# User talk:Srleffler

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

## Merry Christmas!

Hi Srleffler! I just wanted to stop by and wish you a Merry Christmas. I very much appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, and for the help you've given me alike. You're the first person I think of if I have any question relating to optics, light or lasers, so I thank you for all of your assistance. I hope you have a very good Christmas and may the New Year be filled with joy. (The happiness, not the dish soap.) Zaereth (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Merry Christmas to you too!--Srleffler (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

## Happy new year!

... And, please, check this talk at Optical table. --Krauss (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy New Year to you too. I replied in that discussion.--Srleffler (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

## Tense use

Hi.

Correct me if I am wrong but simple past tense is used when something either happened in one moment in the past or was true in the past but no longer is. For example: "My father was alive back then" means "he no longer is". Similarly, "The shell of Windows 1.0 was a program known as the MS-DOS Executive" means it no longer is.

Second, "Windows 1.0 no longer exists" needs a source. Well, don't bother; it still exists.

Last but not least, I am surprised how an experienced editor like you does not stick to WP:BRD. You do know that responding a revert with another revert is either edit warring or leads to one, don't you?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

When discussing historical subjects, one typically discusses them in the past tense. Windows 1.0 is no longer in use, anywhere. I don't doubt that there are hobbyists who maintain old hardware on which they can still run it. I don't think that is relevant.
The mixture of past and present tenses in those sections of the article doesn't scan well. It's cleaner to let history be history and discuss it in the past tense.
You're correct that my second revert was poor manners. Sorry about that.--Srleffler (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi again.
Windows 1.0 is not historical yet. 25 years is hardly history. But, embedded devices used in factories still use DOS and Windows 1.0 (or other old version of Windows.) These machines can work for centuries with zero need to update their software, as long as their moving parts are kept in maintenance. I am often asked to add new 64 KB templates to their memory banks for production.
But we even had a village pump discussion of whether to use past tense or not. The issue of the mixture of tense came up. (I'll hunt the diffs for you. But I distinctly remember using a "married woman" example.) The consensus was that software logic must be written in present tense; and the issue of odd looking mixture is a late warning that article is written badly, so that historic subjects and descriptive prose are separated well. (Against I distinctly remember trying to establish a guideline with others when someone cut me short and said "TL;DR. Guideline: Write well.")
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm surprised by that, but I probably shouldn't be. I would be interested in reading that village pump discussion, if you run across a link.--Srleffler (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to keep you waiting but retracing my steps have proven to be a little difficult because Editor Interaction Analyzer and Revision History Search are down at this time. (Searching the village pump archive brings up a lot of results.)
I found these two for now: 1 and 2. I'll search more later. But they should give you a pretty good idea when it occurred. Rest assured, when I find it, it is going to to go into MOS:COMPUTING. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk)
I restored two non-tense related changes that appear to have been swept up in your revert. I don't think they will be controversial.--Srleffler (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Srleffler, at first: thank you for your help at my articles. My second question refers to my article about "fiber optic nano temperature sensor" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_optic_nano_temperature_sensor). I'm inexperienced with wikipedia and i understand your problem only partially. Maybe you can help me to solve it? What can i do to avoid a deletion of this article?

Best regards, Apollda (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, but unfortunately the deletion proposal already went through and the article has been deleted. The process works this way: an editor puts a "proposed deletion" tag on an article, with an explanation of why they feel the article should be deleted. Anyone else, including the creator of the article, can dispute the proposal—ideally by fixing the problem. If no one does this within a week, an administrator will delete the article. This is one of several methods of deleting an article on Wikipedia—there is also a more formal process for debating cases where there are different opinions on an article, and a "speedy" process for dealing with obvious problem articles.
I proposed deletion because it appeared that the article covered a single company's product. That seemed like much too narrow a scope for a Wikipedia article. It also violates some rules. By policy, Wikipedia cannot be used for advertising. We do sometimes write articles about companies and their products, but to include such an article the organization has to be notable. Coverage of all topics on Wikipedia must be neutral. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles on which they have a conflict of interest. If you work for a company or otherwise have a financial or personal interest in one, you should not be editing articles about that company or their products.
If you don't have a conflict of interest on this topic, I recommend you look for a suitable article in which to include a brief mention of this technology—perhaps Fiber optic sensor and/or Thermometer. Keep in mind that coverage of a topic must not be given undue weight. This is not a very important technology within the broader topics of fiber optic sensors or themometry, so it wouldn't merit more than a sentence or two in either of those articles. --Srleffler (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

## Candelas

Hi, I noted you've been active on the candela talk page. I noted an example in the article is incorrect, perhaps you'd like to check and verify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Candela 84.92.87.70 (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please, make to me a suggestion so that I could execute my programs from Wiki-english. Thank you very much in advance and best regards. Truocled.

Truocled (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The best solution would be to have your code execute as an applet within an HTML page. This is more secure, since web browsers execute applets in a "sandbox", which is supposed to limit the program's access to the client computer. Downloading an executable file is more dangerous. I have less of a problem with the University of Porto page, precisely because it is hosted by the University. I hope that the University exerts some control over the material on their website, and will ensure that it is and remains free of viruses and malware. An independent personal website can never offer any confidence in that regard, since the site and its content can change with the whim of the site's owner, or could become infected with viruses through that individual's negligence.--Srleffler (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all, I shall do it. 81.64.232.204 (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried the URL above. It doesn't seem to work—nothing there. I assume that Firefox blocks executing your jars because it is not a safe thing to do. It is never possible to execute the code without downloading it. What matters is whether the code is run in a "sandbox" where its access to the computer is limited, or if it runs as an application with free access to the system. I know that applets run in a sandbox. I don't know whether the other options do this, or whether they allow unrestricted access to the user's computer.
My concern isn't so much about who you are, but about the way the files are hosted. I'm willing to assume that a major university hosting material on its site has the measures in place to ensure that the programs are free of malware, and that they stay that way. Another issue which I should have brought up here is conflict of interest. We generally prefer that people not insert links to their own material into Wikipedia. Put your material up online, and if it is good eventually maybe someone will link to it.--Srleffler (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologizes: The link is https://sites.google.com/site/essaispourapplets/home/applis/application_chaine.jar  !!! (application_chaine.jar and not en_application_chaine.jar, the "en_" being for "english"). I just verified it.

I do not understand what you mean by "Put your material up online". It should visible on research motors, like the one of Google, is it what you mean? If so, it is "online". But it would be more visited if I could put it on Wikipedia. And simulations are meant to be looked at!

But I understand your concern about possible malware. It would be difficult for me to put my stuff on the site of mu University ParisXI, but it could be possible to join the people of the L.A.L. (laboratoire de l'accélérateur linéaire, Orsay), which is the main French Laboratory of high energy Physics, and to ask to them to host my .jar's. I would prefer not to do it, but if you say it is necessary, I could try. Truocled (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

## Specular Refllection

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me hitting you up for information on this. I know there's lots of info out there and I viewed Richard Feynman's lectures on reflection, but I still can't get into my mind a clear understanding, so I'm trying to take in as much info on the topic from as many sources as I can.

"If you reflected a single photon off of the surface, I believe you would find that its angle of reflection is random, with probability distribution matching the intensity distribution for the reflection of a beam of light.--Srleffler (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you say that this would be the case regardless of the surface. In other words, for either diffuse or specular reflection?

Also, if you have any explanations of your own, and\or other sources to point me to, expanding on how a result of angle of reflection = angle of incident comes about for many photons, though as you describe above for any given single photon, the reflecting angle is random (and there's just a probability that it will reflect at the angle of incident?)

Probability distribution matching intensity distribution: does that mean that the more photons incident at particular angle, the higher likelihood of reflecting at that angle?

Thanks in advance for any time you choose to take in responding. PizzaAddict (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. Yes, what I wrote is true for either diffuse or specular reflection, but for a specular surface the probability distribution is very narrow: if you have a single photon with a well-defined direction before it hits an ideal specular surface, it will reflect in the direction predicted by the Law of Reflection. If such a photon hits a diffuse surface, and you measure its direction afterward, you will find that it has reflected in some random direction, with the probability distribution being proportional to the intensity distribution you get if you shine a beam with many photons on that surface. There is nothing too surprising in this, and the quantum physics doesn't really add anything to the discussion. I mentioned it only because the person I was replying to asked about it.--Srleffler (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User Jechma OK thanks. I got it All the best, JC Massabuau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jechma (talkcontribs) 08:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

## WP:MOS Don't wikilink within the bolded text in the lede

Hello Srleffler, can provide a MOS quotation for the guideline you are refering to, please? Petr Matas 23:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. See WP:LINKSTYLE. "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead."--Srleffler (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

## Lenticular and Fresnel lenses

I added a See also link because Fresnel lenses and Lenticular lenses have a distinctly similar construction of multiple optical sections - indeed, both can be moulded as 'flat' sheets of plastic (and indeed both may be used in the same device, I guess that's a Reliable Source, and we're getting close to having something to put in the main text here). My point however is simply that under the MOS, See also items should be tangentially relevant to the topic, which this certainly is. Directly relevant items should of course be linked in the main text.

Oh my, I've written an essay about a 4-word edit. There's Wikiholism for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to put it back, I won't revert you. I would be more comfortable if you put it in the main text, explaining how Fresnel and lenticular lenses are similar and different from one another. I removed it because I didn't think it was very relevant, and thought the distinction between the two types of lens might not be clear.--Srleffler (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
That's very good of you. I think I'll just put it back for now; clearly the main text edit will take longer and require more thought, but we know it's possible and roughly what it would consist of. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

## Prism

Sorry, I didn't get that "pentad" referred to a series of five novels. That being the case, I agree with you. Since these are novels, consider whether the author's article would be a better link target than Dark Sun.--Srleffler (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Good point, it has been adjusted. speednat (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you very much for your tips on reverting vandalism. As you mentioned, there was in fact another edit made by that user on the page. I was completely oblivious to this as I did not check the page history. Regardless, thanks again for letting me know. I will make sure I look for this kind of thing next time.
[[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

## Luminosity function

Regarding your revert of my edit, thanks I was thinking of lux, which is what I was then converting to. However the page as it is, still makes me cringe at the wording. "J(\lambda)\, is the spectral power distribution of the radiation (power per unit wavelength), in watts per meter." Why doesn't "\overline{y}(\lambda) (also known as V(\lambda)\,) is the standard luminosity function (which is dimensionless)." also state per wavelength? Because it's unnecessary, and can be better reworded into "as a function of wavelength" instead of per wavelength. I've corrected the wording. Because if J(\lambda)\ has the units of W/m, which is what the wording implies when it says "in watts per meter", then F=(lm/W)*(W/m)=lm/m and it's no longer lm (lumen), ie dimensionally incorrect. kandrey89 (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you. There is a difference between a function that is "per unit wavelength" and one that is simply a function of wavelength. SPDs are "per unit wavelength". Imagine the total power in the light being divided up into 1 nm wide "bins". The SPD (in units of W/nm) is a function of wavelength, that gives the power (in Watts) in each 1 nm wide bin. W/nm is dimensionally correct, as the value of the SPD scales with the width of bin that one considers. If the bins are 1 µm wide, the SPD's numerical value is a thousand times higher.
You did the dimensional analysis wrong. Integrating over λ multiplies by a length dimension. [F] = (lm/W)*(W/m)*m = lm--Srleffler (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

## Telephony stubs

I created Category:telephony stubs and filled it with 100 articles. Please feel free to tag other appropriate articles. Dawynn (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Srleffler (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

## incandescent street light

Here's the light during the day: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014-10-30_11_28_51_Old_street_lamp_on_Fireside_Avenue_in_Ewing,_New_Jersey.JPG

According to this page, its a Crescent Moon-Shaped Claw Incandescent. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/tpirman1982/streetlights1.html Famartin (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's actually the Radial Wave incandescent (title is below picture). I understand that the fixture is old, and was designed for incandescent bulbs. Do you have some reason to think that it actually has an incandescent bulb installed? I would have thought that the authority responsible for it would have long ago switched to using some other type of bulb.--Srleffler (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Other than the appearance? (you can get a full resolution photo by clicking on it from the commons page, or just click https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/2014-10-30_11_28_51_Old_street_lamp_on_Fireside_Avenue_in_Ewing%2C_New_Jersey.JPG ) There's a video someone put up on YouTube about similar lights. For whatever reason, New Jersey's public utilities have been very haphazard with replacing older light fixtures. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8TkS_NXf7Y Famartin (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It does look like an incandescent bulb, although it's hard to tell for sure. I did a quick search and didn't find any mogul-base gas discharge bulbs with that shape.--Srleffler (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if the color of the light makes it any clearer, but I did also take some photos of mercury and sodium vapor lamps with the same two cameras... They are in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Street_lights_in_New_Jersey Famartin (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
PS - The local utility is Public Service Enterprise Group. I don't know but maybe they'd tell us one way or the other if contacted. Famartin (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

## Flatulence fetishism article/problematic editor who created it

We have Misterinterloper (talk · contribs), who is spamming Wikipedia articles with content about flatulence and flatulence fetishism, and now we have the poor Flatulence fetishism article that he created. Do you think that we should redirect the article somewhere? Or delete it? I'm guessing that, given the recent phobia article mess we encountered, you and AndyTheGrump would opt for deletion. Sjö tagged the article, but that is not enough. Oh, and as seen here, we now have a WP:Sockpuppet of the Misterinterloper account. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not really "spamming" for him to write about what interests him, in multiple articles. It's not really a problem if all he wants to do is write about farting, as long as he is able to work with other editors. I did propose the article for deletion, since the first reference indicates that as of last year there had only ever been one case diagnosed. I added it to List of paraphilias. That article and list of phobias are actually good places to list things that are supported by a decent reference, but not sufficiently notable to merit having an article. --Srleffler (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
By spamming and problematic editing, I mean things like this and this. As for adding the content to List of paraphilias, as you did here, we should be sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for that list, especially since just about anything can be placed on that list if we don't. So I'll remove that addition from the list. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It's important to assume good faith and not WP:BITE the newcomers. New editors often do start with an inappropriate test edit in article space before doing anything positive. He may well have thought that his addition to Flatulist was relevant, and it would not be obvious to a new editor that the article on flatulence fetishism is inappropriate or that creating a second account might be a problem. As long as what he is doing can be construed as an attempt to add constructively to the encyclopedia he needs to be treated with respect and guided where necessary.
Point taken about the Huffington post article not being a medical source. I had included the item because the article is a secondary source that discusses published medical research but you are right that that is not sufficient. --Srleffler (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
When an editor starts off with what appears to be WP:Vandalism to me, such as adding the word "farting" into an article for no apparent reason, then I am very likely to take that edit as WP:Vandalism and revert it as such, as I usually do when I see such edits. Misterinterloper was reverted by Snowager, Haminoon and Shinyang-i, as seen here, here and here, for that "farting" edit because it appeared to be WP:Vandalism and included unexplained blanking; unexplained blanking is one of the listings in the WP:VANDTYPES section of the WP:Vandalism policy. I would have reverted that edit for the same reason. If blanking looks justified, then I will not revert the blanking or revert and label the blanking as a test/vandalism. Although Misterinterloper offered an explanation for his blanking here, Shinyang-i still considered the "farting" addition to be vandalism. I understand your point about not biting the newbies and that we should WP:Assume good faith in them, but the WP:BITE and WP:Assume good faith guidelines do not mean that we should not bite and should rather assume good faith in cases where we highly suspect that the editor is not editing in good-faith. I've dealt with many editors like Misterinterloper, and I revert WP:Vandalism and other problematic edits daily, as my contribution history shows, and the vast majority of such editors are not editing in good-faith. I also deal with a good number of WP:Trolls. So I admit that my WP:BITE and WP:Assume good faith mentality is not as lenient as yours. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I deal with the same kind of editors you do. It's not every day you see one create an article with references to sources, one of which is reliable. The sourcing was inadequate because of WP:MEDRS, but it shows a clear intent to add material to the encyclopedia. His addition of "farting" to Come Back Home (2NE1 song) appears to be vandalism, and was properly reverted. That doesn't justify assuming that everything else he does is vandalism. His eventual explanation of the removal of the "synopsis" section was good, and another editor agreed and removed that section. His edits to Scripps Ranch High School seem reasonable. His addition to Cultural history of the buttocks#Fetishism may have been WP:UNDUE, but was neither off-topic nor grossly inappropriate. It was reasonably written and supported by a reference to a reliable source. His edit to Partialism replaced a crude slang term with the more formal one used in the article to which that line links. Your revert seems like an unduly harsh reaction. I left your version only because that column in the table is labelled "common name", and one could argue that "butt" is more common in modern English than the more formal "buttocks".
You seem to be reacting on the basis of an idea that he might have a prurient interest in the topics he is editing. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Editing a topic of personal interest is fine, even if the topic is taboo. It's the content of the edits themselves that matters, and how one works with other editors.--Srleffler (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I deal with editors like Misterinterloper, and highly problematic editors, more often than you do; our edit histories show that. I am simply speaking from experience, and am not trying to be disrespectful to you or imply that I disagree with everything that you stated above. I, however, do stand by all of what I stated above. Regarding Misterinterloper's edits to the Partialism article, the word butt is not crude (at least not to many people), and wanting to remove that word because of crudeness could be argued as a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. That word, as you noted, was placed in the "Common name" column; various WP:Reliable sources show that people state "butt" more than they state "buttocks." The word buttocks was already in its appropriate column. I don't consider my revert of Misterinterloper to be "an unduly harsh reaction"; so that is something else we disagree on. And as for WP:NOTCENSORED, as many at Wikipedia know, I commonly deal with sexual and anatomy topics which might offend (my user talk page currently shows that), and I never remove things based on whether or not it offends me; I edit such topics with WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Offensive material in mind. In fact, I was very clear about that in a recent interview with Gawker. If you want to see someone objecting to sexual content based solely on personally finding the content offensive, then see this matter (the editor I mentioned) at WP:Anatomy. In this case, the sexual content is simply imagery of sex anatomy, and is not meant to be erotic.
In closing: There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that I need to be reminded of. I respect you as an editor, and appreciate that you have a softer approach than I do, but I don't think that I have acted wrongly in this case, and I'm sure that I never will think that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I will keep everything that you stated in mind, and I am trying to be softer in my approach to problematic editors; sometimes I am successful at it (for example, I think I did fine in this case, even with this stern edit summary), and other times I am not. Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I am sorry that I misjudged you, in assuming you might have been objecting to his focus on "farting" rather than on his specific behavior. --Srleffler (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. And I truly do mean that I am working on being softer with my Wikipedia interactions; it can sometimes be difficult, especially in the contentious areas I work in on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for misreading the delete template, and thanks for pointing it out to me. Also appreciate the conversation above. I'll be much more careful in future. Regards, Haminoon (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

For clarification to those other than us (Srleffler, Haminoon and me) reading this section, this is what Haminoon means. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the indent changes, I indented that way per the WP:Indent essay; simply put, I was not replying to Haminoon. But I know that Wikipedia editors generally add an extra indentation when commenting, so I understand you changing my indent in that regard. Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

## Dick Black

The users who keep editing this page keep citing a Mother Jones article that is filled with falsehoods and outright lies. For instance, Black never opposed making marital rape a crime and in fact voted for the bill making marital rape a crime. In addition, the supposed quote given by Mother Jones by Sen. Black about military rape is completely unsourced in the article and untrue. The BLP Guidelines state that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion," yet every time I remove contentious material that is poorly sourced (the Mother Jones article), it keeps getting put back.

If you look at the original posting of Tiller54 to this page dated 20 Jan., 2014 (check the revision history of this page), you will see that this user created an attack page, which is forbidden by Wikipedia rules, and should have qualified this page for deletion or revision back to the original stub. I have been trying to create an accurate portrayal of Senator Black, and every time I do, you and another user keep restoring this page back nearly to the original attack page that was created here. Furthermore, every time I try to add purely biographical information about the Senator from his website, which is specifically allowed by Wikipedia rules, it keeps getting removed.

I am trying to remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced per the BLP guidelines. Specifically, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." The Mother Jones article is tabloid journalism. Please stop reverting my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashburnian (talkcontribs) 03:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I only reverted you once: yesterday, and that was because you did one big edit that removed material sourced to the Washington Post, and added material sourced by the Senator's website.
Your edits late today are a good opening to further discussion at Talk:Dick Black (politician)#Restoring page. --Srleffler (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

## Edit-war warning on my Talk page.

Hello. I gather you put an edit-war warning on my talk page, although you didn't sign it. Please be aware that I tried to get the other party to talk about the dispute on the Talk page, but he or she ignored my invitation and persisted in making POV edits to the page. I didn't know what else to do, but I will stop reverting the anonymous editor's edits. Please don't block me. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 03:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pointing out that I forgot to sign my posts. The three-revert rule is a "bright line rule"—it doesn't matter what the circumstances are. Nobody should be repeatedly reverting another editor over a content dispute. You're right in inviting the other editor to discuss the issue. Continuing to revert him only discourages the start of conversation though. Better to let his version stand for a day or so and try to engage him in discussion on his talk page, if you can't get his attention anywhere else. If you still can't get anywhere, you need to get other editors involved.--Srleffler (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. My sentence:

"Radiant power per unit solid angle around a direction per unit projected area normal to this direction."

"Radiant power per unit solid angle per unit projected area of a surface."

mean exactly the same. I just indicated how the projection of the surface is done: along the direction, so that the projected surface finds itself normal to this direction. I only used the formulation given in the [ISO 9288 (1989)]. But if you misunderstood then the indication must be confusing. So I will only indicate "along the direction" instead of "normal to this direction". — Maggyero (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC).

I see. Yes, I misread it. It's hard to capture radiance in a concise phrase. I like your new wording better.
You've done a lot of good work on the template, by the way.--Srleffler (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and thank you for your corrections of yesterday. For the repetitions and the derivative I agree with you, and in fact I improved the notation again following the ISO 9288 who uses partial derivatives. Concerning the reformulations of the introductions of the articles, I agree with your moving of the link for the word "spectral" in bold and your use of "whether the spectrum is taken as a function of" instead of "whether the spectrum is a function of", however I put back the ending em dash because it is compulsory in typography, even before commas, since the last part of the sentence does not belong to the parenthetical text and without ending em dash the reader cannot know it. Em dash are not compulsory only before full stops, since there is no ambiguity. Now, about the glyph of phi, the notation is a upper case roman (upright) phi, notation used through the Wikipedia article Flux, not a lower case slanted phi. So I put back the upper case roman phi in LaTeX formulas but I corrected the inline slanted version that I used mistakenly, with the upright version. — Maggyero (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
The lower case phi was my mistake. I looked at the phi used in the template and since the page is rendered in a sans-serif font I misread it as a lower-case phi. (I see the page in sans-serif, but LaTeX equations render in serif.) For the sentence about the units of spectral radiance, did you not like the phrasing "Spectral radiance can be taken as a function of either frequency or wavelength, with units of watts per steradian per square metre per hertz (W·sr−1·m−2·Hz−1) or watts per steradian per square metre, per metre (W·sr−1·m−3)—commonly watts per steradian per square metre per nanometre (W·sr−1·m−2·nm−1), respectively."? I can't tell whether you edited an old version of the article by mistake, or if you deliberately reverted to the older phrasing.
Does ISO use ∂2 or ∂4 in the numerator of the equation for radiance? The notations ∂/∂Ω and ∂/∂A mask some complexity; you can't simply differentiate with respect to a solid angle or an area. When you break it down to scalar variables you can differentiate against, it becomes clear that this is a fourth-order partial derivative.--Srleffler (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Your phrasing could make someone think that being able to be taken as a function of either frequency or wavelength is specific to spectral radiance while the current phrasing only refers to spectrum in general so is less confusing in my opinion. Furthermore the current version holds in one sentence. That is why I kept it.
$L_\Omega = \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial \Omega\, \partial A \cos \theta}.$
$L_\Omega = \frac{\partial^4 \Phi}{\sin \theta\, \partial \theta\, \partial \varphi\, \pi \partial r^2 \cos \theta},$
$L_\Omega = \frac{\partial^4 \Phi}{\partial^2 \Omega\, \partial^2 A \cos \theta},$
1. The proper notations are only a change of variable from (r, θ, $\varphi$) to (Ω, A, θ), such that ∂Ω = sinθθ$\varphi$ and ∂A = π(∂r)2. The new variables Ω and A are not differentiated twice but only once. As a result, the new function Φ is not differentiated four times but twice (once for Ω, once for A) and one should write ∂2Φ.