User talk:Dicklyon

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

Your photo

		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)

Ambient Light Sensor Information

I thought there was a lot of valuable and educational information on ambient light sensing. And, nowhere on the new page which it was redirected to as photodetectors is there any mention of the newest technology, which is a single IC with an integrated photodiode, transimpedance amp, and ADC -- all house in a transparent resin package. Was the issue the external links or the content. I would gladly repost without any external links if you believe the information in the posting was of value.

Analogauthority (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Spam links

I´m User Living001, you have deleted my link to SSB and the rest I do. It´s not spam! it´s a link to the wikiversity, where it can be found more information about it, you put me a link language content, in it, it´s wrotten: "When linking to a site in a non-English language under the exceptions above, label the link with a language icon, ", I have used the language icon this time! and the link is not intended for spam, in the pages it can be found more information and tables about the SSB,PSK, etc. again-> "It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as ...when the site contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables". Why can´t I put this link in the "External link" part?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Living001 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I just noticed you note here, as the next one at about the same time distracted me. I really don't know anything about wikiversity, but when an editor shows up and posts nothing but external links to a site, I call that spam. Particularly as I didn't see any content there that couldn't easily be included in the article if it's relevant. The guidelines say non-English links may be useful "when linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables (explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can interpret them) or when the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative)." I don't think these apply; do they? Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You have deleted links I added as well (Voltageman), and I understand and accept your reasoning except for one thing, there are external links on each of the same articles with much of the same information I was linking to. Those pages also include or are on sites with "advertising" on them - so lets at least be consistent with "policy." --Voltageman (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to work on removing other spam links. Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nutty" Statment

I have had a couple (one on a web forum the other at waiting at lab) of pro photographers tell me that they will still use some film for location stuff because they can just send it to a lab and go to bed. I will try and find a citation to appease you. AJUK ^Talk!! 22:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you find a source you might want to find a place for this nutty stuff other than in the lead of the article (for example, there's a section on convenience and flexibility where it might be OK), and pay attention to case and punctuation, too, on your next attempt. Then I'll be appeased. Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You still think it's nutty? AJUK ^Talk!! 23:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that you improved it, just put it in a better place. The new nutty one is pretty nutty, too. Why not just add stuff that has a source to back it up? Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Solar Hot Water

Hi, Dickylon. I'm just explaining why I have reverted your revert on the Solar Hot Water article: I recently removed a link to a spam blog (http://floridasolarwaterheater.blogspot.com/) that had been inserted at the top of the External Links of this article. Every solar water related link on this blog links to josephabrams.com, using different link text, so it is clearly a spam blog. Subsequently, the article was edited so that the External Links were all deleted, and a link to josephabrams.com inserted. This would be an amazing coincidence, so I consider it vandalism and spam. The previous collection of links were all relevant in my view (I had checked through them when I found the spam blog) so it was definitely not a harmless cleanup. I hope you don't mind that I reverted it back to the original, and I'm sorry if this caused any offence. I really should have explained about the spam blog with all its links to josephabrams.com, so you did not have all of the information you needed to make your decision. Thanks, Charlie Tango (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. The article talk page is a good place for that, so that others will understand what's going on, too. -- Ah, I see you did that, too. Dicklyon (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! Charlie Tango (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Excelsior

To dicklyon: Please reinstate the link to solarthermalworld.org. It is a "not for profit" website which is supported by the european solar industry and relates to many of the items listed in the article on solar thermal. Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.194.246 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To Dicklyon: What's the problem with my adding information on Excelsior High School and a link to it's page? Your explanatory comment this time is that it is "not a DAB item." What does that mean? You can tell I'm not skillied in wiki formatting and I'm sorry if I didn't format this question right either. But the whole point of Wikipedia is to educate, so I'm asking that the item stay in, and if you have some sort of formatting or other issue to please let me know what it is. Thanks. Joe Gattuso Jgattuso (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MOSDAB. The problem is that a disambiguation page is supposed to contain disambiguation items to help one find the right article; not external links. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dick. I learn something new every day. And I understand your deletions elsewhere too. Joe Jgattuso (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fechner

Welcome to Wikipedia? Are you kidding me? I was just restoring it to the way it was. Obviously the article needs lots more referencing, but don't you think it should be accurate first? Anyway, I'll supply one ASAP. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted your edit based on the summary, which didn't note that it was a revert and referred to a non-cited source. Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I should have labelled it "revert," as I usually do. --Jcbutler (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Noise

I'm pleased to see your contribution to the Image noise article, but I'm disappointed that you chose not to participate in the Talk:Image noise page. There are two discussions in which some steadfastly support the assertion that film grain is noise, while I believe that to be a mistake. Film grain is what constructs the image. Therefore, film grain is Signal, and, therefore, can't also be Noise. While your contribution does make some things clearer, it does nothing to either support or refute the position that film grain is noise. Therefore, while it is an improvement, it just adds to the noise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCav (talk • contribs)

I thought I had already responded in that discussion. My main point is this: we can say whatever we find in reliable sources, and that's all. So I found some sources, which pretty much supported what was in the article. I wouldn't go so far as to says film gain is noise; that's not the point; rather, there is noise associated with grain, and it's generally called film grain noise or something similar in the sources that I've looked at. At some point, I lost interest in the argument, as it was not focused on a discussion of article content relative to sources, which is all that really matters. Dicklyon (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Chords of the Pentagon

Hello Dick

With due respect, the footnote I added on chords of the pentagon is not unsourced - or at least put it this way if you require chapter and verse, I can supply it. And I think the historical relevance of these chords and their specific numerical values need to be specifically noted - perhaps you can suggest a better way if you're not happy with the footnote.

Last sentence is unwarranted - my apologies. I had looked at the history notes and presumed that the footnote had been removed altogether. In fact you had merely transferred it into the main article. I hope the citation provided is appropriate - there was a longer , perhaps more relevant quote, but I think the one provided is adequate.

Neil Parker (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What's needed is not a quote, but a citation to the source; a footnote to say where this stuff comes from. Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The presumption here is that between me and the source text of 'DROC' (as translated in Hawkings's book), there must be some great oracle of truth who/which must be cited whenever I make any reasonable inference from the source text. What idea - precisely - needs to be cited? That DROC was/is a 'watershed' astronomical text? This is stating the obvious. That chords of regular polygons were used as a starting point in the development of a table of chords? Rtfm. That the table of half chords corresponds to a table of sines? What else do you infer when against 30 we find 50000, against 45 70711 against 60 86602 (in this case a Copernican minion probably failed to round properly!)? Check any angle you like with a calculator! That the table of half chords is a key part of Copernican calculations? - again rtfm if you will please excuse the bluntness - hey I also qualified as an engineer :-). All the same if such oracle be found, please let me know and I will happily cite accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Parker (talk • contribs) 16:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, Sine Bot - I hereby append a formal signature!

Neil Parker (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just give a more precise description of what "FM" you want me to read, and I'll add a citation to it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have access to Hawking's book, then for polygon chords as starting point inference please read the text on "Third Theorem" p39. In particular the final paragraph:

Further when, for example, the sides of the pentagon and hexagon are given from the above, by this computation a line is given subtending $12^{\circ }$ - which is the difference between the arcs - and it is equal to 20905 parts of the diameter.

This corresponds to the half chord entry against 6 degrees given as 10453 in the table. Check sin(6) on your calculator!

Concerning the importance of the table of chords to the work as a whole, please read on page 36: "On the Straight Lines in Circles".

I trust in the hereinafter the great astronomer will forgive me my 'engineer's reference' to the .. manuscript :-)

Neil Parker (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I just popped across to say thanks for the way in which you dealt with the comments made by the editor who appeared to be attempting to personalise the discussion at Talk:Electric car. -- de Facto (talk). 10:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

cites

It's interesting that you chide me for adding material "without a cite" during the same week when another bashed me for citing to a reference that he thought beneath his dignity. His solution was to remove the offending cites from the text without adding others, leaving several dozen uncited statements that weren't that way before. Is there a template for that? I'd like to be able to use it. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you remind we what we're talking about? Link to relevant diff(s) and/or site? Dicklyon (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lukket-50s-computer-HOAX.jpg

I noticed that you removed the deletion notice from Image:Lukket-50s-computer-HOAX.jpg without really repairing the problem. Note that {{Non-free fair use in}} alone is not a sufficient fair-use rationale for that image. Additionally, even once there is one provided, I intend to dispute the image as replaceable- while it may be a notable instance of photoshopping, I believe it is pretty likely that there are other images that illustrate photoshopping with free licenses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the problem was that the fair-use rationale had the old article title in it; so I fixed that. What is it about that rationale that is not sufficient? Is there a formality missing, or are you disputing the reason? Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd disputed the reasoning in the replaceability portion of the image; since it struck me that it was only being used to illustrate photoshopping, it's extremely likely to be replaceable. But as it's been corrected to something that makes a bit more sense, I think I'm going to leave well enough alone. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, the image description page was missing a detailed fair-use rationale (per WP:FUR) when you removed the tag- that was my main complaint, but I'd initially questioned the acceptability of it as a fair-use image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Leavitt Hunt

Hello, I contributed several many months ago to the William Fox Talbot page and came away impressed with your knowledge of photography. Earlier today I contributed a new entry on Leavitt Hunt, an interesting figure who was both an early American photographer and a Harvard-educated lawyer, from a family immersed in the arts. Hunt made some interesting early contributions to photography, and then apparently turned away and never looked back. To me, anyway, he's an enigmatic figure. I would much appreciate it, if you wouldn't mind, having a look at him, my entry (which references William Fox Talbot), and telling me what you think. Many thanks and regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks great. I made a few tweaks. I think you should clarify the relationship of the footnotes to the encyclopedia reference. Is everything from there? Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Thank you for looking it over. Yes, pretty much most of it is from the main work that I cite, with the exception of the few footnotes that are in the text. The main work, considering it was just a few pages, was very comprehensive and pretty impressive all-in-all. Again, many thanks for taking the time. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken both photos and made them consistent in terms of tense. Thanks for the suggestion.MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

MOCA

I am confused why you reversed the MOCA edits The entropic chip set only works with a front end diplexer unit The entropic solution is a 2 chip solution front end analogue RF unit EN1010 and controller EN2011 The Pulse diplexer was released october 2006. Entropic chip set Nov 07 --76.93.173.45 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Could I have the courtesy of a link so I can see what you're asking about? What did my edit summary say? Did you cite sources? Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Modulation transfer function

My article on modulation transfer function is exclusively about infrared image processing so I will create a new article Modulation transfer function (infrared imaging) and add a link under (see also) to your article from my article, and also add my link to your article. I think this gets around the "narrowness" of my article and will not conflict with the redirect. The Lamb of God (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an article. That might work, but why not work on the adding the info instead to the OTF article, as an application? Or making an article on infrared instrumentation or something more general? Super narrow articles are often not the best way to contribute. I notice you've made a few others based on terms out of the eosi docs or something; it's not the best way to get a useful collaboration going, and they're likely to remain obscure and disconnected this way. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Math/Totally disputed section

Thanks for the note. Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57 10 October 2008 (UTC).

Request for opinion

Hi Dick: A page I have worked on is up for deletion as a content fork. I don't believe it is a fork, and even if it is, I don't believe deletion is the answer. Will you kindly take a look at it, and possibly render an opinion? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrifugal force (planar motion) Brews ohare (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a content fork, but deletion is not the answer. Why not think up a better proposal for how to split the large amount of material? Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dick: Thanks for your participation. This move for deletion caught me completely by surprise, and if I'd been less surprised I would have simply let it go. I really don't need endless arguments over whether Newton was right, especially with those who can't read an equation. However, Wolfkeeper's smears, scoffs, and slimy behavior got me going.

I hate to simply trash the material. It took time to put together and make the figures, and find the quotes. Please tell me if you think this might fly. Perhaps the Centrifugal force crowd will have enough fun talking at each other without attacking this venue? Brews ohare (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a better way to go about it. I'm still unclear on exactly how this mechanics stuff should be carved up, or how it is carved up in typical books. Is "planar" a key constraint? Or just one possible simplification to keep it from being too messy? Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that general 3-D is messier. I just didn't have the courage to present it. 71.80.210.217 (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a revised version removed from the subject of centrifugal force; please comment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your lead sentence has four refs, none of which, as far as I can tell, mention "planar". Maybe you should define the topic more broadly, and then present the math for just the more tractable planar case. Which sources can you point to for the "planar" approach or restriction? Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion for the intro to Mechanics of planar particle motion. The intro has been modified, but could benefit from your taking another look. Thanks for the help. Brews ohare (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Value and saturation

Thanks for answering my question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color. I never understood the difference between value and lightness before. Justin Foote (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Eye

I don't care one way or the other about color/colour in the article Eye. But the line breaks I put in made the illustrations at the top of the article look much better. It made it instantly clear which caption belongs to which picture and gave it all some space. (And there's plenty of room.) Did you even look at the difference? --Hordaland (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't look at the difference. I'm opposed to browser-specific and window-size-specific formatting hacks in general, esp. those done with extra-wiki html; they seem to mostly be motivated as IE workarounds, so I wouldn't be able to see the problem unless I ran that browser. Dicklyon (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for answering then. It might look better (for all of us) if that double box (2 images) were turned into two separate ones with each its own border, one on top of the other? --Hordaland (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Dick, could you please clarify your position on centrifugal force. In a reply to Brews ohare you said,

"If there's no source for splitting the treatment of centrifugal force this way, then I don't see why we should do it."

I backed you up and then you responded with,

Keep – I'm usually more of a deletionist, but the reasons given here for deletion don't seem to address the real issue, - - -

This complete U-Turn seems to me to indicate that you aren't really sure whether there are one or two kinds of centrifugal force. Anyhow, at least we have got rid of one of the centrifugal force articles, but I haven't yet counted how many are still left. I think we should be aiming for one single article. What do you think? David Tombe (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a U-turn; more of a side turn. I never thought of not forking as deletion; all my comments are directed to finding a good way to incorporate all relevant sourced material. Dicklyon (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dick, the material in question involved the tools that are used to analyze planetary orbits. In the past, relevant sourced material on that topic was rejected from the centrifugal force article. The name of the article was then narrowed to Centrifugal Force (rotating frames of reference). If there were to be one single article on centrifugal force, then it could cater for material of the kind that you were concerned about deleting. Having said that, I can't vouch for the accuracy of the material in question. David Tombe (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a bit of a mess. Do you know why the material was "rejected"? Dicklyon (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I would suggest that you follow the debate on the discussion page, and that should give you an idea of what has been going on. Centrifugal force is a single topic. But because of various arguments about its interpretation, the article has been forked into many articles. At the moment, I am having difficulty in even establishing agreement on what the disagreements are. I had been hoping to narrow it down to the issue of whether or not centrifugal force exists for objects that are at rest in the inertial frame but as observed from a rotating frame. However, as you can see, I have now got myself stuck in a new argument in which one of the editors is trying to argue that even in actual rotation there is another kind of centrifugal force which equals zero. I hope that you will be able to see just how ridiculous it has become. But if you read back over the discussion page for the last couple of months, you will understand more about what has been happening. David Tombe (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As usual, your elliptical response is not helpful to me in understanding your point. Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dick, That's OK. We'll just wait to see how Wolfkeeper replies to my latest question. David Tombe (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dick, well we've just seen Wolfkeeper's reply to that one. And that's where I rest my case. David Tombe (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you'd give me a link I could see what you're referring to. Dicklyon (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper thinks that there's more than one kind of centrifugal force. Here is the question and the answer on the talk page of centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference),

Wolfkeeper, I would like you to give me an example of a situation in which two different kinds of centrifugal potential energy exist simultaneously. David Tombe (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I could certainly do that. But I'm not going to. I'm not your monkey. You clearly don't understand this topic in any way. All attempts to explain it to you have fallen on deaf ears due to your preconceptions and your complete faith in their inerrancy- and in the face of ample and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's really all I have to say to you.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to beat supplying a citation when required to do so. Continuing to run at least two articles on centrifugal force is contrary to wikipedia policy until such times as anybody can supply a citation clearly stating that there is more than one kind of centrifugal force. On the contrary, I have got very reliable textbooks, that when the centrifugal force arises in an analysis, refer to it as 'the familiar centrifugal force'. David Tombe (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE: The question has been posted on the RS noticeboard.

Hello. I have decided that at long last we have a good enough question to ask the notice board and posted it. here The question has been negotiated and all parties have had input. It is possible to comment further on the notice board so any other questions or concerns can be raised there. I think that the question that I posted which is evolved from drafts of mine, Jokestress's and James_Cantor's is a good framing for the issue and gives all the information that the uninterested RS editors will need to make a determination.

I took this action because we could end up negotiating the content of this question and have about as much success as we have had with the article itself. Someone had to say enough. So I say enough already. I hope that we can resolve this question and move on to more productive editing of the article in the near future. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Dicklyon (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on your userpage

Hey Dicklyon. I just blocked an IP for vandalism on your userpage. Do you want me to semi-protect your userpage, too? Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think that's necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Inkscape

Hello Dick

Thanks for the tip some time back about Inkscape for doing vector graphics. Have finally got round to downloading and using it. Will get round to upgrading some of the more 'grainy' diagrams in the corollaries section on Ptolemy's Thm.

Neil Parker (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Of vandalism and misguided good-faith edits

I notice you often revert on the basis of vandalism, but some changes you revert seem like good-faith edits to me, however misguided. For example, I think the HTML tags the anonymous user added on Luminous flux were intended to fix the formatting (which I’m now fixing—hopefully correctly this time). I’m not criticizing your contributions—the reverts are certainly warranted—but I wanted to bring this to your attention so that you don’t inadvertently bite the newcomers. Thanks! Dmyersturnbull (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't have the patience to distinguish the vandals from the dimwits. But I don't bite hard, just a simple warning that it was not found constructive, so I reverted it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Relational approach to quantum physics

The proposal for deletion and the entire history of this page has disappeared. Brews ohare (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The history looks OK to me. Dicklyon (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to the deletion proposal

Relational approach to physics is directly attributable to A. Einstein, and the references cited are to show all those efforts in this direction, although the article is belabored to introduce Zheng et al’s approach as a complement to Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics. Do you think it is possible to modify the theme, for example, Bohm’s understanding of relational approach and it’s implication to interpretation of quantum mechanics? In the introduction of his book on relativity he did conclude that “Since effective thinking in physics generally requires the integration of the intuitive with the mathematical sides, it is hoped that along these lines a deeper and more effective way of understanding relativity (and perhaps the QUANTUM THEORY) may emerge.”

Looking forward to hearing from you! KT-2500 (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a revision plan. Since Bohm’s relational approach is well established and none will doubt its notabiltiy. See David Bohm. The revised article will modify the title to “Bohm’s relational approach and quantum physics” (and accordingly the article) to place the emphasis on Bohm’s view on relativity and then its exemplification in quantum physics by zheng et al., in response to his call in his book for a deeper understanding of quantum theory. This basically reflects the history, as Zheng et al’s paper is dedicated to the memory of David Bohm, only with whose brilliant exposition of the meaning of relativity can they convey the idea. KT-2500 (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much of this approach; I just know that when I search books using the name provided, I don't find much. Are any of these books about it? If you can indicate which sources cover this approach, it should be no problem to establish notability. So far, though, it seems that you're the only guy who has heard of it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bohm's view on relativity (relational approach or what ever you call it) is expressed thoroughly through his book "The Theory of Special Relativity." You can find the new edition (1996) online [1]. Using the book as a templete, to apply the relational approach to quantum physics is just as easy as a kid's homework. What I want to say in the article is how great his view on relativity is, which bridges science, philosophy, and cognition. See the section "Bridging science, philosophy, and cognition" of David Bohm or Hiley's foreword for the 1996 edition. KT-2500 (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read especially the back cover, i.e., Journal of Consciousness Studies on Bohm's view on relativity, to establish the notability. KT-2500 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for input on "Fictitious force"

Hi Dick: I believe a clear discussion of the different usages of fictitious force has appeared on the talk page at Planetary motion. However, the overall approach to the topic is not so clear. It may involve some new pages and a lot of re-writes. I'd appreciate your input on how to handle this topic, which impacts a great many Wiki pages including Centrifugal force, Inertial frame, Non-inertial frame, Frame of reference, Fictitious force, Coriolis effect, Mechanics of planar particle motion, Rotating frame of reference, Polar coordinates, Bucket argument, and Rotating spheres. Brews ohare (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I've gotten too much sucked into this area already, which is not in my expertise. I appreciate you trying to fix it up and clarify it, but you need to work out the approach with others that have expertise in the area and time to help. That's not me. Dicklyon (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnhouse Effect

Hi there. I noticed that you reverted my linking to Report on the Barnhouse Effect (Barnhouse Effect was already listed there, but unlinked) from List of effects. If the list is only for genuinely observable phenonema (of whatever field), then shouldn't Blinovitch Limitation Effect, Hundredth Monkey Effect, Mass Effect, The Medusa Effect and The Morphail Effect also be removed from the list, since none of these are genuinely observable (and also Mass Effect actually being a computer game)? It also might be a good idea to make it clearer that the list is for genuine phenomena only. Many thanks. Gbrading ταlκ 23:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. I went ahead and did so, except that I left the hundred monkey effect, which at least purported to be something real, as opposed to fiction. Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Aspheric lens, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Without a source, I can't help repair the text into something understandable. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Britishisms?

don't start with the britishisms here Hmm...? and I had always had the belief that Wikipedia was tolerant of both of the principal written styles of English. If it offends against the standard of a particular article because of established precedent, then its a simple task to change it . However there is nothing in the text or history to provide an overt clue as which dialect this is written in so I think when you summarise your edit comments as you do you perhaps over polarise the significance of the differnces between our two disparate languages. Velela (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, tolerant. But this article started with American spellings such as "center". See WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Athlete notability

No worries. Indeed, it was a mere five minutes of his life. I don't know whether did anything of any note. He may or may not ever play again but this now makes him "notable" forever. Peanut4 (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Masuk High School

I added some references to Masuk High School. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunny 16 rule

Hi Dick. Thanks for your edit of the article on Sunny 16 rule. I had included that book reference and page but I had inadvertently filtered out the extraneous material in my vision or mind's eye. Nice fix. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

POV revert of Aspheric addition to corrective lens

Popularity of the aspheric lens has declined with intra-ocular lens implants. Also, because of their high cost, and limited availability, aspheric lenses were never used widely as a corrective lens. They are, however, rarely available and beneficial in some cases. Please undo your deletion of these sections, as it is counter-productive to the extensive work done to put them together, and I get wary of hearing about the 3-edit rule when we undo each others work. The same goes for material you are editing out of the aspheric lens article opthalmic use section. I understand reversions of the astronomical use section, but not the eyeglasses. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You can put it back if you have sources. My main objection is the WP:weasel word expression of the opinions of unidentified parties, without a source S; popularity with whom (prescribers? consumers?) according to whom? Stuff like that. Plus parts where I just couldn't understand what you were trying to express. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We have many sources for the material on aspheric lens. Most of them are small companies now suffering from competion with imports. This has been the trend in the optical industry for centuries. Giving these sources would be most risky for them, since the internet is a world wide community. Wouldn't it suffice to post a teaser paragraph in corrective lens, and if anyone is interested, they can click on the article, and review the existing references? They shouldn't endorse any of these sources, and only contribe knowledge of the subject in edits for Wikipedia. For requiring journalistic academia, you may not be satisfied with sources. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Private communications from these small companies would be of no use anyway. Wikipedia requires published sources for information in its articles. In particular, statements of opinion in articles have to specify who holds that opinion, and usually should be backed up by a published source. Information that has never been published anywhere is not suitable for Wikipedia.--Srleffler (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Publications of practices in optics can be found. Restoring the credibility of small companies that use these practices after you've quoted them as being unworthy for Wikipedia can not. Should we spare the criticism, and deny the knowledge? StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is making judgments about your unspecified sources. They just need to be specified. See WP:V and WP:RS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

more plausible deniability needed here

Shannon atheist

Dang, that was quick! Nicely done. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Apex

The Wikipedia talk page require to give citations before reverting which you have refuse to, if you revert again I am reporting you to an adminstrators, so far you haven given no evidence, you are just twisting the meaning of Wikipedia Policy. Evidence should cited directly and not in your "own indirect" synthesis. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramu, when the topic was brought up on your talk page, you suggested using the article talk page, which is where the conversion is currently active. So please ask at Talk:Apex and I will respond there. But I'm not aware of any policy suggesting citations for reverts, so unless you point one out, that's about all I'll have to say on that. The reasons for the revert are already in the discussion there. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Purple...

I'm here to hold you accountable now. :) You deleted my comment on a talk page (something I've never ever seen done unilaterally except in extreme cases), and my comment was actually meant to spark a conversation about the topic., Just because I said it in a joking manner doesn't mean there wasn't a serious discussion to be had. Yet, you leave this comment on the talk page, which is clearly nonsensical at best? "I find that offensive, my fear is not "irrational" infact, I say anybody who is not frightened by purple is mindless and insane. Purple is responsible for all car accidents and stangulations. Also is it mere coincidence violet become "Violent" with a simple "n" added? No. Find a violent TV scene with no purple in the background. You can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.69.190 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)" Please be mindful that the talk pages do exist for a reason. Yes, they are not sandboxes, but my comment was meant to open up a discussion. I'm a veteran of such topics of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and I can tell you I've never been warned, nor have I seen anyone warned for anything on the talk page that was remotely on topic. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 19:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I often revert edits that are indistinguishable from vandalism, on the theory that it's too much work for me to try to dig deeper, and not too much to ask another editor to clarify if the intent was not vandalism. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

LMS

My apologies. I wasn't intending to be sneaky or misleading but it was very sloppy and careless of me and I accept the reprimand. Thanks for pulling me up. Nurg (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Telescope & Optical telescope

Since this appears to be starting up again, you may be interested to view Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero. DigitalC (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just added a discussion. I should have did it 1st before editing, though---next time. InternetHero (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Optical_grey_squares_orange_brown.png

In that image you made are the orange circles actually the same colour? It demonstrates colour constancy and lightness constancy. --Scott Coleman (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, identical. You can measure them and verify. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Inventor?..or Designer? ..or both?

This is a tough one. I grew up knowing that my grandfather, Earl R. Dean, was the "designer" of the iconic contour Coca-Cola bottle. Unfortunately, the credit due to him was diluted by an unfortunate circumstance. A man by the name of Alexander Samuelson was sent to file for the bottle's patent in 1915. Back then the patent law a regulations were pretty lax. This resulted in Samuelson's name being put on the patent. Ironically, he had the least to do with the development of the contour bottle.

About a year ago, I would have agreed with you, that Earl R. Dean was the "designer", not the "inventor" of the bottle until recently when I was corrected by the USPTO. In a response from USPTO regarding Samuelson's name on the patent, they regarded the person who was named on the patent as the inventor.

This is an excerpt from their response to me:

"We've considered your situation carefully. After much discussion, it appears that one option may be to file a petition to correct the inventorship of a patent under 37 CFR 1.324."

This was the first time I considered my grandfather as not only the designer, but also the inventor of the contour bottle. It took a some critical thinking until I could be comfortable with this. I realized that the bottle was more than a shape, as there is a lot more to designing a soda bottle than just giving it a shape. My grandfather had to also consider it's functionality as well. The bottle had be sized to hold a given amount of the product. It had to be balanced so that it didn't tip over during the bottling process. It also had to fit in current bottle crates. As you probably know, the first bottle didn't make the cut, and had to be slimmed down.

Here is a link to the 1915 contour bottle patent: [2]

As you will notice, Alexander Samuelson is named as the "Inventor"

So, there's my argument. I look forward to hearing your views on this issue.

gavinmacqueen (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The person named on a design patent is not generally considered to be an inventor, since a design is not an invention, even though the USPTO uses the term inventor on all patents. It's great that you're trying to secure Dean's place in history, but wikipedia is not the right place for such campaigns. See WP:V and WP:RS. Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, actually, wikipedia has been a tremendous tool for getting the truth out. My father started his own campaign in the early 70's and actually convinced the coca-cola company that it was in fact his father who was the designer. Unfortunately, coca-cola's archivist, at the time, retired and the new archivist who came on board reverted the credit back to the way it was, convinced that the actual inventor(or designer) is the person named as the "inventor" on the patent. This may be true today since the USPTO has tightened up their restrictions, but unfortunately was not the case back in the early 1900's.

When I started my campaign back in the late 90's, about 75 percent of internet gave Samuelson the credit, or at least shared credit. Today, due to my efforts, and with the help of wikipedia, you'll find it to be the opposite. My goal is to have the credit reverted back to him completely by the 100th anniversary of the bottle which will be in 2015.

gavinmacqueen (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to read up on WP:V and WP:RS. As I said, wikipedia is not the place for a campaign such as yours. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have. I'm not sure what your point is. Everything that I have published on wikipedia has reliable, third-party, published sources. One source comes from a site put up by the Root family, descendants of Chapman J. Root, owner of the glass company my grandfather worked for...the very company where the contour bottle was developed: http://www.rockyedge.com/chaphist.html . Here's one from the New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DEEDC1E3EF934A15756C0A960948260 I have about 20 or more sources including three official Coca-Cola sites. I'd be glad to post them for you if you'd like. Let me know.

gavinmacqueen (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's kind of the point. Nobody knows or cares what sources you have; what matters is only what sources you cite in the articles. I've added a few "citation needed" tags, and changed some other stuff back to what seemed supportable in sources. See my recent contributions. Also, it's not at all clear that the Root family web page satisfies WP:RS; did you read it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That book ref you were holding off on is what we needed; you might want to convert to use template:cite book. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dick, you've been very helpful! --Gavinmacqueen (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

fractal chaos

attention Dicklyon ear Dick, I must talk about a bit on this add: Initially McGeddon manage a simple add to holographic-like paragraph in NN article then Twki say that this fractal chaos model has insuficien references

then I sed him complementary reference

without any response from him, I added the input that you deleted considering as "spam"... You were righ So, I send you here full references: You could appreciate the fact that fractal chaos is quoted in various books (Kohonen, Levine, Pribram etc...)...

Kind regards, jc perez

====Holographic associative memory====

Holographic associative memory represents a family of analog, correlation-based, associative, stimulus-response memories, where information is mapped onto the phase orientation of complex numbers operating.

In 1990, IBM's Jean-Claude Perez proposed a neural network model entitled "Fractal Chaos", with holographic-like emergent properties.

Teuvo Kohonen, Content-addressable Memories, Springer-Verlag, 1987 ,ISBN 038717625X, 9780387176253, 388 pages Perez's research quote

Pribram, Karl (1991). Brain and perception: holonomy and structure in figural processing. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0898599954. quote of « fractal chaos » neural network

J.C. Perez, Digital holograms computers, in Neural Networks : biological computers or electronic brains - Les entretiens de Lyon – (directed by "Ecole normale supérieure de Lyon") - Springer-Verlag Editors 1990

D. Levine et al, oscillations in neural systems, publié par Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999, 456 pages, ISBN 0805820663, 9780805820669 « Fractal chaos » research quote

J.C. Perez, book De nouvelles voies vers l'intelligence artificielle: pluri-disciplinarité, auto-organisation et réseaux neuronaux, (new ways towards artificial intelligence: interdisciplinarity, self-organization and neural networks),Masson Editions Paris - 1988 and 1989.

J.C. Perez, Fractal Chaos: a new neural network holographic model, International Neural Networks Society (INNS) conference Boston USA in NEURAL NETWORKS international publication, 1988.

J.M. Bertille, J.C. Perez, A spatio temporal novelty detector using FRACTAL CHAOS model, IJCNN conference, Washington, 1990, published by NEURAL NETWORKS (INNS).

J.C. Perez, Jerry Magnan, J.M. Bertille, Global optimization with a lattice dynamic system, SIAM dynamic systems conference, Orlando USA, 1990.

J.M. Bertille et J.C Perez, Dynamical change of effective degree s of freedom in Fractal Chaos model, INNC90 Paris, publié par Kluwer Academic, 1990 [3]

J.C Perez,Integers neural network systems (INNS) using resonance properties of a Fibonacci's chaotic `golden neuron, in: Neural Networks, 1990, IJCNN International Joint Conference on Neural networks, Publication Date: 17-21 Jun 1990 On page(s): 859-865 vol.1 IEEE abstract

Things that you have written yourself are not good indications that your idea is at all notable; give some quotes of what others have said about it, on the relevant article talk page, so other editors can decide whether to add it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dick, thanks for this guideline. I think about. Kind regards. jc perez 82.229.26.74 (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobel vs Noble

Yes i know, thank you. (already fixed the the template name yesterday http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Hungarian_Nobel_Laureates&action=history, i will fix the others too)Baxter9 (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for a comment on scientific self promotion

Hi, I have seen that you recently, cleaned up (in a correct way) the point cloud page. You wisely removed a rather out of topic paragraph from that article. Looking at who added that paragraph (that originally included a self-citation to his phd thesis) and to the pattern of this user's edits I got the impression that this user is adding his phd thesis to wiki pages in a way that remember me mostly a selfpromotion action (spamming would be a too big word perhaps) aimed to mostly increase the visibility of his work and to get (hopefully) more citation of his freshly released phd thesis. I removed his self-citation from 8-9 articles a couple of times. I have tried to discuss (Talk:3D scanner) with this user, but without great success. I definitely do not want to start an edit war so I stop to continuously re-remove his selfcitations. But in my opinion this kind of behavior should be not encouraged. On the other hand I have not found firm and clear statements in the wiki policies about discouraging scientific selfpromotion. So I would like to know the opinion of someone else with a bit of more experience. ALoopingIcon (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are various relevant policies. First of all, the Ph.D. thesis is probably a primary source for a lot of what he's adding, so see Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. See also Wikipedia:COI#Examples, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself, and WP:SELFPUB. If he is challenged on a conflict, he should make his case on the talk page; if his sources are appropriate and useful, he should be able to talk other editors into adding them, and if he can't than it would be a COI to add them himself. Dicklyon (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Optical telescope

Hi, Dick!

In general I agree with keeping the talk on the talk page, but the other editor and I seem to be deadlocked, and with no other opinions it's hard to make progress. So I was trying to entice the folks who read the article to register their opinions, but if one version is on the main page, and one the talk page, very few will notice, much less express their opinion. Do you have any suggestions on how to get some more folks involved? Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You can file a WP:3O or WP:RfC to get more comments (I'll hold off commenting until after you do, so as not to interfere with 3O). I like your version, as I think a brief mention of those old guys is useful and will make it easier to deal with the guy who wants to say too much in too many places. I'd prefer to see the last two paragraphs based on good secondary sources that provide such perspective (perhaps the intro in this book). Thanks for working on it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I tried RFC since at least three other editors sometimes weigh in on some of the issues here - yourself, DigitalIC and InternetHero - so the 'third opionion' route seemed not quite right. Thanks for the pointer, LouScheffer (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User: 71.227.90.117

This user persists in vandalism on page Matter. I am not clear what to do about it. Brews ohare (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia:Twinkle, which makes it very easy to issue warnings and to ask for admin intervention after final warning. Dicklyon (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

re:resistor

I don't have any interest in getting a fight with you. The link which is valid is http://openbookproject.net//electricCircuits/DC/DC_4.html. It not a big deal, just trying to help out. --Mblumber (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Is openbookproject a reliable source per WP:RS? Dicklyon (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so, if you look at the TOC you'll see that this website has a complete textbook on DC circuits. Doing a google search for the author Tony Kuphaldt you will see that his book is cited by many others as a good introduction to DC circuits. As I stated before, i don't want to make a big deal of this. If you don't think that this is a notable reference then the disputed sentence can remain removed. --Mblumber (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not about fighting, just want to get to good verifiable content. But I'm more familiar with the traditional "kilohm" and "megohm" terms, and if "kilo-ohm" and "mega-ohm" are preferred, it would be good to see a solid source that says so. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the hyphenation stuff isn't what I was referring to. I've seen it used both ways, most textbooks have it hyphenated like I did for emphasis but technically the way you had it is also correct. The non-decimal syntax (aka 2k4=2.4kohms) is a very common things these days, and since I saw you were going back and forth with someone about it i went ahead and found a source for you. --Mblumber (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for citing the standard. I was pretty sure that "SI Notation" was not a verifiable term for it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't me. I had never heard of "British Standard BS EN 60062:2005" until just now. Good stuff. Make sure to thank the contributor. --Mblumber (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved Lucas-Kanade method

I moved Lucas–Kanade method to Lucas-Kanade method. The use of the UTF-8 character "–" is very uncommon in URLs and will make it difficult to link to this page. If you disagree, you can move it back. But at least put a redirect there. wedesoft (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. You did it already ;) wedesoft (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas%E2%80%93Kanade_method doesn't use the en dash; it would be a hard one to type, but why would one try? Policy is to use appropriate characters in article names. Dicklyon (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Gray code C example

You ascertain that

(baseN[i] - shift)

might never be negative. But consider the example given, with

input: value = 1900, base = 10, digits = 4

Going to the conversion process step by step,

baseN[3]=1,  shift=0,  baseN[i]-shift =  1,  (1-0) % 10 =  1
baseN[2]=9,  shift=1,  baseN[i]-shift =  8,  (9-1) % 10 =  8
baseN[1]=0,  shift=9,  baseN[i]-shift = -9,  (0-9) % 10 = -9  <-- machine dependent, may produce +1.
baseN[0]=0,  shift=0,  baseN[i]-shift =  0,  (0-0) % 10 =  0

we see that the first operand to the modulus operator in the third step is indeed negative. How can you say that "Negative numbers never occur in this code" and "needless complication since the arg can never be negative"? 80.203.116.129 (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that you're right, and that the mod operation I was using had done the right thing but won't in general. I thought I had correctly tested for negs over a wide range of numbers, but I boned it. Anyway, it was so obvious that your putting "abs" in there had to be incorrect that I just had to revert it; when I checked the code for correctness, I did so by transliterating into another language, so I also missed that pow returns a float. Sorry about my carelessness, but if you had corrected it correctly and included a sensible comment we could have got there a lot quicker. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Dissector

You recently reverted my edit of the description of the Farnsworth Image Dissector saying that it sounded like the operation of Zworykin's design; it does, because they are fairly similar. Please consult the patent application referenced at the bottom of the page which clearly states that the primary method of scansion is detection of the surplus electrons deflected back to the electron gun. Gordon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.248.36 (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't cite a source. It would be best to cite a secondary source that explains it, rather than give your own interpretation of the patent. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, sources should be cited. I wasn't however trying to improve the article, I was trying to correct factual inaccuracies I had noticed in my research. I would write a better article if I had the time. "Interpretation" aside, the account I gave was a summary of the description contained in the patent, the current revision as reverted by you is wrong. I fail to see why citing a secondary source as you suggest would be beneficial; I would then be giving my interpretation of someone else's interpretation of the patent. I agree that my revision is not necessarily any better in terms of an acceptable article for wikipedia, but it was at least true. Arbitary reversion by you to a false description is bewildering. Gordon 78.105.184.134 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be bewildered. See WP:BRD; you were bold, I reverted because I doubted the correctness based on the lack of sourcing, now we're discussing it. My revert was to get your attention to the problem of making your change verifiable, so that if it is it will stick. Now that you say it's pretty much straight from the patent, it should be easy to simply cite that. But also see Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources about why secondary sources are preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to Talk:Image Dissector, so that others may comment, too. Dicklyon (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Lenna image

Hi, Dicklyion. Since we seem to disagree on the use of the Lenna's Playboy image on her biography, I've posted the matter as a question on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Question about File:Lenna.png on Lena Soderberg. I did that as a good-faith attempt to bring more opinions to the table. I'm sure we can settle this dispute nicely. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 16:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We need to proceed with at least some discussion, and hopefully consensus, about this very special case. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So why do you keep attacking it instead of discussing it? Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic Range Photography

Hi Dick:

It is important to know who originated any idea. Galen Rowell originated the graduated gradient neutral density filter concept and had Singh-Ray filter company develop and manufacture them and his name is still on the product. I have been in photography since the 40s and have contributed to inventions in photography and was impressed with Rowell's invention and later worked with him on another concept for photography.

I noted you took down the refreence to his development but my track record in photography knows what he did and when he did it as related to the concept. It would be nice to give him credit where it is due especially now that he has passed.

Regards: 68.5.58.114 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Eugene F. Lally

Hi, Eugene. I agree that Rowell's contribution should be noted, especially if he invented this gadget. But I don't find any evidence for that, after seeking via book search; the impression I got from the mentions I did find were that he was not credited as having orignated the idea. Do you have sources that clarify? If so, by all means feel free to add information from them. I'm afraid that your personal recollections cannot substitute for a WP:Reliable source. Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Converting visible light wavelengths to inches

Why don't you want them in inches, "Dick"? I don't think you are a very nice man!

I thought the Americans liked everything to be in inches, including the sizes of internal combustion engines (these in cubic inches).

Merry Christmas,

131.227.202.252 (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Americans do like lots of things in inches, "252"! I'm actually pretty nice, when not dealing with errant wikipedia editors. But not everything is familiar in such terms, since it's just not done (or do you have some significant reliable sources that suggest it is done that way?).

Happy solstice! Dicklyon (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Diode spam mods by 59.95.221.138

Dicklyon — You just reverted some (ad spam) changes to Diode made by 59.95.221.138. It turns out that this is the second time 59.95.221.138 has inserted that same link (which might have merit if it wasn't an anonymous contribution); the previous four edits on Diode involve adding and reverting that link. Does this justify nominating 59.95.221.138 for a block? —TedPavlic | (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the usual procedure is escalating warnings, with "final" warning on third or fourth offense, and then a block if it happens again. It doesn't usually need to get that far, as people get the idea when you warn them semi-nicely. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he created an account, added the link again (and again and again), and was blocked. It's a little too bad because the link has some value... it's just that it has marginal value and he seems to be here only to promote it. —TedPavlic | (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

DR5

I don't understand what you think you accomplished in your latest edit. The source still doesn't support the statment that it's cited for, and the sense of the other one was just mangled. Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

? did you read the discussion page on the article? did you even reread my reedit?? I took out the 'creator' statement just to make you happy, even though the new inclusion clearly states wood is the inventor of the process. it also say this if youd bother to listed to the program. i don't understand your opposition to this article. I am going to revert this once again with changes along with wiki disputes. This program about dr5 should be included in this article. Pillhall (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillhall (talk • contribs)

Generally you should reply where the conversation is started, but since you copied it here I'll respond here. Your edit after restoring what I removed left the second item mangled by taking out a word, but the first item still had "inventor" in the text, which was not supported by the source; the host of the show calls him the "developer" of dr5, which is indisputable and more neutral (also a good pun); only Wood call himself inventor. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Q.E.D.

I'm not sure that this is the best way to contact you, but I'm new to participating in wikipedia. You had reverted an edit I made to Q.E.D.; I think the casual word used probably indicated that it was a flippant edit, but I believe that the comparison to "booyah" is actually accurate and descriptive of its non-mathematical usage -- in that both would be used similarly as an emphatic "I told you so" at the end of a long argument that ended in a definitive conclusion. Thanks. YrMomEditsWkpdia (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

FPGA

I note your edit removing the link to http://fpga.si/ from the FPGA page. It looks quite relevant to me - can you explain the rationale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedevil (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that external links need to be justified by reference to criteria in WP:EL. This one was just ad spam by a WP:SPA. Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:71.227.90.117

It is evident from this user page that contributor User_talk:71.227.90.117 has no intention of being constructive and should be permanently blocked. Brews ohare (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? He hasn't made an edit in a week, and hasn't had a final warning yet. And permanent blocks are usually reserved for much more outrageous behavior, since temporary blocks will usually convince an editor not to be a vandal (apparently that's not working so well in this case). I'd have gone more quickly to final warning, or straight to "only warning", but without that it's not really appropriate to request a block, especially of an IP, since it's likely that it's dynamic you'll end up blocking random wrong persons. Or you can request a block by reason of vandalism on return from block, but not after waiting this long with no activity. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and holiday greetings

Hello, I just wanted to say thank you for looking over that Leavitt Hunt piece for me, and wish you the best of seasons greetings. Take care and regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Electric vehicles header.

I have to leave now for an event, but will address this within a day. Thanks for your note

Best wishes,

Leonard.

Panning Photography

Please check once again dude, i made a connection to an article. Hope you can tell warp lines done by image editing software apart from ones done by the gear. There is one other thing, image trail effect. ESCapade (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I saw your uncommented re-insertion before I saw your talk item, and reverted it again. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dick Lyon. Thank you for fixing up, but i read how you do not believe in panning photography, i posted a few panning pictures here. They are original pictures, .RAW will be my witness. ESCapade (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with panning, but the old article title Panning (camera) was much better, so let's put it back, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK but i don't understand how one of two identical article is much better than the other. ESCapade (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Talking about title, not two articles. The better title is the one that fits in with typical wikipedia style and English usage. Since "panning photography" is interpreted in English as a compound noun that sounds like a kind of photography, and since there are no reliable sources for such a concept, it's not a good article title. But the simple noun (gerund) "panning" is well known in the fields of photography and cameras. It's distinct from panning (audio) and panning for gold, so the parenthetical is the typical way to say which is meant, esp. if panning already goes to a disambiguation page. Dicklyon (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Panning Photography is a kind of photography which requires every single bit of passion to do it.. just like every other kind of photography. Got the message loud and clear, Dick Lyon.. but just like every other kind of photography it will refuse to die because of classic legitimation issue of no royal photographic societies nor federations acknowledgments yet. This condition already used to bully and deny panning as if it were merely image editing technique, multiple-exposure shots or image overlay job, where a simple request for raw file can be done nice and politely. Unless the photographic authorities found that raw is already compromised and they can't tell the difference from the originals and they can't find old trusted gears passionate enough with this kind of photography.

Sad to know i can't add the word "photography" after the word "panning" but thank you for your explanation, Dick Lyon. I figure out the four types of panning myself, it is just logical. ESCapade (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't know

People are generally allowed to remove whatever they want from their User talk pages. See WP:USER. Additionally, there is a culture of not putting templates on longstanding user's pages.

By the way, you seem to think I'm on a particular endeavor with respect to Lerner. Lord knows Lerner thinks I am too. I encourage you to look over my entire contributions and decide whether it is particular to Lerner.

I really only want the LaRouche stuff in there because it is fascinating how the connections between pseudoscience get made. For example, today I learned that the other plasma cosmology proponent, Tony Perrat, is being funded by the same fellow who funds David Talbott. Interesting from a trivia standpoint. Since it is clearly a fact that Lerner was a devotee of LaRouche (though he no longer is), I'm continually mystified as to why people want to remove that sourced fact from the article written about him!

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)