User talk:Dicklyon

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

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your great contribution to Wikipedia in adding pictures and illustrations to articles improving the reader's experience by adding a visual idea to the written information.--Xaleman87 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Do you have sources for name change for Lawrence Massacre?

I notice that you changed the name of the Lawrence Massacre article without discussion on the article's talk page. Your edit summary includes: "not a proper name; not usually capitalized in sources." In the modern secondary sources I have, it is given as "Lawrence Massacre" in the text, without lowercase. This includes Castel's book, Civil War Kansas: Reaping the Whirlwind. It also is listed that way in the American Battlefield Protection Program and the Civil War Battlefield Guide 2nd Ed. It is used as a proper name in quotes. Gerteis' Civil War St. Louis page has an article by George Rule calling it the Lawrence Massacre without quotes. Goodrich who published the modern study of it writes in his book: "Thus, word of what came to be known as the Lawrence Massacre, spread to the outside world." (p. 150 of Bloody Dawn: the Story of the Lawrence Massacre. Based on modern reliable sources the name change appears to be in error and should probably be moved back Red Harvest (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did first check sources and found that capitalization of raid and massacre there are not consistent, so per MOS:CAPS we should avoid it. See n-grams and books: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and many more. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on that list it should be capitalized because it is the name of an historical event. When you examine books by modern historians specifically relating to the event it is written "Lawrence Massacre." Please move it back to the proper name.

It is very bad form to go moving pages with no discussion and no input from other editors on the relevant Talk page. It doesn't appear to me that your interpretation of the guidelines is correct. I'm going to ask for some input from other editors. Red Harvest (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been reading about these changes and I'm not sure what the right answer is at this time. I agree with Dicklyon about MOS and I agree with Red Harvest about common usage (to me, the n-grams presented by Dicklyon seem to indicate that, at least in the case of Lawrence Massacre, the far most common usage has been capitalized Massacre). Has this been discussed at MOS or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history? BusterD (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The n-grams graph is likely misleading (if not examined closely) because contemporary wording of the 19th century primary accounts was mostly lowercase. So direct quotations of primary sources by modern secondary sources will skew the result. This is something to be wary of as a systematic concern. Examining conventions of recent historians seems the wisest course.

MOS doesn't address this that I see. It seems to skip naming of historical events. Red Harvest (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

More typically the n-grams bias toward upper case, because so many of the usage in print are titles and headings and capitalized for that reason. Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen of this particular one, that is not the case here. Again, one needs to take a closer look at recent reliable sources. In doing that I reach the opposite conclusion. Red Harvest (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:List of events named massacres where prior discussions are linked. There has been a consensus that avoid unnecessary capitalization applies here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is apparent that this should be done on a case by case basis, rather than blanket moves this way or that. And that requires taking it to Talk first. These were already capitalized and no objection had been raised. It makes little sense to me to adopt a name that is the reverse of that commonly used by current reliable sources. Red Harvest (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with Red Harvest. The normal practice is Bold, Revert, Discuss. If we chose to ask permission before ANY change, nothing would get done here. No, Dicklyon acted boldly, Red Harvest reverted, now we're discussing. This is the best practice for a necessarily adversarial editing environment. Dicklyon should expect to face talkpage discussion on some moves. BusterD (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the discussions listed, I can see the merits of NOT considering many massacre article names as proper names. Tony1's arguments in favor of the lowercase are compelling. I'm especially impressed when attempts to disagree are as collegial as the Rock Springs discussion ended. For my part, I don't actually care who is right here, though I understand (and hope Dicklyon understands) loyalty to one's own good faith efforts, like those of User:Red Harvest. When editors disagree, it is wise practice to be respectful towards each other in disagreement and responsive in discussion not only to guideline and policy, but also empathetic to the positions of others. Lately pedia editors have been facing a lot of bad-faith accusations from rookie editors. It's especially useful now for those of us who have an investment in Wikipedia effort to work cooperatively. Again, kudos to your efforts to clean up the lowercase/uppercase inconsistency. I'd merely urge words of kindness in case-by-case discussions (as many of these will be decided). BusterD (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see BRD applying well to article moves. This is the opposite of what I've seen work--BusterD and I recently worked to revert an egregious change that was made "boldly" this way years ago. Article name moves require more thorough checks and link updates, template updates, redirects, etc. Otherwise it leaves a mess for someone else to clean up with no explanation for the change. Consistency between Wikipedia articles suffers when this is not done. I've done/participated in some name changes and asked for input, so I have some appreciation of the number of cross links that should be examined--and I still find things I've missed.

• A simple talk page entry at the least should be made for each move, even if it is made immediately to conform to some new policy (such as this one.) This will prevent unnecessary reverts and confusion and might enlist other interested editors in searching for not-so-apparent updates that are needed to match the new name. Edit summaries are inadequate for the task--as we've seen in this example.
• In the move/revert process for name changes it looks like there is some risk of losing talk pages and such altogether depending on the nature of the move. That might not happen with an experienced editor, but we don't know how experienced or careful a reverter will be.
• The MOS needs to be updated to explain the naming changes for historical events. This is particularly so when common capitalization by RS is going to be overridden in common wiki practice. Red Harvest (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't disagree with any specific listed above by Red Harvest, but I contend that the BRD cycle is intended as a common method of reaching consensus, that is, a workable solution when good faith editors disagree on ANY change. We do have more formal processes like AfD and RM when BRD doesn't suffice. BRD helps us to avoid too much heat and focus our attention on improving pagespace, which everyone here tries to do. I think a talk page entry explaining an uncontested move is probably a good idea. I think looking at sources and previous consensus (which it is clear Dicklyon does) is also important. That the MOS might need updating is a good idea and should be taken thataway. My intended contribution to this discussion was to emphasize AGF and respect for healthy disagreement. BusterD (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

BRD works OK with moves; there is no risk of losing talk pages or histories. I've moved hundreds or perhaps thousands of pages, and I estimate that fewer than 1% of moves ever attract a comment. If I had to treat each one as potentially controversial, or follow up with a talk page comment to back up the edit summary, it would be much harder to do the kind of routine MOS-compliance improvements that I like to do. If you look at the various "massacre" articles, you'll find that many had the title in different cases even within the article before I cleaned them up. As you note, there is no specific exception in MOS:CAPS for specific historical events, and nor should there be, since most sources written for a general audience show that caps are not necessary.

In the case of the Lawrence massacre, books like this one have dozens of occurences in upper case, in titles and page headings, but in a sentence context use lower case. This is not unusual. And on average, it's still only about 50% upper in books, which is nowhere near the threshold of MOS:CAPS about being consistently capitalized in sources. This is not new stuff; pretty routine, really. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a convincing argument. When we disagree about issues, we discuss on talk to measure consensus as opposed to reverting back and forth. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Lawrence massacre. Others may choose to join the broader discussion. It also appears others disagree in various pagespaces. Please accept that you'll be required to make your case in multiple talk page discussions. BusterD (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have joined those discussions; no problem. I'm saying that a priori, I don't assume that routine moves to improve compliance with WP:MOS will be seen by anyone as controversial. 99% of the time, they are not. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Federal Express Flight 705

I reverted your renaming of Federal Express Flight 705. All aircraft accident articles with flight numbers are named with "Flight" capitalized. Please see the naming conventions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force for more information. —Diiscool (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How odd. I was not aware of that local project exception to MOS:CAPS. We should fix that, as the caps are not "necessary" (see this book. But it's not something I want to take on right now, so I'll leave it alone. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Penn's Creek Massacre and Sugarloaf Massacre capitalization

I actually haven't seen a single source that has "Massacre" in lowercase. Battles, in general, are also titled in title case. --Jakob (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are some. Penn's Creek: [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. Sugarloaf: [11], [12], [13], [14]. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Every source that is actually used on the article uses the original capitalization. Battles, in general, are also titled in title case. --Jakob (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly not true. On each of those articls, the first ref that I could actually access has lower case: [15], [16]. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, they are used interchangeably in a couple of refs. That doesn't change my main point. --Jakob (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I only see what you said above; what is your main point? Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, ha! If you thought you were going to get away with that, you were being naive

I can't believe you thought you were going to get away with a mass decapitalisation of article titles without gaining consensus first. Your poor interpretation of WP:MOSCAPS aside, you showed a complete disregard for sources. Regardless, all of your moves of articles that were not at WP:NDESC titles have been reverted. If you want a mass decapitalisation, I suggest you propose one large move request with all of them, so that everyone can see in the open what you're doing. Trying to hide in articles that have few watchers whilst you violate Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and English-language sense unilaterally is not a viable route whilst I'm around. RGloucester — ☎ 04:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The consensus for this kind of cleanup was clear in previous multi-move discussions; I have linked them on the Talk:Watts Riots#Requested moves discussion that I just opened and you already responded to. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No such "general consensus" exists. You've imagined a folly, and a folly you've got. Let the subaltern speak! RGloucester — ☎ 05:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr Lyon, given the significance of this sprawling request, I presume you won't mind if I list it at Template:Centralized discussion? RGloucester — ☎ 04:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done RGloucester — ☎ 05:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that lowercasing, by the way. It is correct, and I made a mistake. See all others in category Category:Indian union ministries. RGloucester — ☎ 07:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

'Often' vs 'sometimes'

Hi Dick: In this edit you changed 'often' to 'sometimes' commenting That's one source; unilateral is most commonl used and often adequate. This is your opinion. Is it in fact "most commonly used"? Is it "often adequate".

As far as common use, it is "commonly used" as an illustration when modeling simple cases where the amplifier can be set up in terms of two-ports. But this doesn't work even for all the simple cases treated in text books. That is why the return ratio and asymptotic gain approaches were developed. That is why Chen says this idealization "is not an adequate representation". Adding the word "often" already backs off a bit from his opinion on this matter.

For some simple textbook examples where the unilateral approach fails, see RC Jaeger Microelectronic Circuit Design §18.7 Common errors in applying feedback theory, p. 1005. "Great care must be exercised in applying the two-port theory to ensure that the amplifier and feedback circuits can actually be represented as two-ports".

It's pretty clear that there is a great deal of practical amplifier design and simulation that is done where the unilateral block idealization has no bearing. In numerical simulation of real amplifiers, it is almost impossible to use. Changing the emphasis to suggest this failure is a rare occurrence is misleading. Using the word 'often' comes closer to the real balance. Brews ohare (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I offered my opinion in an edit summary. If you look at your source, it's a book on feedback amplifiers, where this common problem doesn't come up until chapter 13, and the expert who wrote that chapter wants his readers to think that this is real important stuff that they can't do without. Yet most of us engineers know that for many practical purposes we can get along without that, and have done so during our long and prosperous careers (let SPICE handle the deviations when they matter). Or is your experience different? Dicklyon (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My experience is that the two-port approach works for illustrative purposes and leads one astray in real world cases because one taught by the traditional approach fails to check if the port conditions hold and is misled into using incorrect equations. Brews ohare (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, the reason the "indefensible" approach appears in introductory circuit texts before the exposition of "practical" methods is simply to have students crawl before they learn to walk. It may also be due to a misjudgment of the best pedagogy, based upon the very slow adaptation of methods well adapted to computers, and fuddy-duddy reliance upon ancient approaches. Brews ohare (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd add that the convolutions involved in casting the amplifier as a two-port problem often simply aren't worth the trouble as the more general methods prove easier to use. Brews ohare (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

'Sometimes' should be enough to alert one to check for validity of assumptions, if that's what you're worried about. Dicklyon (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think what worries me is that I'd like a better relationship with you. This change of wording is based upon your gut feeling, and not evidence. The evidence besides a blank sourced statement of inadequacy is the development of better methods widely used and widely sourced. I find you remarkably able to produce sources when you want to go that way. But discussing them is not your thing - their use is mainly to support your views where that is possible.

There are plenty of editors on WP who don't use sources at all and they jeopardize the WP project. So I cling to the hope that we can collaborate better, and that could happen if we focussed on sources. Brews ohare (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping test

Dicklyon, RGloucester. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't get it. RGloucester — ☎ 01:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Me neither. Can't blame the template then. Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Debate on the relevance of mayors to Texas city history timelines

Hello Dicklyon. To widen our debate on the relevance of mayors to Texas city history timelines, I think we should solicit opinions of others via the main article talk pages for the cities in question: Austin, El Paso, and San Antonio. OK with you? -- M2545 (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested that already. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Great suggestion. Thanks. The question is now on each main article talk page. -- M2545 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain how a mayor's name is relevant in a timeline, if that mayor isn't known for anything. Dicklyon (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In the Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia debate, I am an inclusionist when it comes to crowdsourced history. Texas city mayors are elected and therefore of historical interest. Some mayors have a lot of impact, others less so, but they are all notable for being designated city leaders. -- M2545 (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see that you are inclusionist. But why? In fact, "notable" is a WP concept distinct from the significance I'm talking about, and some of them are likely not even notable. Dicklyon (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The digital, web-based, open access, participatory Wikipedia platform affords new space for representing histories of cities. In the print era it was not practical to include lots of marginal events in timelines. Not anymore. Concise, heavily edited city timelines are valuable in some contexts, and so are longer detailed lists like Timeline of Paris or Timeline of Baltimore. -- M2545 (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the Paris one. It's a good example of not mentioning mayors except when they're known for something other than having been mayor. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Reversion on Golden Ratio Addition

I don't see why something like this should be "sourced". All I was trying to do is note something about the golden ratio that anyone would be interested in, which is buried in all of the mathematical formulas, viz. (from the section within the article entitled 'Other Properties' that, by the way, has no footnote):

The sequence of powers of φ contains these values 0.618..., 1.0, 1.618..., 2.618...; more generally, any power of φ is equal to the sum of the two immediately preceding powers:

I sure have a hard time keeping anything that I add to Wikipedia from being reverted right away, so there is more behind this comment than just this item. Put another way, Wikipedia seems less like a collaborative effort than it did 5 or 6 years ago. Shocking Blue (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That article may not be a good one to judge by, as it has an exceptional history of newcomers adding random factoids and us old timers trying to defend it from bloat and nonsense. It would be fine if you want to remove or tag {{citation needed}} any unsourced passage you see there; it will prompt others who think it belongs to put it back with a source. You can do that with yours, too, but if can't find a book or something that mentions the observation that you find interesting, then don't. Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disengage

I shall be unilaterally disengaging from matters of capitalisation, &c. All such matters shall therefore cease to be discussed at my talk page. No further mention should be made of my username, unless it is necessary to convey some point. I will appreciate your co-operation in this regard. However, don't think that means you can avoid the processes that have already started on this matter. Please do the best that you can to give each decapitalisation due process. RGloucester — ☎ 00:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)