Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:50, 30 August 2009

Please add new talk topics at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Misplaced Pages's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect

Please see my comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal force

Please do not participate in any further edit wars on Centrifugal force. Reverting another editor's contributions should be reserved for clear violations of policy, and the specific policy should be cited in the edit summary. It is often a good idea (and given this page's history of edit warring, always a good idea on this article) to discuss the revert on the talk page. I have urged all this article's editors to discuss BEFORE reverting, and again I implore you to adhere to this practice, in order to prevent further edit warring. Edit warring is not helpful to Misplaced Pages in any way. I have asked nicely on the article's talk page, now I am asking on specific editors' talk pages. DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN EDIT WARS. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope you'll find a better way, but so far your compromise with the anon has left the lead vacuous. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a less than ideal situation, but there is no point letting it continue to go back and forth. We definitely need a more commensurate lead, but we need to work on writing a lead we can agree on. I hope you understand that I had few possible courses of intervention that would not lead directly to further warring. Thank you for your patience and your further help in setting aside another edit war. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Bandelier cliff.jpg

File:Bandelier cliff.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Bandelier cliff.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Polemics

Dick: Can you learn to restrain yourself? Personal cracks, like the following:

"Brews, this seems to be just one more of your idiosyncratic over-complicating approaches to a topic; stick with a more conventional approach."

do not encourage me to believe you are a man of judgment, although that was my earlier impression. They also make me feel that you could gladly do without my efforts in Wiki, which displeases me greatly. Brews ohare (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Brews, it may not be the best way to convey it, but somehow you need to learn to restrain yourself, too. Your over-complicating editing style causes trouble in a quite a few articles. Dicklyon (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Picometer" vs. "Picometre"

You stated that my edit of "Picometre" to "Picometer" was vandalism. It was not vandalism. According to dictionary.reference.com, it is spelled picometer. The "meter" part of it is spelled the same way as you would spell meter, kilometer, millimeter, micrometer, etc. "Metre" would be the British English version. I may be brand new to Misplaced Pages, but I was under the impression that it would only be spelled that way if the article is pertaining to a region where British English is used. For example, an article about the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team would contain the word colour instead of color, spelled with the version of English used where that team is located. Picometer is a unit of measurement, therefore, since Misplaced Pages is (arguably) an American website, should be spelled that way. In my opinion, it would be like going to the French version of Misplaced Pages and creating an article entirely in English. Whether I'm right or wrong is up for debate, I am simply arguing that your claim that my edit was vandalism is unfair. I'd like to hear your side of this. Thanks.

Sometimes I use the "vandalism" button where it is not really appropriate, but when you leave a lead sentence reading "A picometer (alternative picometer)", and with no edit summary to say what your intent was, it's hard to distinguish between that and a good-faith edit. Please read WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Full frame digital SLR

Hi Dicklyon. I appreciate your concern with my recent edit to this article. I don't want to do original research on this topic, but it's clear that digital camera manufacturers don't simply scale up small frame sensors to a larger size (keeping the same number of photosites, while scaling their size). Rather, full frame sensors tend to have proportionally more photosites than their small frame counterparts. My edits were meant to provide a useful way of understanding the relationship of full frame sensors. I removed a sentence describing a purported advantage of small frame sensors; increasing the apparent focal length of a given lens. Once someone understands that a larger sensor provides the same picture as the smaller sensor (in the center of your full-frame camera's picture), plus additional picture, they will understand the real benefit of full-frame sensors - making full use of normal 35 mm lenses. As you noticed, I'm struggling with the wording of this concept. Tvaughan1 (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

may be a good reference for this concept. Tvaughan1 (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not the best source, but it wouldn't hurt to attribute certain opinions to it. With statements like "Every lens focal length has a predetermined 'angle of view'," I'd be very careful though. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Colorimetry

Hello Dycklyon.

I have some concerns about how the word colorimetry is used in Misplaced Pages. This word is ambiguous and may become the source of confusion (if not already). I put some my thoughts on the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Colorimetry. Please take a look.

Alexander Ogorodnikov (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Who are you?

Who are you to judge whether my post are correct or violates any copyright laws. You simply don't know your facts. I worked for SGI, SUN, and Oracle on video Server projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KennanLau (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a random wikipedia editor who reverts vandalism, nonsense, malformed edits, and obvious copyright violations. I am not qualified to say if you have violated any laws, but I noticed that your words added here ("Resting on a concrete foundation encircled by frieze 113 meters long, and a 20 meter wide staircase in front, a colonnade encloses the courtyard with the actual altar. ?The idea of a Greek altar is heightened to an imposing independent monument. This monument colonnade altar was built durin the reign of King Eumenes II in the year approx. 170 B.C.") are pretty nearly identically from here ("Resting on a huge foundation with an encircling frieze 113 meters long, and a 20 meters wide staircase cut into the western side, a colonnade encloses the courtyard with the actual altar for burnt offerings. ... The idea of a Greek altar is heightened to an imposing independent monument. ... This monumental colonnade altar was built during the reign of King Eumenes Il in the years around 170 B.C."). Leaving out intervening sentences and misspelling a few words and making it "concrete" instead of "huge" probably doesn't make it not a copyright violation. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kálmán Tihanyi's patent

This image you uploaded says you created it entirely yourself. Can you specify the actual source? A patent number (and country) would be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, read about Kalman Tihanyi. The patent is part of UNESCO Memory of the World. Tihanyi is considered as the most infuental and most important person in history of electronic Television. This decision devalued Mr. Philo Farnsworth and Zworykin's works. Because their works proved bad quality "blind-alleys" which were superfluous. Zworykin's Iconoscope was no more than just a copy, and based on Tihanyi's patents. Therefore the licence is NOT necessary. Please remove your claims from the picture of the patent --Celebration1981 (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove what? I haven't put any claims onto anything; I just asked what your source was for the image. Can you tell me? How about the URL where you found it? Dicklyon (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I searched around and found a web source and the original patent number, and replaced the self-made claim with that info. I removed the gfdl-self license; a new template may be needed to indicate that it's from a foreign patent, which I presume makes it "free" but I'm not sure. Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

dr5 page name change

Dicklyon. Would like your opinion on the namechage of this dr5 page from 'dr5' to 'dr5 CHROME'. What do you think? The process is called dr5 CHROME afterall but also goes by dr5 as well. Changing the title would eliminate confusion as there are several other dr5 listings; dr5 the car, dr5 drums, and a few others. regards. Pillhall (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not with the all-caps CHROME, but maybe "dr5 chrome" or "dr5-chrome" or "dr5 Chrome", all of which appear in sources (including the last as the only one I find in a book: here). Dicklyon (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Colorimetry (chemical method)

Just noticed your changes. They as well as the reference are really nice! Alexander Ogorodnikov (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do enjoy learning about stuff by searching books, and adding what I find. Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wavelength

Hi Dick: I think the discussion on wavelength simply got off on the wrong foot. There is really little to disagree about. My take is that the wording of the article has evolved to the point that we are saying the same things, but you are criticizing a first impression, and not the present formulation. Please take another look at it and comment upon the present version. Brews ohare (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're getting very close at all. The new figure is also quite misleading, as the concept of "wavelength" would never be applied to a beat wave of that shape, as far as I've ever seen; more likely the wavelength associated with that figure would be the shorter length that's apparent. Dicklyon (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding from the RfC is that your present stance is simply one of being long-winded, not of content. What are your other objections? Brews ohare (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Beat wave

The new figure is also quite misleading, as the concept of "wavelength" would never be applied to a beat wave of that shape, as far as I've ever seen; more likely the wavelength associated with that figure would be the shorter length that's apparent. Dicklyon (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you flesh out that view? The wave actually does not repeat with the shorter wavelength of its constituents. As a counterexample, if only the first few harmonics of the sawtooth were summed, an apparent small scale ripple effect would not lead one to think the wavelength of the sawtooth were the wavelength of the ripple. Continuity of interpretation would suggest the same holds true for the beat wave. Is this a topic worthy of more discussion in wavelength? Brews ohare (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider an AM radio (medium-wave or short-wave) signal. These signals have their wavelengths conventionally described in terms of he carrier wavelength, even though the signals are not exactly periodic. If you AM modulate with a sine, it is not conventional to describe the wavelength as the much longer distance of which the signal is exactly periodic. It would be better to stick to the conventional application of the terminology, which does not even require exact periodicity, and which makes your whole treatment irrelevant, in addition to be being unsourced. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dick: I'm less interested in trading barbs than making progress. Have you a source for the practice in AM modulation for deciding wavelength? I can understand talking about the carrier wavelength in this application because the modulation is a signal of variable content, and doesn't characterize the waveform unless the envelope itself is periodic. Is there anything more to it? Brews ohare (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A related example occurs in calculating energy bands in solids, where the high frequency oscillations (the carrier) is ignored (it relates only to the inner electrons at the atomic core) and the real information is contained in the long wavelength parts of the wave function. This case is similar to the radio case where the carrier has no information and the modulation has it all. So from the information standpoint, one wants to characterize the envelope not the carrier. Brews ohare (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion belongs on the wavelength talk page, so I'm going to copy it over there and leave your talk page to other matters. Brews ohare (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC tags

RFC tags belong on talk pages, not the articles themselves. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment for more details. —harej (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I see that I misinterpreted the sequence of diffs, and now understand that you fixed it once already and I broke it again. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Communication with Anome

Dick: I'm finding your behavior on wavelength to be inexplicable and destructive. I have asked Anome to provide some perspective. Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It will be useful to have more eyes on this issue. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you restored the erroneous into about local wavelength. Note that if you use the definition that you provided a source for, based on distances between nodes, that an AM envelope always leaves the local wavelength equal to the constant wavelength of the underlying sinusoid. Your atttempt to use spectral decomposition to talk about wavelength is again an incorrect idiosyncratic synthesis, not following any source. Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

High dynamic range imaging

Leave my work alone. You have no knowledge of HDR. I wrote those algorithms myself and created those images. I have the source code on my machine. Meet in San Francisco in person or STOP destroying my contributions. Show me that you know something about Tone mapping Algorithms? Which white paper did you read, implement, designed, compiled on your computer? What have you contributed to this page that proves that you are capable of judging this topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KennanLau (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC) You have not demonstrated your knowledge in c programming or High Dynamic Range to be competent in editing this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KennanLau (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My objections to your edits had nothing to do with what you know or what you've created. The images you used to illustrate the algorithms were not orignally yours, and you didn't specify their source or whether they come with an appropriate license. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oskar Heil quoted paragraph

You are right, it was a little careless of me to edit the quote. But i think bracketing the date of the Canadian filing that is already in the footnote is awkward, so i am going to remove that. I had linked into the article from some other stuff and just noticed that this is the guy with the Heil AMT speakers – i use ribbon tweeters myself. And btw thanks for the optical mouse. --Blainster (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the patent templates on Richard Francis Lyon; some more info is here if you want it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussing with blocked users

I haven't looked at the guidelines for this in a long time, but I believe that they discourage editors from continuing a debate/discussion with a blocked user on his/her talk page. Part of the idea of the block is as a cooling-off period, where the person should go think about something else for a while.--Srleffler (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll hold off. Thanks for the advice. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus"

I have not acted against consensus, certainly not on centrifugal force. I acted against another single editor. When there were two, I stopped editing. Mintrick (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I misinterpreted there; I only meant that there had been discussion and consensus before you came, and you disrupted it a bit; thanks for stopping when you did. The rest of my advice I hope was more on point. Dicklyon (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Wavelength

I want to compliment you and Srleffler on your civil wiki-behavior towards Brews. I wish I could jump into the conversation - but you guys are over my head on this subject (at the moment). I read your call for assistance over at talk:WikiProject Physics. Good luck. Ti-30X (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotation by Ross

Dick: The introduction cites Cook who actually contradicts the introduction by saying EMF and voltage are physically very different. The present form of the article simply is wrong. The quote by Ross is just his off-the-cuff footnote to justify his not using the term emf in his discussion of Volta, and is not a considered appraisal of the usage of emf. It should be dropped in favor of the commonly accepted definition (multiple sources provided), which I hope you now are convinced applies equally to the emf from Faraday's law of induction. Brews ohare (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read all of your last 7 KB of talk on this yet, but when I asked "But the question is this: what sourced definition of emf applies to this (distributed, not lumped) situation?" all I got was apparently more discussion; how about just a sourced definition that works, or if there's not one, then some explanation of why there isn't one? Dicklyon (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that any of the charge separation definitions would work. I was trying to establish that charge separation was the underlying mechanism in the resistive loop. Brews ohare (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to work for that case, which is what my point has been for a while; unless you separate the distributed system into lumped R's and extended wires. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Blank lines and section headings

I guess my preferences are just different from yours. I don't typically include blank lines after section headings but I know some editors do. I don't know if Misplaced Pages has a guideline regarding this. If you know, please let me know. Andrea Parton (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they say it can go either way; but if I see someone taking them out, I put more back in. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Absorbance vs Sensitivity

I have added some extra information from the reference source for the bird vision sensitivity graph on my talk page. Shyamal (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I'm one of those non-scientists trying to unravel the mysteries of Logger9's contributions. Would you mind having a quick look at Plastic deformation in solids (its AFD page is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plastic deformation in solids) and Glass transition and giving your opinion on the relevant pages? Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite a mess; doesn't take a scientist to see. I put in my delete opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Golden function

Is there anything to the unsourced article on Golden function? Are there sources? The topic is not mentioned on Mathworld, and searching Google (web), Google Books, and Google Scholar did not turn up a WP:RS for this usage of the term golden function. (I did find a code snippet for coding this so-called golden function.) The article may be a candidate for deletion.

If there is a legitimate topic and reliable sources for an article, I question whether this article is a good start. Are the mathematical expressions correctly formed? In particular, in the second equation, shouldn't gold x be gold(x)? Also, I haven't seenExample text to the left of Example text (or in this case Example text). What do you think? Finell (Talk) 18:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it; interesting function, but without a source, so much junk. Writing the function gold x without parens is only slightly unconventional. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Dickylon. Look, as you can guess I've been on edge lately. I really do appreciate your help, I do. Despite what it seems the Bailey article has been affected positively by my " inability " . I leave at times because it is frustrating but I know I make the occasional valid point . This article was so bad when I first came so where it is now is better than the one sided defense of Bailey and attacking Conway , James and company. In truth , it should have no point other than describing the book . Wiki should not be the court of public opinion where viewpoints on the controversy are given any weight. For me even balancing the lack of neutrality becomes just more imbalance. Anyway, Im contemplating leaving because these things are better fought in real life with lawsuits and lawyers . You have been kind to me and I appreciate that. Take care my friend . —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Darlie, your viewpoint is welcome, but if you edit while "on edge", and don't stick to the rules about sourcing, it just stirs up trouble. If you want to make it a fight, wikipedia is not the place; good luck countering those bigots. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon: If one cannot make a point without name-calling, one has no point at all. I ask you to fix it. — James Cantor (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why, who do you think I was calling a bigot? Dicklyon (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The RfC regarding your poor user conduct repeatedly mentioned your playing dumb, of which the above is a clear example. I respectfully suggest that you respond to reminders about your behavior with something other than re-engaging in them; doing so never helps you in any discussion in which you participate and merely adds to the list of examples available for any subsequent RfCs should your behavior re-escalate. This is my second request that you change your above comment and abide by WP codes of appropriate user conduct.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

James, the bigots I refer to are the ones that Darlie is trying to fight "in real life"; for example your colleagues Bailey and Blachard who push the idea that transsexual women and people with gender dysphoria should be categorized either as homosexual men or as men with a strange paraphilia. To the extent that any of them bring their bigotry to wikipedia, we'll have to deal with them civilly, of course. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Comment by an uninvolved admin. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. This concerns your comment at in which you call two editors a "big baby".  Sandstein  11:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a discussion about whether to block or ban or otherwise sanction David Tombe and/or Brews ohare for their behavior. My account of that behavior and my opinions about their contributions as editors are part of that discussion. How would you suggest I draw the line with respect to "personal attacks" in such a discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend you draw the line at calling them a "big baby". That's not a comment on their contributions as editors, that's just name-calling.  Sandstein  20:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop short of such characterizations in future discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Dick, you said at ANI that "I think David knows just enough physics to be dangerous". Can you please elaborate on this statement for the benefit of all those involved at the ANI discussion. David Tombe (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just my impression from long involvement with you; the others in that discussion can ask for clarification if they need it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

CF and absolute rotation

Your reorganization here was a good step. Congrats. Brews ohare (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; the history merge is similar, but harder. I could use your help there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lagrangian centrifugal force

Dick: Can you explain to me what Martin is talking about? I think his point "the term 'centrifugal force' has a specific and clearly defined meaning that is in common use in Lagrangian mechanics" has been supported every which way. Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't studied that issue, but I tend to agree with you on this one. On the other hand, it seems like a relatively minor or obscure usage, so doesn't deserve a lot of ink. Dicklyon (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Beans"

Why did you delete my addition to the disambiguation page of "Pork and Beans"? -- ] (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.206.94 (talk)

It is seldom appropriate to have a redlink as a disambig item. See WP:MOSDAB. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ground sample distance

Hello. In answer to your question on my talk page:

I created Ground sample distance then moved it to Ground Sample Distance because when searching Misplaced Pages and Google, it seemed to be used more often with each word capitalized. Please feel free to move it back to the lower case version if you wish. -- Zyxw (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I already moved it back. Keep in mind that other sources have different style guides, and it is common to capitalize things that you're about to give an acronym for; in wikipedia, that's not what we do (see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations). Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Secure digital camera

Hello Dicklyon, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Secure digital camera has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '(+ citation -tags &c)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

"Vandalism"

I did not vandalize the page! I am just unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.3.235 (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes the warning messages are not subtle enough to express what I want, so I go with what's there; sorry about that, but you got the point, right? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Active filters

I struggled with what to say when I added "some" to qualify the statement that second-order filters ultimately attenuate at 12dB/octave. I think the "all-pole" approach helps, except it might introduce complications that aren't worth the trouble - at the moment it is hard to find a wiki definition of the term, although it is mentioned in the low-pass filter page; it also takes the mathematical knowledge up a level, beyond what the text around uses, I think. I'm not saying it was a bad idea (in fact it would be helpful to some), just how to handle the complexity it introduces. I first thought of 12dB/octave as a characteristic of second order filters when I was thinking of HP and LP (which is how that paragraph starts out), but it is a problem with bandpass (which probably is more understandable to readers), and there is at least one 2nd order low pass (with variable Q) that is rarely used but has a 6dB/octave ultimate slope. So a bit of a minefield expanding on "some" without making it complicated? What do you think? Maitchy (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. I'm against complexity, but in favor of complete and accurate info. How do books present this? What is this 6 dB/octave 2nd order filter that you refer to? Dicklyon (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

James Clerk-Maxwell

No doubt you looked at what linked to James Clerk-Maxwell before adding the PROD. This is the form in which the name occurs in the Dictionary of National Biography. I'm not sure I agree that it "supports mangling the name" - I would have thought that linking from the form in such an authoritative source was really just a help. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I did, and found only one new link in article space, so I figured it was best removed. I see I missed another reason, though, so I guess we'll have to keep it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dick, It's a double barreled surname, Clerk-Maxwell, and it is often found alphabetically under the letter 'C' in encyclopaediae. It's not a big deal really, but I think that the hyphen ought to be restored for the sake of accuracy. And of course, that applies to the James Clerk-Maxwell article as a whole. David Tombe (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Some of his descendents took Clerk-Maxwell as a surname, but his was Maxwell. Unless you have evidence to the contrary. I don't find a single example of such a hyphen in books. Dicklyon (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I've checked out a few sources and I've discovered both variations. Hutchinson's 1955 says 'Clerk-Maxwell'. Charles Coulston Gillispie's 'Dictionary of Scientific Biography' says 'Clerk-Maxwell'. But Encyclopaedia Britannica 1937 says 'James Clerk Maxwell'. So if it's going to be one of those situations involving conflicting sources, then I don't think that it's worth worrying about the matter any further, one way or the other. David Tombe (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I take it back; there are indeed a few credible sources that treat it as a hyphenated surname. Not typical, but some. Learn something every day. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I still can't get a definitive answer. I'm finding more and more sources that don't hyphenate the two names. But I did find one source that suggested that Maxwell's father was really John Clerk and that the Maxwell was added on as an extra in order to get around some problems to do with an inheritance. If that's all true, then it would tend to mean that Maxwell's correct surname really was Clerk-Maxwell. David Tombe (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A possible idea for a new article

Please read here for new article proposal. We have an article about how languages distinguish between the colors "blue" and "green". However, I have noticed that there are some examples where there is a lack of distinction between "red" and "orange". Do you have your own idea about the proposal? ANDROS 01:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't base an article on my own ideas, if I did have any. The blue-green article already mentions the development of orange as a category; I doubt there's much more on that. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple scale analysis

Hello Dicklyon. In WKB approximation you changed multiple scale analysis into multiscale modeling, which as far as I can see from the article, are not the same. Also the useful reference you added calls it: "multi-scale method", which is a specific mathematical technique, see e.g. Kevorkian, J.; Cole, J. D. (1996). Multiple scale and singular perturbation methods. Springer. ISBN 0-387-94202-5., or Bender, C.M.; Orszag, S.A. (1999), Advanced mathematical methods for scientists and engineers, Springer, ISBN 0-387-98931-5.

The method of multiple scales to which the WKB approximation is related, is a specific mathematical method to deal with mathematical-physical problems involving different space and/or time scales, e.g. the scales of wavelength (λ) and inhomogeneity of the medium (Λ) in case of wave motion (or Λ may be the characteristic wave-group length for slowly-modulated waves in a homogeneous medium). The ratio of the two scales, μ=λ/Λ, is assumed to be a small parameter, transforming the original problem into a hierarchy of terms at increasing orders of μ (which can be solved subsequently just as in perturbation theory).

For weakly nonlinear problems and inhomogeneous media, multi-scale analysis and perturbation theory can be combined into the powerful multiple-scale perturbation method, see e.g. Scholarpedia. So I suggest to put back the red link. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My original thought was to just take it out, as it seemed spurious, but I looked for sources first, and found some related stuff. I was also considering linking to multiscale mathematics. If that or something else is more appropriate, go for it. But it didn't seem that we needed a new redlink there, given all the multiscale articles we have. Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is not a new redlink, since it is one-and-a-half years around . Further, none of the "multi-scale" articles is appropriate, since none treats or refers to the mathematical techniques involved. So, an article on the subject is lacking and I will put back the red link. But the source you added is an appropriate one. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dicklyon, I created a starter: multiple-scale analysis. But, as you noticed above, there is quite some "multi-scale" and "multiple-scale" stuff around here already. Do you have any ideas on how to organize this? A disambiguation page? Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

HIII again

Hello Dick Lyon, I drop by to say hello and let you know i'm coming back. What i love about you is that you are full of knowledge in area where my passion is, photography! And you have a sharp judgment, i hope you can clear this clouded one of mine. What i hate about you is that.. nothing if i can have scientific ground for my passion. Oh, btw, please take off your fangs when you bite. ESCapade (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If I bit you, show me where, so I'll have an idea what you're going on about. Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I downloaded many WP last night. I would not write about panning photography if i saw these WP on my welcome page.

You said there is no such thing unless of gold miner. I don't have that wide knowledge, i hope you can show me the link of gold miner using panning. Maybe from there i can see the reasons why you chose not to use WP to my panning article in the first place. In return i humbly offer my raw .NEF files of convergent panning photography, sealed under the dust with twin black bar upon it. Please show the link where i can upload it, if you or other researchers are interested.

I also would like your permission to translate your photography articles into Misplaced Pages Indonesia. And see what might get in the way.ESCapade (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything in wikipedia is freely available for you to translate. I bet you'd do better in Indonesian than in English. Good luck. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your written and silent answers. I accept your later judgment, i was guilty as charged per WP:NOR and WP:RS.

I can't just directly translate your article into my mother language, i need to understand first so that my translation will not mislead anybody else although it is based on a solid wiki English article. That i will need your cooperation to discuss a few things, if you agree.

I also love to look forward to your proofing my convergent panning photography wrong based on your area of expertise. I believe i still can learn something from that point and verify it with my gear.

Please leave your fangs behind. You look handsome in your photograph, a little tired but handsome - without fangs.ESCapade (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

ESC, I'll be happy to discuss content issues with you. But let's leave it to topics that are verifiable in realiable sources. I have no interest in disproving your own ideas, since they're not appropriate subject matter for wikipedia; if you find something sourced about "convergent panning" or your other categorizations, we can use that. And I still don't know what fangs you refer to; was I not delicate enough in directing you on your talk page to read the relevant policy pages? Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dick Lyon, i need a few days to study WP, for in case. After that we may begin the translations. I will ask a couple of questions i don't understand about things of photography/photometry. Thank you for your kind and delicate cooperation. See you around. :-)ESCapade (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Speed of light. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. tedder (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Verancsics Faustus

OK, you've restored the previous article title.
Where did you get the information that sources in English use more often the form "Fausto Veranzio" compared to "Verancsics Faustus"?
AFAIK, Faust Vrančić was active a lot in Hungary, so it's reasonable to take that Hungarian form was used a lot in literature in English. Kamarad Walter (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't study the problem deeply, but I do strongly feel that a change to a foreign spelling deserves first to have a move proposal and some discussion. There seems to be a lot of nationalist feelings tied up with whose spellings of various names get used. I'm pretty sure, however, that Hungarian forms with their non-English diacritical marks are seldom used in English, since readers don't know what to make of them. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit at Waterhouse

I don't understand why you reverted my edit at Waterhouse. You write in your edit summary: "Many non-disambig items added under a misleading edit summary." I did no such thing; my edit summary ("+Graham Waterhouse; hyphens to dashes; +section "See also": Template:Intitle") described exactly what I did. I suggest you undo your revert. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right – I must have been hallucinating; fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Air cooler

Please revert the articles Air cooling and Air cooler. The idea is to make a page which allows building engineers, aswell as device engineers to quickly see a list of all coolers so that they can easily determine the most suitable cooler for their use. This is very important regarding environmentalism. Btw, the term air cooling and air cooler are noted in the dictionary, so I wonder why you removed the info.

KVDP (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I had reverted air cooling because the topic of that article was unrelated to the content you added. And I put air cooler back to the redirect that is was before. Changes of this sort require some planning and discussion; you can just unitilaterally change what a bunch of articles are about. I asked on your talk page for you to say what your plan is, but I see no response there. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Plan added, see my talk page

KVDP (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrugated Box

I appreciate your interest in this subject. Please do not try to resolve a question by deleting valuable information. Try to keep edits constuctive. Thank you. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No information has been lost; if you've added something new into the redirect, move it to the right place. Dicklyon (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light

Hi Dick: There is some high-handed quackery going on at speed of light. Have you been watching? Majority rule has been implemented and the lead statement now says 299792458 m/s is a fundamental constant of nature, despite sources (for example Wheeler; Jespersen; Sydenham) that state the contrary.

The facts of this matter, as you may know, are that the number 299792458 m/s was introduced as "the speed of light" in 1983 by defining the metre to make this so. However, far from being a fundamental constant, this number was decided by committee, and has a fixed and arbitrary value that (as clearly stated by NIST and CODATA) is beyond measurement, being simply a conversion factor between time and length in the SI units.

It would seem some attention should be paid to this razzle-dazzle, as the potential is there for editors to completely take over a page. Brews ohare (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am amazed at the behavior on speed of light, with probably four or five editors who cannot tie their shoes steamrollering a flatly incorrect statement into the intro. That type of thing doesn't bode well for WP. It has degenerated into a mob rule with no regard for fact, sources or WP itself.Brews ohare (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dick: Take a look at this. I got the same physics lecture from Brews, but he added a conspiracy accusation on my talk page. —Finell (Talk) 22:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole mess sucks. A topic ban for an editor who didn't touch the article in question, essentially because people couldn't bring themselves to ignore him; a lead rewrite that doesn't address the basic confusion that the whole overblown discussion was about; extreme polarization instead of supporting attempts at compromise and middle ground. Now look where's it's got us. I'm not sure it's as bad as Brews says, but I do see why he doesn't like it. By saying that c is a fundamental physical constant in one breath (which is true) and that it's value in SI units is 299792458 m/s in the next (also true), it suggests, as Brews complains, that 299792458 is a fundamental constant. It doesn't seem to me to be so hard to write it in a way that's less suggestive of that, without going off on a tangent about 1983. But I'm reluctant to try any more on that one. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago, I made a stab at a total reorg and rewrite of the whole lead with the object of not changing meaning, but attempting coherence. My edit summary asked, "How about this?" (take a look, if you like). (I've succeeded a few times with this approach; I did a reorg of the Golden ratio lead not long ago that stuck.) One editor liked what I did, another didn't and reverted everything (including MOS compliance), and Martin scolded me on my talk for editing without consensus.

Consensus on substance, including emphasis, is important, but writing by committee always sucks. The Declaration of Independence is a model of how it should be done, and the quality of the product reflects that: The content is debated until there is consensus on all the issues; a good writer (Jefferson) writes a complete draft by himself; the draft is circulated to everyone for comments; its discussed again, and the good writer produces another draft by himself; the process continues until there is consensus on the text in addition to the substance. I believe Bourbaki worked the same way, but much more slowly.

The lead is in poor shape. The way it is being rewritten guarantees that. Instead of agreeing on an overall structure, and working down from there to text, they are rewriting one paragraph at a time (by consensus? it's hard to tell). Good organization and coherence are impossible that way. I am sure that there is more than one good overall structure that would work, but lack of planned structure never will. —Finell (Talk) 00:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Finell. I agree that your version of the lead was on the right track, and then it went south when the committee of people who can't write had their way with it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd add to this discussion that I have confined myself to the talk page; have introduced notions with sources; and have been totally ignored so far as argument goes, and simply subject to sneers from the 'civilized' persons pretending to be editors. Brews ohare (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Call for Civility

Your personal attacks and tendency to force your view in edits without forming a Consensus are concerning. Please read the Civility and Good Faith requirements for editors. I had hoped for more discussion on the talk page to find common ground and agree on a consensus. I will continue to work for a reasonable article. Rlsheehan (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What comments are you referring to as incivil? I, too, am hoping we find a good way forward, but that's unlikely if you just revert a bunch of work in which I developed a well-sourced history section, don't you think? Was there anything in there that you objected to? Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, you had agreed to discuss the issues and form a consensus on the talk page - - then you turn around and make many edits that had NOT been agreed upon. That breach of promise is not civil in my book. When I reverted back to our starting point, then you cry foul about my tactics. Please make up your mind. I would like to work toward a reasonable article (or articles) on a topic that shoud not be so controversial. Are you willing to work with me and others on this?Rlsheehan (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out what promise you're referring to, and also give an indication of what I added or changed that you disagree with? As far as I can tell, the only thing you're likely to disagree with is where I undid your changes to the lead; was there something else? Did I lose any part of your contribution? Please say. Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon, ,after a unpleasant cycle of edits and deletes, I made an offer on 20:16, 22 August 2009 to use the Talk page to resolve issues. On 19:40, 22 August 2009 you accepted the offer of dicsussions. After a couple of talking points on the Talk page, without concensus, you then went back to making edits on your own. What ever happened to your stated willingness to discuss things? Please do not force your personal opinions on others. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am unable to here, or on Talk:Cardboard box, or on your talk page, any such discussion. Can you provide a link to the diff so that I can see what promise I'm accused of breaking? Dicklyon (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is no consensus that your version is the correct one, either, yet you've edited the article to your preferred version just as Dicklyon has. While this is bordering on edit warring, Dicklyon is simply restoring the status quo. Since you want to revise the article substantially, you must gain consensus for your change. It would be best if you both stay off the article page until you've gained consensus on talk. Try getting a third opinion if you can't come to a compromise. --clpo13_(talk) 18:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not restored that status quo; I have incorporate all of his changes except the rewrite of the lead paragraph, and I have put in a lot of work to improve the history section based on sources. And to clarify the different meanings and usages. Rlsheehan, on the other hand, is unilaterally trying to rewrite in terms of the industrial usage rather than the common usage of the term cardboard box; that change is what needs to be discussed, since it has been objected to by several editors of the page. Dicklyon (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I'm on a roll today in misinterpreting situations. --clpo13_(talk) 18:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rlsheehan still hasn't pointed out any edit of mine to back up his accusation of incivility, nor any promise that he alleges I have gone back on. He needs to follow up, or apologize for the accusation, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Call for Civility 2

Dick, please stop cluttering up my talk page with uncivil remarks and unjustified threats and accusations. --Redbobblehat (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dick, removing this request and calling it "out of place junk" is not a very constructive response. --Redbobblehat (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

By removing this request a second time - as "Ack out of place junk" - am I to understand that you are not taking it seriously ? --Redbobblehat (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The "ack" was to acknowledge it, and since it was still out of place, in the middle of another conversation, I just got rid of it. And no, I'm not taking it seriously. If you keep up your disruptive editing, I'll keep complaining on your talk page, and then I'll seek a block if necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's coffee

The last user who stalked me got banned from ever editing any articles I edit. I dropped the Timmons fight where you successfully canvassed after losing that battle four straight times, so please quit disrupting articles where others have added me as a source. The 99 anon was clearly POV-pushing. THF (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but I didn't get there by stalking you. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lament

Hi Dick: Although we have had our differences, I am here to cry on your shoulder. The situation at speed of light is quite an experience for me in dealing with completely intransigent editors suffering from both idée fixe and groupthink, and no concept of sources. In fact some editors can believe they agree with sources when the only difference between their expressed view and that of the source is the word not. I don't know if you are willing to commiserate with me in public, but I am afraid it indicates that WP has a basic problem dealing with majority views where they are poorly founded. So, there appears to be little point in dealing with articles where such majorities may assemble. Got any advice? Brews ohare (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I share your frustration with the situation at that article. But you probably know that I see you as more a part of the problem than of the solution. Your long lectures on the talk page are largely ignored, because nobody much cares about your detailed philosophical pickiness, and especially we don't want it in the lead. If you'd make sure the information in subsequent sections has correct details, without belaboring them, and let the lead be simple, then you could be less part of the problem. As long as you're pulling in strange directions, it's hard to fight the other strange directions that people pull in. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Of course, my view is that my "long lectures", which are well sourced BTW, are ignored, not because they are picky, but because many editors fly by the seat of the pants, and when their views are unsupported or outdated, they are unwilling to face that possibility. Argument is more fun than reason anyway (like the McLaughlin Report); many WP editors like the venue as an opportunity to pose as savants.

Supposing I follow your lead though, as I'd interpret your contributions list, you prefer to simply let matters take their course in these situations, basically trying to inject a few-line note of reason now and again, but also admitting from the outset that these situations are impossible to deal with. In the case of speed of light, you have proposed several times the very sensible notion of putting only an approximate value of c in the lead. However, this eminently reasonable suggestion is going nowhere, I think because there is a religious movement in favor of the "exact" speed. Like religion, it is beyond argument. Brews ohare (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Lossless tone mapped version

If you'd like to re-do your edit from a lossless version, the png is here: www.chaosreigns.com/hdr/StLouisArchMultExpToneMapped.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darxus (talk • contribs) 10:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll give that a try. Basically just a curve adjustment to distribute the histogram better. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light (1983 definition)

Hi Dick: It appears the proposal to change venue to Speed of light (1983 definition) has not enticed the attention of the "exact value" school. It's probably tendentious of me, but I attribute this to a lack of desire to really engage the issues (and the brain) and instead a preference for adrenalin and artful put-down. Brews ohare (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

1. http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=23240&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html