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Did I say it was MORE pointless? The gratuitous nudity is sufficient reason to remove a pointless image. The point that images can be modified to look faky has been made already by other images. Do you disagree? If you have a point in mind, can it made without nudity? If so, it should be. Dicklyon 18:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, you make several good points. Wikipedia is not censored for minors - Wikipedia does not, and never will, have a "no nudity" policy. It does, however, have a "no gratuitous nudity" policy. Images of nudity are only appropriate in articles dealing with nudity. So I think my point would have been better served with a non-nude image. This was the first time I had tried to make a realistic-looking photomanipulation, and I chose a body painted woman for sheer effect, because it created such a good contrast with the background. Most of all, I wanted to see how realistic my photomanipulation looked. As for the "more pointless" thing, I think the article on photoshopping needs one example of silly, pointless photoshopping, but that is enough. I have to admit that I saw the picture of the RAND corporation's prediction of a home computer in 2004 before I read the Wikipedia article, and thought it was real. Whoever made it did a very good job. JIP | Talk 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You moved Baud to Baud rate. I think that the justification you give is incorrect - one Baud is one signal transition per second (roughly), so a Baud rate be would the number of signal transitions per second, per second - a second derivative. I do not think that is what you mean. If you don't agree, please say why - and if you do, could you arrange to move it back? Thanks. WLDtalk|edits 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I learned it differently, but I see that many recent works agree with you. To me a baud is a symbol, and you evaluate bits per baud, baud per second, etc. But maybe I'm wrong. Do you have any authoritative sources that predate the common mis-application to modems, where 9600 baud really meant 9600 bits per second? I'll look for some sources, too. Dicklyon 00:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a book that sees it my way: "For any number of phases in a modem, bps is given by the product of the baud rate and number of bits per baud." But it does seem to be a minority view. Maybe we need to represent both? I'd like to find someone who has commented on these alternative interpretations, but so far I don't find it. Dicklyon 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1 (Third Edition); Comer, Douglas E:Prentice-Hall 1995 ISBN 0-13-216987-8 p561
baud
Literally, the number of times per second the signal can change on a transmission line. Commonly the transmission line uses only two signal states (e.g., two voltages), making the baud rate equal to the number of bits per second thet can be transferred. ...
- Special Edition Using ISDN; Bryce, James Y:Que 1995 ISBN 0-7897-0405-6 p73
Development of the teletype led to a need to measure the amount of information flowing in the system and the term baud, honoring Baudot, was coined...Using a method of imposing two units of information on each wave, a method of modulating the wave, one could be said to be transmitting at 6000 baud
- Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1 (Third Edition); Comer, Douglas E:Prentice-Hall 1995 ISBN 0-13-216987-8 p561
- Which just shows that James Bryce was confused. I would go with your suggestion of pointing out the confusion. To me, a baud is a signal transition per second - so a 2,400 baud modem modulating 4 bits per symbol transmits data at 9.6 kbit/s. A similar unit is the Hertz, which is one cycle per second (s-1). People don't say hertz rate, so (in my view) shouldn't say baud rate.
- Hertz - one cycle per second
- Baud - one signal transition per second
- I'm open to further argument/discussion. Regards, WLDtalk|edits 09:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've not used Google book search before. Here's a definition from 1979: Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers
or a definition from 1949: Code of Federal RegulationsThe speed of transmission is defined as the inverse of the duration of the minimum element of modulation measured in seconds. The unit of transmission speed is defined as a baud, a speed of one baud being that at which the minimum element of modulation has a duration of 1 second.
So it looks like that in 1949, the baud was the inverse (reciprocal) of the duration of a standard element. Hope that helps. WLDtalk|edits 10:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)this section, the sending speed ( [send]ing rate), in baud, is defined as [the re]ciprocal of the shortest (s[?] time interval in seconds ...
- And finally, we can do worse than look at the Free on-line Dictionary of Computing' definition, and also at this other website Astronomical Information Processing System Glossary. FOLDOC says:
WLDtalk|edits 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)<communications, unit> /bawd/ (plural "baud") The unit in which the information carrying capacity or "signalling rate" of a communication channel is measured. One baud is one symbol (state-transition or level-transition) per second. This coincides with bits per second only for two-level modulation with no framing or stop bits.
A symbol is a unique state of the communication channel, distinguishable by the receiver from all other possible states. For example, it may be one of two voltage levels on a wire for a direct digital connection or it might be the phase or frequency of a carrier.
The term "baud" was originally a unit of telegraph signalling speed, set at one Morse code dot per second. Or, more generally, the reciprocal of the duration of the shortest signalling element. It was proposed at the International Telegraph Conference of 1927, and named after J.M.E. Baudot (1845-1903), the French engineer who constructed the first successful teleprinter.
- I've not used Google book search before. Here's a definition from 1979: Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers
just wondering
I was wondering why you deleted all my external links on number constants pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superbum4 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
- It's hard to say, since I don't know what you're referring to; your contribs link shows that this remark is your first contribution to wikipedia, so probably the links were added under an anonymous IP instead of a login. Usually, when I see links added by someone with no other contribution history, I assume they are just spamming, whereas links added by someone who can be seen to be an actual contributor will be given a less critical eye. In general, though, fighting spam links is one the main jobs of wikipedia editors. Wikipedia would be overrun with links to commercial and personal sites if we didn't. Feel free to explain what your links were, and how you believe they satisfy the criteria of WP:EL. Dicklyon 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I see you're referring to the number constants. It didn't look like a good site to add to wikipedia. With terms like "butt load of digits" and lots of ads by google it looked like just fishing for some traffic. Do you disagree? The main page is more interesting, about potato guns, but that's not really appropriate to the articles you linked. I'll definitely try your tip of using Right Guard instead of hair spray next time. Do you think the barrel being that long is useful? It might slow you down when aiming at model helicopters. Dicklyon 01:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I made the site because I was surprised that I could not find one like it, and it gave me an excuse to play with my photo editing software (the GIMP, it's awesome). After taking the time to make the site I figured why not throw a google ad on there, it's definitely not cluttered with ads. I thought that my site had a genuine use and wanted to put a link were it could be found, I was a little let down that it was dismissed so quickly.
- Well the two main differences are meant to be that my digits are easily copy and pasteable, while still providing way more digits than a person will ever need for recreational purposes, and they are all in one place that is extremely easy to navigate, I intend to add a couple more, I was thinking the square root of 2 and the plastic constant. I decided to make this site when I made this background. I didn't want to use pi and was looking at different constants, but it was a pain, I decided on e eventually just because I like log.
- Ahh, my potato gun web site, I really want to go back and spiffy it up a bit, well, i guess ALOT! There is a happy medium of barrel length where all the fuel is used up. It makes the barrel way longer than people would think, honestly if I made the math take into account the whole chamber volume, not just a rounded down value of the 4" pvc, I could probably add another foot to the end of the barrel.Superbum4 01:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- How do you find the point where acceleration due to the expanding gas is balanced by friction of a too-long pipe? Dicklyon 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is a nice little ratio of chamber volume to barrel volume, if I remember right it's .6 to 1. That's been tested a few places, but I can't remember where to find the results, I'd like to do my own tests on it sometime though.
Are you willing to help make an expansion of the article in terms of Programmed Cell Death? At the moment, it's pretty much segmented headers and needs to be expanded. Any ideas or contributions would be welcome. J O R D A N [talk ] 15:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt that I'm up on the topic enough to do much expanding of that one. Certainly I know nothing of programmed cell death. Dicklyon 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise; i messaged the wrong person. Interested in learning it anyway? It's always a good idea for someone to learn about neuroscience!
J O R D A N [talk ] 11:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm a perpetual student of neuroscience, especially hearing and learning. Dicklyon 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting; most people choose to go the Psychological route first.. I'd like to know which areas you're interested in, in terms of hearing and learning :-)
J O R D A N [talk ] 11:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting; most people choose to go the Psychological route first.. I'd like to know which areas you're interested in, in terms of hearing and learning :-)
Removing all of Siralexf work
Hi my contributions took a lot of time and effort and I was wondering why you removed my link to interesting sources that would be of benefit to a reader of the subject in question? Surely this is a matter of opinion? You could have contacted me first and asked me about the relevancy before deleting everything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siralexf (talk • contribs)
- My reasoning was summarized on your talk page. Did you read it? Basically, when I see new links from new users, I look to see if they are genuine contributors, or just posting a lot of links to a particular site. If the latter, I assuem spam and just revert them all. Have you read WP:EL? Can you explain to me how I could interpret your contributions as anything but spam? Dicklyon 18:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i'm new to Wikipedia so please bare with me. Surely someone has to start somewhere? I'm trying to provide links to sources that I feel will benefit the reader and add some importance to the article. I spent quite a while looking through websites to find links to sites that relate to the article. This wasn't spam? How can it be? I hope that you can overturn your decision and reinstate my hard work. I have posted previously as an unidentified user. I do realise you have a job to do and if I was a spammer I would ignore your remarks and try again - However I do honestly believe that the links I have provided relate to the content. Thanks siralexf
- Relating to the content is not an adequate test. Read WP:EL, and if your links look suitable according to the criteria there, propose them on the article talk page and see if someone agrees. Normally, one doens't need to go through that, but when you've just posted a bunch of links to tallboymedia.com, a very commercial site, on many different articles, and that's about all you've contributed, it's hard to imagine that as being a serious contribution. Contribute something real first. Dicklyon 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I’m a keen photographer and came across the site in question and thought that I could integrate the films I found that relate to a relevant article. For example the David Beckham video is the official UNICEF video and being a high profiled celebrity I thought it would add relevancy to the article (of UNICEF contributors). Do you actually view the links or just assume they are spam from a new user? Have a look at the link and please tell me if you don't believe it is relevant to the article in question. I like Wikipedia but if all my efforts are removed how am I meant to make a valuable contribution? I appreciate all the hard work you guys do as I use Wikipedia vastly for a number of different subjects - But please have a look at all the links I have used and tell me if they aren't relevant to the article in question. Thanks. siralexf 10:00, 26 January 2007
- As I said, I don't pay much attention, just assume it's spam when all of an editor's contributions are links to one site. But I have looked, and it looks like a site trying to sell services. As I said, propose them on the relevant talk pages, and see if other editors agree they would be good ext links. I'll stay out of it. Dicklyon 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You can still contribute I just wanted to raise the point that it isn't spam and I generally thought that the video link would be useful to a user wanting to find out more about the article. I will use the talk pages before I post links from now on. Does my opinion matter less than others though (if there is a disagreement)? siralexf
- Yes, if there's a disagreement and you have a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict because all your contributions are links to one site, then your opinion matters less. Dicklyon 18:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, sign your talk comment with four squiggles (~~~~) and it will put a signature with working link. Dicklyon 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dick,
I have added a comment on the talk page of O2 but no one has replied. Shall I wait a few more days or add the link back?
Thanks, Siralexf 15:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)siralexf
- I still no reason to think you're anything but a spammer, so I would just remove it again. The video doesn't appear to have anything to do with O2 anyway. Dicklyon 15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a training video for the O2 in the UK. How can it not be relevant? I'm willing to go out of my way and contact the company to see if they will upload it to Google or youtube? Plus I find it offensive that you are labelling me a "spammer" when you can clearly see that I am trying to make a contribution with Wikipedia and put a lot of effort in, effort that doesn't get responded to. I can see why a number of users are put off contributing as a condescending tone is quite hard to take. Siralexf 16:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)siralexf
- Maybe I'm just dense, but the video that played for me when I followed your link didn't mention O2. And if it did I'd have the same reaction, which is that it's spam. Dicklyon 16:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This link - http://www.tallboymedia.com/o2-corporate-video-production.php - The first scene is the O2 logo! Look, I honestly don't want to cause any trouble, i'm no spammer but I just see this as a matter of principle. Why would I post irrelevant material to a page? Honestly have a look at the video, it's an O2 training video that was used for employees throughout the UK.Siralexf 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)siralexf
Hi Dick, No one seems to be responding to my comments. I believe I have made a case for the inclusion of the training video, would you agree? I will not add anything until I receive conformation from you. Thanks Siralexf 11:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)siralexf
- What is it with this video and you? Drop it. Dicklyon 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the way you speak to people. I've been very understanding from the start of this, and tried to explain my case. You clearly aren't interested and are on some sort of powertrip that you can open your mind for one second and believe someone may be posting something of genuine importance. How dare you talk to me like this!? I wouldn't be bothering you if you didn't delete it in the first place.Siralexf 17:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)siralexf
- Instead of getting all huffy, just interpret my question literally, and answer it. What is your relationship with tallboymedia.com? And why do you care so much about this link that promotes tallboymedia by showing 1 minute of intro to a 1-hour training video they made for O2 plc? Dicklyon 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Dick - lets start from scratch again. I may have misinterpreted and overrated a little. I have nothing to do with Tallboymedia or O2, just like I have nothing to do with HP, Richardsoneyres, the AA, Roche and Andrei Kanchelskis. I have many different interests and I thought that maybe some of the websites that I have come across or my knowledge about certain services/products that a company offers may be of some use to the wikipedia community. Anyways i've taken up a lot of your page so if you need me please use my contact page. Cheers.Siralexf 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)siralexf
GPS, NAVSTAR and GLONASS
I must take issue with your edit that GLONASS is not GPS. The term GPS is generally accepted as a generic term used to describe satellite based navigation systems throughout most of the world outside of the US. Though I note that the Americans pretty well use the term 'GPS' exclusively to describe their own NAVSTAR system. NAVSTAR is the US contribution, and indeed the first. NAVSTAR is trademarked, but AFAIAA, the phrase 'Global Positioning System' and its abbreviation 'GPS' are not (It certainly wouldn't be trademarkable in Europe because it is a generic term). GLONASS, the Russian system is a direct copy of the NAVSTAR system, though a number of features differ. GLONASS receivers were sold in Western Europe as GPS devices, though they are quite rare. (and probably even rarer in the US), they have been sold and are a little more common in East Europe (but only a little, partly because of poor state of the satellite constellation, but also because of the relatively higher cost - GLONASS requires a receiver circuit for each satellite, whereas in NAVSTAR as all the satellites broadcast on the same frequency, one receiver picks up the lot (usually limited to 12 by other technical limitations). The Russians themselves call theirs a 'Global Navigation Satellite System' or more accurately (if I have remenbered the transliterated Russian correctly - probably not ;-) ), 'Globalnaya Navigasioni Sputnikova Systema'. How convenient the English translation fits.
The up coming European system GALILEO is also described as a 'Global Positioning System' by the various partners who are financing and developing the system (and the US refered to it as such when they lodged their objections - and Europe is glad they did). I have access to both GLONASS and NAVSTAR GPS units where I work. We also have a development GALILEO unit, but there isn't very much for it to receive at present.
Perhaps you could come up with a more convincing reason why the term GPS should not cover the generic scope of Satellite Navigation. Certainly in the context of the article in question, I feel it is of little importance,
I await your feedback with interest. I B Wright 17:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose I could be wrong. I always thought "Navstar GPS" and "Global Positioning System" were names of the American system, pretty much as described in the GPS article. The generic term, if indeed it can be used that way, would be written without capital letters. So linking Glonass GPS seems to be wrong on at least those two counts, even if you are correct; perhaps it would be OK to write the Glonass global positioning system. Can you find me a book reference that uses the term generically (e.g. on books.google.com)? Dicklyon 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a book where J.J. Spilker (my ex boss when I made GPS test transmitters) refers to the generic, "a global positioning system"; and Brad Parkinson (my ex neighbor who ran the program) refers to it more often capitalized as a name. So, could go either way, but if we want the generic usage we need to not capitalize and not link to GPS. Dicklyon 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images aren't allowed in user pages
You will need to remove the fair use image Image:Billingsley small.jpg from your user page. Rule #9 of the fair use image rules prevents use of fair use images in user pages. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the notice. I have removed it. Dicklyon 06:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed. Thanks. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Unity Area Ambulance AfD
I would be grateful if you could reconsider your vote for the UK Ambulance services that were bundled up with the nomination for Unity Area Ambulance - these are notable organisations in the UK (see my comment on the AfD page) - and I have added a few references to Staffordshire Ambulance Service to demonstrate this, but the same applies to all the regional ambulance services. Madmedea 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- With the material you added, Staffordshire might pass the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:CORP with a sufficiently liberal interpretation of "significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject" or "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". I'm not convinced, but I won't mind if others are. Dicklyon 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Advice Required
Are you apt in the creation of diagrams? I'd like perhaps a simple replica of an image on page 4 of this particular Oxford Journal entry for illustration of the Synaptic pruning article.
[1] (Licensed under a Creative commons license)
J O R D A N [talk ] 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm getting better at using Inkscape, but it's still a pain. I want MacDraw back. And I have a backlog of drawings needed for a course I'm teaching. Dicklyon 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Golden ratio method
I understand that it may not be the most efficient, but I don't see what makes the method I posted so hard Carifio24 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, by introducing the c you create an unnecessary division. Cancel it out. Then you've got x(i+1) = 1 + 1/x(i). No general divide needed, just a reciprocal, in case that's easier, but still one per step. But, notice that if you start with 1 (or 2, or 1.5, or any other ratio of consecutive fibs), then this just generates the successive approximants of the continued fraction for Phi. But it does so the hard way, with a divide per step. The easy way to get an x(i) is to just do a single divide of two fibs, generating the fibs by nothing but addition. I wrote a matlab program to do so in a few minutes, and calculated 10000 digits in something like an hour if I remember right. It would have taken approximately 10000 times as long to get there if I had to do a bignum divide at each step. So, maybe I confused hard with slow, but that was my point. Dicklyon 03:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
West wikipedia/Eric outdoors
You may not be aware that the West wikipedia (talk · contribs) whom you contacted in December 2006 is the same person as Eric outdoors (talk · contribs), whom you contacted in January 2007. Though he's been banned before for spamming, etc., I'm offering him a chance to continue editing if he avoids touching any links. Hope spring's eternal. -Will Beback · † · 07:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I was wondering what his campaign of link removal was about. It now seems clear that it must have been a sort of "revenge" for not being able to get his own spam links accepted. Dicklyon 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hand-drawn images by Tsi43318
Hi there. Re your reversion here, I can sympathise with it. This guy has gone in and created dozens of such images. I contacted him a few days ago about similar edits he had made at Transformer. I'm not really sure how to tackle this; he doesn't seem responsive to feedback. — BillC talk 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect he has a language problem, and isn't up on computer drawing tools. Looks like some (not all) of his drawings might be useful placeholders that could motivate someone to redraw them right. I'll proceed on a case-by-case basis to delete the ones with no merit. Dicklyon 18:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I have already removed some of the more valueless images myself; I'll take another look at the list later today. Regards, — BillC talk 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- And now he's gone and stuck them all back again. I'll leave a third note on his talk page, but there is a limit to how many times this is worth doing. — BillC talk 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Outside of"
Hi Dick, Remember "outside of" on the Telephoto Lens page? I compiled my response on an anonymous account talk page (my initial edit was done whilst browsing at work), but it belongs here, so:
Are you so sure that "outside of" should always be replaced by "outside"? One of the definitions of "outside" that google finds is "the region that is outside of something". Do you have a reference to show that this is incorrect? I'm going to revert your change for now. Dicklyon 02:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that "outside of" should always be replaced by "outside", but I do think it should in the context of the sentence in this article where it is being used as a preposition and not as a noun. For example, I wouldn't use "inside of" or "beside of" in this context either. ("Beside" is a useful yardstick because it is never a noun.)
"Outside of" would be correct in "Paint was applied to the outside of the house", where "outside" is a noun.
My reference for this is traditional printed English dictionaries and usage textbooks. I'm sure Google will turn up many sites with definitions for "outside" that are grammatically incorrect in my opinion. However http://www.answers.com/topic/outside seems to have the same opinion as me. Other online references that I would respect include: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=outside*3+1&dict=A http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=56393&dict=CALD http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=outside http://www.wordreference.com/definition/outside
You say: One of the definitions of "outside" that google finds is "the region that is outside of something". I have just checked and found this (somewhat recursive) definition at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outside where it is in the Thesaurus section using "outside of" as a preposition, and yet just above it the Dictionary section gives three correct (in my opinion) examples of the use of "outside" as a preposition.
More webpages, these by a Professor of English: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/of.html and http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/comprised.html
Having looked into this, my understanding is that "outside of" as used in our example under discussion: "...places its optical centre outside of its physical construction...", has its origins as an American colloquial usage, but is becoming more widespread and is appearing in print. I still think it is incorrect in a formal text, but because American English is the dominant language of the internet I expect that it's only a matter of time before it becomes the world standard :-)
Regards Efficacy 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Type 2 golden triangle
Could we talk about this? I'd be happy to have my name not appear in order to avoid self-promotion. But the main thing is this: the type 2 golden triangle is analogous to the golden rectangle, whereas the "type 1" kind is not. MathWorld mentions the "type 2" kind, but doesn't really tell what it is. Would it help if someone else contributes the "type 2" kind? It could be called something else, but whatever name is used should suggest that this type of triangle is golden in the same sense that "golden rectangle" is golden - that is, they both correspond to the simplest infinite continued fraction.Clark Kimberling 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Having your name on it is perfectly appropriate if it's your work. But adding it to wikipedia yourself is a conflict of interest. Just describe it on the relevant talk page and let other editors decide whether to add it. It would also help if your articles could be found online for others to look at. Dicklyon 20:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the excellent google photo lectures
I really enjoyed your lectures on optics to google engineers. Thanks to whoever is responsible for releasing those to the public. Are there any pages on wikipedia which have similar general overviews of optics and photography? Currently there are many wiki pages with useful "encyclopedic" information about small topics, but there aren't any I've come across explaining just enough of each bit to be useful for photographers, etc. Your lectures do a great job of this; I wonder if there is some wiki page where such a treatment would be appropriate. --jacobolus (t) 15:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback; I'm glad you found it useful. There are lots of good books with various levels of depth that I've found useful; like The Fundamentals of Photography by Mees (it's quite short). But I don't think there's a good overview in wikipedia. Dicklyon 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Two things: 1) are any more of the lectures in this series going to be put online? The second one seemed to cut off some of what you said you wanted to get to. 2) Maybe history of photography would be a good place to put such an overview. Currently that article is pretty pathetic. --jacobolus (t) 17:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I never cover as much as I expect to. The fourth one will be up in a few days (by Iain McClatchie); the fifth I do next week; etc. Should run to more than a dozen hours, as we get into more depth. If someone wants to work on putting something like this into wikipedia, I might be able to help a bit; but different media tend to need different organizations; maybe a photographic technology article with lots of little sections with main-article links is the way to go. Dicklyon 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, glad to hear that the rest will indeed go online! I thought maybe they had already been done, but got into google-sensitive topics. Well, I'll keep an eye out for them. As for a wikipedia article: Yes, a main article with lots of sub-topics split out into separate more in-depth articles would indeed be the format I was thinking of. I'm just not sure where it fits. Maybe "photographic technology" would indeed be a good place. Because while a lot of the interesting material is historical, the interesting part is the ideas and advancements, rather than the history. I'd be willing to put some time into putting such an wiki article, roughly sectioned like your lectures into parts about optics theory, lens technology, color theories, film/digital sensing, etc., with some historical material but mostly focused on teaching the reader how the stuff actually works.
- One of the things which frustrates me about wikipedia is that it contains few big-picture overviews. The pages on "optics", "photography", etc. are currently woefully inadequate; they don't leave a lay reader with much idea of what they're really about, and are largely just lists of links, overwhelming in number. Ideally (in my opinion), such articles would provide a reasonably explanatory overview, with information aimed at, say, a clever middle school student, but then with sub-articles and links enough to explore the topic as fully as desired. --jacobolus (t) 19:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your search link finds the fourth one now. Dicklyon 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Edits to Microelectromechanical systems
I think your edit to the external links section of Microelectromechanical systems doesn't follow WP:EL. Also there was a tag indicating it contained spam. Canaima 00:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, looks like I didn't revert enough of his changes. Thanks for the alert. Dicklyon 02:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Shockley's cover
I agree that using a photo or scan of a book cover is not a "copy vio." And your picture is much better than mine, of course, and dresses up the article a good bit. Nice looking cover you (if it is yours) have there. Have you ever looked to see what it is worth on abebooks.com? You might be surprised...DonSiano 12:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- And I might NOT be surprised, since that's where I got it ($75 in 1998; looks like they've come down a bit); I add mylar protectors to most of my dust jackets, which is why it looks shiny. Dicklyon 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Your revert
Why did you remove my link to Camera mouse from Computer Mouse? ffm yes? 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, it was a self redirect. Oops. Sorry. ffm yes? 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- When I corrected the spelling of your red link it came a self redirect. I just removed the other one, too. Dicklyon 21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Revert on anti aliasing
Precisely my point. The list of errors resulting from a-a in that sentence only apply to visual images. Greglocock 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fix that, then. Dicklyon 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Galvonic vs galvanic
I merged it because on re-reading it was nearly entirely duplicated in the "galvanic cell" article; there's already a redirect from "galvanic corrosion" to "galvanic cell" so a page move will have to undo the redirect. I think the merge is preferable to yet another page. I propose to revert your undo. --Wtshymanski 03:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I hope you'll say so on the talk page and get some consensus first. I was acting on apparent consensus against the merge. I fixed the other redirect already, and starting to improve the galvanic corrsosion article, which is in a completely different category from galvanic cell. Dicklyon 03:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
JG
well please move my comment on the comment too! Johnbod 03:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry; I don't see how I missed it, but I've restored it now. Dicklyon 03:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem! I did warn GPM we would get this sort of thing (the initial comment) all the time once he cut the section on the China syndrome. Johnbod 04:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
EMCCD
You keep removing my links on the EMCCD page and replacing them with links to PI/Acton. Do you have any commercial links or associations with Roper Industries? These links are to very relevant sources www.emccd.com is an educational site for users of EMCCD technology to post and share their research from using EMCCD technology for performing ground breaking experiment. Andor Technology were the first to commercially develop the L3Vision chip from E2V into a EMCCD camera and actually coined the industry standard term EMCCD. They are generally recognized as one of the leading pioneers in EMCCD technology. Andormarketing 09:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was only undoing what you did when you were not logged in. See User talk:62.172.106.114. If you want to have links to Andor's site, mention it on the relevant article talk page, asking other editors to consider adding it. It is a conflict of interest for you to add the links yourself, since you apparently represent Andor, and to remove links to your competitors. I have no links to Roper except a couple of guys I know at a different one of their companies; that's not what motivated my reverts. Dicklyon 15:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my edit to e
Thanks for correcting my mistaken edit to the e (mathematical constant) article. I had misunderstood the change that was put in earlier. it is good to know that there are folks who will catch and fix my mistakes like this. -- Dominus 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
6th & 7th photo tech lectures broken
Hey. sorry to spam your wikipedia user page. The sixth and seventh photo tech videos seem to be broken. --jacobolus (t) 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's news to me; last I checked 7 was broken and 6 wasn't up yet. It's being worked on; sorry for the delay. Dicklyon 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed: Photographic Technology videos. Dicklyon 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Charge of an electron
In the Reference Tables for Chemistry, published by the State Education Dept. of the University of the State of NY, it states that the symbol for the "charge of [an] electron" is e, with a value of 1.60E^-19 C, with C being the units, measured in coulombs. This is confirmed in Chemistry & Chemical Reactions, Fourth Edition, by Kotz & Treichel (ISBN 0-03-023762-9), when, in addition to the above point, they list the electron charge-to-mass ration as a fraction of e/m. So an electron is e-, but electron charge is e. Thanx...I went back and editted Millikan to make the syntax more precise. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Update on Andor Technology and EMCCD
Hi Dick
I have once again edited the listing for Andor Technology plc and have been waiting for your comments. I feel extremely frustrated and unsatisfied that despite my best efforts at this, I have made no progress in several weeks. I am hoping you can help me out here and I appreciate your efforts to get Andor entered onto Wikipedia. I think there is a body of evidence to suggest that Andor is a notable company in many ways and that the current edit is not a commercial plug for the company. If you approve this how do I go about listing this up? Or can you do this on our behalf?
I would also ask you as a favour (now that we have this "relationship and bond" :-))to add Andor into the listing for EMCCD. If you visit www.emccd.com you will see that it is an educational site, and has lots of good application and technology articles and papers. In fact we have many people who have made very positive comments on the content of the site. The site is maintained by Andor. Andor has also run two international symposia on EMCCD technology. I think it is farsical to have Roper Scientific listed here and not have Andor. We genuinely pioneered this technology, so I do not see any grounds for Roper to be listed here and not Andor. In fact Andor was awarded a Circle of Excellence Award by Laurin publications for the iXon EMCCD camera in 2001. The award recognised the fact that it was the first scientific grade commercially available EMCCD on the market, in other words it recognises Andor as pioneers in EMCCD technology.
If we cannot add the link ourselves, can I ask you to post the link on our behalf. Thnaks again for your help and guidance.
Regards Mark Andormarketing 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, done. Take a look at some of the ref templates like Template:cite journal and Template:cite web, look at how I've started the refs, and see if you can flesh out the references please. If there's an article on the award, add it. Dicklyon 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your efforts. Now that we have a template I will add to it in your format. Andormarketing 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for improuvements in "mouse speed" section
I'm not an english speaker, so it is normal for me to have some difficulties to find the proper word, even I've tried to do my best. I appreciate your help. I have some comments about CPI and DPI, but I don't know where is the place to discuss with you. If I'm wrong, pls. tell me.
- This is the right place. I have put a comment on your talk page, too. The "my talk" link at the top when are logged in will take you there. Thanks for your efforts here; contribute what you can, and others can improve the English. Dicklyon 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
About CPI and DPI... For all the devices that I saw between 1990-2005 the manufacturers have given the sensibility in DPI. That's probabily because of the begining, there was not any acceleration, so 1 CPI= 1 DPI. In fact, fizicaly, the term of CPI is corect, the devise transmiting the movement by impulses, wich is counted by software. But I saw no devise specification in CPI, only in DPI, so I have a bad feeling with this term. Anyway, I let you made haw you thinck about. Thanks again, Mihai
- I did a search and found hundreds of web pages with CPI and counts-per-inch and mouse. But many thousands more with DPI. So you're right that DPI is more common and CPI is more correct. But CPI seems to be coming on strong: google search for CPI counts-per-inch mouse Dicklyon 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I used your link and I found that the CPI is a new term, related only with optical mouses. I rememberd that DPI means Dot but not "pixel" - it's about the dots that are in the wheels X and Y in a classical mouse that permit to the light to pass through the weels from LED to PhotoDiode. One definition of CPI is at Creative website [2]. Why DPI is inapropriate for optical and lasers mouses? The best answer that I found was: "Just keep in mind that this is how many optical sensor pixels per inch the camera sees, not how many screen pixels the pointer moves per inch of mouse movement." (from http://www.mstarmetro.net/~rlowens/OpticalMouse/#resolution).
That means that is no way to mix that two definitions (I mean is not good) till they have different meaning.
I gave you the links because I have not enough time left to recreate all stuff in english. CPI must been erased from text where you inserted and put after, in another phrase that define a new term. Mihaip 08:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I used your link and I found that the CPI is a new term, related only with optical mouses. I rememberd that DPI means Dot but not "pixel" - it's about the dots that are in the wheels X and Y in a classical mouse that permit to the light to pass through the weels from LED to PhotoDiode. One definition of CPI is at Creative website [2]. Why DPI is inapropriate for optical and lasers mouses? The best answer that I found was: "Just keep in mind that this is how many optical sensor pixels per inch the camera sees, not how many screen pixels the pointer moves per inch of mouse movement." (from http://www.mstarmetro.net/~rlowens/OpticalMouse/#resolution).
- There is no logical distinction that would cause optical and mechanical mice to use different terms here. It may be just some historical artifact. The industry is moving, perhaps slowly, to the more logical CPI, it appears to me. The meanings are in no way diffferent. The DPI in a mechanical mouse is not a measurement on the encoder itself, but the net gain from mouse motion to resolvable positions, just like in the optical mice, right? The use of CPI goes back to at least 1992 (US patent number: 5463387). Logitech may have started the dpi trend in their 1987 patent (4951034); perhaps that's why it's more prevalent with mechanical mice? But note that some mechanical mice makers and sellers DO use CPI: [3] [4] [5]. Dicklyon 13:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be. I interpret what I red in the indicated link above that optical mouse use the natural points of the surface (mousepad) for counting moving. CPI is the capacity of optical devise to count the number of microcells (of the optical sensor) activated by the movement of the image projected from the mousepad when the mouse is moving. Because there are not DOTS, the DOT per inch is inapropriate, instead better is CPI = no. (count) of microcells (on optical device) crossed by a particular point from the image per inch of movement =>CPI. That is related with resolution of the optical device. Instead, for DPI, moving is interpreted by mechanical transformation of the mouse's translation in the movment of "dots" (from wheels) between a LED and a Fotocell, i.e. it count the number of dots passing when the mouse travel 1 inch.=>DPI. The difference is only technicaly and should reflect the procedure used for conversion, to be clear from the begining (when you buy a mouse with 300 DPI is mechanical, when it has 300 CPI it should be optical). It seems to me very logical. If some companys use alandala the term, is their problem, for me is more logical what I just expose, and that is not only my opinion, like you saw. Also, the term "dots" is more "mechanical" term than "counts" that is more "electronical" - as are the new mouses, aren't they? Is normal to be progress, but I think that it should be mentioned as it is. As of the sellers, don't mention them. I sold computers for 13 years in a little european country, but it was only a little percent of the sellers who realy didn't know what they sell, most of them was pasioned, you could discuss everything with them. In Canada... just go to some biggers supershops and ask for some details, (other then the ones that is writen on the box and that anybody could read)... Just 10% of selers are realy passioned by computers, the rest of 90% just have a job here, tomorrow maybe they will sell cheese. Mihaip 09:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"There is no logical distinction ..."
- There is no logical distinction that would cause optical and mechanical mice to use different terms here. It may be just some historical artifact. The industry is moving, perhaps slowly, to the more logical CPI, it appears to me. The meanings are in no way diffferent. The DPI in a mechanical mouse is not a measurement on the encoder itself, but the net gain from mouse motion to resolvable positions, just like in the optical mice, right? The use of CPI goes back to at least 1992 (US patent number: 5463387). Logitech may have started the dpi trend in their 1987 patent (4951034); perhaps that's why it's more prevalent with mechanical mice? But note that some mechanical mice makers and sellers DO use CPI: [3] [4] [5]. Dicklyon 13:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "logical" distinction that you describe relies on the made-up notion of dots in the optical encoders. In fact, the counts correspond to quarter cycles of a slot pattern; no dots. But it would be OK to say something like that mechanical mice are more typical quoted in DPI when optical mice are more typically quoted in CPI, even though they have identical meanings and no logical distinction. Dicklyon 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
PS If you sow me some tricks about using this kind of pages of wikipedia (i.e. My talk - how I generate it?, how I signed (where) with Mihaip 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC), etc) I'd appreciate a lot. Mihaip 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mihaip (talk • contribs) 05:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
- You can sign by putting four squiggles (tildes) after your message: ~~~~. It will automatically expand like this: Dicklyon 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I red that before, but I was looking for a field or something, not in text. About My Talk, indeed, I was tricked because of the template who list all stuff there. I saw that only in My Talkpage, but not in yours or others, so I thoght that the talkpage is created somehow. Tks. again Mihaip 08:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
False block warning
Redirecting an article is not considered vandalism, and false threats of blocking is completely and totally against Wikipedia policy. The threat was merely an attempt to intimidate someone making good faith efforts (and badly-needed ones at that) with lies about how this project works. I suggest you go read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not policy before running around making such ridiculous accusations. 216.165.158.7 05:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your interpretation. He was blanking an article even though prior restorations directed him to take his issue to the talk page. That's vandalism; if he repeats it I will report him as a vandal; that's not a false threat. Dicklyon 05:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can disagree with it all you want, but you NEED TO READ THE FREAKING POLICY about vandalism before you go tossing vandalism accusations around. Furthermore, when you readded your false threat made under complete misunderstanding of the actual policy here, you blanked additional comments on that page. If that was intentional instead of just ignorant and clumsy, that makes you the one who has actually enganged in vandalism. Go read the actual policy and learn to follow the rules here. 216.165.158.7 05:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did read it when you pointed it out. Maybe I missed the bit that says it's OK to unilaterally blank a page when you disagree with its content, even when several other editors have asked you to take it up on the talk page. Can you quote more specifically what you wanted me to notice? I apologize for accidentally removing some of your comments when I reverted your deletion of my final warning. I trust you fixed it. Dicklyon 05:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am not disagreeing with the content, nor am I "blanking" the page, I am redirecting a neologism to the appropriate article. The content could be partially applicable in an article, but we already have Photoshop contest, photomanipulation, image editing and so forth. And, on top of this, it's not "unilaterally" doing anything when SEVERAL people on the talk page say that Photoshopping should not exist as a spearate article, and especially not one misapplying the term. The fact that you ignore all of these people and constantly lie about the status of the discussion shows that you are simply not editing in good faith. Furehtermore, your "final warnings" are not at all following Wikipedia policy in the slightest and are simply attempts at bullying through your sheer ignorance of both the topic at hand as well as Wikipedia standards. Please go eeducate yourself on how Wikipedia works before trying to take such completely bad faith actions. 216.165.158.7 07:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Removal of external link on zero order hold
Small query on removal of the external link: In my view, the link [ http://dsplog.blogspot.com/2007/03/zero-order-hold-and-first-order-hold.html ] provides a simpler explanation to the topic with some small MATLAB examples. Hence I added the link as an external link. Do you consider linking to a blog as a strict no? If you deem that the article contains useful information, request to consider adding the link. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beetelbug (talk • contribs) 06:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
- Generally blogs are not considered to be suitable, per WP:EL; "Links normally to be avoided" includes "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". I did not look at it in sufficient detail to understand it, but if it has a better or simpler approach to the ZOH, couldn't you incorporate that approach into the article? Dicklyon 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
More false warnings = bullying threats
Stay off my talk page is you are only here to try to enforce your edit warring and POV-pushing through false threats. You are a disgrace to this encyclopedia. 216.165.158.7 07:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The rules require that I warn you about the three-revert rule before I can report you for violating it. I am being genuine, not false. Dicklyon 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion concerning the spelling of the article currently at color
- LOL There's too much discussion, so let's stop the debate? How about someone points out the relevant section of the Manual of Style? Cloveoil 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, please archive all the discussion and replace with a clear quote of the policy. Dicklyon 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This was the last entry permitted to the discussion.
You archived the talk page [6], and have censored discussion on the issue henceforth [7].
Can I ask you why you believe that
a) This discussion is 'settled'
and that
b) You have the authority to censor legitimate debate of the subject?
Clearly there is a difference of opinion on the matter, debate is ongoing, and I am interested in how you interpret the policies to permit you to act arbitrarily in such a manner to censor legitimate debate. Cloveoil 23:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have no authority, and make no claim to any. I have been watching this article for a long time, and the spelling issue won't stay dead, in spite of clear policy, so I thought this was a good move. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Is there an issue of opinion in play here? Please explain if so. Your comment "Dude, this page was right in the middle of a discussion about that, and you've just archived it? Can you make reference to any policy which would support your position in censoring debate of the spelling issue?" didn't give any clue to an actual issue in play, but I did more clearly quote the policy for you; did you read it? Is it clear? Dicklyon 23:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The policy is clear, and has never been in question. Your application/misuse of said policy is. Cloveoil 00:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I asked for your alternative suggestions. Do you have any? I don't really mind if you have an issue with my edits, especially if don't say more specifically what is wrong or what to do instead. Dicklyon 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I would advocate allowing debate to continue until the community has reached a consensus. How does that sound? Cloveoil 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- D00d! The debate was open and in progress until you closed it! d00d, I was there, I sawz it with my own eyez! Cloveoil 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
MTF expression for atmospheric effects
I'll check and fix if necessary. Thanks. Ehusman 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good catch - I checked and fixed it Ehusman 01:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
List of inventors
Hello Dicklyon. On the 'List of inventors' I found out that you removed the vélocipède behind the name Nièpce. The reason you give is that the Wikipedia article about Nièpce does not support this invention. On the linked website http://www.niepce.com/ however you will find out that Nièpce is the inventor of the vélocipède. There are more examples of corrections in this 'List of inventors' made by you and also by user DonSiano I disagree.Pivos 21:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Since you know a reliable source, please put the info into the referenced article, with reference to the source, and then restore the invention to the inventors page. Thanks for finding this. Same with other items you disagree with; removing unsupported factoids is one way to provoke people to do the necessary work; if you provide the info, we'll have no reason to disagree. Dicklyon 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This article looks bad to me. I changed a few things, but I still think it should be given a complete makeover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.210.113 (talk • contribs)
- You should have seen it last August when I came to it! I didn't even know what an apothem was at the time, but had encountered it in the description of pyramids, so looked it up and did some improvements. It looks to me like you know a lot more about it and have done a good job so far. Of course, more refs are always useful to back up your knowledge. Dicklyon 04:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
How about now?
- Maybe OK. You're confusing me by using multiple IP addresses. Why don't you make an account. I did a revert because it looks like someone, now looks like you, took out some of the generality. I guess you changed your mind. Sure would be nice to find an actual authoritative definition. Dicklyon 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
My DSL account gets a new IP every time I log on. What I put down came from a college textbook, Wolfram Mathworld, and cuttheknot, so I think it's all good for now. But you're right; I should probably consider getting a Wikipedia account since it couldn't hurt.
How did you fix that?
Hi,
I had noticed that It8 should really have been IT8, but couldn't figure out how to fix it without recreating the page from scratch.
I set up a "See also" and a pipelined link "It8|IT8" on the Color Management page a few minutes later; apparently I was creating the link even as you were repairing the title to IT8!
So, how did you fix the title?
And, how did you find my pipelined link so darned fast?
Thanks,
Badly Bradley 09:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Use the "move" button. Dicklyon 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to comment...
Hi Dicklyon - you may wish to comment on this... Grutness...wha? 23:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sweet violet
Thanks for the note; I have decided not take the sweet violet image off of picture peer review and to revert your edit. I appreciated the effort, but I am really not a huge fan of very contrasty, sharpened digital images. It may just be me, but I feel that images that have been "digitally enhanced for your viewing pleasure" (as I once noticed at the bottom of one website) often feel to fake. Sometimes I look at a picture and say, "That couldn't have looked like that." Life just isn't so vivid, so saturated. I will try to reshoot under different lighting and angle. If you have read to here, thank you for tolarating my rambling.
Just to give you a thanks, even if I reverted the image edit. Thegreenj 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, it's up to your own taste. But don't put dark flat images with poor composition into articles. I beefed up a couple of others, too, that you might want to revert. Dicklyon 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, no. The new edits are not nearly as extreme in my view. Thanks for making them "enhanced to suck less." Thegreenj 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at the sweet violet article and I think you'll agree that the first one needs a nudge in that direction, too. Dicklyon 03:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at this and this. I've always thought that my camera's default contrast was too high, and this is pushing me far past what I used to think of as normal levels. I took the opportunity to crop and adjust the curves, and I'm interested to hear what you think.
- P.S. Does my user page still break your browser? Thegreenj 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the user page. It's OK now. The images are not great. Too much of your tone range is used on bright background, leaving the subject rather dark, flat, and non-differentiated. Try converting to grayscale to see how flat it really is. If you don't have good luminance structure, you don't have a good picture. And your febpurpleflower still looks more like a picture of a field and a powerline structure than a flower. Dicklyon 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at the sweet violet article and I think you'll agree that the first one needs a nudge in that direction, too. Dicklyon 03:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, no. The new edits are not nearly as extreme in my view. Thanks for making them "enhanced to suck less." Thegreenj 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you help me again?
You told me not to be concerned about my English. You are the single who is native in English that I know. I made my user page, I checked with a speller, it is correct now but... I wish you to look at it because the speller didn't correct the bad expressions. It's not long, so I hope not to take more than few minutes for you. Thanks. Mihaip 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- See the changes I made. Mostly just articles and prepositions. Good job. Dicklyon 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. Thanks. Mihaip 07:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Photoshopping
According to the message on my talk page you claim you aren't trying to ignore the consensus that Photoshopping needs to be redirected but that you supposedly just didn;t want it redirected until there was a merge of the content. I did merge the contact, and you CLAIM you did additional merging, yet you have not restored the redirect. This implies that you are still fighting the redirect, as there is absolutely no reason now to oppose it by what you claimed you were opposing it for. Therefore you should demonstrate good faith and restore the redirect immediately. 216.165.158.7 05:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I said on the talk page that it's now OK with me. But I'm not the only one involved, so I left it waiting to see if there were other objections. I find it's best not to rush controversial changes. Dicklyon 06:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and I just noticed there were indeed other objections to this scheme: you. Since you reverted the merge, I can no longer support the redirect. Dicklyon 06:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Dicklyon, can you improve this page. I mean to say that there are few sections which needs improvement and they are lacking citations as well. Kindly see to it. Thanks Sushant gupta 10:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific about what improvements you think are needed, or which sections need refs? Dicklyon 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I mean to say the topics which are not even touched. Many blank headings and subheadings are there. Also the page needs citation. Kindly see to it, Sushant gupta 14:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I think it's packed with too much stuff already, and is pretty thoroughly referenced, so if you have specifics let me know, otherwise I'll ignore it. I don't see any blank areas. Dicklyon 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I mean to say the topics which are not even touched. Many blank headings and subheadings are there. Also the page needs citation. Kindly see to it, Sushant gupta 14:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
A reference you added in January regarding the number of copies of the PLayboy issue sold (Cool hunter) goes to as 404 - do you know the actual URL? - DavidWBrooks 16:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- A found and added a better source. Dicklyon 16:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Color disambiguation
Hi, just letting you know I've politely disagreed with your removal of the link to Color (software) (actually it was Color (application) then) on the Color (disambiguation) page. This is a major video production application by Apple, and I was working on the article it linked to at the time, so I've restored the item now that the article exists. It's certainly more useful and notable than some of the songs linked to lower down the page! I originally added it because the Final Cut Studio article was linking to Color, therefore a disambiguation item was needed. Let me know if you still disagree, however, and we can discuss it further. Thanks, Canley 06:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have no issue with it now that it's a genuine disambig entry (that is, it goes to an article). As to whether the software itself is notable, I have no opinion. Dicklyon 06:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Links in "Smart Camera"
Hello DickLyon, I am Zava 13:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted all links that were added to the "Smart Camera" article as spam. I had some notes on this point int the article's discussion page. I have written most of the Smart Camera article, and I do share a worry that there may be relevant temptation to use that page to spam lots of commercial links. I had tried to regulate this by inserting a "non commercial links" section and hoping that spammers would use the "commercial links" section I had provided (which in fact they seemed to).
I agree that commercial links are not in Wiki spirit, but also understand that somebody resorting to the article may find it useful to find some direction to who makes the objects.
In fact I had previously set up an external, independent page listing all/most manufacturers I was aware of and linked that one, then many links to individual manufacturers had been added.
I would appreciate your opinion about the opportunity (and possibly usefulness) of saving a link to http://www.smartcamera.it/links.htm
There is a google ads link in that page, but since it drove me approx 17$ in two years (which Google will send me only when I reach $100 :) , I am ready to remove the ad if you advise the page itself may be useful to direct readers to all manufacturers without directly cluttering the Wiki page.
Please let me know how you feel about this.
- I only removed one link, from an obvious spammer that I was cleaning up after. You can post your suggestion on the article talk page and see if the smart camera editors like it. Dicklyon 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Will do, although I already had posted about this in the discussion page. But it looked that you had removed the whole lot of links... I will check better and discuss with him.
- Best, Zava 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
re:golden ratio
kindly improve this section- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#Decimal_expansion The page has 5 [citation needed] tag. if possible please improve. Sushant gupta 09:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- That section has no cn tags, but I'll look at it and at the other tags. Please reply in this section instead of starting a new section for every comment. Dicklyon 16:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have nominated the page for WP:FAC. Thats why it needs to look absolutely perfect. Not a single citation tag should be there. Content should be relevant as well as referenced. I never said that the article contains vague content. Since you are interested in mathematics and related fields I just asked you for help. Thanks, Sushant gupta 02:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- And regarding citation tags I meant not only the decimal section but the whole page. Since you were editing on that page for quite a long time I asked you to improve it. Thanks for whatever you improved. Happy editing. Sushant gupta 02:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Moiré
Now that you've got that figure as an svg, it should be easy to fix to show the pattern better. It will show up best when the lines are about 50% duty cycle; i.e. line width equal to space. Dicklyon 23:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the image be too dark with the lines that wide? --Fibonacci 23:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The dark parts of the pattern will go to full black if the lines are that wide. If that looks too dark, back it off some. At present, there's not much contrast between the darker and lighter bands. Dicklyon 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done. It wasn't as dark as I thought it would be. Do you like it? --Fibonacci 02:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Thanks. Dicklyon 02:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
User Pimpinpunk
Hi Dicklyon. I saw you followed up my warning to Pimpinpunk. I tried to reach out a bit, and I hope it works, but this one seems habitual. Do you want to do the block request? (Honestly, I'm still not sure of the proper channels). All the best. Esseh 03:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I noticed after I did it that your warning was after all his edits. We'll see if he continues. Dicklyon 03:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cool with me. Esseh 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Lateralus (song)
I reverted your recent changes to the song Lateralus. You stated you couldn't find sources.. Let's look at the changes.
"The Fibonacci sequence shares a relationship with the golden ratio. The golden ratio is used to describe spirals, which are mentioned several times later in the lyrics." You could not find a source that the Fibonacci sequence shares a relationship with the golden ratio? You can't find lyrics on Tool's own website showing that "spirals" are mentioned several times? Hmm
"Keenan first begins singing 1 minute and 37 seconds into the song, which equates to 1.617 minutes. The golden ratio is approximately 1.618." We can't source the 1:37 part, but it is indeed true, I'm sure Wikipedia isn't the ONLY place that mentions it. You couldn't find a source that states the golden ratio is approx 1.618?
"The time signatures of the chorus change from 9/8 to 8/8 to 7/8, symbolizing a spiral. 987 is also a Fibonacci number." Same as the second line.
Leave it alone, I'll find your sources. Wikidan829 22:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently the "leave it alone I'll find your sources" part wasn't clear enough. Just because you may be incompetent at Google doesn't mean that I won't find anything. Give me more than a few hours and I will find it. Please see the talk page on the subject to see that I actually have something. Please do NOT revert it again. Wikidan829 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding "something". Actually, I'm not such a bad googler myself, so I pretty much know what's there on the Tools golden ratio topic. But article-related points, keep the discussion on the relevant talk page. For the personal insults, here is best. Dicklyon 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey I don't have a problem with people changing the articles. I have a problem with people deleting things saying they couldn't find a reference, when I spent about 2 minutes of my time(once I got to it) finding that page. I get passionate because I expect someone to at least spend as much time as I do finding research on this stuff, it wasn't that hard to find. I especially went after you because I see you make a change every few minutes in these huge spurts, it was like a drive by shooting. 6 minutes between the time of your revision before first touching that article. If you put something in the discussion asking for someone to fix it, it would have been a lot easier than just taking a huge chunk out.
- Thanks for finding "something". Actually, I'm not such a bad googler myself, so I pretty much know what's there on the Tools golden ratio topic. But article-related points, keep the discussion on the relevant talk page. For the personal insults, here is best. Dicklyon 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, since you're so high on telling me about Wikipedia rules. I think you should visit Wikipedia:Conflict of interest about the article Richard Francis Lyon. The article might be nifty and objective, if you didn't create it! How cheesy is that? Wikidan829 03:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I stubbed out an article about myself. Another editor asked for sources, which I provided, and he wrote the article. I'm sure I could never have kept it so short myself! Dicklyon 04:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I was also reading some of your history about calling "bullshit" on someone, then personally attacked them calling them a liar or confused. Go preach to the mirror next time. In any case, since you reconciled it, I feel I should too. I apologize for emphasizing your actual name in a way that some may deem offensive. Please, when someone says they are fixing an article next time, don't mess with it. Deletions are not the way to go. In the meantime, since you took it upon yourself to make an article about yourself, I'm going to go over it for original research, lack of references, and maybe even submit a Request for Comment, if you don't mind. Not to be a pain in the @$$, but since you brought attention to yourself. . .
- Sometimes when someone is pulling bullshit and lieing, they have to be told; the "confused" was a small concession to possible good faith. Do your best; I see you're up on wp:stalking.
- Please, don't flatter yourself. I found your actual person article because I added the first part to this page and forgot to check "watch". I realized I would not be able to read your response if I didn't see when you updated it, so I typed it into the search, lo and behold your article. Then, since you never clean up your talk page, my eye happened to catch the "personal attacks" at the top. I thought it was ironic for Mr Lyon to get slapped on the wrist for not being nice after all the wp crap you sent me. Curiousity got the best of me. Hardly stalking. Wikidan829 04:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, since you supposedly invented the optical mouse, why not find a way to keep them from jumping around when you have a less than perfect surface? ;) For now I'll stick to my ball mice and touchpads. Wikidan829 04:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, do you feel better having gotten all that off your chest? Can we get back to discussing wikipedia content? Your mouse, by the way, is not very related to what I invented in 1980. Dicklyon 04:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I used what I think was yours back in the day, had an uncomfortable metal dotted mouse pad. Wikidan829 04:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- That was probably the Steve Kirsch (Mouse Systems) mouse; grid, not dots. Mine used dots, but I never saw it with a metal pad. What machine were you on? Sun? See mouse (computing). Dicklyon 05:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm.. I don't remember to be honest. How do you define a grid? As in lines? It was back in high school in a computer lab, I have absolutely no idea what it was on, I just had the chance to try it out. Wikidan829 11:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- That was probably the Steve Kirsch (Mouse Systems) mouse; grid, not dots. Mine used dots, but I never saw it with a metal pad. What machine were you on? Sun? See mouse (computing). Dicklyon 05:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I used what I think was yours back in the day, had an uncomfortable metal dotted mouse pad. Wikidan829 04:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Misc
So you work on semiconductor design?
- Been there; done that; not now. Dicklyon 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
El Paso
Ok, I explained my motives on the El Paso talk page. I am not vandalizing the page. I have good motives.
- Thanks for responding. I started a poll on your behalf. As you edit wikipedia, you'll find that good motives is not always enough to guarantee good editing progress. You also need to work on a cooperative process. Dicklyon 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
O yeah i changed the picture, what do you think? (Pianofortestudent112 20:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC))
WP:AIV request
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/25px-Information.svg.png)
Thank you for making a report about 203.161.74.215 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you.
I have posted a final warning on the talk page. Please report further vandalism. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 04:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I gave a final warning on April 26 for vandalizing the same article. Dicklyon 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting my addition?
I keep deleting your addition because you keep deleting mine. if you have to add something to the page, do not delete previous work. the way i know of finding an apothem works just fine, if you would like to add to this way, state that there are multiple ways of finding the apothem and then put yours in. THAT is why I keep deleting a "chunk" of the apothem article. i don't vandalize; however, you should reconsider that statement and look at yourself. hint: you deleted my work for no apparent reason. thank you. I took the libirty to go ahead and add the formula i know back to the apothem page. please be kind and don't delete it.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.81.122.207 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
- I took out your section on "A possum" making fun of your teacher's lisp because it is not encyclopedic in an article on apothem. Please do not vandalize the article content just to retaliate for an edit. I'm going to put a final vandalism warning on your talk page, so that if you do it again you can be blocked. Dicklyon 22:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sprites
Hello, the citations clearly state sprites, please re-read them. EnviroGranny 11:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- See response at Talk:Sprite (lightning). Dicklyon 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Image of Columbia with purple electrical bolt
I'm fine with your last modification of my edit to the caption. However, it started me thinking... "where did this picture come from? How did the photographer get a picture of the shuttle 7 minutes before it broke up?" Do you know the answer? --Richard 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- A space shuttle reentering at night is very easy to see if you go out at the appointed time and look up. I was doing that when the Columbia re-entered, but it was too cloudy where I was, and I didn't see this one. I didn't hear about its problem until hours later. The photo is probably a streak left by a part that broke off, not something hitting it. Dicklyon 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I just found this book ref about such a photo. We should maybe include what it says. Dicklyon 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
35 mm film
I just wanted to let you know that I agree with Jhawkinson - I don't believe that your addition needs to be in the lead at all, and I've reverted it as such. My main reason is because the article starts with a very clear disambiguation paragraph. Adding further information about stills to the article proper is more likely to make it confusing and create the expectation that there will be more info related to stills film in the body. Please feel free to discuss further with me. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 16:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but that would work better if the article were moved to 35 mm movie film. Dicklyon 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, not OK now that I review it. The top dab says "This article is primarily about the use of 35 mm film in movies. For more detailed information on its use in still photography, see 135 film." (my bold). This stills leaves both an need and an invitation for a bit of clarity about which is being referred to when the differ. Dicklyon 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- It should be pretty obvious reading 35 mm film that it is an article about movie film (if you think the disambiguation text is insufficient, feel free to neaten it up). If you want to propose that the article should be renamed to include the word movie in the title, you should go ahead and do that, but it doesn't mean you have free license to add details about still photography to it in the meantime.
- I think the use of "primarily" is there to acknowledge that many of the aspects of 35mm MP film also apply to still film -- it is not there to encourage the addition of explanations of the specific characteristics of still film as they differ from MP film. Where would it stop? Would you add details on still film color history, on technical specifications, on aspect ratios? I think this change starts down a slippery slope. More to the point, anyone looking for details on still film will certainly follow the disambiguation link. If you think that the number of perfs for still film is so important, why isn't it even in the lede section of 135 film? jhawkinson 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, did that. I didn't choose where the perf count is mentioned, but it's in the next sentence after the lead in the 135 article. Dicklyon 23:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- "propose that the article should be renamed" != "actually go and do it." Don't you think maybe a bit of discussion was in order? jhawkinson 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't really think discussion was needed, but feel free to move it back and start one if you think what I did is controversial. Dicklyon 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Warning
- Don't post any further comments on my talk page or I will consider it vandalism and report it as such. You can post your comments on the Sprite (lightning) talk page. Bye EnviroGranny 02:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)