User talk:Dicklyon

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

CMYK article edit

Thank you for your recent edit to the CMYK page—constructive and accurate! —Parhamr 01:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now done a lot more, with help from Jacobolus. I hope you find it useful. Dicklyon 20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

False warnings, and harassment, AGAIN

You just don't get it, do you? Putting fake "final warning" for vandalism tags on people's talk pages just because they made an edit *you* don't like is a complete violation of several policies here. Go read the actual vandalism policy, specifically the part about what vandalism is not. And while you are at it, please read personal attacks policy, assume good faith policy, a little note about what this place is here for in the first place and rules on how to behave like an adult.

Considering your long history of placing false tags on my page, lying in edit comments, posting nasty remarks and so forth, please consider yourself (if I haven;t already explicitly told you) banned form my talk page. Until you learn to act like a mature and responsible editor and follow policies, it's clear that your only reasons for posting to my tlak page are to be harassing, so there's no point to you even doing so. DreamGuy 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and reported you as a vandal again, since that's the closest thing I could find to what you can be classified as; it seems to me that a long block is in order, but of course that's not my decision to make. Dicklyon 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just left him a message as he seems to be getting a little bent out of shape about the whole thing. I know you're not purposely trying to harass or bully him but it can seem like that sometimes when things happen so quickly on here. I mean, scrolling down from the edit box, it's not far from the truth to say things are "edited mercilessly"! However, from situations where i've seen you intervene, you've usually left talk-page comments as to your reversions, so i'm not worried about this issue.

“ Not when truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, does the enlightened man dislike to wade into its waters. ”

Hopefully, we can resolve this issue! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 23:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As DreamGuy points out, we've been around this block before, so the reaction is pretty much as expected. Dicklyon 23:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, good luck with it. I know you're not purposely trying to harass him, anyway. Say, i noticed the Richard F. Lyon article link on your page -- any relation? I can see some form of resemblance in the facial structure between you. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was named after him. He's a few generations further back than I ever got to know. Dicklyon 23:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to this - what can you to when someone is hired to harass you. There is a user that admits he works for a company and he is really going over the top trying to harass and block me b/c I put up some text,posts,pages that are contrary to his company. He says I am helping his competitor and he's really trying harder then I have ever seen before to slander me and get me blocked. How can I fight with someone who's actually paid to harass me :( Please advise. --Mrtobacco 22:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cool. And it's good to know that you are now blocked indefinitely after causing a lot of people a lot of trouble. Dicklyon 20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Formatting cleanup

Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Spaces. My goal is to leave an article's markup with a consistent internal formatting style. (I look at what the majority markup style is and then make it consistent with that style.) What do you do when you edit an article with inconsistent internal style? - Bevo 20:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes move toward consistent, too, when I edit an article or section. More often, I move toward more space, because it's so hard to find your way around (i.e. to spot headings) when the spaces aren't there. But I wouldn't edit an article just for source style (with the exception of what I just did in reaction to yours that I felt went it a bad direction). Dicklyon 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A long time ago, I tended to edit towards my personal preference in internal formatting, and I was criticized for doing that. Until your comment today I've never been criticized for working towards a consistent internal style that is consistent with the majority style already present. I won't edit an article for consistency if it does not already contain a clear majority internal style. - Bevo 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Dicklyon 21:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: DreamGuy

Just FYI, I have discussed Dreamguy with Eyrian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eyrian#And_another

He has a long history of abusive behavior and collusion with abusive people, including making false accusations of all sorts. I do not understand how he still remains in the project but his continued presence and ability to get away with abusing people is only one effect of a major systemic problem that wikipedia has.

Moryath 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess if he's connected with User:Slimvirgin, he's untouchable. I hear she's a CIA agent or something :). Dicklyon 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of S. David Freeman

A tag has been placed on S. David Freeman, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears 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.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 05:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

More explicit evidence of notability has been added. It's still a stub, needs a cat, etc. Dicklyon 06:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

S. David Freeman

Yep, much better now. Sorry if I was a little hasty — guess I got on a roll of knocking off "So-and-so is the coolest person EVER!" articles and got a little carried away. Realkyhick 06:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you propose the speedy deletion of square root of 5

I think the article already mentions some of the reasons why this number is algebraically and geometrically notable. It is intimately related to the golden ratio and to several of the most geometrically simple shapes (squares and cubes), as well as appearing in a multitude of important formulae such as those for the exact trigonometric constants. If you nominate this for speedy deletion, you might as well nominate the square root of 3 and the square root of 2. Uaxuctum 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article on WP:Notability? What part of it suggests notability for this number? I didn't find a section on algebraic or geometric notability. Where are the reliable independent secondary source references that could establish notability? Dicklyon 22:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article? If so, what, then, do you consider algebraic and geometric notability? Isn't its intimate relation to the golden ratio reason enough? (in fact, if we know how to construct a golden rectangle, that's precisely because the golden ratio can be algebraically defined in terms of this basic length of the square root of five and, from the Pythagorean theorem, we know how to construct that length from a square). Isn't the fact that it is the measure that connects a square with a pentagon another good reason for notability? Doesn't the fact of its being related to the square and cube through its being the ratio of side to diagonal in the most simple of all rectangles (the 1:2 rectangle, which is intimately related to the square) make a good argument for it to be notable? If not, then what do you think makes the square root of 2 and the square root of 3 notable? Because they are notable for similar reasons: their basic role in elemental geometry and, from there, their appearance in countless formulae such as those for the exact trigonometric constants. If you just care to have a look at formulae for geometric relations, you'll find that this three prime-number surds are, by far, the ones appearing most often, since they are intimately linked to such elemental geometric shapes as the equilateral triangle, the square, the pentagon and the cube, plus the three can be interrelated to one another in the shape of a right triangle. The next prime-number surd, the square root of seven, does not come even close to the importance and frequency of these three, let alone the square roots of larger primes. Uaxuctum 23:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What do I "consider algebraic and geometric notability"? I've never considered such a concept. Anyway, I scanned the article for references to secondary sources, found none, and so felt justified in asserting that the topic is not notable. If I'm wrong, show us the refs. I don't think the square roots of 2 and 3 are particularly notable topics, either, though a good case could probably be made for the square root of two, since it was the subject of much inquiry, intrigue, and mathematical progress. I'd rather see that covered in a article on squares, or on irrational numbers, or something like that. Dicklyon 23:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How could one possibly claim the square roots of two and three are not notable, except from a point of view which completely disregards its elemental role in geometry? The square root of three is a most fundamental geometric length intimately linked to the equilateral triangle, and from that, it is linked to everything in geometry where this most basic of all geometric shapes appears, from hexagons, to tightly-packed circles, to the vesica piscis, etc. Same for the square root of two and its link to the geometrically fundamental square. OTOH, the square root of five, which itself is also linked to the square, is so intimately related to the golden ratio (as well as to the pentagon and the pentagram, being geometrically constructed from it), that is difficult to find a reference that does not mention both. Uaxuctum 00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I see tones escalating, so lets keep it cool. Lets carry this conversation in neutral territory; the article's talk page! That is also good because this conversation is most helpful to the article (or deletion of) if we carry it out there. Brusegadi 00:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound harsh. But I find it untenable and unreasonable to argue that these three surds are supposedly barely notable to merit an article, when they are so essential and elemental to geometry and trigonometry. As for his requirement of references as supposedly the only valid measure to establish notability, well, he could have started with the articles on number 1 and number 2, which don't include any source to establish the notability of these numbers, either. Should we nominate them for speedy deletion, too? Uaxuctum 00:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one kind of argument for which I have little tolerance: "How can you complain about X? You'd have to then complain about Y, Z, and all the rest, too!" Well, I'm only complaining about X, the square root of five. And I'm only saying that you need to respect and apply wikipedia's notability guidelines. That's not too much to ask for, is it? Dicklyon 04:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that your requirement that the only way to make clear the notability of a number is by "citing sources" (in some undefined way: what would you need to be convinced? some author clarifying: "hey, in case you haven't noticed, this number I have kept mentioning once and again when talking about golden rectangles and other geometric shapes, is notable!"?), while disregarding everything else, is not reasonable, since a number is made notable intrinsically by its mathematical properties, its relation to basic geometric shapes, the frequency of appearance in important formulae and equations, etc. and not by some "source" specifically stating the obvious, and the examples of the articles on numbers 1 and 2, which do not cite nor need any "source" to establish their notability since all the info about their properties and usage is more than enough, clearly show that. Uaxuctum 14:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing what makes it notable with the evidence of notability. For the former is more about your opinion. The latter is the objective verifiable evidence that wikipedia policy requires. Dicklyon 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sunland Park Mall

I was working on a major rewrite of this article when you re-tagged it. I removed the speedy, which I can do since I wasn't the original author. This is odd, because I'm known for slapping speedy tags on about anything that moves, but I thought this article could be salvaged. The mall is notable enough, I think. It's not Mall of America, but it's a big mall in a major metro area, so I think it'll fly. Hope the rewrite helps. Realkyhick 05:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Sorry I didn't slap an underconstruction tag on it while I was working. My bad. (I'm not used to that.) Realkyhick 05:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But where are the secondary sources that indicate notability? Is a list of stores in a shopping center really encyclopedic? Dicklyon 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that much of the notability for this mall lies in the historic organ that was a fixture in the mall for many years, until it was recently returned to the Plaza Theatre from which it originally came. These are referenced by independent sources. I would also argue that the mall's size — five anchor stores, more than 100 specialty stores and two enclosed levels — makes it notable, at least within the El Paso region. I know that mall articles sometimes get a bad rap on WP, but I think previous precedent has fairly well established that malls of this size merit articles (yeah, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Oddly enough, it might be harder to make a case for this mall's larger sister property, Cielo Vista Mall, because of a lack of a historical "hook" like the organ. I wish that an established policy, such as the one discussed and rejected at WP:MALL, could be set. Until then, we kinda have to go on gut instinct to a certain extent. Realkyhick 17:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability comes from objectively verifiable independent sources, which need to be cited. You may be right that the organ is what makes it notable, since there seem to be published articles on that. Having lots of big stores might be written up somewhere, too, but I haven't seen it. Dicklyon 17:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cielo Vista Mall

Could you give me an idea of specifically what you're looking for as far as sources for this mall? (Funny, I'm usually the guy asking people for more sources.) I can understand such a need for subjects like relatively unknown bands, but a mall is a mall, and after they are built, they don't generally attract that much news coverage outside of police-blotter stuff. I'm working on the fact-check on the largest-mall claim, but I think that a mall of that size in a major metro area would pretty likely qualify as notable, compared to other malls with articles (yeah, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Realkyhick 03:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As with any article subject, you need to find independent verifiable reliable sources that have written non-trivial pieces about the mall, and reference them. That's how notability is established. The mall owner's own writings don't count, since they're not independent. A newpaper listing that says where the mall is or that it's having a sale or something is not "non-trivial." If you have an article that's independent talk about it being the biggest mall in town, or getting a million visitors a year, or something like that, that might do. Personally, I think it's weird that people think malls rate encyclopedia articles, but what really matters is just satisfying the criteria at WP:N. Being "known" is not related to being "notable". Dicklyon 03:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the general concept reliable sources and primary sources and all that at Wikipedia. I've tagged more articles than I can count with speedy-delete tags and unref tags and primarysources tags. My point is that, generally speaking, malls do not generate a lot of straight-news stories outside of the police-blotter stuff that I mentioned, but that doesn't make them any less notable or any less of an influence on their regions. I also realize that the general topic of the notability of shopping centers/malls has been debated frequently here at Wikipedia, with no real consensus other than a comparison of existing articles about malls, which falls dangerously close to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory. (Man, all the times I've used that link to counter AfD arguments...)

Well, yes, by wikipedia definition, having no significant stories about them DOES make them less notable. Influence on their regions is an independent issue. Why not be consistent and treat malls like you treat other subjects? Dicklyon 04:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

After digging around a bit, I did come across PDF files of leasing information for the three El Paso malls, so by comparing them I can come to the conclusion that this mall is the largest in town. It appears that there's not much online about the mall on the web site of the El Paso Times, mainly because its archives don't go back too far. Google turns up some stuff, but the Times site won't let me get to it. I'm working on finding stuff through http://www.archive.org. Realkyhick 04:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: Well, I did have the refs for the size, but apparently I didn't click the Save button before I closed out that tab in my browser. Man, I hate it when that happens. Realkyhick 04:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Better luck next time. Dicklyon 04:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.

The first party references are the website and Cicero. The third party references are Suster (fn. 7), Greer (fn. 11), Greer & Kuntz (fn. 12), Wasserman (fn. 13), the SRIA website (fn. 15, 16), Gilbert (fn 17), and of course State of Florida and USPTO. The Suster reference is important: the Golden Dawn had all but died out in the US. He documents that the only functioning temple in the US in the late 70s was Cicero's. Thus at the very least it is notable as the oldest continuously functioning temple in the US, which within 10 years or so had grown to the point supporting its incorporation as a non-profit. IPSOS (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not like I really care, but it would seem to be relevant to put this info in the AfD discussion for those who do. Dicklyon 02:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm tired of Kephera975 contesting everything that is put into the AfD. It makes it so long and tedious. Maybe if it actually looks like it is about to fail... IPSOS (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC of DreamGuy

If you want to file an RfC regarding DreamGuy, let me know and I'll support you in it. I've come across more than enough evidence to show that he's violating many of the same policies he accuses others of breaking, especially WP:OWN (such as at dissociative identity disorder), WP:CON (such as at photo editing), and WP:CIVIL (his talk page edit summaries are evidence enough of that). Note: I don't have any kind of vendetta against DreamGuy. I'm just, like you, annoyed that he thinks he can browbeat people with policies while skating around them himself. He does make good edits but that doesn't excuse him from following policies. --clpo13_(talk) 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm sure there will be no shortage of support from us "problem editors". I just opened it; now I need to do some work... Dicklyon 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but it wasn't what the edit summary stated, and an admin reverted. Just fyi ;) --Quiddity 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for fixing it. What I was trying to do somehow got very messed up by what I did. Dicklyon 22:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 if you want to be a party to the RfC. Dicklyon 04:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I added myself as the second user in order to verify the RfC. Interesting how he deleted your note on his talk page regarding the RfC, isn't it? --clpo13_(talk) 08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, hidden in another edit, uncommented, like he doesn't want anyone to find it. Dicklyon 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving extraneous stuff to the talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

TRS Connector and the term "jack"

Dicklyon, I have been in the live audio field for decades and yes, the term "jack" is commonly used in the USA when the sex of the connector is unspecified and even when it is known to be male. XLR panel mount connectors of both sexes are known as jacks. Here's a website selling male XLR panel mount jacks: [1] Binksternet 19:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how that panel-mount socket would be called a jack even though its pins are male. If you can add that in a way that's less confusing, and cite a source, that would be OK. Dicklyon 19:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment about duodecimal

It might be of interest to the Dozenal Society of America. Not that I disagree with your edit, I personally think bin, oct, dec & hex are enough. PrimeFan 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well since their's no way to arrange your dozen eggs in a grid with any two dimensions in a factor of two ratio, they're not likely to encounter a length of sqrt(5) anyway. The whole article doesn't need to exist in my opinion, but some places to draw lines are pretty obvious. Dicklyon 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Great movie, I've been recommending it for all to see; glad to learn you're also a fan, and that you know one of the electric car makers, to boot! El_C 02:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I worked for him back in the summer of '71. Dicklyon 04:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. That must have been interesting. El_C 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Square root of 5

As a scientist, you must know that this concept is inherently notable, and ought to be in a comprehensive tertiary source like WP. Instead of nominating it for deletion, why did you not attempt to fix it first? There must be hundreds of reliable sources out there. If you need help, I would be glad to assist. Before my last six careers, I went to The Bronx High School of Science. Bearian 03:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As a wikipedian, I know that notability is established by citing independent secondary sources. If they're so plentiful, why won't someone cite some? I did look quite a bit myself, and did work on improving the article, but with no sources to establish notability, I couldn't see why we should continue to bother. So, yes, please do assist. Dicklyon 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Square root of 4

You have got to be kidding. And April 1st is fully 6 months away. 199.125.109.35 05:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fuel du Penseur Award (complete with dihydrogen monoxide), presented to Dicklyon for the intellectual breakthrough represented by Square root of 4 and the sturdy defense thereof. -- Hoary 08:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it that far? Anyway, seems to me that the article is well written and well sourced, and that the square root of 4 is inherently notable for the numerous reasons mentioned in the article. And it fills a hole between the square root of 3 and the square root of 5. If the square root of 5 AfD results in a keep, I'll have lots more work to do; the square root of 6 is being planned even as we speak, so stand out of the way. Dicklyon 06:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And can you distinguish between +/-2 and the square root of 4? I would suggest adding your material to the more relevant article. Oh and I voted to delete 5^0.5199.125.109.35 06:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Distinguish? Not sure. Can you distinguish the square root of 5 from the fourth root of 25? Oh, and are we having a vote now? What happened to discussing reasons relative to policies? But thanks for your vote anyway. Dicklyon 06:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your edits are not in good faith. The square root of 4 is a natural, which the square root of five is not. The square root of 6 can be obtained from a extending Q with root(2) and root(3), which root 5 can not. I notified an administrator since I find your behavior disruptive.Brusegadi 06:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It was clearly humor, and not disruptive in any manor. 199.125.109.35 17:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A tenor says you're not English. mikaul^talk 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You find it disruptive? To what? I haven't even made any links to the new article yet. Perhaps I'm guilty of WP:POINT as some would say, but I'm both testing the waters, to see what is considered notable, as well as trying to get some attention on the issue of the AfD on the square root of 5, where nobody seems to think that notability requires citation of independent reliable secondary sources; if that one's notable, then the square root of four is more so, based on the number of articles and books mentioning it. But, it you're right, I'll skip the square root of 6 and straight to the square roots of all the primes. Dicklyon 06:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not oppose to the prime ones. Sounds interesting. I have not seen them very often in the math that I have done, so I am a bit curious. The best part is that the monkeys will not have to write them! Brusegadi 06:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

But then the square root of 4 is highly notable, being the first nontrivial integer square root that does not extend the integers! Dicklyon 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am merging the articles so feel free to include that. I do have to give it to you thought, you have not yet crossed the 'disruptive' border. Brusegadi 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, someone gets where I'm coming from. Thanks for the beer, Hoary. Dicklyon 08:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Masterful parody. I can't understand why the square root of 5 is so special, either. But then, I don't see the point in including half of the numbers articles on Wikipedia... --clpo13_(talk) 08:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Square roots of 4 and 5

I did get the joke on Square root of 4. Not bad. See my input on its AfD for my view on its fate.

However, in my opinion the deletion debate on Square root of 5 has become disruptive. It appears that you are using AfD as a vehicle to compel the finding of sources for a specific article, rather that based on a genuine belief that the article should not exist. Outside the realm of WP:BLP or related issues, this is not an appropriate practice.

No, I actually still believe the article should not exist. But that was obviously not going to happen, just like it didn't for Paul Ashley Chase and Maria Hart when I AfD'd them for lack of notability. Dicklyon 15:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

At best, perhaps you are taking advantage of an ambiguity in the noteability guidelines. I can think of hundreds of important, encyclopedic articles that would be deleted by your test—not just numbers but most of the calendar dates and years, for starters. There's no book I know of about August 12, for example, yet it's certainly right that we keep our article that centralizes information about this date.

At this point I have to consider speedy closing this debate, even though I have commented in it, pursuant to WP:SNOW, WP:POINT, WP:IAR, and WP:ROUGE. Alternatively, I could bring the matter to WP:ANI for other admins to look at. Please make it unnecessary for me to do either of these things by withdrawing the AfD nomination now. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"It appears that you are using AfD as a vehicle to compel the finding of sources for a specific article ...," he says. I never even thought of that as a strategy. It has always been disappointing to me that maintenance tags are so ineffective in motivating editors to supply required citations or to make other obviously necessary improvements to an article. I'm not saying you did this, but if AfD-ing an article can accomplish this where maintenance tags and Talk page discussions fail, this may become a useful tool for improving the quality of those Wikipedia articles that most need improvement. Since you can't see my facial expression, let me add that I am not being sarcastic; I am completely serious. Finell (Talk) 14:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

NYB, where's the beef over the AfD? Dicklyon has been polite about it and although he has surprised some people I don't think he has upset anybody, other perhaps than yourself.

Finell, you may be interested in this AfD. -- Hoary 14:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Lilith (in Darklight movie)

If you feel a mention of the Lilith character in the movie Darklight doesn't belong with the other TV/film references on the disambiguation page, where would you suggest that this item properly belongs? There doesn't appear to be a "Lilith in fiction" section in the main article right now; maybe this should be the first entry there? Richwales 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the subject, having never heard of her, but a dab item is a link to a page this discusses the subject; there was no discussion of Lilith on the page you linked, so it was not a dab item. If you find an article topic in which it fits as other than "trivia", put it in and then dab it. Dicklyon 18:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Standardname asked CloudSurfer to refrain archiving Talk:DID, as suggested CloudSurfer

Hi Dicklyon, CloudSurfer suggested archiving Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder. I have requested CloudSurfer not to archive Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder (see diff here 13 August 01:45 at DID talk) (see diff here 13 August 01:49 at CloudSurfer talk), as Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2 may need to refer to it, and there is a risk of losing information, if Talk:Dissociative identity disorder is archived.

--Standardname 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, seems reasonable to me. Dicklyon 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy

I hope you will forgive me for interfering. You need advice and I fear no one else will give it to you.

RFC's have no power. The first purpose of an RFC is to demonstrate community disapproval for the actions of an editor. However, since RFC's have no power, that editor is free to ignore the RFC. I believe DreamGuy will do this. The second purpose of an RFC is to collect evidence for the filing of a Request for Arbitration. Only the ArbCom has the power to sanction behavior.

However, the ArbCom has been known to frame a case as regarding a specific dispute between two editors, and to apply equal sanctions to both parties to that dispute, even when one of the editors has similar disputes with several other editors. It will not surprise you that I was given this treatment. I hoped my filing a request for you would frame the dispute as being centered on DreamGuy, since I have never interacted with him.

You may be able to avoid this treatment if you are exemplary in your conduct (as I was not). Ultimately, however, you will need to choose between accepting that DreamGuy will not change, and working around that fact, or risk being sanctioned yourself by filing a request for arbitration.

If you ask me not to speak to you further regarding this, I will respect your wishes. --Ideogram 05:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I suspected that the RfC would do little good, since he has not taken any lessons from past ones. The rest I'm not sure I'll take your view on; the situation is so clearly not a one-on-one issue, and if the ArbCom wants to treat me badly for trying to deal with the problem, I'll just have to endure that; maybe I'll luck out and get banned for life, thereby curing my wiki addiction. But hopefully it won't have to go to arbitration. Dicklyon 05:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

list of optical topics

Hello. I noticed that caustic (optics) was listed on your user page but not in the list of optical topics. If you know of others that should be listed there but are not, could you add them? Thanks. Michael Hardy 20:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't that kind of thing be automating using categories? Seems there'd be no change of keeping it right otherwise. Dicklyon 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I regard categories as vastly inferior to lists (although this particular list is not very sophisticated, so that's not so obvious in this case). To be continued.... Michael Hardy 04:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RGBW sensor

I just speedied this article. Thanks for tagging it. Just a helpful hint (helpful for the reviewing admins) G7 is much easier to process for us than G1. All we have to do is see who blanked the page was the creator and only real contributor and presto it's gone. G1 makes us go through the history to find whether something other than nonsense was once there and "restore" that. Thanks for keeping WP clean. Carlossuarez46 04:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright / Conflict Of Interest

Hi, you and other people have recently told me that edits I was making to certain pages were both against copyright and conflict of interest regulations. I have a letter from the content holders (Quantel) giving us (the IABM) permission to use their content on wikipedia. It also addresses the conflict of interest issue, as both websites that will be linked to on each page are non-commercial, free of charge, and provide useful definitions of technology terms relating to the broadcast & media technology sector, which may be of value to a researcher. How do we let wikipedia see this letter, either by forwarding or scanning the letter? And if this answers the issues that have been raised by you and two other people, will it prevent people continuing to delete my edits? Thanks again, Cindy141 16.30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You can upload a scan of the letter, if you can give a license for it.

Have you read wikipedias license requirements? Permission to use "on wikipedia" doesn't come anywhere close to what is required. And I will still object strenuously to any external links to your employer's sites. Dicklyon 15:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Digital negative

I'm hoping that someone else will see the merge tags, and go "oh! yes, those really should be one article". I'm not subject expert enough to have a good opinion on whether they should be merged, but hopefully by raising the issue to someone else's attention, good things will happen. Stevage 01:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But part of raising the issue is to start the discussion. Since you don't feel like, I guess I can do it for you. Dicklyon 02:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

formatting

When you removed a section from square root of 5, you left three blank lines between sections rather than just one. That actually causes the sections that the reader sees to be farther apart than the standard distance. This makes me suspect that you simply clicked on "edit" for that section, rather than for the whole article, and deleted the material. If you'd had the whole article before you, you would have seen the problem. Michael Hardy 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about what I did. Sorry I didn't check more carefully. Dicklyon 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Silicon Valley

What form of research do you do there? Computers? LOZ: OOT 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

this kind – Dicklyon 01:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Just curious, I've always wanted to go there. Pretty neat place. LOZ: OOT 04:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Number trivia

Sorry for my delay replying. I replied at my talk page. PrimeFan 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

MedCab

You've been listed as a party at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-17 Photo editing. If you'd like to participate, please follow the instructions on the page, otherwises, remove your name. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Do you mind if I make a statement? I've never "testified" in an ArbCom case before, so if you'd give me some instructions/guidelines on making a statement, I'd be glad to. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to hear whatever you have to say. Dicklyon 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry about that, I wasn't trying to nitpick. As far as I'd seen, DreamGuy hadn't edited the RFC talk for two days, and when I saw you edit the RFAr page (which I have watchlisted), and that there was no message from you on his page ... I lost my cool. I didn't realize DG was in fact editing the RFC talk in response to you, even as I was posting. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

No matter. I'm working on the draft in a less intrusive place now. Feel free to watch. Dicklyon 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dicklyon, you seem to be the moderator (is that the correct term?) for Chapman Law's entry. I have to confess that I am not savvy at all when I comes to editing entries; however, I will try my best to learn and become a user who follows the rules. If I have questions in the future and I can't find the answer, do you mind if I drop by to ask you? And if that's ok with you, where should my questions go? Thanks! Arctura 22:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not a moderator (there's no such thing), not an admin, just an editor who for some reason found myself there. Feel free to ask for help here, or on the article talk page, or wherever; most editors try to be helpful. Dicklyon 01:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. You are very kind. :) I have started reading wiki's policies and rules and I hope to become a productive contributor one day.Arctura 02:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

RFAr

I've made a statement at User:Dicklyon/RFArDreamGuy. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

(More alphabet soup.)

As a connoisseur of AfDs, you may thrill to the news that this has been thought to need yet more "thorough discussion". Huh? Well, these worthies are related to the (not merely porcelain) throne; unlike mere foreigners and plebs. -- Hoary 00:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

BartYgor

I dunno if you want to respond to BartYgor's continuing confusion at talk:Additive color. I've given up. --jacobolus (t) 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It does seem rather pointless to reply. Dicklyon 00:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Photoshopping

Hi. I won't be getting involved at Photo editing, but wanted to point out the OED definition of "Photoshop" - "trans. To edit, manipulate, or alter (a photographic image) digitally using computer image-editing software.". HTH. Vashti 00:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I don't have an OED subscription, but we can use that. Dicklyon 00:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 20:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

UPCMAKER final coments

I have removed my unpublished text from the ECL articule as best I could. “Undo” did not allow me to go back very far so I tried to restore it myself. You may want to have Gerry Ashton change his schematics back to where they were before I got here as I cannot change his images.

One of us should delete my “talk” text as it might make someone think I am an expert.

I would suggest that someone check the literature to find that the RTL and DTL schematics and text are very wrong. If some published document verifies it then I would suggest that someone check for another source as the circuits do not work and the text is bad. Of course I can only suggest as I am not an expert and I do not keep books about things I know.

Also, some of the text in the ECL might be checked. I doubt that Motorola would say the current switching transistors do not cutoff. I would think that Hannon S, Yourke deserves more credit than he gets. Todays ECL is about 20 times faster than Yourke’s germainium implementation while voltage mode speeds increased by nearly 1000 with the same LSI improvements.

I only suggest these things because some day my or someone elses grandsons might look at them and be mis-informed.UPCMaker 11:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being a big baby about this. You are clearly an expert, and your help is wanted. You just have to learn about the framework of wikipedia and work within it. Dicklyon 14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would like my help I would like to give it. I am not the person to do literature research. The links in the subjects seem to be rather meaningless like "transistor" etc. I would like to re-write some of your articles as I did with ECL or do them from scratch like would be required with DTL and RTL. I would like to add the history that I know. You challenged what I did with ECL. If that was not acceptable or a complete replacement of the article would not be acceptable then I would not know how to help. I could point out where you need help but I would probably get very frustrated if I could not do it myself. Tell me what you want. Your whole digital electronics sections need review. Many missleading statements are found througout. You challenged my knowledge 20 nsec. delay for Current Mode but you then found verification of my memory. Again, tell me what you want. Can I help or should I just go away. I thought the latter was what you wanted.UPCMaker 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You should help. If you don't want to stick to the requirements of article writing, you can still make suggestions in the talk pages. If you have knowledge but not sources, tell us what's wrong, or what's missing, and we can try to find sources. Or edit the article, but don't take it personally if someone adds a "citation needed" tag or removes the info for lack of verifiability. That's just part of the process of trying to get to verifiable articles. Dicklyon 21:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Does verifiability mean the delays I gave for SMS and 608 circuits can not be used unless they are published somewhere? I could understand if someone could prove them wrong but otherwise what I know is as good as it gets. I would not be interested if I can only write what has been lucky enough to get written elswhere. If you have that you do not need me. Again I could live with proof of my errors but not lack of proof.UPCMaker 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally, a lack of source means that any editor would be justified in removing the info. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will or must be removed, but you can not count on it lasting without a verifiable source. If you want to do something lasting with your knowledge, write it up and submit it for publication some place, or give to the the Computer History Museum as a memoir. They might even want to do an oral history recording with you. I recommend you give them a call. Tell them I sent you. Dicklyon 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I am thiniking about it. I tried to findout how to contact the Computer History Museum but did not do too well yet. I may try to write an added section for RTL, DTL and possibly ECL and see how it goes.UPCMaker 11:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

CHM staff contacts; I recommend you speak with Karen Tucker or John Toole. Dicklyon 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to contact one of them but maybe not till next week. I just want the experience and history preserved, not necessarily with my name on it. I would like to read such an account about the early days of vacuum tubes and many other topics.UPCMaker 16:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bandpass sampling

Any chance of some axis labels on the bandpass sampling figure (if sampling)? Nanren888 08:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of a link to the figure or article in question? Dicklyon 16:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

T-stops

Hi, Dick; Jim Stinson here. I amended your f-number article's section on T stops as follows:

Since all lenses absorb some portion of the light passing through them (particularly zoom lenses containing many elements), t-stops are sometimes used instead of f-stops for exposure purposes. In classic Hollywood cinematography, lenses were bench-tested individually for actual light transmission and assigned T stops accordingly (The t in t-stop stands for transmission.). For example, a stop designated as a nominal f3.5 might receive a T value of f3.2. The aperture ring of "T-stopped lenses" would display the actual T values instead of f stops. In recent years, advances in lens technology and film exposure latitude have reduced the importance of t-stop values.

I'm not sure I understand your original wording (I'm not technical) but I was trained in the Hollywood of the early sixties, and T-stopping was used as I describe it here. In particular, the Super Baltar (Bausch and Lomb) and Cooke Speed Panchro lenses were supplied from the manufacturers with T-stops already measured and labeled on the iris ring. Spectra incident exposure meters, then the industry standard, could be ordered with calculating dials marked in T stops. Jim Stinson 23:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I wrote that section, since it's not something I know much about. Thanks for your contribution. If you have any publications that discuss this, that would be particularly valuable to cite. Dicklyon 23:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Aspect ratios

Good catch. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 07:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot removing lines

Sorry about that. Was just about to revert it myself but you beat me to it! Now to figure out why it's doing it... Verisimilus T 16:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It was also not marked as a bot edit. Dicklyon 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

pointless format edits

It's a routine-thing for me to change those things – whenever I see them while I'm after another thing I change them too. What problems do you see there?--Speck-Made 01:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. I routinely put them in when I see them missing. But the MOS says not to. Anyway, what were you after? Avoiding a redirect is also a bad idea; it just craps up the source. Dicklyon 01:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you put in?

Line spaces after headings.

I want to move the disambiguation on GIF from GIF (disambiguation) to GIF and therefore I have to eliminate the links on GIF before it gets deleted. So I'm changing links from GIF to Graphics Interchange Format. And by the way I enter spaces between the heading marks and the heading text, between the list item marks and the list item text, remove empty lines between headings and their associated text, fix little things with links sometimes, ... What does the MOS say?

Bad idea to rearrange page titles that way. Leave GIF (disambiguation) where it is.

WP:MOSHEAD#Spaces says "don't add or remove these spaces just as an edit style preference as it can cause large differences to appear in the edit history"

And I think of avoiding a redirect as a good idea, because it can make things clearer to the reader, for example: You can figure out the true target of a link more easily by just moving the mouse over it and checking the target, for example. And in case of a link that goes to a disambiguation page, for another example, there is even a rule to avoid them, I think...--Speck-Made 01:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If there's a rule to avoid them, I'm not familiar with. Keeping the source simple and readable seems like a good idea to me. That's why I put blank lines after headings, too; much easier to read and edit the source then. Dicklyon 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Computer vision syndrome

Please read the Talk:Computer vision syndrome page and follow up with some genuine refs if you want to help, instead of adding questionable EL to a one guy's view. Dicklyon 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And I would suggest reading this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_nye

Saying that the opinion of one professional is not enough to make an EL worthy would remove a lot of EL on Wikipedia, so don't go twisting the EL link rules to fit your PPOV. Duhman0009 12:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The talk page I pointed you to has a link to several books with reliable info that you could use. The EL you're posting has been questioned based on its advertising content and bias. Bill Nye is not the issue. Dicklyon 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Who as questioned the EL? You and a buddy? Also, who cares if there's an advertisement behind it, the tips he gives in the video are more than helpful. Finally, do you realize the irony of giving out a link to commercial books after criticizing the EL I added? Duhman0009 12:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall who it was, but you can check the history for the editor who said he checked the video and found it to contain blatant advertising. Are you disputing that? Sounds like not. Have you read the WP:EL guidelines? Dicklyon 14:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well according to the history, I'm the first one who added this link and only you and some other guy removed it. And yes, I did read the WP:EL guidelines, did you read the general guidelines that says that the personal opinion of a few individuals is not enough to remove proven content? Duhman0009 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't read that. Where is it? And what do you mean by "proven"?Dicklyon 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

By proven, I mean that a well known scientist is giving people advices on how to help prevent CVS. As for the rule I talked about, well tell you what, you made me look in the the entire history of a page (for nothing if I may add), so I'll let you look for that since I too have forgotten where that is. Duhman0009 12:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Book links

Your point about the formatting is well taken. But I disagree with your assertion that the links should be there. I don't know about the books you read, but the bibliographies in most of mine don't include the names and addresses of bookstores were you can purchase the references publications. We neededn't spam for the publishers here.Montco 06:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Has there been a discussion of this on a policy page? If so, please point it out. If not, please start one and see what the feeling is before taking on such a big project of link removal. Dicklyon 06:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly as if we're including the names and addresses of bookstores. For someone considering purchasing (or just consulting) a reference, the publisher's information is arguably authoritative. It's different from linking to commercial bookstore sites (such as Amazon), which is deprecated in WP:EL under “Links normally to be avoided”. Note that ISBNs are also included (as recommended in WP:EL), so that one can easily search for the reference in local libraries. JeffConrad 08:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

CMOS Image

Dick, thanks for your comments. I have altered the image as you suggested. Let me know if you think there are other improvements that can be made.—Emote _{Talk Page} 21:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's much better; not all that accurate, but no longer misleading. Dicklyon 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it isn't exact. My goal was simply to demonstrate the basic structure, not to draw it perfectly to scale. Undoubtedly the oxide is still too thick relative to the gate, but I needed to be able to fit "Oxide" in there for the label. At any rate, I don't mind working to improve it further.—Emote _{Talk Page} 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Scale-space

Thank you for your help with the style of referencing. Please, let me know if you see more with regard to the contents that should be improved. Tpl 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of systems scientists‎

Hello, I was wondering why you removed Kevin Warwick from the List of systems scientists, see [2]. I'm trying to expand that list and I am happy with all the help I can get. Removing Warwick from the list again doesn't seems logical to me. So maybe you can explain. Thanks - Mdd 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting all the edits of the single-purpose Kevin Warwick promoting editor who seemed to have a conflict of interest. If you think it's OK, feel free to add it back. Dicklyon 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback. I will double check this person and his references before I'll put him back. - Mdd 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I readded Kevin Warwick in the two listings, because he is notable enough. I however do think his article needs work to make in more encyclopedic and less promotional. - Mdd 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I made some mayor changes in the article, and explained them in the talk page. I wonder if something like that was on your mind as well? Maybe you can give your opinion on this over there as well? - Mdd 10:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

BJT question?

Dick, are you aware of any experiments with BJTs where a space current of charged particles are directed at the base instead of photons? Alfred Centauri 23:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think I've heard of anything like that. Dicklyon 23:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it's best not to take Kevins' most recent baiting on the talk page as long as he isn't pushing too hard in the main article. Thoughts? Alfred Centauri 17:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything worth responding to, given that he is being more sensible in the article editing already. Dicklyon 17:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Alfred Centauri 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Square root of 3 Talk page

Dear Dick: Talk:Square root of 3 as it previously existed, together with its edit history, disappeared. Today, IP 67.85.160.89 created a new talk page for Talk:Square root of 3 with one word, "PROVE". Any idea how such a thing can happen or how it can be fixed? Finell (Talk) 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Better ask an admin to try to retrieve it. Dicklyon 22:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

editing advice re . and Latin abbreviations

Thanks for the comment re ie & eg. The edits I think you're referring to are first pass attempts to render an obviously non-English speaker's prose into something like ordinary English. In my own wriitng I use ie and eg without the '.', and I follow the Oxford comma style in lists, both of which evoke regular editorial ire. In this case, I expect to come back over the next few days and may have added the '.' near the last pass or two. But I've often found that someone who really doesn't like missing '.' has already intervened. To each their own, I suppose. ww 06:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To some extent, to each their own is fine. I like the Oxford comma, too. But to leave things that are just plain wrong for someone else to clean up is something you should consider avoiding. Dicklyon 15:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Depth of field FAC prep

Dick, I just wanted to say thanks for the great work on the article. It looks to me like it could very easily be turned into an FA-class article in a short time. I'm not the expert on the topic that you are, but all I can see that is deficient at the moment is the amount of inline citations. What are your thoughts, and would you be willing to shepherd the article to the gold star? :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not much into shepherding, and too busy to want to take on a project. The present state of the article is mostly JeffConrad's doing, so you might ask him instead. Dicklyon 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dick, is the article ready for prime time? This question was posted on the DoF Talk page a while back, and there wasn't any response. I'd like to see that at least a few of the significant contributors share Girolamo's faith in the article before going any further. I'm not much into shepherding, either (at least in this context), but perhaps it won't require all that much effort. The process might give some helpful feedback on what consumers of the article consider important. JeffConrad 23:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's all correct and complete, but I have no opinion as to whether it's a plausible FA. It may be too complex for a general audience. Dicklyon 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that I'd just FAC it myself, but I don't have a comprehensive enough understanding of the complex optics theory and formulae, nor do I have access (or even knowledge of) the requisite references. Girolamo Savonarola 00:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The optics theory is not complex, but a bit complicated. I think that Jeff and I have made sure it's right, and it's a more complete treatment than you'll find most places. I don't think it's particularly well referenced, though, and some of our derivations might not be verifiable in any reliable source. And the ref style is a bit mixed up (Jeff and I tend to use opposite styles, and we haven't done the work to converge them). But feel free to nominate it if you think it's a plausible candidate. Dicklyon 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I share Dick's concern that the article may be a bit much for the general audience. In particular, the introduction and the first section are rather abrupt; however, we've made several attempts at massaging it, and what we now have seems to be the least of evils. If I had a good idea for a fix, I'd make the changes immediately.

Most of the derivations are available in Sidney Ray's book, although that work is not very accessible to most readers, and at $150 US, it is more than most can justify spending (my copy was obtained at a garage sale for pennies). There may be more math than most readers require, but one justification for including it may be that there are few alternatives still available. Enough detail is given that anyone with basic mastery of high school physics and math can verify what has been done (as evidenced by the person who recently caught my botched copy and paste).

Dick, I'm not quite sure what you mean by mixed-up ref styles—the article currently uses a combination of author-date references and footnotes, which is perfectly acceptable under WP and Chicago Manual of Style guidelines. The main reason I've come around to the CMS recommendation of author-date is that I know of no other readable way to combine references and notes. JeffConrad 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think you explained that before. It has a mixed-up look to me, but maybe it's fine. Dicklyon 01:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In paginated media, the notes appear at the bottom of each page; in unpaginated media, such as WP articles, all notes essentially become endnotes, so it may seem a bit weird to have, at least ostensibly, two sets of references. However, it's immeasurably better two parallel sets of endnotes. JeffConrad 04:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The recent comment and edits illustrate one problem with the article. Complex as it seemingly already is, we've oversimplified things. Another commenter could quite reasonably note that even at “precise” focus, a point object is imaged not as a point, but rather as a “least circle of confusion.” Addressing such a perfectly reasonable comment in a simple manner might not be an easy task. JeffConrad 01:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just add something about that, linking to diffraction and aberrations. Dicklyon 01:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Roses of Heliogabalus

Hello Dicklyon, I would like to upload a higher quality version of Image:The Roses of Heliogabalus 1.65.jpg, but the ratio is about 1.53. I don't understand why this image (and many other images of this painting) are not proportional to the dimensions of the original work. Appleseed (Talk) 18:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand either; probably they are photos that have been cropped a bit. But if it's a public-domain image, you can adjust it to about 1.618, no? Dicklyon 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Several inevitable imperfections in the image acquisition and digitizing processes would affect the aspect ratio. Assuming that the image was acquired by photography, even the slightest divergence from the painting being perfectly parallel to the CCD or film plane, or the slightest divergence from the central focal point being perfectly centered on the image, or the lens diverging from having a perfectly "normal" field of view (in 35mm photography, so-called normal lenses have a focal length of 50mm, while true normal is closer to 52mm), or the optical distortion in all lenses, or other factors that I don't know about would cause a photographic image of a painting to diverge from the painting's (or other object's) true aspect ratio and to diverge in other respects as well (e.g., the straightness of lines). The digitizing process, by "rounding" the digitized image to integer horizontal and vertical pixels, and lossy compression of the image file, add their own distortions. If the photography and the digitizing are done to professional standards, these distortions should be imperceptible to anyone who merely looks at the image, but are nevertheless measurable at the pixel level. And the original image could not have had a perfect $\varphi$ aspect ratio to begin with, because no human creation is perfect. However, PLEASE DO NOT "correct" the aspect ratio by editing the image. That will simply introduce additional distortions that may well be perceptible to a careful observer. Also, you can never achieve a true $\varphi$ (or any irrational) aspect ratio in a digital image, although one could get closer than 1.53 in theory (e.g., F_{1,000,000,001}:F_{1,000,000,000}). Finell (Talk) 07:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the closeness to phi that I seek is not "exact", and not so close as to be affected much by a pixel or two. But a ratio of 1.5 or 1.7 just doesn't look right. Something between 1.6 and 1.65 is needed. On a small thumnail 100 pixels tall the width needs to be 160 to 165 pixels; certainly not critical. So I examined a bunch of images to see what got cropped, and forget what I did but I tried to make something more accurate from the lot of them. Simply cropping further to get the ratio back would also be acceptable. Dicklyon 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cropping doesn't trouble me much. By "adjusting", I thought that simply changing the aspect ratio was being proposed. I see many images where amateurs have done just that, because software lets them do it, and the results can be comical (or excruciating). Finell (Talk) 03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(singsongs) Go look what I found....

I posted it to Talk:Mousepad. I should not be this gleeful. --Thespian 07:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The notability of Conversation Theory

There doesn't seems to be anything wrong with the notability of Conversation Theory. Could you explain yourselve why you think so on that talk page. - Mdd 10:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The notability of Management cybernetics

There doesn't seems to be anything wrong with the notability of Management cybernetics. Could you explain yourselve why you think so on that talk page. - Mdd 10:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Dicklyon 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

diffraction pattern

I'm not sure why you removed a valid and interesting shot of diffraction pattern in a spider web. Thanks.--Mbz1 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Did you read my edit summary? Dicklyon 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I did, but I did not understand what you meant. English is not my first language. Please try to explain one more time.--Mbz1 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

What I meant was that there is no credible (believable) reason to interpret the color in that picture as due to diffraction. Do you have reason to believe, or to claim, that it is a diffraction effect? Dicklyon 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I know for sure the color is due to diffraction pattern. Take a look here. I would have never posted the image at the page, if I did not know for sure. Where do you think the colors came from?--Mbz1 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

OK, a source! If you'll say that the color is due to diffraction based on the spacing of drops on the threads, and reference that web article, then it should be OK. Generally, if you want something to say, you need a source to support why you think it's true. Dicklyon 23:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what exactly do you want me to do and why do you remove the image all the time.--Mbz1 02:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Read what I said immediately above: "If you'll say that the color is due to diffraction based on the spacing of drops on the threads, and reference that web article, then it should be OK." With no explanation and no reference, it's not OK. Dicklyon 02:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all I'm not sure why this web site is any better source than myself and why I should give the link to it. Second of all I agree with this web site that some spider webe show diffraction pattern, but I do not agree that it is due to drops. It is a little bit more complex. Third of all difraction pattern in spider webs is very well known. Whatever, I'll include the latest link in my image's description and repost it again. Please do not remove it. If you want to remove it, discuss it at the article talk page before removing the image. It is a valid, high quality and interesting image. Thanks.--Mbz1 03:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Huh? How can you be a source? Have you not read WP:V and WP:RS? Please do. Dicklyon 03:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just did and I did not find any mention about image source. I'm not writing an article, I just added the image. Should I add a source for every image I'm adding to an article. For example, I added image of a triggerfish bite to the triggerfish article. I jusd said it was a triggerfish bite. Maybe you want me to attach a photocopy of a doctor's sertificate that it is in fact a triggerfish bite and not a cat's bite, for example?--Mbz1 04:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

What I'd like to see explained and sourced is why this image is an example of diffraction. How is the reader of this article supposed to interpret the photo and its caption? It seems ill-suited to the article with the present caption. If there's reason to interpret this photo as an example of diffraction, let's get the reason up there (in the caption or in the article), with a reference to a source. If there's no good source explaining why it can be interpreted as diffraction, then let's leave it out. That's not too much to ask, is it? Dicklyon 04:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Q.E.D. addition

What was wrong with the contribution to the article about Q.E.D. being used in a recent film? I thought it was interesting that a phrase usually reserved for the math community made it out into the main stream media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.15.148 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits made without comment don't generally deserve comments when they're reverted, but since you asked, several things. You've put a random culture factoid with funny quote format into the middle of section on scientific usage. It's unsourced. And it's essentially off-topic. I recommend you bring it up on the article talk page, seeking other opinions. Dicklyon 22:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lenses for SLR and DSLR cameras

Please see Talk:Lenses for SLR and DSLR cameras. Thanks.

If/when I have more time available I'll try to return to cleaning up the Digital single-lens reflex camera article, in the hopes that you think my editing does improve things. --RenniePet 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a great start; do you have refs you can add to the lens article? I agree it helps the DSLR article to not have to have all the lens stuff in it. Dicklyon 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the offer. I accept. The thing about Brittannica is that it is a summary of all the facts, so it didn't really give me a full picture. You might try going to the color blind page. It's pretty good. Wrad 03:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I just edited it more to reflect the source better. It's a peer-reviewed, scholarly source, and there are actually several more that I could add. That was just the best so far. I'd really like to get one that describes the studies more, rather than just mentioning or alluding to them. Wrad 05:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Me, too. And unless we can identify some science behind it, it should be listed as someone's finding, and not in the color vision and colorimetry section; maybe not in the science section at all. I haven't been able to locate any modern support for such science. Dicklyon 05:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So far the only study I see is a fifteenth century one, although the source (post-2000) claims that it is still a respected study. Anyhow, I've got to to, so we'll see about this later. Wrad 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to cite a 15th c. study as the basis of all this hype about green. Dicklyon 05:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fritz Pfleumer - notability tag

Are you really serious that this article is a candidate for deletion?
Don't you believe the Stanford VideoPreservation Website?
How many Wiki-articles do you think would have to be tagged if you applied the same standards as you apply to this one?!
Contrary to the German Wikipedia the English one has less severe notability guidelines and keeps many more articles (the English Wikipedia itself confirms this) – the German Wikipedia keeps the Pfleumer article.
If one just looks e.g. at the Category:American inventors – one can see right at the start the following - Robert Abplanalp, Isaac Adams, Alan Adler ... – are you going to add a notability tag?
Again, do you really think this article is a candidate for deletion? Sincerely, 217.236.231.117 11:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, certainly not suggesting it should be deleted, but someone else might if it continues to be missing the required evidence of notability. Read the tag: "If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject." And I do tag many such articles; the answer is probably a million or more; but I can't do them all. Dicklyon 14:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only sources I have at hand right now are the ones that google etc. will show everybody in a second ... and from what I’ve read on the internet I have no doubt that this fellow satisfies the notability criteria – and I think it would not be a good decision if the article was deleted only because nobody is willing to take the time and "go out" to find some "real" references. So if this tag leads to "waterproof" article references I welcome it - but I fear it will lead to sorting it out. 217.236.237.117 15:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

World Public debating nonsense

I assume you are voting delete? Could you make it clear so we can scrub this?JJJ999 01:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

merging blue-greens into one article

Care to weigh in at talk:blue-green about my proposed merge of several articles into that one? --jacobolus (t) 06:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We had a little edit conflict there as I was tagging electric blue it for speedy delete. The other thing we could do is just make it a redirect and tell Keraunos to cut it out. He generates unsourced nonsense faster than we can keep up with it. Dicklyon 06:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Electric blue

There is no need to delete the color Electric blue since I added plenty of referenced information to it. (Someone else named Cloud Nine, not me, erased the delection tag.) Keraunos 09:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Former Country

User:HeartofaDog and I have been discussing instances where I've added the infobox to the article about a town where the infobox is about an abbey in or near the town (such as Stein am Rhein). He's gonna create an article for the abbey and move the infobox there.

Just thought I'd let you know, to save the hassle of an edit war ;o) — OwenBlacker 17:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If he would do it in a smarter order, nobody would be bothered. Dicklyon 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

About my edit of FPGA Search engine

Dicklyon, I am new to the Wiki, so thanks for updating me on the regulations. However I only added the link to the FPGA page, where it is most relevant. I am not going to add it to any other page. I believe that fpgaseek.com is very much relevant to the FPGA page. Try searching for anything related to the FPGA at this search engine and you will see great results. A good example would be "timing", searching for timing in google provides lot of unrelated results, however searching for timing in FPGA seek provides a page full of FPGA weblinks. Let me know what you feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.212.223 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add it anywhere, propose it on the talk page of the article and let other editors decide. You've already got yourself classified as a spammer by your behavior. Dicklyon 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Printing history

Hi Dick! I am working on the printing category in general, but specifically improving how they all relate to the History of printing. Can you help me with this? What would you like to help with? —Parhamr 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to take on any more projects as I already spend too much time... But here's something I came upon earlier today that I might comment on some place: Starkweather talk. Let me know if there's anything specific you think I might know about or help with. Dicklyon 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you! —Parhamr 22:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I found some sources

The reason I wrote that is because I was recently on a gifted science field trip to a local observatory, and we had to cover our flashlights with red cellophane. anyways, the source is here. There's a source, but I'm not sure it's really reliable. A few more sources:

• [3]
• [4] (look in the "Things You'll Need" section)
• [5] (look in the black and gray box about halfway down the page)

There's 4 sources, but I need help picking which one to use. Will you please help me? Thanks in advance!

Cheers,

   

00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I made an edit of your latest to make it more true. Avoid prescriptive terms like "must" and stick to facts. The source you chose is fine. If I recall right, you had the wavelength backwards before. Dicklyon 04:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Hi Dick. Actually, not that long ago notability was only required for articles in certain topic areas, although the concept was often invoked in AFD discussions in other areas. I see that Wikipedia:Notability has been broadened in application since I last looked at it. (I've been away for a few months.) Given the importance of fixed-focus cameras though, both historically and in the present, I find it hard to imagine how one could assert the concept to be any less notable than any other type of camera lens (each of which has their own article). Now, I agree the material might be better served by a complete rewrite of the article, or by merging it with some other article. In particular, it seems to have lost its focus on camera lenses, which is where the term is most commonly applied. Perhaps it should be merged into photographic lens.--Srleffler 03:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability seemed like as good an excuse as any to try to get rid of a lame article. If you'll fix it and make it sensible, or merge the material elsewhere, I won't complain. But in my recollection, notability has always applied; that is, if it's not a topic that's been written up elsewhere, then we don't write it up here; and the evidence is required; in this article, I expect the evidence could be found is someone cared to. Dicklyon 04:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:SteinAmRheinPano.jpg

Hello Dicklyon,

I recently noticed your good work on Diffraction, and by pure coincidence read the Stein am Rhein article and discovered your beautiful panorama. I took the liberty to upload it to commons under the same name, I'd appreciate it if you verified the license I used matches your intention.

Regards, Odedee 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. What's the link for the commons version? Dicklyon 05:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's right here, sorry for the late response. Odedee 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

References on Pinhole camera model

Hi, I missed your point about the necessity to provide more specific references in the Pinhole camera model article.

• The article, as it is, is on a rather introductory level, the geometry is "elementary" and self-explanatory and it is perhaps only the terminology which needs to be verified relative the literature. Any of the textbooks which are included in the reference list provides a similar presentation with some variation (described in the article) in the terminology. As far as I know, there are also no "first references" which can be used for the "citation needed" tags you have inserted, any of the textbook will do.

• One could possibly stack the citations to all of the current refs, for example, at the end of the lead section or the end of the article, but I don't see the point if there is a reference section which is clearly visible. Also, I have to confess that since the current implementation of the ref makes a mess and clutters the edit text, I don't use it unless it is really necessary.

• Is there some policy or guideline which can be of any help here? I haven't seen that the ref tags are compulsory.

• I couldn't even figure out the reason for your "citation needed" tags at the places where they are. There must be a few more dozen of statements which are equally "uncited" and we can't have a cite on each and every such statement?

Regards --KYN 12:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I copied your questions to the article talk page and answered there. Dicklyon 14:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mousepad anon

It's probably easier to type [[WP:LTA#User:Moisesxyz]] in the vandalism report. It summarises the entire situation quite nicely, without going too in-depth. --Sigma 7 06:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I wasn't aware of LTA. By the way, it looks like today is actually his first anniversay. See Themousepad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another of his identities. Maybe he lost his password, or didn't want to be an obvious WP:SPA. Dicklyon 15:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bitmap

Hi, Dick. Regarding your comment on my talk page, about adding wrong interwikis to Bitmap, I saw the history of the article and realized it has been a recurrent problem. The true problem is that all the other Wikipedias were pointing to this article when it fact they should be pointing at BMP file format. So all the bots (no just mine) would add the wrong interwikis. I corrected all other Wikipedias to point to the correct article so the problem should not re-emerge. Regards and thanks for the notice, MalafayaBot 16:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC) User:Malafaya

thanks for the fix! Dicklyon 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Petr Vaníček

Hello, I added one of the two main sources for this biography, the "Biographical Database entry for Petr Vaníček, Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences (SVU)". The other source I used was already listed ("J. Tuzo Wilson Medal citation for Petr Vaníček"). Sorry about not providing the main source right away! I hope this settles it now. --Geoeg 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(copied this to the article talk page and responded there). Dicklyon 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass Energy

Look, associated is more vague than anything else, and "vice versa" is not so great, because does energy "associate" mass? The phenomenon is that all energy registers as weight on a scale, or as inertia on a spring. All mass can be used to do a certain amount of work. How do you say that in a non-vague way? If you don't like "contains", hows about: "All mass can in principle be used to do work, and all energy has inertia?"Likebox 05:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take it up on the article talk page, and look for sources to help. It is commonly thought that energy mass, initial mass, and gravitational mass are all the same, as you note, but recent theories of Bose–Einstein condensates seem to suggest that those can't all stay the same for matter in a coherent state. So bringing up scales is probably not a good idea. I think it's better to just consider that the mass of system (or box) increases when you add either energy or mass to it, and that whole mass can conceptually be converted back to just energy. I agree that "associated" is too squishy, but I don't agree that your edit was in a direction likely to make anyone happy. Dicklyon 05:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are expressing somewhat uncommon thoughts here. What does Bose-Einstein condensation have to do with anything? It's mass just as anything else, as far as I can see.Likebox 17:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite uncommon, and so-far unpublished. Sorry for the distraction, but it's one reason why explicity coupling energy mass to inertia and weight might be a bad idea in the long run. Dicklyon 00:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your bot "vandalised" a page accidently

Hi, I don't know what the TW bot is, but anyway, if it is an automated bot, please be careful with it.

Here is an edit it did, where it reverted to a vandalised version of Microscopy. I reverted it already and I take it you reverted to the wrong version accidentally. This is just to inform you of this for your convenience.

Here was the edit you made.

Althena 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't blame a bot. TW is twinkle, a script that makes it easier to make mistakes manually. I probably got out of the sync with the diffs and reverted a revert or something. Thanks for catching it, and I'll try not to let it happen again. Dicklyon 01:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Applet on "www.energysavinglamps.info/photometry_applet.html"

Dear Dicklyon, why do you think "www.energysavinglamps.info/photometry_applet.html" is a commercial page? It must be a misunderstanding. I am building an information site on ernergy saving lamps, and wrote an applet that visualizes photometric quantities. Please note the .info (not .com as you write). Do the goole ads disturb you? Please have a look at: Lumen(unit), external link: "ANSI lumen article. PC Magazine Encyclopedia. Retrieved on 2006-12-20." Luminous efficacy, external link: "http://www.cus.net/electricity/subcats/eleclighting.html" They surely contain more advertisements than my page! Please tell me what's my fault, I want to solve the problem. Thank you. Best regards, Maurizio Tidei —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtidei (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is generally inappropriate to post links to any site in which you have a personal interest; see WP:EL. And your site has ads on it, so it's commercial in that sense. Links to sites with ads are not disallowed, but they need to placed by editors who are independent of the site and therefore without WP:COI. The link you cite above does look pretty commercial; I recommend you remove it. Dicklyon 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I apologize for that, I didn't know this rule for new links. I started a public discussion for the link, is that ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtidei (talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Least-squares_spectral_analysis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Hi. I left a message about this on the talk page, so please forgive the template. However, you seem to be revert warring. Please stop. I'm leaving this message for both parties Bfigura ^(talk) 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1 (number)

re your edit. In fact it was a result of previous vandalism. Please alsways check previous editors if you see something fishy. Anyway, I tend to agree with you about "bunch of trivia", so I resored only 3 sports goodies. `'Míkka 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Convergent

The sentence 'A convergent is an entity with a limit.' is certainly not needed in Convergence. First, it's just another grammatical form of the word - 'converge', 'converges', 'converging' also redirect there, do they need seperate explanations?

Second, it's restricted to mathematics. 'Convergent' has many uses outside mathematics.

Third, it defines 'convergent' as a noun only. It is grammatically the adjectival form of 'convergence', and even in mathematics it's usually an adjective; other uses almost always are.

You really shouldn't continue reverting it without explanation, as if it were vandalism. The way, the truth, and the light 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What change did I make without an explanation? Your change that I reverted had no summary, yes? Anyway, my point was that I felt that when convergent was done away with and replaced by a redirect, it didn't look right to not find convergent in the lead, since many of things being looked for use that term as either adjective or noun; the way I added it may have been insufficient, but I think it needs to appear in the lead. Let's think about a better fix... Dicklyon 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of anything non-trivial to say about 'convergent' in general that doesn't apply also to 'convergence', that's all. Do you think anyone will be confused by finding this page when they type in 'convergent'? The way, the truth, and the light 03:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To me the main meaning of convergent is the noun meaning. The others are just adjectives. See my latest attempt. By the way, words referred to as the words themselves need to be italicised, so I did that, too. Dicklyon 04:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Petr Vaníček. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Petr Vaníček).

Stifle (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking us as I requested. Dicklyon 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Beware of sterile revert wars. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Photometry applet

Hi Dick. When you get back online, please check Talk:Photometry (optics)#Photometry Applet / Calculator & Visualisation, regarding that applet that we deleted links to.--Srleffler 03:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding there. I left my comment, too. Dicklyon 05:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

U.B. Funkeys

You asked me what's the point in the color tables. The point is that the pieces are not cheap, and no normal person could get them all. They are found on no website, so someone would have to drive from store to store, and it's just not reasonable. I wanted an encyclopedic entry that listed the different varieties. I don't see why people say there is a COI when by knowing all the colors and how rare they are, people are more likly to buy less of them. They can come here, look at the tables, and buy just the ones they want. Are you familiar with the websites that list all the cards in trading card games so people don't have to keep buying booster packs?

By the way, you have a nice profile photo. I'm rubbish when it comes to being photographed. --JRTyner 07:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can't find it in a source, and verify it in a source, then it's WP:OR, and that's not allowed. Forget the COI thing; nobody is saying that. Dicklyon 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is the product. I don't need a source to tell me that KitchenAid offers their stand mixers in white, I'm looking at one as I type this. I did add little photos, each only about an inch by two to verify the colors, but they were removed the first time the tables were removed.

You said the COI thing yourself, "Clear COI and spam, See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Inappropriate_paid_editing_on_Wikipedia_by_Intrapromote. I've nominated it for speedy deletion as it is clearly just advertising. I hadn't noticed the previous delete discussion mentioned above. Dicklyon 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)".

Plus my name is was put on that list. Which is ironic, because the company would probably pay me not to post the color tables instead of posting them. --JRTyner 07:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

* You also said "This article is total spam, an advertisement for a product, written pretty much entirely by paid editors working for IntraPromote." on the AFD page. --JRTyner 07:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The COI thing is not about you, it's about the guy who wrote the page for Intrapromote. Anyway, there was no support for the delete idea, so don't worry about that. I've done some more to neutralize the article language to make it less like an ad. If you'd like to add a table of color rarities and such, make sure every item in it is linked to a source where your readers can verify the info; if the sources are all spread out, that will be a lot of links. Dicklyon 16:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to thank you because I have learned many things about Wikipedia from this.

It's hard to find sources for the colors, since the toy's makers want them to be as mysterious as possible. Can I just add photos of them to prove the colors? --JRTyner 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You can add pictures that you take yourself, but you can't say what's rare, etc., without a source. Dicklyon 21:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I had added an external link to a video of the game. Why was it removed? --JRTyner 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it appeared to just be an advertisement, especially since it's on a selling site. Have you read WP:EL? I also added a link to a video about the game, but it's a technical talk, but an ad; nobody objected to that one. Dicklyon 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted my link to http://www.arkadium.com/case-studies-funkey.html . What is wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRTyner (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Use the "history" button to see who did it (me) and why (in the edit summary). Dicklyon 00:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, I thought Mattel made the game. Isn't that link still useful? --JRTyner 02:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you need to actually read the site you are placing a link to. Or the NYTimes article that is the only independent source for the article. Then you'd know as much as I do. Dicklyon 06:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I did, but I don't always understand it all. I try my best, and I listen to people like you to learn more. I don't want you to be mad at me, but I just need things explained a different way sometimes. --JRTyner 07:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Golden Ratio

It is pretty clear to me that whoever wrote the section on Bartok's use of Fibonacci numbers is not a musician. They use the use the terms progression and interval incorrectly. My edit corrected that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.49.14.18 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit also added some stuff not supported by the reference. I added a link to the ref so you can check what it says; so try again, but if what you add is not supported by, or contradicts, the reference, than you'll need to find a new reference to support it. We have to be rather strict on this particular article as it tends to accumulate a lot of junk otherwise. Dicklyon 22:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article talk page is a more appropriate place for discussions about the article content, in case others are interested in the issues we discuss, so I'm going to copy this there. Dicklyon 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Marv Meyer

Thanx for offering to help.

In my edit on Marv Meyer, I had references to newspaper articles to substantiate his reputation as a scholar of Gnosticism, and references to his published works, giving the publishers and years. The former I noted after the relevant sections in a comment field -- the latter I noted under "references"

An example of the former is: "He is regarded as an authority on Gnosticism. The New York Times April 29, 2006 Saturday Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section B; Column 4; Metropolitan Desk; Beliefs; Pg. 5" (I _did_ place the reference in support immediately after the relevant text, but in a comment field).

An example of the latter is: "The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus (HarperCollins, 2005)
The Gospels of Mary (HarperCollins, 2004)"

I'm hoping that, if I can get up to speed on his article, that I can get back to the Chapman Law article: I use their library frequently. Its an up-and-coming law school, and deserves to have coverage at least on a par with the neighboring law schools I have already noted.Hyperion357 05:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See Template:cite news and Template:cite book. Get a URL from Google news or Google books or wherever, and do it more or less like this (copy text via edit of this talk page):

He is regarded as an authority on Gnosticism and has published a book on the subject.

Good luck. Keep it real. Dicklyon 06:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Identical colors

I understand your point that changing the reference from colors being "perceived identically" to having the same "chromaticity" would clear up what confused me. Thanks for helping clarify that. However, I think that is not what was meant from the context since that paragraph talks about the response of the color receptors, which are the basis of color perception, and would not make much sense otherwise. There seems to be a lot of confusion in the article between three different meanings of light of a given color: 1- narrow spectrum light, i.e. light with the spectrally pure color of a given wavelength, 2- broader spectrum light with the same (or near) dominant wavelength to give it the same hue although with a different saturation, and 3- multispectral light which may have no spectral resemblance at all to narrow spectrum light of that hue but elicits the same response from the eye because it has the same response from the different types of cones in the retina. I have been looking at several articles here, including the additive color and CMYK articles, to try to refresh my memory on how all this works. It has been many years since I have worked on this, but I used to write color software for CAE systems and have even worked with the formulas for converting between color spaces, which some articles here claim can't work (they actually do, given common assumptions regarding light sources, that different people have basically the same color response, etc.), but I think the formulas I was using were more complicated than the ones here, and involved a lot of table lookup, probably due to non-linear retinal response.

In any case, I still have a lot to learn about color, the exact perceptual meaning of saturation, and so on. Please keep up the good work guys, although some references to outside sources in particular sections might help me know where to look so I can understand particular things a lot better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.148.89 (talk • contribs)

D. G. discussion

Mr Lyon, please feel free to remove the following from your talkpage. I would request that you read it first, or maybe copy it to a file on your computer. If I have seriously violated wiki policy by going someplace here that is not my business, shoot me.

The reason I am posting to your personal talk page is that when I came here to see if you mentioned having any background in color theory, I ran into that whole mess with D.G. As someone not previously experienced in Wiki, I have always wondered what the procedure was for persistent vandals.

Well, I have just spent the last 4 hours reading the whole RfC, the RFAr, many posts referenced by them, some other relevant articles. Re-reading a lot of it. I know from looking at some of your posts in the discussion pages on color articles I have reviewed in the last few days that your are a reasonable person, smart, and with a good heart. But what I read surprised me. Please do not become stubborn and close your heart here, I don't want to think I just wasted 4 hours. I think you owe D.G. an apology, and should request that the RFAr be closed if it is still open. As I said, I think you have a good heart, and if you look back through the whole history of the thing yourself, you will agree.

Your post, I think it was in the RfC, asking if their was any collusion between other involved parties is one of the reasons I know you have a good heart. But if you look at the history, many of the others had prior collusion against him when he, usually successfully, removed spam and other non-encyclopedic material from wiki entries they were working on. So there definitely was collusion going on. Also, the delays in his responses to the efforts of Alucard and Mikaul have caused comments that he is completely uncooperative, but he posted that he would not be able to access wiki for some time just before Alucard's efforts and has since posted that his response is delayed because of a slower modem connection, even directly responding to Alucard that he was not able to review proposed changes because of this and the distractions.

What I see here is a difference in style. Now you seem to have a more politically oriented style, for instance working with Alucard to come up with changes on a site that are enforced by some sort of blocking which I did not understand. D.G., on the other hand, just blasts in and makes his changes. But this is not a bad thing! It is just a difference in style; in his sytle you revert his changes, he reverts yours, things are done according to the basic wiki mechanisms, and managed as much as possible by the wiki fabric itself, without higher non-standard political mechanisms. His style is actually closer to the Wikipedia "Bazar" model I have read about. It is possible to tell the difference between your styles just by looking at the styles used to write your respective posts. He never faults you for reverting his edits, just for repeated "blind" reverts. He is expecting you to use the wiki mechanism. However, his way of expressing that is aggresively blunt, just blasting out a post. Your way of expressing your opinion that he needs to follow a political process, although frequently addressed to him, usually appears to actually be addressed to all the readers. In effect, your posts themselves are part of the political process. It may be hard to see after months of wrangling with the guy, but this is all a style difference.

I have checked on some of the specific facts. Apparently, the first interaction between the two of you was a complete reversion of his repointing of an article. He did place a comment on the repoint, and he later states there was discussion of the issues involved with his repointing on old history threads for that article. As was later mentioned, old consensus is not the same as current consensus. But at least mikaul, and probably others, did think his issues also made sense currently. This would support his statements regarding you reverting his changes without a complete consensus. He just did not state them in a very good way politically. And his action was very blunt. Style, again. He also probably exagerated what he said regarding you making repeated reverts and so on, I suppose. I can't believe everything he said is true.

But that cuts both ways. Several people made the case that you being "banned" from his talk page is out of line on his part. (banned- apparently a non-wiki term, just his blunt / non-political way of saying he only wants to communicate with you regarding specific articles, not on his personal page, which might be appropriate in cases where personal conversations have become overcharged, don't you think?) So I checked up on what happened. Apparently somebody else had posted a post onto his page (IPSOS) that was practically vandalism, and when you reverted a comment of yours back onto his site, you also put the other person's post back on. You refered to his reverting of your reversion along with the vandalism as reverting your comment. But he was actually also removing vandalism from the page. Even if you did not originally place it there, it was there from your edit. Later, when he said he banned you because of vandalism on his page caused by you, you called his character into account saying he was being inaccurate. Apparently you may have gotten into the middle of a little vandalism war between him and IPSOS, so perhaps his comments regarding you were exagerated. However, it would be hard to say they were wholy inaccuractive, or that that kind of editing might not be considered overcharged.

Certainly from your point of you, you must think there is something wrong with D.G.'s behaviour because of all the issues around him, for example the IPSOS problems. In fact, many have posted on the RfC/RFAr that something simply needs to be done because of all of the issues around him. However, as I said previously, many of the people in this mess, not you of course, have been filling wiki with spam or other non-encyclopedic content. These people are going to vandalism him, it is only natural. That he has been getting into issues like this is not a bad thing, it is just a function of what he has been doing. What is cool is that with the Bazar model he has been able to survive at all.

This brings up another point. The wiki rules are clear about reaching a consensus before adding content to an article. But wiki also says to expect articles to be edited mercilessly. He certainly is not working the full consensus angle, and would probably not be the right collaborator on say technical revisions to the color article regarding how saturation effects color perception (which is all I really care about tonight). But that is not generally what he is doing. Except for a few articles involving mythology and so on, he is not so much creating content as dealing with it.

One last thing before I sign out. I am not sure how to put this. When I was looking up the initial history regarding your reversion of the IPSOS post to his page etc., he said something strong in his edit summary of his revision regarding "both of you banned ... vandalism ... personal attacks ...". I have already written about vandalism. "Personal attacks" is awfully vague, what has been going on could be considered personal attacks for months, although his style makes his posts much more easy to characterize that way. But you respond right back with a post where you talk about "Lies in his edit summary". Then he goes on to call you a liar as well after that. I may have gotten the order wrong, maybe you did not call him a liar first, even though it looks like you did. I am not saying you did anything wrong, since escalating like that would only be a mistake in the political arena, and I have neither a political style nor a "bazar" style. I do not see that it matters at all who escalated first from saying the other was engaging in "personal attacks" to calling the other a liar. That's the whole point, if you think about it you will realize it does not matter either. I base what I do on heart just like you; all the people in this conflict need to understand that it was escalated by all of the reasonable parties involved (you, D.G., Alucard); with fire thrown on the growing flames by people who have tried to spam wiki or otherwise put in non-encyclopedic content.

In the RfC, D.G. was asked what he would do if the roles were reversed. If all of your allegations were true, what would D.G. do as you? His response was completely according to his style; not have you removed politically from the wiki, but just follow sensible low level protocols of not putting undesired comments on someone's talk page, use standard revert procedures instead of blind reverting everything, try to build a consensus according to wiki protocols. That last one is hard, for instance people see WP:NPOV violations in anything that disagrees with their point of view since each person always has the non-radical, central, correct opinion. In summary, your solution is to kick him out of wiki because his broad sword offends. However, his solution is for everybody to follow the guidelines. He is not a cop; I have seen posts where he is deferential to the admins. But I would think wiki needs his sword and his style just like it needs yours.

In any case, I know you will follow your heart, go back to some of the old issues I have mentioned, see that you both escalated things together. He is ruder than you, not political, and does not seem to care about enemies. But he did not just come swooping in and make one-sided attacks against you out of nowhere. Follow your heart, look at the old posts. Then do the right thing.

I just put in over another hour typing this. Please don't think I am going to start taking wiki seriously! I always look here first, but still...

(I can't remember the password for Timmeh2 so I just created Timmeh2-2. Hope that's ok.) (I seriously do not have time to proofread this. I hope it makes sense!) (ok, I just put in a half-hour proofreading. This is enough! One last thing. There is a lot of stuff in what I just typed. But you are involved in or aware of all of it even if it, you are a smart guy, it is just a matter of taking the time to put it together. It took me over an hour of solid research before I even started to see the outline here. When it clicks and you see it, it will make you a different person. Then, when you start communicating with D.G. again, it will click and he will see it. Trust me, you will both be amazed.) 66.215.148.89 06:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.148.89 (talk • contribs)

I realize he had a lot of trouble with others. That doesn't justify his continued bad behavior, which is what I was trying to address through normal channels. Anyway, he has withdrawn from wikipedia with no parting statement, so let's let sleeping dogs lie. Dicklyon 15:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. DreamGuy is subject to a behavioural editing restriction. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Grow up

It's called a joke, dude. Get over yourself. Gorman 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my sense of human doesn't extend very well to your comments on a person's unfortunate death while slandering his country's government. Dicklyon 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Least Squares

I've commented on the talk page, and left a final warning. If he does it again, take it to WP:ANI. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Does ANI ever do anything? I've never gotten any response out it. I did one Geoeg a few days ago, and it disappeared without a trace. Dicklyon 23:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to agree here that you should take it to ANI. I removed your post to the vandalism board because Geoeg's edits are not unambiguously WP:VANDALISM. He seems to be editing in good faith, in a manner of speaking. If he edit wars to the point of 3RR you can report him on the 3RR board, for matters of incivility or user conduct, you can take it up with ANI, but the vandalism board is for people purposely trying to degrade the encyclopedic content (removing large blocks of content with no explanation, adding profanity or nonsense or false info to articles, etc), not for editors involved in content or interpersonal disputes. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I hope Bfigura can follow up his final NPA warning with a block instead of wasting our time with another ANI on this guy. Dicklyon 02:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edit on Transistors

Thanks, thats a good edit. Sub40Hz 17:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Electronic circuit

Can you please explain to me why you reverted this article? I was editing this page as an assignment for one of my classes and I was wondering if you could give me some pointers to make it better. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachasmo (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had mixed feelings about that, as it looked like maybe you were seriously trying. But your latest edit left the article in a very broken state, as you can see by looking at the end of it. Your previous edit added "Generally, these kind of circuits are used to perform either a whole function or part of a function in an entire system. Mixed-signal circuits are usually created for a very specific purpose like in a cellular phone. The radio system in a cell phone would be an example of a mixed-signal circuit because it can pick up digital or analog frequencies" which doesn't actually make a lot of sense (what are digital and analog frequencies?), and is totally unsourced for the "most" claims. The previous edit had a rambling unsourced essay about digital. I just couldn't see how any of this improved the article. If you want to help, it's best to find a good source and add facts that are backed up, not unsourced assertions and opinions. And what kind of class assigns wikipedia editing? Dicklyon 05:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-edited the page and added references. I would very much appreciate it if you could take a look at it and give me some pointers. By the way, the class I am doing this for is a technical writing class. Thank you.

Those aren't references; what good does it do to tell us the date you retrieved something if you don't tell us what you retrieved? Look at an article that has decent refs and see how it's done. Most of what you've written in unsourced opinion and interpretation, including biased things like "big drawback" and "many advantages"; and ambiguous stuff like "This kind of circuit is also referred to as an integrated circuit." Basically, it needs to be reverted again; why would a prof assign a personal learning to do technical writing to mess with wikipedia? That's lame. Dicklyon 06:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried again but this time I tried to make it less bias and put better references. I looked at some of the pages you edited and did my best to do the references like those. It would be great if you could look at it again and let me know what you think. I'm sorry if I am getting on your nerves but I want to get this right. Thanks for helping me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachasmo (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates. And keep in mind that wikipedia articles can never be used as sources, not even in wikipeida. Dicklyon 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy

Your post was not helping the situation. In fact, it was exacerbating a situation that was just about to resolve itself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt DreamGuy was ever going to answer your question. When he thinks something is unimportant, no one will be able to change his mind. Both Dicklyon and I have experienced that firsthand. --clpo13_(talk) 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to aggravate. I held off commenting on his reappearance until it became obvious that he had been hiding out and denying that that was relevant. I certainly wasn't expecting an answer. Dicklyon 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed: Serilith → Lithography

It has been proposed to merge the content of Serilith into Lithography. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 15:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

For a 3RR violation. [6]. Please note that further disruption of articles will lead to escalating blocks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have also blocked Geoeg. This sniping at each other is only costing you both time away from the project. Please consider an RFC or mediation to sort out your differences as no-one wants to end up losing either of you because you can't work together. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, thanks for your attention to this problem; please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geoeg, an approved user conduct RFC signed by 7 of us, to which he refuses to respond, and which includes evidence that he has already refused mediation. I've also filed a content RFC on the page in question, but got no responders. I think it's time for a Request for Arbitration, unless you have a better idea. In the mean time, reconsider the block. Each of my edits added new material, including new references to try to address Geoeg's complaints. In addition, I followed up his talk with requests for clarification (here), which he ignored, and I asked him on his talk page to talk (here). What more can I do to try to resolve this? Dicklyon 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the second so-called revert that Geoeg listed for me (this one) is in fact nothing but the addition of a new section; how can that be called a revert when new material is added and nothing is removed? Dicklyon 21:12, 28 October 2007 (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:

The 3RR block was improper. The second so-called revert listed was an addition of completely new material and didn't remove anything. Furthermore, I have added other new material in each edit, and have implored the other guy to talk and answer questions, both on his talk page and on the article talk page, while he just keeps up his reverts and attacks; I have already filed both content RFC and user conduct RFC (which he refuses to respond to), and there are wikiquette and and COI reports that others opened on him; if arbitration is the only thing left, or not, please advise, but review this so-called 3RR violation first please. More details in response to blocking admin on my talk page.

Decline reason:

See below. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2007 (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.

Here are the reverts I counted: partial, partial, complete, complete. Partial reverts are still counted as full reverts (you removed his additions, and replaced it with your own). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That last one was actually a new version of the new section, with different words and an added reference, so not a complete revert, but I take your point. Thanks for checking. Dicklyon 22:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Geoeg is having the the same issue; I wasn't going to report him for 3RR until he did one more; but turns out that besides the three reverts of my fixes to the lead, he also reverted the added new section that we're talking about above. So, I guess we got the same deal here. Dicklyon 03:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

J.S comment on User talk:Geoeg

I just noticed a new comment on User talk:Geoeg:

this edit should be reviewed before anyone decides to unblock. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm blocked and can't respond there nor to J.S, let me comment here. I agree that Geoeg's edit is peculiar and deserves some attention. First, for clarification, he starts by copying my 3RR warning from his talk page to the article talk page, along with my signature. The bad language in it has already been noted by the blocking admin, so I have to wonder what exactly J.S is suggesting. The allegations about my edits are just wrong, as anyone can verify by checking the refs 1, 2, and 3 that Geoeg is complaining about; all three of them are specifically about least-squares fitting of sinusoids and 2 even mentions Vanicek by name. So, in addition to the bad languages, the meat of the comment is just made up to support his POV/COI defense of his own wording. But this is nothing new or particularly notable in Geoeg's behavior, as a review of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geoeg will clarify. Dicklyon 02:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoary has made an edit on Talk:Least-squares spectral analysis to try to clarify that the bit with my signature was not placed there by me, but by Geoeg. What he left out is that the whole edit by Geoeg was a copy of a section off his talk page, and that I did post that bit with my signature there. I think Geoeg feels that when he has something to say, he can get more air by saying it in several places. It does look silly to see my 3RR warning to him on an article talk page, though. Dicklyon 03:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Camerapedia.org as a reputable source?

Hi Dick, and sorry to hear about your problems. "Illegitimi non carborundum", and "this too will pass".

Don't worry, they won't grind me down. Dicklyon 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What I came here for is to ask your opinion about using Camerapedia.org as a source for references. Thanks. --RenniePet 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I might be a useful place to find references, but probably shouldn't be used as a reference itself, unless there's some name editor controlling the content; if it's like wikipedia, it should never be used as a source. Dicklyon 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

General civility and 3RR warning

You have come to the attention of myself and other administrators on several recent occasions for violations of the 3RR and/or general incivility. This is to put you on notice that if you continue the above behaviours you are liable to be blocked for a significant period. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard of an allegation of incivility. Would you be so kind as to provide a pointer to an example? I understand about the 3RR, and I intend to be more careful about that. Dicklyon 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a general warning, I should state for the record that I have seen absolutely no evidence of any incivility on your part. Quite the reverse if anything. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed he put the same on Geoeg's talk page. By the way, he's up to no good again; am I the only one who cares? Dicklyon 04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

> am I the only one who cares?

From what I understand in a brief look into the dispute it does sound like he is misusing Wikipedia. But I know nothing of that field involved, so all I can offer is moral support. And the suggestion that you don't let it become a problem for you; in the long run it makes no difference, others will eventually remove his edits someday if you don't do it now, and it's not like you need to let this dispute upset you. He's not worth it. --RenniePet 08:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon, you are not the only one who cares. The arbcom case is not necessary - Geoeg's edits are being very closely watched and I suspect (if I have anything to do with it) that his next personal attack or edit war will be his last. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ref Removal

Hi there. I noticed this ref removal, and I wasn't sure what the reasoning was. (I'm not entirely conversant enough on the subject to know if was pointing to the wrong topic or something). But if it's just redundant, I wasn't sure what the harm in leaving it was. (Unless it's being used to push a POV or something). Anyway, just thought I'd ask. (I'm off to bed, so no rush to reply). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference placed by an editor in a conflict of interest, to a paper by himself (or by a close friend of relative of himself, perhaps); the paper in question does support the claimed statement that the technique "mitigates the drawbacks of applying Fourier analysis for analyzing long incomplete data records such as most natural datasets," however it doesn't support it very well since the result was challenged by a response paper that showed that the different result had little or nothing to do with the Fourier versus Vanicek method, but rather was completely about the trend removal method that was done in one case and not in the other. It is technically flawed, challenged by a reliable source, placed by COI editor pushing his own POV results (see for example the orignal version of the article and arguments about it and its naming to get an idea of his POV; Vanicek was Omerbashich's thesis advisor, and the thesis is rather sycophantic as I pointed out before). Dicklyon 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for helping me out. It's hard work setting all these traps for Geoeg to get himself 3RR blocked; doing it all on my own is so tiring. Now I have some co-conspirators ;^} Dicklyon 06:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapman Law Related Revisions

Hi Dicklyon,

How are you?

I have been diligently collecting references and I hope they will satisfy Wiki's policies.

Before I proceed further to make more revisions, I would like to ask you a question. On Chapman Law's talk page, I have posted several topics for discussion (and you have commented on one of them, thank you.) My question is, what if nobody respond to my call to join the discussions? I am afraid that some editors there are not in the business of forming consensus and will simply undo my work with no logical explanations. If that occurs, what can I do to protect the integrity of the entry?

Thank you in advance for your answer. Arctura 14:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop speculating and start editing. Dicklyon 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean by "merge more refs" now. You mean that if a reference #3 is used twice in the same entry, then there is no need to call it reference #4 the second time around, right? Ok, I am going to learn how to use this TW thing and find more references now. Thank you for your time. :) Arctura 05:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, notice how you can name a ref and then re-use it by name. Also note that you had some refs to a url and some to an article, which were really the same, and listed them as if they were multiple independent sources; I attached the url to the article name. As for merging in edit conflicts, it's not easy; you may have to just re-do your edits on the newer version. I've gone ahead and re-added the law journal stuff to the version I worked on. If I missed something else you changed, try again. Dicklyon 05:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Roger that sir, and thank you again for helping. Frankly I am relieved to learn that I can just re-do my edits without learning how to use the TW thing you mentioned. I read the instructions and . . . I think it's way out of my league. ;P As to your suggestions regarding the additional citations (i.e. the four U.S. Supreme Court law clerks and the library volumes), is it appropriate for me to provide links to Chapman's own web pages? I would like to link to the professors' bios and the library's front page. Arctura 05:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

For basic facts and stats their own web site should be a fine reliable source. But don't use their own stuff as source for anything like an opinion that might be controversial. Notice that I took out the "only 3 years" bit because that sounds like bragging; that's the kind of thing you can say if you have a source that's independent enough to not have a conflict of interest. Dicklyon 06:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if the "four U.S. Supreme Court law clerks" is your observation based on reading their bios, then that statement will probably be contested as WP:OR; so find a source that says they have four such, or leave it out. Dicklyon 06:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. For the volumes, I used Chapman's own site because it's probably a basic fact. For the four professors, however, I have found four sources. I was going to include a complete list of Chapman Law's current faculty, but I think that might be redundant. Nevertheless, I will present it to you in case you would like to double check whether all four of them indeed work for Chapman Law right now (http://www.chapman.edu/law/administration/faculty.asp). Thank you again. :) Arctura 06:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapman U edits

Not surprisingly, Arctura (who I suspect we've seen before under a flurry of anon and now-blocked IDs) has returned to revert warring. While some of his edits have been helpful (the non-blog refs, in particular), there's still a significant amount of PR and spin, as well an attempt to label the Princeton Review rankings in a spun manner, rather than using their actual rank titles. I'm going to resist violating 3RR with this one, but would you mind stopping by the page and giving your thought? Thanks. --Eleemosynary 09:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the snide tone and personal attacks from Arctura on the Talk page, and his own user page, indicate we're not heading towards a great outcome here. --Eleemosynary 10:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG give me a break, Eleemosynary. You just messed up hours of my work and when I ask you to go to the discussion page, you would not, and keep on reverting my entries. And since you removed my earlier comment suspecting that you have "ulterior motives" for changing Chapman Law's entry, should I remove your comment now since you suspect me as a vandal? That is outrageous. Your behavior, refusing to reach a consensus, is exactly what's so annoying about you. Well ok, DickLyon, sir, I also ask you to please visit the page again. If what I am doing is right, please stop Eleemosynary if you have the power. If what I am doing is wrong, please let me know what I am doing wrong and I will learn from my mistakes. Thank you sir. Arctura 10:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not fill up this Talk page with personal attacks and unfounded accusations. --Eleemosynary 10:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, Eleemosynary, everybody who looks at your discussion page knows what kind of character you are--refusing to reach consensus--so how is my accusation unfounded? Anyways, I am not here to argue with you. I am here to learn from DickLyon and improve my editing skills, and I would really appreciate it if you stop being so trigger happy with the revert button without first having a civilized discussion with others. Arctura 10:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on edit histories and specific language and tone, it seems pretty clear that Arctura is a sock of Hyperion357 (you can read the requisite "I have no idea who you are" pre-emptive messagehere that precedes most sock-revert wars). I have a feeling these two single-purpose accounts will shortly be working in tandem.

This user is also attempting to game the system by working the ref via numerous effusive missives and edit summaries directed at you. Thanks for not rising to the bait. In short, this user is still adding POV to the page, using unacceptable sources (blogs and message boards) in an attempt to discredit the U.S. News and World Report data, and whitewashing the actual titles of the Princeton Review rankings in order to slant them toward Chapman. Some of his edits have been useful, but those seem a pretext for POV, spin, and PR.

My most recent edits were 1) removing blogs and message boards as sources, in accordance with WP:RS, 2) stating the actual titles of the Princeton Review rankings, 3) relegating the names of the reliable sources to the appropriate section, as is the Wikipedia standard. All these changes have been reverted by the likely sock, who seems intent on drawing me into a revert war via personal attacks on the summaries and Talk pages. I'll handle this through the appropriate channels, but I just wanted to give you a heads up.

--Eleemosynary 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I just thought he might be convertible to a productive editor, if he could subjugate his POV and learn about reliable sources. Dicklyon 15:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Dicklyon, are you saying that you also believe I am hiding behind a different ID? I will assure you that whatever channels that Eleemosynary are referring to, my name will be cleared in the end. There simply is no connection between another user and me. As to the 3 arguments that Eleemosynary has outlined above, Eleemosynary never tried to discuss those things with me before he/she started hitting the revert button. I am new and there are many rules that I don't know about, but all I ask from him/her is to show some respect for my work. And it's really hard to watch him butcher my work without at least telling me why I am wrong.

As to the the blogs, he is referring to references 13/14/15. I want to show that there are discussions going on about this topic, so I thought the blogs are appropriate as references. And as to the Princeton Review titles, I paraphrased the categories when I was writing the entry, and because the source is readily available for everyone to see, I thought that was ok. Finally, I am not exactly sure what Eleemosynary means by his third point, is he saying that the ranking information should be moved because it contains a source which he/she believes is more reliable? Arctura 18:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I will be away from the computers for the rest of the day, but I have indeed made mistakes, I will be working on them when I come back. Thank you sir. Arctura 18:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)