User talk:Srleffler

Archives
Oct. 2005–Mar. 2006 Mar. 2006–Jul. 2006 Jul. 2006–Dec. 2006 Dec. 2006–Mar. 2007 Apr. 2007–Sep. 2008 Oct. 2008–Nov. 2009 Jan. 2010–Aug. 2011

Hi, feel free to leave me a message. Kindly leave messages on new topics at the bottom of this page. Srleffler

Disambiguation pages

User talk:Froid

I acknowledge your note but must differ with you in certain cases. Oftentimes the content on the disambiguation pages is RANDOMLY ordered, with no discernible logical or order of importance. In such cases, Wikipedia appears to be unprofessional and sloppy! Such content should be ordered in some discernible, logical fashion, with a schema that is neither tacit nor random. Additionally, many pages contain items that violate Wikipedia Style Guidelines in various ways (e.g., they contain multiple links within a given item, or piped links that obscure the actual linked page). You'll note that the work I did improves rather than detracts from the "dab" pages I edited. Froid 10:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Saw your most recent messages and wanted to reply. Thank you for the feedback, which I take to heart and will adhere to. I made the changes in good faith but did not mean to cause damage or create additional work for other editors. Please accept my apologies. Best wishes. Froid 14:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. You're doing good work cleaning up dab pages. There are certainly lots of them that do need attention, and relatively few editors who enjoy cleaning them up.--Srleffler (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Italicization of subscripts

You have a point. I'm not sure how universal such a convention is—I've never noticed it before—but it seems intuitively plausible. However, as it stands now Fresnel equations is inconsistent in its italicization; the i, r, and t subscripts in the figure and the rendered TeX are still italicized. I find this distracting, which prompted my (perhaps ill-considered) edit(s). I could change the TeX, but replacing the figure is more work than I care to do, unfortunately. Also, the s and p subscripts should be italicised, so I guess I'll revert that subset of your reversion. But thanks for bringing this to my attention. False vacuum (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite confident now that you and the Manual of Style are correct about this, and can't believe I made that mistake. False vacuum (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: Fixed the TeX. (One formula had two ts in it that meant different things! Would have noticed—and probably not made the original mistake—if I'd actually read the article.) False vacuum (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think the s and p subscripts should be italicized. They have the same nature as i, r, and t. The s and p are the first letters of the German words for parallel and perpendicular. They are purely descriptive labels, not variables that can take on different values.--Srleffler (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought that because I still wasn't really paying attention, I guess. Sorry. (I was going to fix it, just now, if someone hadn't already.) False vacuum (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See also, Ruby Laser

Hello, you reverted my edit. Maybe you were right to do that, but is it good practice to have an empty "see also" section? Larryisgood (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The section wasn't empty. There was a Wikimedia commons link at the right hand side. --Srleffler (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the oopsie on the laser page

I'm too much of a AWB newbie to be using a script, I was confused because there was a newline where the caption started; in the future I will take more pains to preview any changes I make. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Alanl (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Radiance Article

"The last edit presumes radiance is conserved, which is not always true."

I see your point. However, I am trying to rationalize the definition, which says L is the observed or measured radiance and ${\frac {\mathrm {d} ^{2}\Phi }{\mathrm {d} A\,\mathrm {d} {\Omega }}}$ is the radiant flux per steradian. It appears that the definition is an implicit correspondence between an emitted radiance and a measured radiance. Therefore, anytime the definition is applied there is an implicit emission surface and detector surface. Granted, these surfaces may be infinitely close so that there is no opportunity for scattering and other losses. I understand that the way I originally wrote it implies something that is not always correct. However, I wanted to clarify why L and ${\frac {\mathrm {d} ^{2}\Phi }{\mathrm {d} A\,\mathrm {d} {\Omega }}}$ have the same units but differ by a 1 over cosine term. The answer is that they are talking about solid angles defined from different perspectives and areas of different surface. Any advice on how to rectify this confusion in a rigorous sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.252.91 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The cosine term is a geometric factor. The area of the source element as seen from the detector is dA cos θ. The emitting angle looks smaller if you're looking at it from a steeper angle relative to the surface normal. If this isn't clear, imagine a source that is a flat square plane of area A. If you look at it almost edge-on (say 89° to the normal), the plane appears very narrow. The visible area is A cos θ.

While the definition in the article is written in terms of a source and detector surface, I do not believe this is necessary (it is a flaw in the article). One can define the radiance at any plane or curved surface in the beam, based on the spatial and angular distribution of the light. This is related to etendue. I don't understand the topic well enough to elaborate on this point, or to fix the definition in the article.--Srleffler (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Riboflavin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Riboflavin#outside_from_text --Palapa (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi,

When making edits like this, please take the time to ensure that the talk page archives and any associated automatic archiving are corrected to match the new title. I've now done this for you, even though I'd suggest that WP:ACRONYMTITLE favours using unambiguous industry-standard acronyms like OLED anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the incomplete page move. I didn't think to check for that.

My reading of WP:ACRONYMTITLE, is that being "industry-standard" is not sufficient. To use an acronym as a page title, the subject must be "exclusively known by its acronym or ... widely known and used in that form". The Manual of Style recommends checking popular publications such as newspapers, magazines, etc. to determine whether this is the case. So, the question is, whether a newspaper article could refer to an "OLED" without spelling out what the acronym stands for. I highly doubt that the acronym is sufficiently well known for that. On the other hand, the examples given in the guidelines, such as NATO, NASA, laser, and radar, are so much better known by their acronyms that some readers might not recognize the name if written out in full.

Besides the guidelines, there was a discussion of this topic on the talk page, with the consensus reached being for the current article title. That precludes moving the article to the rejected title without a discussion to establish a new consensus.--Srleffler (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the journals (which are obviously going to spell out acronyms) I see pretty universal use of "OLED" over "Organic light-emitting diode" in the current sources. Bxj pointed that out in the linked discussion, which was a terribly weak head-count close. The idea that any acronym less universally used than "laser" has to be spelled out certainly isn't congruent with established practice. If I have to request another page move (for both this and AMOLED) then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. A quick search finds much broader use of "OLED" as such than I had expected. It appears that with growing use in displays it has become a much more common acronym than I had realized. My opinion on the required standard has not changed, but perhaps "OLED" meets it. I don't think the article should be moved without a new talk page move discussion, but I might not oppose the change in such a discussion.--Srleffler (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Planck's Law

There is a question as to the best notation for spectral radiance in the Planck's law article in terms of wavelength and frequency. Presently $I(\nu ,T)$ and $I'(\lambda ,T)$ are being used for the frequency and wavelength functions, but the idea is that $I_{\nu }(T)$ and $I_{\lambda }(T)$ would be more informative, while remaining in the mainstream of present usage. Any opinions would be welcome. PAR (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Another problem in Planck's law - to convert from spectral radiance in frequency units ($I_{\nu }$), to some other variable x (e.g. wavelength) we must use $|I_{\nu }d\nu |=|I_{x}dx|$ where x is a monotonic function of frequency $\nu$. Do you happen to know of a reference for this general statement? Thanks for any help. PAR (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not offhand, no.--Srleffler (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again - we are having some serious terminology problems on the Planck's law discussion page. We need to make our terminology consistent with other Wikipedia articles, and I know that you have given this subject some thought. I will try to boil it down.

First there is something called $I_{\nu }(\mathbf {n} )$. This has units of power/area/solid angle/frequency so that $I_{\nu }(\mathbf {n} )dAd\Omega d\nu$ is the power radiated into a small solid angle $d\Omega$ about the normal to a small imaginary area element dA whose normal points in direction $\mathbf {n}$ in a small frequency band $d\nu$. Isotropic radiation means $I_{\nu }$ is independent of direction $\mathbf {n}$ where $\mathbf {n}$ can point in any direction whatsoever. There are no physical surfaces involved or considered.

Next is the consideration of a real physical surface. The $I_{\nu }(\mathbf {n} )$ coming out of a physical surface is, lets say, $R_{\nu }(\mathbf {n} )$. It refers only to the radiation leaving a surface, not to that entering. If you take the imaginary area element mentioned above, immersed in a radiation field $I_{\nu }(\mathbf {n} )$, and pick a side of that area element, then consider only the radiation passing out of that side, that radiation could correspond to the $R_{\nu }(\mathbf {n} )$ of a real physical surface at that point and in that orientation. If the $I_{\nu }(\mathbf {n} )$ were isotropic, then I have been saying that the corresponding $R_{\nu }(\mathbf {n} )$ is isotropic. However, if a surface is characterized by isotropic $R_{\nu }(\mathbf {n} )$, that does not mean the $I_{\nu }(\mathbf {n} )$ is isotropic, because the radiation into the surface may not match the radiation leaving. Any thoughts you have on the Wikipedia-standardized terms for these quantities and concepts would be very welcome.

Finally there is the question of Lambert's cosine law article which states that the radiance from a Lambertian surface is proportional to the cosine of the angle from the normal, which, if radiance is $R_{\nu }(\mathbf {n} )$, is wrong, it should be constant. In the definition of radiance from the radiance article, it is clearly including the cosine in the denominator, meaning that the "per unit area" in the definition of radiance is "per unit of projected emitting area", not "per unit of the emitting area", which would mean that isotropic radiance is constant with respect to direction. Also, regarding a real physical surface, what would be the term corresponding to power/area/solid angle/frequency out of the surface where the area element is the emitting area, not the projection of the emitting area?. This quantity would show cosine dependence with angle. Again, any thoughts you have on the Wikipedia-standardized terms for these concepts would be very welcome. PAR (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lens (optics)

Dear Srleffler

Not was was a good step that you removed my pictures. I tried to give as many infornations related to the lens. With your intervention page looks pretty weak now. Instead of making unnecessary changes, which spoil the appearance, please make a major change to the section "Compound lenses - Link: [[1]](i read that you are a specialist in optics)" explains the practical calculations and drawing a combination of two lenses. The choice is yours - thin or thick lenses. It would be very useful for readers. Or if you disturbing examples of calculation on the page. Make a new section designation of "Practical optical calculations." It would be something. Where could you explain how to calculate the different systems and combinations of lenses (at a level understandable to readers - not complicated,simple and practical!). It would be a page that you use as a reference for basic page. Regards, --Tamasflex (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ps: Not every reader is familiar with the equations. It is easier to write equation, but it's hard to explain in such a way as to be understood by readers who are not familiar in optics. Few examples of calculation does not spoil the look.

Equations need to be in HTML or Latex markup, not in an image file. This allows them to be edited by other editors. Also, a block of equations with no explanation is useless and inappropriate. If you want to write a section on the thick lens equations using proper English prose and editable equations, do that. Don't just stick an image file full of math into an article.--Srleffler (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge interference (optics) and interference (wave propagation) articles

I have drafted a merged article at user:epzcaw/Interference (wave propagation). Comments welcome. Epzcaw (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Friction

Hello. I appreciate your answer at Friction, but some of the explanation is still unclear. I wasn't sure whether typos has crept in.

"Each grain of sand exerts a force $F_{f}=\mu F_{N}$ from the moment it hits the belt until the grain reaches the belt's speed vb. After the grain gets up to speed, it no longer exerts a force on the belt. A little math will show that the time required to get up to speed is $t_{b}={v_{b}m_{g} \over F_{f}}={v_{b} \over \mu g}$, where mg is the mass of the grain and g is the gravitational acceleration."

For example, what is $F_{N}$? μ is grain mass, I presume. I can see that $t_{b}={v_{b}m_{g} \over F_{f}}$, but not why it equals ${v_{b} \over \mu g}$, and why is gravitation is relevant? (I imagine an alternative set up where it is a spaceship traveling through zero g at a steady 0.1m/s while 'sweeping up' space dust in a bucket on the nose cone at a rate of 2kg/s.)

In short: could you make it all very explicit? Thank you. Ammimajus (talk)

No, $F_{N}$ is the normal force and μ is the coefficient of friction. This notation is used in the article, so I didn't bother to explain it. See Friction#Dry friction if you need a reminder of how dry friction works. The grain mass is $m_{g}$ as I stated explicitly, and as you quoted me above. Gravity comes into the problem because the normal force is the weight of the grain of sand $F_{N}=m_{g}g$.--Srleffler (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That is very helpful. I get the calculation and am happy with it. The textbook says about the conveyor belt: "the extra power is twice the kinetic energy imparted to the sand because the sand does not immediately assume the velocity of the belt so that the belt moves relative to the sand. The extra power is needed to overcome the friction between the sand and belt." Perhaps the last sentence is worrying me too. It is not such much that it has to "overcome friction" but rather "work with the friction" to produce the force to accelerate the sand grains. What is surprising is that there seems to be no half way house between "immediately assuming" the speed of the belt and very gradual (asymptotic even) acceleration. Suppose we started with a certain amount of sand lying on a stationary belt and the belt accelerating to a certain velocity? Would the "wasted energy" (total energy required minus final total kinetic energy) be the same (50%)? And what about the alternative of the space rocket collecting sand in a bucket. The sand hits the bottom of the bucket...the rocket must expend some energy to keep going at the same speed with extra mass. Is that case different and why? Ammimajus (talk)

Yes, the book's comment about "overcoming the friction" is strange and misleading. It is the friction that allows the belt to impart horizontal motion to the sand.

Friction is kind of an odd force, because it changes depending on whether the two objects are moving relative to one another. If one object is sliding against another, the friction force is determined by the coefficient of kinetic friction. If the object is not sliding, one instead gets static friction, which is much stronger. In practice, this means that if a sliding object's relative velocity drops below a certain value (which probably depends on the materials and their surface structure), the surfaces will "grab" and bring the moving object to a halt relative to the other object.

If you start with sand lying on the belt and the belt stationary, as long as the force the belt exerts on the sand is less than the static friction force, the sand will accelerate with the belt. If the belt accelerates too fast, the force it exerts on the sand will exceed the static friction force and then the sand won't keep up with the belt's acceleration. Energy will be wasted due to the sand sliding on the belt.

The case of the rocket collecting sand in a bucket is different because there is no friction. Assuming the sand goes into the bucket and sticks, the energy the rocket has to expend should equal the kinetic energy imparted to the sand.

As I noted in my comments on the talk page, the fact that the belt accelerating the falling sand has to expend more energy than the kinetic energy imparted to the sand should not be surprising. The sand is sliding against the belt, which generates heat through friction. That energy has to come from somewhere, and in fact it comes from the belt.--Srleffler (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi Srleffler, long time no see. I just wanted to stop by and wish you a Merry Christmas. Your knowledge, wisdom, and willingness to help has always been an inspiration for me. I hope the coming New Year will bring you much happiness. Zaereth (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your last night's Sharplan editions! Etan J. Tal 09:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 09:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits on List of plasma (physics) articles

Thanks for editing List of plasma (physics) articles yeah it did have some red link errors in them. Some links like spacequake had the red links plasma vortices and Plasma jets in it, but I guess it makes more sense to change it. What do you think about me possibly making a list of laser articles that would probably be close to a 1000 links in it. I already made one on word pad. I figured it might help find laser links that need more info in it and more be more known. List of applications for lasers is decent but a list of laser articles will be more universal. Love the airborne laser. Maybe this time not in alphabetical order of the phoenix kind.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a list of laser articles is just as pointless as a list of plasma articles. :) --Srleffler (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

SI chart in Luminos energy

Please go here: International System of Units — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algamicagrat (talk • contribs) 17:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the SI system. What is your point?--Srleffler (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What I am pointing out is that really how can the Luminous Energy be part of the metric system. I mean yes it can be a unit of measure in the metric system but actually the page has really nothing about the Luminous Energy units. My point is that maybe I should not have put an electromagnetic spectrum picture/section but I googled Luminous Energy Units and got this page http://www.mediacollege.com/lighting/measurement/ and I got those units of measure. In my opinion the table on the page is not accurate. Me!!! Algamicagrat 01:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. Take a look at SI derived unit. Lumen seconds are listed there, under "Examples of derived quantities and units". The page google found you is not very good. It's poorly written, far from complete, and the definition of the candela that it gives is 33 years out of date. (The definition was changed in 1979.)

I notice that you copied the material on that page in your first attempt at improving the article. Don't copy material from external websites into Wikipedia. We take copyrights very seriously, and cannot accept material copied from external sources unless we are licensed to use it.--Srleffler (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude I did not. I mean maybe I kept a few sentences but it is paraphrased. I am sure maybe you didn't notice that I did rewrite sentences.Me!!! Algamicagrat 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw that you tried to paraphrase, and that's great. At a glance the text looked too close to the original. I didn't do a detailed comparison of the two. I just wanted to make sure you know that you can't copy stuff in from other sites. Just changing a few words here and there isn't enough; the material has to be really rewritten.--Srleffler (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I understand. Thanks for the feed back. Me!!! Algamicagrat 22:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algamicagrat (talk • contribs)

Re: Cybercopyedit, Optics, Alhazen, etc.

Thanks for the cleanup... the main complaint i had with the additions was that it was a all puffery that imparted or summarize no verifiable information (in fact it did not even summarize, and constituted a content fork with, the main article: History of optics... not that both could be pretty wrong) I will probably add some more content along these lines.

I would note that this user did not respond to your complaint or "comply with policy" "by creating a new (user name)". He/she is simply switching back in forth between pre-created user names as suits his/her purpose[2][3]. Sock puppetry/meat puppetry has been a hallmark of these Alhazen POV-PUSHes before but not this open or "ham fisted" right off the bat..... so I am will to assume a little good faith in that this may be a whole new inexperienced editor spouting the same line that large scale reference to Alhazen et-al is "vital" and "fully referenced" (echoing "the great minds of these men should be recognized at all costs"[4]). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Prism illustration

I appreciate the comment on my dispersive prism illustration. I agree that it is not optically correct, but for an illustration it demonstrates the idea. I just thought it was better quality than the previous illustration. Use as you wish. -- Spigget (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

Good scientific diagrams are hard to make, and doubly so for Wikipedia. The problem is that you don't necessarily know when you are making the image, exactly what ideas it is that you need to demonstrate. The image we are discussing caused confusion because it is so nicely done that it can be mistaken for a photograph, and yet the physics is not completely correct; light does not behave exactly as illustrated. For technical diagrams, a beautiful image that has details that are incorrect is inferior to a completely correct but plain or ugly image. --Srleffler (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the patronizing. That's the last time I edit Wikipedia for a while. Again.

See also

Context_(language_use)

Reading_comprehension

Precedent

(Does that list seem impenetrable for you? Welcome to the world of every Wikipedia editor more interested in making the world a more comprehensible place, than in petty bylaw enforcement.)

Bye now.

Magic5ball (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I really did like your article. I mentioned the "other uses" section only because it has been deleted and re-inserted several times, and I wanted you to understand why it keeps getting deleted. --Srleffler (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"I'm sorry for what you've done" is not an apology. You've taken no responsibility for your actions, despite your stated intent. Of consequence, you do not get to feel better for yourself for offering it. 130.231.25.45 (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Electromagnetic radiation DRN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Electromagnetic radiation". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a major mistake on the page which Mr Srleffler seems determined to preserve. I corrected the mistake and added two references to peer-reviewed journal articles which discuss the relevant research. Mr Srleffler removed my correction and reinstated the mistake. His explanation was that I shouldn't cite research papers.

Mr Srleffler has no training experience or qualifications in this area (the effects of EMF on biological systems). I, on the other hand, have worked in the field for many years (my PhD was in a related area). Mr Srleffler has not read or even accessed any of the papers which I cited and quite obviously has contempt for both the scientific method and for the principles of Wikipedia.~~~~

Frankly, if Wikipedia allows abuse on this scale its credibility is suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have confused my edits with another editor's. I reverted your edit the first time, because the only reference provided was two links to the homepage of the "Bioinitiative Report". The second revert was by Vsmith. You can always see who did what by clicking the "View History" link at the top of any page. This gives a complete edit history, with the ability to compare exactly what was changed.

I will reply further on other pages where this is being discussed.--Srleffler (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither change was reasonable. My guess is that your only source of information about the Bioinitiative Report was the absurd hatchet job on Wikipedia itself. The Bioinitiative Report is by far the largest review of research in this subject: it references and summarizes several hundred papers, and has a good balance of research both positive and negative. If Wikipedia allows lobby groups to write their own pages - such as the one on the Bioinitiative Report - and then delete corrections from independent scientists it will continue to lose what little credibility it still has. In the absence of a system of proper checks and balances editors such as you and Vsmith will destroy the system from the inside.

Mr Wales himself makes it clear that controversial statements should be backed up by citations. The original statement - that the biological effect of non-ionizing EMF is primarily through heating - is pure conjecture and was not backed up by anything. This is a mistake which you should have noticed and corrected. When you discovered that the statement was incorrect you should - if you had the tiniest element of professional integrity - have looked at the review I referenced and made a decision to keep the change or to modify it *based on an understanding of the facts* rather than ignorance and prejudice. In the event, your page contains a glaring mistake - which could impact on the lives and health of hundreds of millions of people - because of your fragile ego.

Whether both you and Vsmith both work for the same lobby group or telecommunications company, or whether you are simply out of your depth and insecure about feedback makes no difference. You are two little peas in a pod as far as I am concerned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 07:46, 7 April 2012‎

Ironically, I wasn't aware that we had an article on the Bioinitiative Report until you mentioned it, above. The trouble with this report as a source is that, while it might well be a fantastic review of the subject, it appears that it is self-published rather than published through a peer-reviewed journal or a conventional publisher with editorial controls. Our rules for sourcing are at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Self-published sources generally can't be used.

You are correct that the existing statements in the article are not supported by citations. If you had started a calm, rational discussion instead of throwing around personal attacks and starting a formal dispute resolution process, you could have gotten that fixed much quicker. Last night, I marked that section of the Electromagnetic radiation article as disputed, and put a message on the article's talk page, requesting help from other editors in locating sources and determining what the consensus is in the scientific community (or if there is currently a lack of consensus). If nobody can provide sources for those statements in a week or so, the disputed statements can be removed from the article. If you can recommend sources that meet our sourcing requirements that address the broad question of whether there is a consensus in the scientific community, or if there is an ongoing dispute about this issue, it will help us get the text of the article fixed sooner and better.

I don't work for a lobby group, or a telecommunications company. I don't have any particular bias one way or the other on the contents of this section of the article. I do care a lot, though, about scientific integrity, and about editing process. You ask about checks and balances above, but you don't seem to realize that you ran across one of them in your first edit: you replaced statements in an article with directly contrary ones, without any indication that there might be alternative views or a statement that the consensus in the field had changed. Such a strong change in text requires a strong citation to back it up; a citation to a self-published manuscript doesn't suffice. Your second attempt was much better—I would probably not have reverted it without further investigation, but by the time I saw it it had already been deleted by Vsmith, and you had filed the request for dispute resolution, so much of my editing time that day went into responding to that.--Srleffler (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I replaced an obvious false statement backed up by nothing with a statement which is backed up by several hundred peer-reviewed papers. The fact that the best collection of these papers happens to be a report which was not itself peer-reviewed makes no difference.

Ironically, according to other 'editors', its seems that the only sources which Wikipedia accepts are from text books: obviously, the bulk of these are not peer-reviewed in any way.

This process has been very interesting for me. It's clear why Wikipedia has such a low credibility. Its content is jealously 'protected' by a little group of self-important 'editors' who are resistant to change of any kind. What sources there are are typically third-rate, because these are the only types which the editors can understand and which the Wikipedia rules allow.

...

If you take the trouble to *read* the source I gave you it will outline the 'ongoing dispute' in great detail. However, don't worry: I am sure another one of your friends from the telecommunications lobby industry will step in with a report that you can understand.

or if there is an ongoing dispute about this issue, it will help us get the text of the article fixed sooner and better.

I don't work for a lobby group, or a telecommunications company. I don't have any particular bias one way or the other on the contents of this section of the article. I do care a lot, though, about scientific integrity,

Obviously not. Otherwise you wouldn't condemn a source you haven't bothered to even look at.

...

Since you get your government salary in any case it probably doesn't matter whether you sit and look for changes to delete or actually have to respond to them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 April 2012‎

Please note that Wikipedia rules require all users to remain civil with one another, and that personal attacks are not allowed.--Srleffler (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you stopped vandalizing edits which don't enhance the agenda determined by your employer I would feel less inclined to call you for what you are. If you care so much about 'scientific integrity' why do you remove documented facts and replace them with slanted comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 10:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you feel compelled to repeatedly throw out baseless and false accusations. A mature adult who claims to have a Ph.D. ought to be able to carry on a calm and rational discussion about a topic of interest, even with someone with whom he disagrees.

As far as I can see, I have only undone one edit to the article by you, and I have explained several times the reasons why that particular edit was not acceptable. I am not sure how to explain it in a way that you will understand.

Does the "Biological effects" section still seem slanted to you? If so, is some of the current material inaccurate, or is the treatment unbalanced? Is it better than it was?--Srleffler (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be of value

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed significantly since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fabry–Pérot interferometer

Thanks! I was thinking of asking you to look over my additions, but then I figured that you'd have this page under your watch. Over the past couple of years, your edits for this article have been among the most cogent. Would you agree that to include the reflective rays in the illustration would add unnecessary complexity? I went back-and-forth on whether to illustrate an interferometer versus an etalon, finally deciding on an interferometer (even though it is more complex) because all of the other diagrams on this page were of etalons. But of course, that made for a more complex diagram, and I wanted the illustration to be as simple as possible. Technical illustration involves a lot of compromises. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the diagram in the "basic description" section does not need to show any of the other rays. I wish that the diagrams in the theory section showed the first-surface reflection, though, since its contribution is essential for extinction of the back-reflected light. I think that it was a good choice to show a wedged-plate interferometer in the "basics" section, since that section discusses this. I'm not so sure that the low vs. high finesse comparison is a good addition to the image, since the section doesn't really explain how the rings are formed. Perhaps we just need to add an explanation to the article.

The new section was a good idea—I agree that articles should start off with a simple explanation, move through applications and only then swing into mathematical theory.--Srleffler (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I added the first-surface reflection to the second of the two images. What do you want to label the first-surface reflection in the first image? The second surface reflections are labeled R₁ and R₂, so R₀ somehow seems a bit wrong.

SVG images are easy to manipulate, but every once in a while, the Wikipedia rendering engine totally messes up. I'm a bit paranoid about them. Don't be surprised if I upload something that looks a little screwy that I get speedy deleted. I've gotten burnt several times with them. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I recommend going with R₀ for consistency. --Srleffler (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. I wasn't able to match the font exactly. The lettering appears to be bitmapped, for whatever reason. So my 0 subscript looks a little different from the other subscripts. Sorry about that. :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks great.--Srleffler (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Looked at from a certain point of view, circular fringes are obvious, but I find it to be extremely difficult to explain why they are obvious. That's an interesting challenge, to think of a good elementary explanation. I'll have to think it over. Main reason that I added the low versus high finesse images was that your graphs that quantitatively explained the same thing were maybe too mathematical for casual readers. But yeah, I see your point. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I prepared File:Michelson interferometer fringe formation.svg for Interferometry and for Michelson interferometer. Would an analogous diagram be useful for Fabry–Pérot interferometer to explain how the rings are formed, or would it clutter things up too much? I'm thinking of using the point source variant of the Fabry–Pérot interferometer for this diagram. No matter what, I think it would be better if I create the diagram first, and you can suggest changes and/or decide whether it should be used at all. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking the diagram would show a dot for the source S, plus additional dots all in a row for S'₁, S'₂, S'₃ etc. gradually fading out. Including an image of the fringes would make the diagram too tall. Here is a sketch of my ideas. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the virtual sources are helpful. They might be helpful for comparing a Fabry-Perot interferometer to a Michelson one, but they don't seem to me to be very helpful to a reader who is not already familiar with the latter. --Srleffler (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. The envisioned figure didn't strike me as having the same degree of explanatory power that the Michelson figure does, hence my needing your opinion. The Michelson interferometer has a lot more confusing parts and adjustments, that the virtual source diagram helps clarify. I think the Michelson diagram is currently doing fairly nicely in Michelson interferometer#Configuration, although I don't have the new text completely integrated yet with the old text – there is a noticeable bit of repetition. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be of value again

User Zaereth suggested that your knowledge would be of value in this discussion regarding proposed merger of Interference filter and Dichroic filter. Thx. --Fluffystar (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That discussion seems to have ended over a year ago. I was not aware of it at the time. I'll take a look at it if I have the time.--Srleffler (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Although the discussion has ended over a year ago, there seems to be no result yet and the merger is still there. --Fluffystar (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Phase Shifting and Vertical Scanning Interferometry Animation.gif

Would you be able to help me with a little problem? I put together this animated gif. Although I'm reasonably happy with my fakery for the PSI animation, I'm extremely unhappy with my faked fringes for the VSI animation. Would you by any chance know how I could get a series of frame captures from an actual VSI scan that I can substitute, along with the reconstructed image? Don't need individual channels, just the combined interferograms. Thanks either way, whether the answer is yes or no. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The VSI system I have access to doesn't take color images of the scan. I don't know where you could obtain better images.

I like the concept of your animation, though. I think it will be helpful.--Srleffler (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

please review

Hello,

Can you please review the comment by an anon at commons? thanks Matanya (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The comment that says "A ~630nm laser pointer contains a diode laser source which is incapable of producing a TEM00 beam."? The anon is mistaken. There are certainly single-transverse mode ~630 nm laser diodes on the market, for example from Opnext.[5] I don't offhand know if such diodes were available in 2009 when the comment was written, but it seems likely.

Since I'm looking at it, I will add that the image is not very useful. It is way oversaturated, and probably distorted by blooming. If the intent was to illustrate the "profile" of a Gaussian beam, it is pretty much worthless.--Srleffler (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed answer. Matanya (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I could produce such a photo, that is, if you think it'd be useful. My first green laser pointer produces a TEM00 beam, which appears quite Gaussian to me. If I remove the lens I can get a good photo of the beam after it leaves the KTP crystal, spreading naturally to a decent size for photogeaphing. I usually don't upload photos unless I see a use for it, so let me know if you think there may be some need. Zaereth (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A good photo of a Gaussian beam might be useful. It's easier said than done, though. Give it a try and see what you get.--Srleffler (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Laser pointer beam photo

Well, I reallly had to play with my aperture and shutter speed settings, but I think this photo turned out the best. What do you think? I can try a longer exposure, which makes the center appear brighter, but if the exposure is to long it appears to increase in brightness in stages, rather than a uniform increase from outer to center. I could also add an inset showing the pointer itself. Zaereth (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to get a good picture of a laser beam, in which the profile is really clear. I think the centre is as bright as you're going to get it here—any more and you'll saturate the camera. It's also hard to avoid laser speckle when photographing the laser projected on a surface. It is an improvement on the existing image. --Srleffler (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably the best I can do. Thanks for the input. I hope someone'll be able to make use of it. Zaereth (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Easier said than done. I've uploaded a new photo (a few hundred tries later). I agree, because I must project it onto a surface I can't eliminate the spackel. I tried projecting in onto a non-surface, but can't seem to produce a smoke-screen thick and heavy enough to give the desired results. This newer phot is from the next best thing: a liquid surface. For photographic purposes, I found that, of the liquids I have available, milk worked the best. I still doesn't eliminate the speckle, but it is reduced. This seems to produce a more even profile. What do you think? Any better? Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, good experimental work. It is a better image. Using a diffuse scattering liquid surface was probably a good approach.--Srleffler (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The milk seemed to work good because it is very opaque for a white liquid. The beam won't travel very far into it and, therefore, it didn't light up like other translucent liquids. However, I was amazed at the extreme detail that appeared to the naked eye, which seems to image the spot much more clearly than the camera. For instance, you can barely see it in the photo, but, above center on each side of the beam, some interference fringes begin there and overlap across the profile, but it's faint and doesn't appear on camera. I couln't even see it with the naked eye until I did the milk experiment, and then it was plain as day. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have globally replaced the previous pic with this one. Good job! Matanya (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The eye has a larger dynamic range than a camera..--Srleffler (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Really impressive work! I may adopt your technique in a photo that I'm thinking of producing for Wikipedia. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Srlefler. (I learn something new almost everytime I come here.) And thanks for the compliment, Matanya and Stigmatella. To Stigmatella, I hope it works out for you. My advice is: don't be discouraged if it doesn't work the first time. Speed settings, aperture settings, and even the distance from the spot will all have a dramatic effect. I took nearly 50 different photos to come up with the first one, and close to 200 more to get the second. Zaereth (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Solar variation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solar irradiance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

DsBirkett external link

Dear Srleffler,

I'm puzzled that you object to my external link to classicalelectromagnetics.com because it doesn't provide any "interactive capability". There is nothing about this in the guidelines. My reading of the guidelines indicates that the link is clearly appropriate.

DSBirkett 69.43.65.104 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The link was originally removed because it claimed to lead to something that provides something interactive, which it didn't. It might have been preferable to just change the wording, but that's beside the point by now. First of all you need to understand that it is by now clearly obvious that you have a conflict of interest in adding this page; it doesn't look like the primary motivation for you to add this link is to further your own goals rather than to improve Wikipedia. You also need to start reading some of the things you are presented with when editing Wikipedia, for example that you are supposed to use the edit summary, for example to describe why you think the link you provided is a useful addition to the article. It would also help if you didn't switch between editing anonymously (not logged in) and logged in; since you do have an account, please use it. Nczempin (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with the link that added up to lead to my decision to remove it. The comment regarding "interactive capability" relates to the descriptions of the link that you wrote. At Antenna (radio), the description of the link read "A three dimensional antenna calculator, simulator, animator." At Transmission line it read "An interactive transmission line animator and calculator. Solved problems." These descriptions seemed to be misleading, since the linked site does not as far as I can see provide either the online capability to do any interactive animations, calculations, or simulations, nor does it seem to provide an ability to download software that will do this.

Besides this issue, the site seemed strange. It seems to be written purely to promote the software, although I couldn't find anywhere on the site where it actually said how to get the software being promoted. Regardless, promotional material is not a suitable external link target for Wikipedia. Beyond that, it seems to fall short of the requirements of the guidelines, which say that external links need to provide a valuable resource; some kind of relevant and useful material that could not be incorporated directly into the article. External links "should be kept to a minimum" and must "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Example simulations written to demonstrate the capabilities of a piece of software rather than to illustrate a technical point are just not that valuable a resource.

Further, you appear to have a conflict of interest in regard to this site; you appear to be the author of the software being demonstrated. The external link guidelines explicitly say "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." Additionally, you added links to the site to multiple articles—a practice that borders on linkspamming when you have a conflict of interest in regard to the site.

Finally, a more minor issue: all of the links pointed to the home page of the site, rather than to a specific subpage that covers material relevant to the article in which the links appear. If these links were otherwise viable, they would all have to be fixed to point to more specific material. --Srleffler (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Srleffler. You have new messages at Talk:Exit pupil.

Roshan (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Again Roshan (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)