User talk:Dicklyon
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)
- 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)
- With regard to this diff. --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.
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)
- 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
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)
- Well, yes, I am a bit of an expert on it. You might want to link a paper I wrote: PDF (I shouldn't link my own stuff, right?). Dicklyon 23:42, 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.
- There are sites like this one. Dicklyon 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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.