User talk:Dicklyon

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

		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)

File:Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png		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)

SA

On the page we all know and love with SA, my last comment might conseivably have edged into snarkiness ... then again, it might be him. (per blogs as sources). Collect (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to fight the tendency to descend into snarkiness myself sometimes; don't let us get you down. 00:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Scanned Images of text?

Hello, I noticed that you have a bunch of scanned images of text that you put into articles. Wouldn't it be better to have the text as normal text for the images that are just text? If that page includes a graph, like File:H&D curve.png why not have just the graph as the image and the rest of the text be text in the article if it is helpful. An image of text would be an issue for people that have disabilities, since you can't resize that as easily, nor can a screen reader work with it, along with making the article a bigger download. It also makes formatting the article harder, and causes issues on smaller browser windows.

I am not saying that pictures aren't helpful, since I too upload many pictures and add them to articles. I am just wondering why text should be in an image instead of a more compact and easier to use representation, at least in the articles here on Wikipedia. Hustvedt (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I like the look of old book pages; it makes the historical aspect of the material more tangible to the viewer. If there are some that you think would be better off converted to quotes, we can talk about those. Dicklyon (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, being able to say Cassell's Cyclopedia of Photography in 1911 had an article about diaphragm shutters certainly is interesting, and does give an idea of how old a topic is. However, I think it clutters up the articles with mostly redundant stuff. What about just having links to the pictures on commons, since the images really can't be made smaller? Hustvedt (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't find tall skinny images on the right to be cluttering at all. Maybe if your screen is too small; they could be shrunk some, since clicking always links to the full image. Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking for a device with a smaller screen, but they can use mobile.wikipedia.org which takes care of that. I guess if you feel that the historical context is enough to warrant including the scan of the book, then I will not interfere. Certainly if there is a graph or diagram that can be helpful. So, I guess never mind, and thanks for replying. Hustvedt (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wood wool

I must ask you to stop deleting content by making the article wood wool a redirect again. This is not how wikipedia works. Allow time for other people to see the two articles and comment on the proposal. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I won't stop stopping you from making a ridiculous content fork. You can make a split proposal on the talk page of the article you want to split; feel free to call for a third opinion or whatever. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that deleting content is not according to the way wikipedia works.--FocalPoint (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me also note here what is that which you are calling "a ridiculous content fork": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&oldid=266002509 --FocalPoint (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I merged your newe content. Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think that this works:

January 2009

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as excelsior (wood wool). Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. There is a proposal for a discussion in : Talk:Excelsior_(wood_wool)#Proposal for merging. You are welcome to present any arguments there. You are warned against removal of content by making articles into redirects:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=262335435&oldid=262334671
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=264956655&oldid=264936715
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=266005255&oldid=266002509
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=next&oldid=266079819
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=266149808&oldid=266141240

--FocalPoint (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A Guide to the Good Life

Please delete the Stoic article of mine ~~~~

You know, if you don't put the "nowiki" around the tildes, you'll get a signature. And I'm not an admin, so I can't delete your article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wersin

Hi, do you know where can I get reliable information about Wersin's work on dynamic rectangles?? My guess is that he followed the line of Hambidge and Ghyka and went a bit further. I checked a bit of his works as architect and designer and his curriculum and I think it makes him pretty reliable as an author.

By the way, I have full pdf's of Hambidge, Ghyka and Livio. If you're interested, I can trade or just send them to you. --20-dude (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Wersin is fine, though technical German as Valrie says, and hard to find (or expensive here). I have Ghyka, Livio, and Hambidge (Greek Vase) real books. Do you have The Elements of Dynamic Symmetry by Hambidge? Dicklyon (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just the Greek Vase. How come you're so interested in this stuff? I ask because I find very interesting how people of different professions can find the topic of mathematical proportion useful or appealing. I my case, my interest comes from two angles, I'm an architect and I'm also finishing a thesis, which I’ll try to publish.--20-dude (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if you have access to German translators, these images will be available at least for a little while. Sorry to tie up your page--not certain how to make them accessible otherwise.:

Sorry about the space! I'm continuing to research Wersin's book and have located some potential resources (tectonic forms and architecture). Your assistance is much appreciated.Valriejensen1 (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the images; I might have kept a copy of a few, but it is really inappropriate to use wikipedia this way. If you want to send me something, use the email feature, and I'll send you back my email address (or you can easily find it by searching). I can read a bit of German, so I'll give a look. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. Translations of the material would be invaluable.Valriejensen1 (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In truth, Google translate will do most of it better than I can; I can clean it up a bit; but I'm not likely to type stuff in unless I find a particularly interesting looking passage. Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete my discussion of Moore's Law not being a Law?

Why did you delete it? It was a perfectly valid argument. Also - even if I was wrong, then why didn't you leave it up to be talked about?

Jchrom3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchrom3 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It looked more like a personal rant than an opinion on article content. The article is on what is called Moore's law. How can an opinion that it shouldn't be called that be relevant? But if you can phrase as being about the article, feel free to try again. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, the way that I phrased my section was exaggerated. However, I still believe it to be relevant to the article. The article is about Moore's Law, yes. If Moore's Law is a misnomer wouldn't you say that that is relevant? I wasn't offering an opinion but an argument that was backed up by a reference to another Wikipedia entry. I put it into the discussion section because I wanted other peoples input. If my argument is incorrect, then I still believe that it has value because other people may have confusion. I am really interested in seeing what other people say. So if I clean up my argument please don't take it down. You can disagree with the content of what I am saying, but I think that our discussion of it still has value and has a rightful place in the discussion section. My tilde key doesn't work so I have to sign my name by spelling it out - Jchrom3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchrom3 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk it out

I think part of the problem may be Wikipedia communication styles with the disjointed discussion and the inability to respond directly. Do you want to try talking about this problem directly? Perhaps over some chat function or skype? I think we can get to a consensus if we just discuss the issues. I may be wrong, but that's my guess. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my position versus yours is clear already. Although I'm a scientist/engineer/mathematician, I don't believe that articles on topics outside the scientific mainstream need to be debunked. A topic should be presented on its own terms, followed by a description of how and why the mainstream rejects it, but the mainstream view should not have dominant play in a non-mainstream article. No need to spoon-feed the reader with the anointed answer; let them read and believe what they want. This goes for the alternative medicine articles, too. I think you and QuackGuru do wikipedia and its readers a big disservice by trying to be the arbiters of what people should be told or what they should be allowed to believe. On the Eric Lerner article in particular, I think you attack him and his views way too strongly, especially in light of your position within the camp that he criticizes for its closed-mindedness. I don't buy his steady-state and thermo arguments, but the stuff about electromagnetic forces in the plasma of space dominating gravitational forces is totally plausible; it may be totally wrong, too, but it's all worth hearing about. The way you pile on the abuse in his article in shameful, in my opinion; you've been blocked for such things many times, yet you seem to get away with it routinely, as is certain people in high places want you to continue; it's unbelievable to me that they buy your complaints that I'm the one misbehaving in these disputes, when I'm the only one standing up to you. If you can accept where I'm coming from and want to chat about it, I can send you my phone number and you can call me sometime; start with email. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that Wikipedia itself should ever provide a novel "debunking". I'm not sure where that myth got started. Your mistaken belief about the "plausability" of his arguments notwithstanding, the point is that "piling on" is manifestly NOT a policy/guideline that has any parallel at Wikiepdia except for an inappropriate twisting of WP:WEIGHT made to accommodate minority opinions -- a usage that has been roundly rejected by consensus more times than I care to name. We do not adopt "sympathetic points of view" or "in universe" treatments of nonsense for a reason. I've never been blocked for such claims of "piling on" in content disputes, though many have made them against me. I know exactly where you are coming from, but I'm going to consult with others as to whether it may or may not be appropriate to discuss with you these issues directly. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "novel" debunkings, but an over-emphasis on debunking, like your paragraph aside attacking Lerner's premises before describing what his book is about. As to your assertions about "in universe" treatments, I'm pretty sure the preponderance of evidence says you're wrong on that, but that's not the issue here anyway. The issue is that novel and unorthodox ideas will not be fairly presented if the articles on them give the established viewpoints proportional weight. The weighting that is fair is one that recognizes the mainstream and reports its reaction, but does not use that to effectively censor the ideas and not allow them to be presented. Of course, Lerner's ideas will have litle weight, or no mention at all, in articles on mainstream cosmology; but they must be given adequate weight in an article about him and about his book. To do otherwise, is, I believe, censorship, of the type that you're always lobbying to make into official policy; fortunately, it's not working so far. Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We aren't going to convince each other that either one of us has the finger on the pulse of what is or isn't current "best practices" or "consensus wiki-philosophy" on how to deal with fringe subjects in their own articles. I can point to WP:FRINGE which I have worked a lot on and which, in my reading, supports my particular spin over yours, but no matter. All will be clear in due time. However, as the article currently stands I have no objections. Not sure if the same can be said for you, but it would be nice to move on. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the Greek Vase

Nope, [I don't have the Elements of D. S] just the Greek Vase. How come you're so interested in this stuff? I ask because I find very interesting how people of different professions can find the topic of mathematical proportion useful or appealing. I my case, my interest comes from two angles, I'm an architect and I'm also finishing a thesis, which I’ll try to publish.--20-dude (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, my interest was mostly in defending math articles against nonsense. To hold the line at what's supported in reliable sources, I needed to have the sources, to stop people like you putting in fanciful interpretations. Dicklyon (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh. So, you bought all those books just for that?? (I'm guessing the answer to this question is both the one I was originally looking for and the reason of my curiosity)

Also, thanks for that, I wouldn't like a Wikipedia mede out of fanciful interpretations either, even if those were my own. --20-dude (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you are a relative late-comer to the golden ratio fights. Go back and look at what was happening in May–Sept 2006... Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Dicklyon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — James Cantor (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; how civil of you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dicklyon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of content by user:Dicklyon) Thank you.--FocalPoint (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen#Mediator

Hello. Please see the above link regarding the mediator for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not gonna be much chat in the merge discussion

Since, so far we're the only editors of both articles and the only contributors to their talk pages (... that's unless you consider certain can of worms I rather keep closed), so I thik its safe to say that if you do the merge, nobody will notice.--20-dude (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You can go ahead if you like, too. Or I might get to it eventually. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[Transistor channel]

I created this page for the purpose to collect various information about channels, not available in wikipedia. I started from a simplistic definition (I belieive there is no good one in wikipedia pages either) I believe not very wrong. But I may be mistaken. - 7-bubёn >t 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: En dash

Maybe the folks who are creating such "policies" should take a second look at the problems they are causing, and how they differ from common typographic practice. —Quicksilver^{T @} 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain what problems and what typographic practice you mean. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Re your post responding to Phaedrus7's "David Talbott" section on ScienceApologist's talk page.

"If SA would back off and respect NPOV, then Davesmith might back off, too. We had the bio in decent shape for a while, I thought, then he came in and started trashing it"

I don't take any objection to the post Dick, but the ambiguity of the "he" could leave people thinking I was the trasher, especially if they did not follow your link to SA's edits. Any chance you could replace the "he" with "SA"? Either way feel free to delete this post if you don't want it snotting up your talk page. Thanks. Davesmith au (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point, I'll clarify. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Davesmith au (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility

You should consider this the last warning on civility you will get from me - this is poor behavior. I have warned you before about poisoning the well ("who feels he has a license to add unsourced bad stuff to bios of people with pseudoscientific ideas.").If you cannot assume good faith of other editors, the solution is not to assault their motives, it's to engage in dispute resolution (like this). Dispute resolution does not include showing up on their talk page while they are taking an extended wikibreak and engaging in dialogue with other third party editors.

If this behavior continues, I will seek administrative correction. I suggest you either waive the 2-certifier requirement for a user-conduct RFC or voluntarily put yourself on civility patrol, and permit any uninvolved admin to ban you from any page which you disrupt with incivility for a short period, and see if the broader community sanctions the particulars of your behavior in these cases.

I would additionally welcome the retraction of your linked comment. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A great many other editors have recently felt similarly about Dicklyon's behavior. See here and here. — James Cantor (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys are nuts. On the SA talk page, I was responding to the conversation where his bud Phaedrus7 started it; he needed to be reminded of what had happened. And then James Cantor is doing here what Hipocrite gives me a hard time for doing there. How is any of this hassling me going to help? Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Helmholtz

Yes, I saw that as well and considered deleting it, but apparently it is true. SpinningSpark 12:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I figured it was probably true, and that the way to find out was to see if he put it back with a source. Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Lennon

I noted your edit here in which you refer to WP:ENGVAR. However, as Lennon was a British musician, his article uses British English spelling, under the policy you cite ("An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation"). Please correct your error. Thank you. --John (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the article and found that it uses words like "color" and things ending in "ize"; hence it's in American English; Lennon was a permanent resident of the US at the time of his murder; I agree that he has strong ties to the UK, but if you want to use that fact to change the version of English that it's written in, you should proposed that at the article talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the article has instances of both spelling conventions, which is definitely not allowed. Being a resident of the US at the time of his death does not make a difference in this instance, so I have proposed standardizing it to UK English throughout. --John (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about "not allowed", but it's worth getting a consensus on which version of English to use, and sticking to it. In the meantime, piecemeal changes are not a great idea. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

At the time I made the correction I didn't know that several other instances of US English had crept into the article so did not know it would be seen as a "piecemeal change". You might also say that reverting to restore an error of spelling to an article is not a great idea either. --John (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My quick look indicated that it looked more like American English; looking further back (to 2005) now, it still appears that way. Feel free to review on the talk page though. Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have done. The idea that Lennon's article should be in US English doesn't seem to be getting much support so far. You might want to contribute to the discussion yourself. Re I don't know about "not allowed" above, read the guideline yourself and you will see it there, big and bold. It's the section entitled Consistency within articles. Best wishes, --John (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I only meant to distinguish the "should" from your notion of "not allowed." I don't care which way it goes, and agree it should be consistent. Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Formalisation?

I'm a bit new to this whole experience, but I was just wondering, what is wrong with formalising articles? Cheers

Scotto001 (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Formalisation? What are you referring to? Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Formalisation like adding correct punctuation and grammar into articles. Scotto001 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I do that all the time, so it seems I'm not opposed to it. But I still don't know what you're referring to. Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrea James

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Andrea James, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.72.68.205.215 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:DTTR, and the article talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A request

Dick, could I ask you not to post anything that could be construed as uncivil? It's being raised again and again during the mediation, and while I've not seen anything uncivil that you've posted recently, I may have missed it. I'd really like us to move away from the personality/behavioral issues, and move on to resolving any outstanding content issues. It would help a lot if you could check your posts before saving for anything that people might later complain about. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to restrain myself. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light

Dick: Would you please take a look at the informal request for comment at Talk: Speed of light and offer some words of wisdom? Brews ohare (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello, Dicklyon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — James Cantor (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you plan on addressing this issue, or will you continue to disrupt an article and edit war? seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen

Hello. Please see the above page as there has been a change in mediator and state whether or not you accept the new mediator. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

3rr

You are at 3rr on Feminine essence theory of transsexuality. NJGW (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; but you didn't say why you're removing the tags. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointy = disruptive, disruptive = bad for Wikipedia. There are more appropriate ways to affect change in articles. Feel free to join the discussion at the article's talk page. NJGW (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, I was already deeply involved in the discussion at the article talk page. Each tage had a very serious intent. I guess I'll start a talk section on each one, and work on them one at a time. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Working on issues one at a time is often less disruptive than trying to tag everything in an article right after a failed AFD. Deletion review and RFC's are also good. Hopefully the mediation will work out. NJGW (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take them slowly; it has actually been a while since the failed AfD, and the mediation is in a lull between mediators (and James Cantor, who created this article, has not accepted the new mediator), and the RFC that I tried got no responses; I'll try one or two dubious tags at a time and see what we get. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think going at that way makes you look much better in the end. Stay cool. NJGW (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you, Dick. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the articles

Thanks for the copy of the articles. Still working on digesting Alice Dreger's paper before I get to the reading the responses. I'm going to try to get a copy of TMWWBQ if I can find it in a local book store. PaleAqua (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely that you'll find it. They only printed a few thousand copies, and it was quite a few years ago. You can find used copies (e.g. here), but they're not cheap (but a lot cheaper than amazon's). Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, yeah amazon wanted a bit too much and had no luck locally. Ended up buying a digital copy from the publisher. PaleAqua (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light

Hi Dick:

I'm finding it hard to get my points across to the editors active on this page. I have summarized my points at Problems. I feel you could provide a bit of perspective on how to handle the situation. Would you please take a look? Brews ohare (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I responded there. Thanks for asking. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Baird color television

Your "corrections" to my additions about John Logie Baird's 1939 color television demonstration were incorrect. Please see the figures 4 and 5 on p. 146 of the article in Wireless World. There were two, not three, colors in the filter wheels. — Walloon (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going by the text on the first page of the article, which I now realize applied to the 1928 demo, not the 1938 one. Sorry for the confusion. I'll revert if you haven't already. Dicklyon (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Now you've changed the demonstration from July 1939 to February 1938. Please go back to that article from August 1939, and read the opening paragraph. — Walloon (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That 1938 date was in the second column, but I didn't read carefully enough to realize one date was for the color scanning in a mechanical demo and the other for the CRT receiver. Fixed. Sorry for the inaccurate tries. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

An RfC regarding Dicklyon user conduct has been filed here

An RfC/U has been filed regarding user:Dicklyon with the following description:

"Pervasive incivility and hostile profanity, tendentious editing, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith regarding other users' motivations, unevidenced accusations of misconduct of others, and lack of responsiveness to community feedback."

Responses and comments may be posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dicklyon_2 .

— James Cantor (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Dicklyon (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

Hi Dick: Martin has removed my paragraph at speed of light claiming I have completely misinterpreted the literature I cite in support to of my points. He makes absolutely no attempt to support his views: no argument, no literature, nothing. For my part, I think Martin is rabid. I could go back and simply quote large sections of the papers verbatim, but I'm sure he would still be unconvinced. What can be done about this? Brews ohare (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the deleted paragraph and its citations:

Outer space and ultra high vacuum approximate free space, but may have a non-trivial refractive index (that is, an index different from one). Ongoing experimental and theoretical work continues to explore the possibility of small departures of these mediums from free space, which could prove or disprove some theories of quantum gravity, or provide further corroboration of the predictions of quantum electrodynamics.

Personally I cannot see how any misreading has occurred. Here is a verbatim quote from Delphenich:

“Now, by the term "electromagnetic vacuum", what we really intend is not a region of space in there is no energy present, whether in the form of mass or photons, but a region of space in which only an electromagnetic field is present. Hence, there is some justification for treating the electromagnetic vacuum as a polarizable medium in the optical sense, which suggests that treating the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of the vacuum as simply constants, ε0 and μ0, is basically a pre-quantum approximation, as well as the constancy of the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves, c0 = 1/√ε0μ0 , or, equivalently, the index of refraction of the vacuum. We shall regard these constants as asymptotic zero-field values of field dependent functions. The fact that c0 itself might vary with the strength of the field suggests that quantum electrodynamics might even have something deep and subtle to say about causality itself that goes beyond the familiar concepts of special relativity.”

Here's a quote from Mourou et al,:

“The laser fields … will also enable one to access the nonlinear regime of quantum electrodynamics, where the effects of radiative damping are no longer negligible. Furthermore, when the fields are close to the Schwinger value, the vacuum can behave like a nonlinear medium in much the same way as ordinary dielectric matter…”

Here's a quote from Moulin:

“This study is motivated by a desire to investigate the possibility of using recently developed powerful ultrashort (femtosecond) laser pulses to demonstrate the existence of nonlinear effects in vacuum, predicted by quantum electrodynamics (QED).”

Here's a quote from Marklund:

“The quantum vacuum constitutes a fascinating medium of study, in particular since near-future laser facilities will be able to probe the nonlinear nature of this vacuum. There has been a large number of proposed tests of the low-energy, high intensity regime of quantum electrodynamics (QED) where the nonlinear aspects of the electromagnetic vacuum comes into play…”

Here's a quote from Davis et al.:

“The most important magneto-optical interactions that can occur in material media are the Faraday effect, magnetic dichroism, and magnetic birefringence (the Cotton-Mouton effect). Quantum electrodynamics predicts that because of photon-photon interactions even the vacuum becomes birefringent in the presence of a strong magnetic field. …An improved experimental arrangement is needed to pursue vacuum magnetic birefringence and polarization rotation effects. With an improved system, detection of the QED- predicted magnetic birefringence should be possible …”

What is Martin talking about? Where's the misinterpretation? Maybe I should just do a verbatim quote? Brews ohare (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Dick Lyon, but I'll butt in here. It's very standard in QM to treat the vacuum in a quantum way, and various folks are looking for the effects experimentally. So I put your stuff back in.... LouScheffer (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, Lou, how can we trust someone who doesn't know excelsior from wood wool? ;^}  ? Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Brews, it's probably OK to talk about this stuff, but I wouldn't regard ArXiv preprints as great sources; don't put too much emphasis on it, keep it out of the lead, and discuss it with Martin, and you'll probably find a middle road. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dick: I have followed your earlier advice: it is not in the lead. However, not sharing your optimism where Martin is concerned, I have filed a request for comment. There is a huge literature on this subject: the ArXiv sources just happen to be freely available - they are not fringe opinions. Martin has not challenged the articles in any way; he just thinks I am unable to interpret them. Brews ohare (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

More on Martin

Hi Dick: It is my opinion that Martin either is completely out to lunch or has some vested interest. He keeps deleting stuff in the speed of light article without explanation other than his own opinion that it misreads the references, regardless of who posts it. In each case a different formulation has been proposed to try to meet imagined objections, inasmuch as specific comment is not provided by Martin. Here is what Martin considers "explanation" with his continued reverts:

• You have still completely missed the point of what these refernces are saying. Read Edward's comment again. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• 20:50, 13 February 2009 Martin Hogbin (Talk | contribs) (69,027 bytes) (→Interaction with transparent materials: Not what the cited refes say.)
• 23:20, 12 February 2009 Martin Hogbin (Talk | contribs) (70,547 bytes) (→Interaction with transparent materials: Help, is there anyone else here?) (undo)
• 20:36, 12 February 2009 Martin Hogbin (Talk | contribs) (70,234 bytes) (→Interaction with transparent materials: Give it a rest Brews. You continue to try to force your unique view on this article.) (undo)
• 22:07, 11 February 2009 Martin Hogbin (Talk | contribs) (70,146 bytes) (→Use of the symbol ‛c’ for the speed of light: Brews, please stop this 'free space' thing of yours. Four editors now disagree with you.)
• 23:29, 10 February 2009 Martin Hogbin (Talk | contribs) (69,252 bytes) (→Light as electromagnetic radiation: Sorry Brews but this is just wrong. As two other people have agreed, it is c that is being studied.) (undo)

The first of these responses is about a revised proposal presented following suggestions of the other editors who have commented, including yourself.

I'd like to proceed to hang him out to dry. What is the procedure? Brews ohare (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I'm unable to determine exactly what your point is, and I expect Martin is having the same trouble. You might want to talk about the difference between completely empty space and an actually space with the occasional charged particle in it. Or you might be talking about the difference between a classical ideal vacuum and a quantum ideal vacuum. Which is it? You seem to be mixing them together, and this is what Martin is pushing back on. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick: Have you read the revised version Here? If you find that ambiguous or hard to follow, I'll take that very seriously, although I confess that I am baffled how else to express it.

To try to answer your question, I am taking an ideal case (that is, an entirely hypothetical case, completely outside of measurement, like the perfect sphere) as baseline with fixed, exact values ε = ε₀ and μ = μ₀. To compare with this base line, I also wish to consider non-ideal, real, measurable cases (analogous to the Earth, or a ping-pong ball, as contrasted with the perfect sphere) such as outer space or ultra-high vacuum or "electromagnetic vacuum". I take the experimental literature as having the concern of establishing the properties of such real measurable cases. I take the theoretical literature as having the concern of establishing the predictions of theory, say QED or quantum gravity for such media. I take it that both the experiment and the theory are concerned with departures from the baseline case ε = ε₀ and μ = μ₀ (how close to the perfect sphere does the Earth come?). I don't know if this is any clearer than the Second attempt. Please advise.

I take Martin's view as saying he understands all that but the literature is really not about that. Just what it is about according to Martin, who knows - he vacillates between saying its all obvious and nothing has to be said at all, and saying its about something(?) else (unspecified). But whatever the literature is about, it definitely should not have any attention drawn to it in the article.

I'd say Martin has some Platonic ideal speed of light in mind, and doesn't want its perfection marred by reference to continuing investigation. Brews ohare (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to separate the issues; saying "Ongoing experimental and theoretical work continues to explore the possibility of small departures of ε and μ in these media" mixes up a lot of things. The theoretical predictions for vacuum with a few charge particles in it should be pretty straigtforward, even if hard to see experimentally. The quantum theory stuff is a different matter. Mixing them up doesn't help. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Separating the issues

Hi Dick: Thanks for your advice and patience. A third proposal is Posted. Please advise whether it is an improvement. Brews ohare (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I got your suggestions and made a few changes Brews ohare (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Speed of Light: maybe we've got it?

Hi Dick: How about Talk:Speed_of_light#Merged_proposal? Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

re user 24.57.x.x

I did not warn 24.57, that was somebody else. Practically all edits of 24.57 have been reverted due to hard to spot factual errors he introduces. He uses misrepresentation of sources, e.g. in the Benzodiazepine article, by citing sources, which have nothing to do with the citation and do not say a single word about the topic. Or he uses no sources at all.

Likely identical with

24.57.233.184

24.57.16.163

24.57.233.98

24.57.16.94

24.57.46.146

24.57.3.82

VeronicaPR

TheGoodson

70.137.151.133 (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gold reversion you made

Hello, this is just a heads up about a reversion you made to the Gold article earlier. You reverted an edit here. The purpose of this revision appears to be you reverting another user's conversion of American into British English. However, this user had mistakenly changed not only the caption of a picture, but the image's filename into American English from the British spelling here. He then realized his mistake and changed the filename spelling back into the British spelling here so the correct file was linked. Your reversion, while certainly good-faith, again linked to a non-existant file. I already corrected this; I just wanted to let you know what happened and why I reverted your edit. Let me know if you have any questions. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I boned that one; thanks for fixing. Sometimes I don't investigate closely enough when I see uncommented edits that look like typical vandalism. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

I am warning you not to do any more reversions of any edits to the article The man who would be queen. As I count it you already are on three reversions for this 24 hour period. If you do a fourth that would certainly push you over the edge if you are not there already. I have already reported you to the administrators notice board, it's up to them what to do. Do not revert any more and perhaps you will not get a ban. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My comment

I added a comment, because it is listed at "Other proposals", not "Potentially controversial" ones. Squash Racket (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry if I interfered unnecessarily. I'm not aware of that distinction; do what's right. Dicklyon (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Transistor Edits

Seriously Dick, your view would be laughed at any mainstream i.c. manufacture design review. Trust me. You are really only embarrassing yourself with your novice understanding of mainstream transistor level design. You truly have no idea what you are up against. It’s quite sad really. You know Dick, I don’t now anything about professional golf, but I don’t make any comments on its technicalities either. I refer you to my talk page. Kevin aylward (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What view are you attributing to me? That a transistor can be viewed as either current-controlled or voltage-controlled? There seems to be quite a few books that don't laugh at that idea. And I assure you that my understanding is not "novice level", and I'd thank you to refer to WP:NPA before you make yourself a problem. I don't think I'm "up against" anything here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remove your non-AGF accusations.

Your edit here accuses me of being an SPA and of making edits in my own interests instead of those of WP.[1] It is a personal attack to make such accusations outside an appropriate forum and in order to poison the well. I ask you to strike through them.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That was not poisoning the well; it was in response to your statement that Jokestress should be discounted for her activist position and that you should not. I'm disagreeing with you on this point you made. It's not an attack to point out your close affiliation with the topic and your editing history in support of your colleagues, is it? And why would you want the comment to remain in strikeout format? Go ahead and remove if it you like, or strike it out; I won't mind. Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis, but agree with the solution. I have removed the text at that page.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Alan L. Davis

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Alan L. Davis, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Alan L. Davis seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Alan L. Davis, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Crap?

Could you please explain why the link I added was crap?--JeanandJane (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainly, it's a search page, not a content page, so it doesn't fit WP:EL; poor choice of adjective on my part, though, I admit. If there's a good content page that you believes adds something that's not in the article can't easily be added, then link that instead. Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I just found a good educational link and I added it. Why this link is spam or advertisement? Delete it if you want but I think you are wrong.--JeanandJane (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The page you changed to (Explaining Logarithms) seems to vary its content when I visit it; when I first looked, it still had no actual content, but promotes the new ebook and seeks donations. It's not clear why you are adding this stuff, but I invite you to make your case on the article talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

spam/coi?

Could you please explain why the link I added to Hue and Color Vision was crap ? The link was not for commercial revenue and they are not pointing to 'beliefs' either. The link could be valuable for other people facing similar problems. Wernervb (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary "spam/coi" means I thought you were promoting your own site by putting links to it wikipedia. I made no judgement on the content there. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The absolute Truth in LAPTOP COOLING

Sorry I am a little perplexed as to the edit and revision of the laptop cooling article Since What I posted was Factual and really needs to be addressed somewhere (maybe not here?) Please suggest a more approriate place if you will. I do not wish to make wiki a soap box for my disgust at manufacturers lack of responsibility in addressing the issue of cooling and it's importance (especially in laptops. I feel it has been too long that the majority of people have NOT been alerted to the most likely cause of premature laptop failure and how it can be averted. Sorry if I get a little emotional about this subject, but I speak from 25 years of experience and as (somewhat authority) on laptops. My company had received recognition from Toshiba as one of the formost laptop repair companies with the Toshiba Spotlight award for excellence.

So where do we go from here publish truth or ignore facts?

best regards

Looking for a Positive Solution there is No NEG in my name ---===Otiate===--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otiate (talk • contribs) 15:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the edit summary in my diff, address the problem, and use edit summaries yourself. You can go back to your version, edit it to use complete sentences and normal case, and re-save. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And when you do an edit, please check first to see that the edit before yours wasn't vandalism that needs to be reverted, as it was in the case of your recent UNDO. Dicklyon (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also please read WP:V re truth and verifiability. Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry and thanks

Hello Dicklyon,

sorry for having bothered you and thanks for your more specific guidelines on how to post external links. I'll follow the advice of first posting it to the talk page. You appear to be a great Wikipedian. Bilderbikkel (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry that I do not know more about the intricacies of wiki But after 25 years of computer repair I am truely disgusted in the industries performance and Lack of truthfulness to consumers.

I also take great umbrage as to the replacement cost of laptop screens and preventive measures that can and do provide Users methods that will prevent unnecessary replacement.

I just do not know how to provide this information in a suitable manner that will be amenable to all. I would like to cite sources for what I say yet do not know how. IE http://lapkitt.com/Fans.html

I am sure we can somehow make this important information available and not rely on manufacturers omissions of the truth and lack of integrity through their continued lack of providing real information

sincerely Otiate (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

straw man

Adding 'straw man' to article text is opinion unless sourced. I wonder if that article oughtn't begin with some of Dreger's explanation of what she decided to call Feminine essence narrative, before showing that RB singlehandedly renamed it. Actually I think the best solution would be to add a bit to RB's paragraph at Classification of transsexuals and redirect the present article there. - Hordaland (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is so messed up that adding such information to it helps it enormously, as the discussion page indicates, even if it is unsourced. The whole basis of the article is unsourced. Anyway, the Blanchard article clearly presents this theory as a straw man, even though he doesn't choose to use those words. Are you think that there are people who would say it is NOT a straw man? Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I avoided the term and just added what the cited source says; and took out stuff not in the sources. Better? Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead much improved. Hope it can stay that way. - Hordaland (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Added more Dreger, as I suggested above. - Hordaland (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please restore the tags.

I justified them on the talk page. You have no basis for removing them. THF (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I took them out again, but I still left the "dubious" tag that the talk page comments are about. That should be enough, shouldn't it? Why use two article-level tags for such a minor point? Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a minor point. The article needs a complete fact-check. If you want I'll add several dozen tags, but the article-level tag is less obstrusive. THF (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags on all the points you question would be fine; as I said, I've cited sources for everything I've added, since I have no other knowledge about the guy. The unsourced stuff is said to be from who's who and such, but probably a fair amount of it was from Rtally3's personal knowledge, as he's a Timmons WP:SPA. Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Separately, we avoid editing and reverting on the Lennon paragraph until consensus is reached on the talk page? We seem pretty close to a compromise. I'm leaving the same message with Collect. THF (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This provocation is not helpful. Collect's interpolations were improper; so are yours. We're really near a compromise, let's just nail down the language, and there won't be a problem. The WP:WRONG version can be in place for another hour or two. THF (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Provocation? I was just taking crap out of quotes and clarifying for Collect that Timmons is being discussed there; he seems unable to understand text. Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but your removal of the irrel tag and your removal of Collect's comments constitute at least your fifth and sixth revert in the last sixteen hours. So I'll just give a formal WP:3RR notice then, and since you've given one to Collect, you know what that means. Please stop edit-warring on the page, and let's finish discussing. THF (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

These were not reverts, though I did have a few in there. They move the article forward thoughtfully, repairing quotes that Collect had inserted junk into. Collects were four simple reverts in a row. But thanks for the warning; I'll slow down and be careful. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at William Timmons. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Ruslik (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dicklyon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm unclear on what's going on here; I acknowledged the warning and said I'd be more careful; and I haven't touch the William Timmons article since then, but continued with discussions on its talk page. Did someone file a 3RR complaint? If so, can you point it out? And if you're blocking for edit warring without a formal complaint, why didn't User:Collect get blocked for the 4 consecutive reverts he did on this William Timmons dispute yesterday? (I see now that the blocking admin told him "I just blocked Dicklyon for 48 h, but I decided not to block you, because you was not engaged in this edit-war to the same extent as Dicklyon was." this is a bit of an absurd interpretation, in my opinion, especially now that Collect has attracted the edit of his edit-warring tag-teamer THF.) I can't very well contest this block until someone points out more clearly why it was done. Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You reverted 5 times within the span of 24 hours. You are well aware of the 3-revert rule as you have warned others about violating it and have been blocked for violating it yourself before on several occasions. The 48-hour duration would be justified by that alone, but on top of that you were being incivil with the edit summaries such as those mentioned by the blocking admin below. Mangojuice^talk 21:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I support an unblock. Per WP:BLOCK, a block is supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and Dicklyon had already agreed to use the talk page. I asked for page-protection, I had no intent to get Dicklyon blocked. THF (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

However, I'm disappointed that Dicklyon made a personal attack against me in his unblock request. The record will show that I supported Dicklyon in many of his arguments with Collect, asked Collect to stop edit-warring, did not perform any reversions to restore any Collect edits, and ultimately disagreed with Collect's position on the talk page. I came to the article from BLPN, where I am an active participant. THF (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I had been warned when you showed up that you tend to work in concert with Collect, even though you express a few disagreements. It does seem to be turning out that way, which is why I called you his tag-teamer. It's like a good-cop–bad-cop play. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A good faith editor resolving a dispute who agrees with each of you in some regard is going to be indistinguishable from a "good cop" if you're not willing to compromise. I've had my own fights with Collect, and I assure you those were very real disputes. THF (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For the reviewing admin. While I blocked Dicklyon for a 3RR violation I took into account the following "aggravating" circumstances:

1. Inflammatory edit summaries like stop with the silly tags or so no need to crap up the article;
2. The fact that Dicklyon gave Collect 3RR warning, but continued to edit-war themself. I disapprove such behavior;
3. Block history of Dicklyon.

I eventually came to a conclusion that further disruption can only be prevented by a 48 h block. Ruslik (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik0, thanks for your comments. I don't agree that a block last June and 2 in 2007 indicates that you should expect an ongoing problem, especially after I had acknowledged and respected the warning. The use of "silly" to "crap up the article" might be a bit off base, but hardly "aggravating;" look at the substance of what was going on with THF and my good-faith efforts to fix it in discussion with him. And while I did give Collect a 3RR warning after his 4 reverts, the edits you're complaining about were in this thing with THF, that is somewhat unrelated though on the same article. I'm not saying I didn't do a few reverts, but you need to treat it either as a separate issue, or part of the Collect issue, and not some combination that just penalizes me. Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DL, I opposed the original block, but now I am questioning myself: immediately after coming off the block, the very first thing you do is make three edit-warring reverts to William Timmons contrary to the talk-page consensus of every editor besides yourself that the material you are adding is irrelevant attempt at guilt by association and does not belong. Please self-revert and use dispute resolution procedures, or I will raise with Ruslik0. THF (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you review the history better. Just because you took over control of the article when I was blocked doesn't mean I should just let you keep on that way. Has there been anything unreasonable about my edits? Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Three editors believe you are COATRACKing irrelevant and misleading information into a BLP, and you've edit-warred to include it, and you still haven't made a persuasive argument for relevance beyond the "See also" on the talk page. Please self-revert. THF (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take it to the article talk page, so others can join in, and explain what you mean by COATRACKing and why you think it's misleading. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Speed of film and more

Dick, the masses are predominantly interested in digital photography rather than boring old film (even though I have film loaded up in two of my own cameras as I write this), and it's a trend that will surely accelerate. Yet CCD "speed", if that's the right word, is a matter that's treated within film speed. (Which, come to think of it, might not necessarily have been the best title even in a world without digicams, as it raises questions of what to do about sensitized plates.) I'm surprised and happy to see that as yet there's no huffing and puffing on the article's talk page about how film is fuddy-duddy and thus the article should be renamed to this or that toot sweet. Before some bunch of intolerant teenagers descends on the article with such demands, I thought I'd ask for your considered opinion. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

PS "Shutter speed" rules out "Speed (photography)"; there's no relevant emulsion on a CCD so "Emulsion speed" is out; "CCD speed" seems odd to me so "Film and CCD speed" also seems odd. -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

H, I agree it's a sticky issue. ISO refers to the digital concept in their standard "ISO 12232:2006. Photography — Digital still cameras — Determination of exposure index, ISO speed ratings, standard output sensitivity, and recommended exposure index." So, they use the general terms "exposure index" and "ISO speed rating"; these are used for film, too, but neither one covers the topic very well; it really takes both. Some of the film standards use the term "ISO speed" in their titles, and that's a term I've used, too. With lens speed, shutter speed, and film or ISO speed, you've got it covered. Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, lens speed. I'd temporarily forgotten that one.

I still think of speed as "ASA", actually; and although I don't think I've ever used "DIN" I'm certainly used to seeing it around. And on one occasion I had to explain to a friend that what were obviously ASA numbers on her ancient exposure meter were instead numbers on Weston's own scale. Having an article on "ISO speed" to cover the concept of film (etc) speed thus seems to me a little like having one on "metre length" to cover the concept of length. (Oh, Firefox puts little red dots under "metre"; I suppose it likes US spelling.) I'm not opposed to it; I just wonder if it's the best solution. Perhaps a better idea will come to one of us in a few days. (Right now, you seem to have your hands full with the Nixon-era relic and such matters.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, ISO speed is a bit too specialized. Film speed is OK with me. The digital sensor standards that are used are mostly not very related to it, except that they use the same ISO scale. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The speed of light is what it is

Hi Dick: Where does this idea originate? As you probably know, the speed of light is different in every material medium. That includes any realizable form of vacuum, including quantum vacuum. However, c = c_0 occurs in a fictional medium called "the vacuum of free space", where it has a unique defined numerical, scalar, frequency and field-independent value. This value (to date) is observed experimentally in say outer space, but of course can be established only to within experimental error (it is not a defined value in any realizable medium). In almost the entire speed of light article, the "speed of light" is talked about with a weak designation of what medium is talked about, as though "vacuum" were specific enough, and as though the defined value applied to "vacuum" regardless of which vacuum. That simply is baloney. Please go back and fix things up. Brews ohare (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear what kind of fixup would satisfy you without making the statement wrong or unnecessarily twisted; in almost all physics texts, isn't "vacuum" used to mean the perfect vacuum of free space? And isn't the "physical constant" called c, not c_0? Also, can you estimate from simple physics how much the speed deviates in say the typical vacuum of interstellar space? If you can find that in a source, it might be worth mentioning. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I simply used c_0 as a shorthand for 299 792 458 m s-1. The physical constant is commonly denoted c, which also is used interchangeably with the use of c for the actual measured speed in various media only approximating free space. Thus, as appears often to be the case, vague usage abounds. That does not always prevent determination of the authors' meaning from context, but such context-based inference is fraught with hazard. What is very clear is that there are various measurements out there of the actual, measurable, non-c_0 value of c in realizable media like outer space. Departures of realizable vacuum from free space are presented at length in various articles of which I mention QCD vacuum, vacuum state, electric constant, free space, Outer space, Interplanetary medium, Interstellar medium, and in speed-of-light itself here and here. Sources are quoted. Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the theoretical role of c (not c_0) in such physical matters as the limiting rate of propagation of information, and the transformation between Lorentz frames makes the distinction between c and c_0 rather profound in areas like quantum gravity and models of the evolution of the universe itself. For example, if c is found not to be c_0 but a tensor, or a function of frequency, Lorentz invariance has to be reformulated, although perhaps only on a Planck scale. Brews ohare (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As for "making the statement wrong or unnecessarily twisted", beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I have seen enough of succinct error, and prefer accuracy, even at the expense of a few extra words. I am particularly bothered by conceptual error, like mixing up the role of a defined value (c_0) with that for a fact (measured c). Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

William Timmons

I noticed that you resumed edit-warring on this page soon after the block. I strongly advise you to stick to 0RR (reads zero revert) rule when editting this article, because if you do not a block of longer duration than 48 h may be applied to your account. Regards, Ruslik (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you refer to my recent work there as edit warring. Can you suggest a better approach? Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I warned you to stick to 0RR rule on William Timmons. You did not follow my advise. So, I think, the 72 h block will give this article a necessary break from edit-warring. I hope that the ongoing RFC will resolve all problems with this article. Ruslik (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A 3-day block for a single revert? Seems like this admin is taking sides in a content dispute. But maybe I need a break anyway... Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am ready to unblock you if you promise not to edit this article for a month after unblock—kind of topic ban. Ruslik (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you'd make such an offer. Can you not see what's going on there? Why don't block the real troublemakers instead? All I did was revert one revert by a guy who refuses to allow progress. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I made my offer, it is now up to you to decide. Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I could use a break from these guys. I'd thank you to recuse yourself from my my case in the future, as you seem to have taken on their cause here. Dicklyon (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik, I'm glad you're optimistic about the RfC. I'm not so much, after what just happened. We did manage to get one outside comment, to the effect that my recent version (B) was probably the best, and one new report of an error in interpreting a source; so I went ahead and evolved that version B to remove the "OR" problem and cite the new source mentioned and make it agree with all sources without OR; that was progress. Then THF reverted me, for no good reason, so I did my only revert and reverted him back. Who's the problem here? And why are you enforcing your arbitrary suggestion with a block? Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of inserting your version into the article , you should have posted it on the Talk page for discussion. Ruslik (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, he did post it on the talk page first. The real problem is that he ignored what was said on the talk page: three editors rejected it, two expressed indifference (with one noting the SYN violation), and he took that as consensus to readd the problematic synthesis. THF (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair is when you don't distort the truth, Ted. You are the only one who has posted to Talk:William Timmons since my proposed solution to the problem here. I've "ignored" Collect for a long time (for many months on this same paragraph, for nonsense like this), and you jumping in to support him as you do in so many places does't make his or your position any more sensible. The editor noting SYN violation is you, right? And I had already fixed the problem you pointed out in interpreting the sources, right? I did not readd any "problematic synthesis". Nobody has even commented on that latest version; you just reverted it. You have consistently refused to answer what you mean by spouting the all-caps labels SYN and COATRACK with respect to edits for which WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK are clearly not applicable. So what do you mean by them? Dicklyon (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave lengthy explanations multiple times, and you continue to choose to ignore them. Insisting on a lengthy digression about facts that have nothing to do with the subject of an article from sources that have nothing to do with the subject of an article is the very epitome of a COATRACK, and certainly violates SYN. Your statement about the talk-page is fictional: five editors had a chance to look at version B, and !voted the way I described. Not sure what you're complaining about with me and Collect -- I just reverted his edits to Jon Wiener. If you also want to make a false sockpuppet allegation to reflect the fact that you can't stand the fact you're going against consensus and policy, feel free. THF (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you explained what you meant by COATRACK, I missed it. Can you point me to one such instance? And thanks for reverting Collect at Jon Wiener, proving that you're not as bad as he is. Also, if you're going to count others, as he does, it would be good to name them so that we can what it is you're thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're being WP:TEDIOUS. Drop the WP:STICK. I'm not going to have a meta-argument about the content dispute; I'm not going to read the article talk page to you. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, not get into the spats over spats. Every editor other than you recognizes that you are wrong on the content dispute; every editor other than you recognizes that you are wrong on the meta-dispute over the content dispute. THF (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying it doesn't make it so. You and Collect and Jayen tell me I'm wrong, but you guys are so clearly biased that it's a joke. If you don't want to say what you mean by COATRACK, that's OK, but stop claiming that you have. And what are you calling a "lengthy digression"? A clause to connect the guy whose opinion we are quoting to the topic of the paragraph? Or the concise sentence that summarizes the role of the paragraph topic in the history that Timmons was a part of? I don't think this kind of important connective tissue is what was referred to in COATRACK as "lengthy". And it's not SYN, it's all right there in multiple sources, quite explicitly. Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And as for having a meta-conversation, that's at your option; this talk page is the only thing I can edit. You could be doing something useful, instead of ... never mind, probably not. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I take it back; your "trim LINKFARM" edit that removes very relevant additional information about Jon Wiener makes you as bad as Collect. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged by the mean-spirited behavior directed toward you by a couple people. As long as you keep cool and don't give them any "ammunition" to use against you (in the form of supposed unCivil comments, or Reverts/Edits without consensus) they can't do anything except filibuster and bluster on and on. And eventually there will be enough cool heads present to help bring the situation into whatever mediation or conflict-resolution is necessary, and you will be rewarded for your patience and calmness despite the personal attacks against you. You might not be totally satisfied with the ultimate outcome of any such conflict, but at least your viewpoint will have to be acknowledged and respected during any mediation process, and policy will dictate that your good faith suggestions and comments can not be ignored, no matter how much a few people try to oppose you hatefully. Be hopeful! Be brave! And have a great week ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as mean-spirited behavior, nor as directed toward me. The problem is just that they pervert wikipedia policies while wikilawyering in a way that's only designed to push their POV; they want to not report what their conservative buddies are known for in reliable sources, when it's at all unflattering. It's not about me, and I don't take it that way. But yes they do piss me off sometimes, and sometimes my comments border on the uncivil, and sometimes I've reverted more than was safe (not as much as Collect does, however!). The real problem is just that I haven't been able to get the attention of a wider set of people on these issues; I've had the same problem on other articles in the past, thought they mostly did work out eventually; when there's a dedicated cabal of two or three POV pushers, and others are reluctant to get involved, how does on try to make progress? Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, i'm totally not the correct person for you to be asking, because in Real Life i'm a sarcastic bitch, and on Wikipedia i ran into an intensely aggravating conflict where my own frustrated behavior eventually spiralled down to their unCIVIL level, and i got blocked for a week.... served me right for stooping down to their level. But i try to live and learn and move on to something less frustrating. I wish i could be more consoling, but the truth is: Wikipedia is a total minefield of frustrations and interpersonal aggravations if you let yourself get too sensitive to all of the warring, bullying, or outright Bad Faith. The best thing i can say to you about "picking your battles wisely" and dealing with the horrible filibuster~bluster is actually a quote i read today from a different Wikipedia editor who is extremely experienced, extremely Civil, and more patient than Sisyphus: Just like in life choose how to use your energies. There's some saying too about not wrestling with pigs because you just get dirty and the pig enjoys the battle. In other words it's simply not worth engaging in their battles. Just do work and improve the articles the best you can. Their actions will eventually catch up to them. The editor who wrote that has put up with some extremely unfair treatment, including lack of Good Faith, but i've seen them continue to work despite the negativity. That inspires me to try harder; i hope it will at least give you comfort that your attempts to volunteer your intellect and Good Faith sharing of ideas are not in vain. Think happy thoughts, just to spite them all! ha! ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 03:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's good advice. I guess I can just go away and let them keep the article locked on the version with their odd disconnected paragraph that THF admits he designed to help people disregard the idea that Timmons had anything to do with the Lennon deportation attempt. We'll see... Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Relativity socks

Dick, I'm alerting you since you seem to have interacted with this user in the past. Way back in 2006 a user named Ati3414 (talk · contribs) was blocked for making threats and off-Wiki harassment. He edited articles related to the speed of light, relativity, and similar topics. Subsequent sock puppets appeared, including 67.170.224.36 (talk · contribs), 67.170.234.213 (talk · contribs), 24.7.125.29 (talk · contribs), and Moroder (talk · contribs). DS1000 (talk · contribs) appears to share the same interests and has been editing disruptively, so I am going to block him as a sock of Ati3414.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems likes you'd want better evidence than that to ban someone indefinitely though. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, while I was investigating this another admin came along and banned him for edit warring on a BLP.   Will Beback  talk  07:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

FS1037

If you look at the article histories, most of them (especially the shorter/stubbier ones) were taken from Federal Standard 1037C and MIL-STD-188 by two anonymous users:213.253.40.156 and 213.253.39.122. Why these references were removed, I'm not really sure. Given, some of the articles have been expanded, so if you no longer think the tag is necessary, feel free to remove it. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 06:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it ever necessary to mention ,just because you can? I'd say that if the tag was removed at some point, it's not likely to be at all relevant. Why did you feel like they should be put back? Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is necessary to mention for the purposes of proper attribution, even with public domain sources. Many of these articles have been changed very little in content from the original entries, and the tags were removed in error (or simply never properly applied). This is borne out by looking at the edit histories of many of these articles. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 08:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Color filter array question

Why are all the color filers made of RGB sensors shaped like perfect squares? The color artifacts would be reduced if each of the three sensors were shaped like a rectangle, the length of the rectangle being 3 times greater than its width. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.29.213 (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting conjecture; not clear that it's true, though. Having more green sensors, in a uniform pattern, is helpful for getting more luminance detail than chroma detail; but other geometries are certainly possible. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You can get more green sensor area by using green sensor that has the shape of wider rectangle than the other two rectangles, and by many other geometries that confine all 3 sensors into a square shape. The square shape eliminates the color artifacts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.6.69 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is not to get more area of green, but more resolution, by having more samples. At least, that's Bayer's idea. It's not clear why or how you think confining the three color samples in a square is going to improve anything. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

William Timmons

I actually advised you before to take a break from editing this article, and want to repeat my advise.

In essence, I think that the difference between all variants is small. However I slightly prefer THF' variant, because it does not put an undue weight on the position of Thurmond. In fact, the opinion of Thurmond is irrelevant—the article is about Timmons, not Thurmond. By putting a heavy emphasis on the opinion of Thurmond, you create a wrong impression that Timmons held the same position, which is not true (or at least there is no evidence for that). Timmons actually did only one thing: he transmitted a message from the Nixon's justice department that Lennon had been served with a deprtation notice. Timmons' role seems to have been fairly insignificant. It was Mitchell who made the real decision.

Even more, the whole section looks like a collection of trivia. The article needs serious work IMO. Ruslik (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying your position and opinions. Given your position in favor of THF's version, I assume you'll now recuse yourself from using admin powers with respect to that page. Dicklyon (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I no longer have the time to follow ti up & I've said as much as can be usefully said. It's interesting politically, but the Nixon administration is one of the things I'd rather forget. DGG (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fiber Media Converter

I have spent weeks researching the material for this project. There is no advertising or promotional material contained within. This is a very informative and educational article written from an unbiased point of view. I would like all of my citations put back and I would like the image of the media converter put back on the site. This was the first U.S. company to develop and manufacture these types of devices. Therefore, they are historically significant when referring to this topic. If the application diagrams were too "promotional" in nature, I can contact the company to have them edited to suit the Wikipedia terms. It is important to show how these devices are used in a real-life network scenario. And finally, why would the article require "copy-editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling"? Please give me the reasoning behind this banner? Thank you. IMC Networks (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, the article talk page is the right place to discuss this. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

blackbody and thermal radiation

Is there some way we can show this subset relationship and still redirect BB radiation to Thermal radiation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhbdel (talk • contribs) 16:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking; looks to me like the thermal radiation page needs to be made more clear about all this, and maybe the black-body radiation page needs to be taken back to what it was before a redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Your edits to Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, The American (magazine), and Ted Frank, combined with your unreasonable use of a uw-delete template on an experienced editor in response to an edit I made that had a detailed edit summary, suggest a WP:HOUND issue. Do not continue down this path. THF (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the template; sometimes I act without thinking when TW offers me that option. But just to be clear, these are the edits, none of which in any way harass: [2] [3] [4]. Now it's true I was looking at your contribs to see where else you are inflicting your conservative bias on other editors and articles, and I agree that I should not continue down this path. By the way, was this you? Forgot to log in? Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I've never edited the Ted Frank page. (It would not be so inaccurate and incomplete if I did.) You'll notice the IP address goes to Chicago, and I was in DC on January 17. There is no basis for the claim of inserting bias into articles. THF (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you see some inaccuracies, and have some sources that will help fix them, let me know and I'll fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ted's editing history"

When have I ever asked to remove the word "conservative" from a conservative? I took the exact opposite position on Drudge Report, for example. I'd like the false statement deleted, please. THF (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was mistaken. I will remove the comment. Dicklyon (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

International Parliament for Safety and Peace

Hello Dicklyon. Thank you for your contributions to International Parliament for Safety and Peace. They were very helpful. I have changed the article and explained my edits on the talk page. I hope that you find time to contribute to the discussion at the talk page and/or the article itself. Best regards, gidonb (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mickey

Do you have access to IEEE Xplore? If so, could you verify the credibility of this article? It has the same authors as one of the questionably reliable sources that I listed in Talk:List of unusual units of measurement#I removed "mickey". It showed up in a Google search for mickeys pointing device, but IEEE is one of the many publishers of scholarly articles that uses cloaking to expose the articles to Googlebot but hide them from the general public. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to get at in when I'm in the office tomorrow or so... But even if one author does use the term, that doesn't justify including such a strange new unit, does it? Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, wait, I got it via VPN. It doesn't say much, defines "Mickey ratio" and abbrev. "MR", but doesn't cite any source for it. Email me if you'd like me to send a copy of the PDF. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fibonacci edit

Thank you for catching my apparently improper change to this page and "Fibonacci Sequence". I am new to Wikipedia, so please explain what I need to do to correct it so you will not have to remove it next time. Your admonition doesn't make it clear to me whether it was simply a lack of edit summary that warranted the removal or the website to which I linked that was unsatisfactory. Since the site is completely on topic and provides relevant information not found in the Wikipedia page, without any advertising at all, I was surprised to learn that the addition of this link is equivalent to spam (which is untargetted, unwelcome advertising). Wiki-otter (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really quite unclear why you would want to link that page. Please read WP:EL and explain relative to criteria there. The page appears to be new and anonymous, and therefore not authoritative; nor do I see anything extra there beyond what is in the article, or could be easily added to the article. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now read WP:EL. Full disclosure: I am the author of the website and I see that creates a conflict of interest situation, so I will propose the link on the Talk page.

The website does not come under "What should be linked". The website does match item 4 under the list of "Links to be considered". Examples of what the site contains that is not on the Wikipedia page are:

1. http://www.fibonacci.name/Career.html : Fibonacci solved the Arithmetic Series before Gauss
2. http://www.fibonacci.name/Career.html : a little more information about his publications
3. http://www.fibonacci.name/Photos.html : other photos of the person
4. Beyond the subject of the Fibonacci, the site presents information about the Fibonacci Sequence, including information not included in that WP page, such as http://www.fibonacci.name/1-89.html : why the Fibonacci Sequence appears in the decimal for (and expansion of) 1/89
5. Beyond Fibonacci and the Sequence, the site presents examples (and non-credible claims of examples) of the Fibonacci number and the Golden Ratio appearing in nature, why it appears and, in the case of corn, why it does not appear. This information does not necessarily belong in the WP pages mentioned, but it is related and may well be of interest to readers of these pages.

The website does not meet any of the 17 criteria of "Links normally to be avoided". You disqualified it as spam, so you must seen this as #4: promotion of the website. Therefore, as I mentioned previously, I will propose the link in the talk page.

When you say, ".. or could be easily added to the article.", it was not by intent to add to the WP article - bigger is not necessarily better. That is why external links are helpful. Wiki-otter (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit at talk:Intersexuality violates WP:NPA.

Your return to engaging in yet more personal attacks is the same user conduct issue that led to the RfC regarding your prior inappropriate behavior previously. Remove or revise your comments to remain within the bounds of appropriate WP conduct.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When I referred to your comments as "another case of James Cantor wanting to over-represent the academic sexologist POV and suppress the dissenting points of view," it was intended to help explain to other editors how to take your comments. I realize it's somewhat personal, but I don't think it's an attack; certainly not intended as such, just pointing out that you consistently take the POV that favors your professional colleagues. Can you suggest a better way to make this point without you feeling attacked? Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to "explain to other editors how to take your comments" (aka poisoning the well) that is appropriate. WP:Incivility includes "feigned incomprehension, 'playing dumb'", which was discussed more than once in the RfC regarding your user conduct.

From WP:Harassment:

For the second time: Remove or revise your comments to remain within the bounds of appropriate WP conduct.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization. And I was not following you around. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Siena College

Hey Dicklyon, thanks for your input on this issue already, at WP:RSN. The dispute is rumbling on at Talk:Siena College - I'd be grateful if you'd take a look and perhaps offer your thoughts there. --hippo43 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuous Time Mortgage Model

Hello Dick

Could you please take a look at the following and advise if you think it is suitable for posting on the Wiki page on Compound Interest:

User:Neil_Parker/Sandbox#Time_Continuous_Mortgage_Model

I have pretty much just gone to town on the Maths (from an engineering perspective) but I don't really know whether the concept is 'real' or not!

Regards, Neil

m2florida@mweb.co.za if you might want to email rather than post on my Wiki page.

Neil Parker (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it sourced? Or original research? The answer tells you where it's suitable per WP:RS and WP:NOR. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

Thanks for your response and references re Wikipedia publishing guidelines.

I had a look at the Wikipedia policies you have indicated. Technically speaking I don't think there's anything original in what I've written. Any of the lines of reasoning can be verified in any of a host of Maths text books - for example the ones I've quoted in the Bibliography. So my argument would be: which specific line of the maths would you like me to verify and quote source on? And I will do so. Maths at the end of the day is pretty much its own guarantor of reliability/verifiability.

That said I'll see if they'll accept the article for publication in the American Mathematical Monthly. If I'm successful in that, would I now satisfy the Wikipedia requirements?

Neil Parker (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability of math is not the issue; if the concept of a "time-continuous mortgage model" is in reliable sources, we can talk about it; if you made it up, we can't. If you get it published we can certainly then talk about it referencing your paper; even there, however, it's better to ask other editors to do it, to avoid any appearance of WP:COI in promoting your own work. Dicklyon (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.Fair enough.

Neil Parker (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Mass–energy equivalence

Hi Dick: Apparently User:Likebox insists on writing Mass–energy equivalence to suit themselves, and repeatedly deletes cited material. They already have a reputation for such activity. How can it be prevented or ameliorated? Brews ohare (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a lot of successful experience dealing with edit warriors; I tend to get too deep into it myself and get myself blocked. Just try to use standard dispute resolution techniques. An RfC might be a good start. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I put a message on Brews ohare's talk page. I am sincerely trying to understand what he wants on the article. It isn't an edit war--- he's brought in quite a few constructive changes.Likebox (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear that you're both well intentioned. It's still an edit war, and getting more opinions may help. I think I agree with you that quibbling about the photon mass while explaining the implications of massless is a distraction. Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lumen

I really wish you hadn't done this. The referenced site does contain the information—each listing gives the power consumption and lumen rating of the bulb. It's not a great reference, but it served the purpose. The statement really needed to be referenced, because of a long argument I had with another user, who insisted that European incandescent bulbs couldn't possibly be less efficient than North American ones. See the talk page if you're interested. Light bulb articles seem to go through this cycle constantly: the only available references are often commercial web sites. Periodically someone comes along and deletes the references either because the referenced site is commercial, or because the site layout has changed and the info is no longer at the cited URL. Someone else then comes along and deletes the statement, because it's uncited.--Srleffler (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's still uncited. The cited site didn't seem to have anything about "standard" light bulbs or ranges of lumens. Doesn't that make the statement just original research? Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Standardlampen" is German for "standard light bulb", i.e. a General Service bulb. One can look down the lists, and see the range of values exhibited by 100 W 230 V models. As described in Wikipedia:These are not original research, simple deductions from sources are permitted. I agree, though, that it would be much better to have a reference that explicitly gives the range of values for general-service 230 V bulbs. I don't happen to have such a reference. I felt that a poor reference was preferable to none at all.--Srleffler (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll add some more general sources and see if I can make it all work better with that one. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Collect

I added new evidence: [5]. Please review your endorsement. If you still endorse the RFC, leave your endorsement. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of my additions to Ohm's Law analogy to hydraulics

Your comment in deleting all my careful work was:

"That's taking the analogy way too seriously, since R doesn't relate to size as it does in electrical wire."

Your statement is incorrect. R does relate to the size of the pipe in fluid flow, just as it does in the size of a wire. This is (was) evident in the equation for calculation of hydraulic resistance which I put at the end, showing that the hydraulic R is dependent on the radius of the pipe. It turns out that it is even more strongly dependent on the pipe size than electrical resistance is dependent on the thickness of a wire (something I could add at the bottom, to complete the analogy, showing a radius squared dependency for resistance in electrical Ohm's law but a radius to the 4th power in hydraulic Ohm's law).

I feel that this information (regarding hydraulic application of Ohm's law) belongs somewhere in Wikipedia, and the Ohm's law page is the one that seems to come closest and most logically fit.

I did not mean to put my additions back after you deleted them -- you apparently deleted it while I was adding to it, resulting in a conflict. When I observed that the entire thing was reverted (deleted) I chose to save the version I had been editing since your complete reversion could again be easily implemented.

I guess this is a weakness in Wikipedia -- if only one person on the planet disagrees with an addition someone makes, no matter how carefully, all the person's work can be deleted. If you don't delete it I suppose someone else will, since it is unlikely that eveyone on the planet will agree with anything that anyone says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.78.61 (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it doesn't relate to r, just that it doesn't relate in the same way. Introduce the r^4 dependence is rather confusing and off-topic, as it's where the analogy is not so good. It's not really a weakness in wikipedia; see WP:BRD. Dicklyon (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute with respect to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect

Please fill out Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect#Evidence_of_trying_to_resolve_the_dispute and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect#Evidence_of_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute.

Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Uncertified_user_RfCs for further details. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Most recently Collect and I were working on it at this RfC: Talk:William_Timmons#RfC:_on_the_John_Lennon_deportation_attempt_memos. If you interpret this as not part of the same dispute, I can understand that. It's part of the same problem pattern, however. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can point to specific diffs of you trying to resolve that particular problem, and subsequently failing to resolve that problem, then I recommend including it regardless. Of course, whether it will be sufficient to justify leaving the RfC open, given that it is not part of the same dispute, is something that will need to be determined later - but usually, a same problem pattern may be enough in cases that aren't so black and white, like that claimed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The pattern is Collect's WP:Game / WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If you have something where you tried to explain something, and Collect repeatedly rejected, add them. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is. Does a user conduct RfC ever lead to a useful result? Not that I've seen... Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is, if this RfC doesnt lead to a useful result and if Collect continues his behaviour, I will take it to WP:ARB. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Camera

Given just a little time, I would have produced all the sources and references etc. required. A Wikipedia article needs to stand as a coherent hole on its own and the links add value and detail. A quick check will show that I have added considerably to many article on photography and have provided many references often to texts nowhere to be found on the internet. The question is , do we want to have an article that provides and encyclopaedic view of the subject Camera or a very partial article because editors like me who only have a few minutes here and there cannot add the references quickly enough. There are so many article out there with no cogent references at all it does seem a little hasty to revert factual information (and I suspect that you may agree that it is factual and not an invention of my mind). With your own knowledge and experience some help with the references would have been and still would be much appreciated.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   19:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your help and good intentions here. I reverted before I saw that you were an experienced editor; feel free to bring back the info with sources, but also keep in mind the relative level of detail needed in the different articles. Also, I can't say that I agree that it was factual; I specifically questioned your comments about mass produced plate cameras with lens movements; might be true, but it strikes me as unlikely. Dicklyon (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, but there's the rub. I have a collection of cameras including mass produced plate cameras with rising fronts and I know from 19th century catalogues that they were commonplace and inexpensive (Less than £5 which although a great deal at the time was still an inexpensive camera) but my sources are my own collection and unusable references as most are undated or have no publisher information ....but I will try - when I have time.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   20:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the rub. You interpret these as being "mass produced". The only thing I find in sources about early mass produced cameras is about Eastman's cameras (produced at a much higher volume); since it's a matter of interpretation, we need to stick to reliably sourced interpretations. Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

File:ElectricCars.png

The new data for 2007 is out now, from the EIA, and will not be updated again now for another year, so if you could upload a new image at commons:File:ElectricCars.png to include the last three years, that would be helpful. Thanks. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Point me at the data? Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Electric car#United States. All the data is from[6]. See both the 2003-2007 data and the historical data for earlier years.[7] 199.125.109.29 (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)