User talk:Atlant/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of my Talk page prior to August, 2005.

The current page is, of course, located at User talk:Atlant, as per usual.


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Just to echo Francs2000's comments, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for writing up an article for the VT52, it was sorely missing.  :) —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boston's Silver Line[edit]

I see that you contributed to the MBTA Silver Line article. I posted a question on that article's talk page about the airport route. Perhaps you could give it a shot for my curiosity and for the article. --DeanoNightRider 08:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think i read your question (I've been travelling so my access has been intermittent) and concluded I didn't know anthing "authoritative". I think the answer was "the Silver Line in South Boston isn't going to run as a single unitary line; it's going to be more like the Green Line with separate branches". But now that I'm back, I'll certainly go read your question again; I'm sure the answer to your routing question can be found (and knowing the way Wiki works, may already have been posted by someone else!).
Atlant 14:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I found my answer in the map showing the 4 branches on the All About Silver Line site. If you look at the latest official full subway map, you might see why I was confused. --DeanoNightRider 06:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk:MBTA Commuter Rail[edit]

I asked people on IRC about it, and they all said that the way you did it is unnecessary and pointless. We have an article for Providence, so someone not knowing what Rhode Island is can simply click the Providence link and then click to Rhode Island. Please show me where this is laid out as 'the standard form for Wikipedia'. --SPUI 06:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Reading re Ollieplatt[edit]




Note that Ollieplatt has been deemed likely to be Libertas and about a dozen other user IDs by several Wikipedia developers who have presented technical evidence. The evidence page cites numerous examples of Ollieplatt engaging in disruptive editing and violations of wikipedia policies. The proposed decisions range up to a one year ban.

— Davenbelle 22:03, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've actually been following some of that soap opera! :-) When I looked at the contributions that user had been making, it was pretty clear that something was up.
Atlant 14:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hi Atlant - just a quick note to say that stub articles for places in the US should get {{US-geo-stub}} rather than simply {{geo-stub}}. Keep up the good work! Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 01:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually tried {{us-geo-syubs}} (note the incorrect case!) but saw that it didn't work, and I was running out of time before I had to catch a bus! I'll try to remember the proper casing from hereon out (and I can always refer back to here for those times when I forget).
Atlant 14:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nice job on the F Market page[edit]

Just wanted to say that I like the F Market page. I added a bit of information to it -- hope you find it useful! Not sure how familiar you are with other SF transit lines (emphasis added by Atlant) but I'd like to eventually add similar pages for each Muni Metro line...

--Jfruh 06:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not as familiar as I'd like! :-) I only get to spend a week or two each year in The City. With regard to the F Market article, you're entirely welcome. A few weeks ago, I discussed the need for it with someone (was it you?) and finally got around to writing it, mostly using as my source information the brochure handed out on the trolleys.
Writing articles about the other lines would be fairly consistent with the approach that's been taken with the Boston MBTA articles; there's an article regarding each of the major divisions (the "colors") of the subway lines while the Green Line article contains all of the more-inter-related branches of that line.
Do me a favor: If you write an article about the L Taraval line, please be sure to mention "Carousel", the "Doggie Diner". :-)
Atlant 14:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hewlett Packard[edit]

I thought that Carley's departure date was Feb 8th or 9th. I'm an ex-HP long timer and want to have the correct date burned into my old brain so please let me know if I'm wrong on this. Thanks, hydnjo talk 18:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know the exact instant, but the news broke today, February 9th here in America. It's quite likely that she actually "resigned" yesterday, however the HP press release is also dated the 9th. Wiki's really slow right now so I can't look at the article history, but if I typed the 5th, that was purely a typo on my part.
Were you part of Test and Measurement?
Atlant 19:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looks like someone already changed it to the 9th. I was with Medical - originally by the HP purchase of Sanborn in Waltham (1965) and subsequently moved to Andover (1975). Can't say I'm sorry about Carly. hydnjo talk 19:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Grand Central Terminal[edit]

I removed the landmark category (at least I think I did; the history is being weird) because I added it to Category:Commuter railroad terminals in New York City, which I put in the landmark category. --SPUI (talk) 13:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I think it's often better to leave something in an obvious "top level category" (that any naive user of the encyclopedia can find) than to push it down into a sub-category. This is clearly an area where the Wiki culture hasn't settled on one true style yet, though.
(I also wish you'd post your responses to my questions about changes in articles in the article discussion pages (where everyone could see them and respond) rather than bringing the discussion here to my personal talk page; this is the second time you've done this. The way you do this leads me to feel that you're trying to limit the feedback that you get.)
Atlant 13:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I contacted you because you put it in an edit summary. If you had asked on the talk page, I would have answered on the talk page. --SPUI (talk) 13:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd gladly assume good faith, but in our earlier encounter, I did talk to you on the discussion page but you responded to me here.
Atlant 14:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New England Interstate Highways[edit]

I had added the link as a temporary measure, before I created the article. Now the article exists, so there's no need for the link on New England. --SPUI (talk) 20:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okee-doke, but I STILL wish you'd post discussion on the discussion pages.
Atlant 21:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Um, I put it in the edit summary, just as you did. --SPUI (talk) 21:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
INSTEAD of here on my personal talk page, but I'll bet you knew I meant that. After all, I've only asked you two times.
Atlant 21:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Laser light[edit]

Hi Atlant,

And even laser light occupies a small, but non-zero frequency spectrum.

Thanks, I had never realized that, but it makes sense, given the nature of quantum physics. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 14:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's in the nature of things. (Are you familiar with the Fourier transform?) At the ultimate limit, if the laser has any sort of modulation imposed on it (deliberate or random fluctuations in intensity, or even being switched on and off), it can't be truly monochromatic because the modulation MUST create sidebands.
And there are other effects as well. For example, in a gas laser, there must be some minor contributions from the Doppler effect as the gas convects around in the laser discharge tube and I suppose atomic vibrations contribute a little in solid-state lasers. Lasers are pretty darned good, but even they aren't perfect.
Here's a paper from NIST where they're discussing a laser with a linewidth of about 0.6 Hz; amid 532 terahertz, that's pretty good, but still not perfectly monochromatic. :-)
Thanks for writing!
Atlant 19:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am familiar with fourier analysis, that's related to fourier transform? There is also ring laser interferometry. In ring laser interferometry the laser cavity is shaped like a torus, with at a single point in the ring the mirrors. Light in it goes back and forth, completing circles. When the ring is rotating the lasering splits into two frequencies, one upwards according to doppler shift, one downwards. These two frequencies are then allowed to interfere with each other, which is then measured as a beat frequency. The beat frequency is proportional to the angular velocity. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 00:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right; Fourier analysis is based on the transform. And thanks for reminding me about ring gyroscopes; they make a nice point about how very small frequency shifts can have nicely detectable effects. Hmm, I notice there's no article about them -- feel up to creating one? Nevermind; I found Ring laser gyroscope and created a redirect to it.
Atlant 01:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(Updated) Atlant 15:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What was with the slashes before the closing angle backets[edit]

Same question I had at Hewlett Packard. Thought I was learning something new but it didn't seem to make any difference either way. If you find otherwise please let me know. Thanks. hydnjo talk 23:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) (I forgot)

BTW, is Ed Mayotte still at Teradyne? Knew him from 30+ years ago. hydnjo talk 19:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'dunno -- I'll look tomorrow.
Atlant 22:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, no one with a name anything like that turns up in our online directory nor in the 2000 hardcopy directory.
Atlant 12:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, thank for ckecking. hydnjo talk 14:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Plural links[edit]

Thanks for fixing my clumsy [[transformer|transformers]] to the more compact [[transformer]]s - I was fixing a bunch of links to a redirect and somehow got hung up on the long hard way (probably because for other articles I needed to use the pipe). I knew about this and had used it before...but I don't yet do the right thing by reflex when Wiki editing. --Wtshymanski 15:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome; I can never remember the trickier cases of exactly which punctuation "ends" a Wikilink, but I've finally trained myself pretty well for plurals :-).
Atlant 19:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD for Reading spark plugs for racing[edit]

The results of the VfD for Reading spark plugs for racing was to wikisource. The article has now been rewritten. Let me know if you have any concerns. Samw 19:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mind having a look at Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Reading_spark_plugs_for_racing? Thanks. Samw 14:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Logic Speeds[edit]

I'd like to start a table of integrated circuit logic speeds. We can say CMOS is not as fast as TTL but that isn't always true...some buck-rogers 74HCT part probably clocks faster than a flip-flop in the obsolete 74L series for instance. So a table of comparisions is in order; I've got at least one good reference ("Art of Electronics") and a bunch of catalogs. Another thing for my to-do list. Thanks for the edit.

Yes, but at any given point in time, the fastest bipolar logic has always been faster than the fastest (C)MOS logic. This is still true today; SiGe ECL (or especially GaAs ECL) logic still clocks quite a bit faster than the fastest CMOS.
With specific regard to your list of logic speeds, I'd like to suggest two metrics:
  • Typical gate propagation delay (in ns/ps), and
  • flip-flop toggle speeds (in MHz/GHz).
But there are a LOT of logic families, so you (we?) are signing up for a fair amount of work.
Atlant 01:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(And yes, Art of Electronics is a cool book! I was re-reading it just the other day.)
There's a pretty graph at that shows all kinds of logic families. Hope that helps. +--DavidCary 12:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that pointer!
Atlant 13:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

To split, or to not split...[edit]

Hi Atlant - I noticed your edit to Brave New World, reverting to a version with the phrase 'physically engineered to not desire "dangerous" knowledge', instead of physically engineered not to desire "dangerous" knowledge. I am not in any way an anti-split infinitive zealot, and certainly agree with your edit summary, but I have to say in this case I think the unsplit infinitive reads better. Are you very strongly attached to the split version? Worldtraveller 12:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you very strongly attached to the split version?
(Well, in what seems to be the best Wikipedian tradition, we could start a long, l-o-n-g flamewar about this and argue back and forth for months and months, invoke RFCs and arbcoms, etc., but fortunately or unfortunately, the simple answer is, indeed, "No, I don't feel strongly about it." )
Please feel free to change it again. :-)
Atlant 12:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, a flamewar is always an option - maybe we should revert each other a few times just to keep up appearances :) Or, perhaps we could replace 'to not desire/not to desire' with 'to eschew' or similar? I'll make it unsplit for the moment anyway. Worldtraveller 13:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think, in the interest of amity, that I'll eschew that option for now. :-)
And thanks for a good laugh!
Atlant 13:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LCD / LED[edit]

I think that LCD's ARE a light source, although not typically thought of as such.

What SHOULD be in the list for sure though are LED lights, as they are even making inroads for residential usage. KellyCoinGuy

Sorry, no. LCDs are "light valves", either passing/absorbing or passing/reflecting light; they don't make any of their own. They either use a backlight or a frontlight that is (typically) either fluorescent, LED, or electroluminescent.
Atlant 00:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Artificial Light Sources, the template[edit]

YYAYY -- Someone else noticed ArtificalLightSources! I was thinking it was going to get abandoned! Thanx 02:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS. I was thinking of just making it categories, but I kindof contradicted myself so I'll just let you fix it.

I'm glad you liked what I did. I'm not sure what, if anything needs fixing, but I'll look it all over again.
Atlant 22:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Fireflies and Foxfire were supposed to be examples of bioluminescince[sic], hence the ()s around them. If you want to keep them as they are now I'd ax the ()s. Thanx 21:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, D'Oh!, I get it; (Sorry; give me a dope slap for that one.) I'll fix it. :-)
Atlant 11:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
You'll have to settle for a trout slap 01:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR postings[edit]

Please sign all posts (with ~~~~) so we know who made them, and when, without consulting the history. Thanks. Noel (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks -- I had noticed I didn't re-sign my later additions but didn't go back to edit them in.
Atlant 14:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert of ACLU[edit]

Atlant, my addition to the ACLU page was not POV. It was a direct quote from ACLU policy, to which I provided a link that was not dead, unlike the one you reverted to. From [1]: "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

The sentence you reverted to, on the other hand, dresses this direct policy quote up in POV. I've reverted it and left a comment on the Talk page. --MikeJ9919 15:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

CE Marking[edit]

I have removed your entry on the CE page, which duplicates the CE logo entry beneath it. There is already an article titled CE mark. I suggest you redirect your CE Marking article to the existing one, merging any of your own material you wish to. That way we don't need to go through the deletion procedure. --Blainster 03:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


Fair enough that the article doesn't have to be "dry as dust", but instead of simply reverting my entire contribution why don't you re-enter the parts that you thought should be included? There were some valuable grammatical changes and the like which had nothing to do with why you reverted my edit. Flag of Australia.svg plattopustalk 18:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Electric motor poles[edit]

I've dismantled motors from sugar-cube-size to those I could upright inside the stator...and there's always been a N pole for every S, therefore an even number. Can you point me at a reference that shows a motor with an odd number of poles? --Wtshymanski 13:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have no camera here, or I'd happily show you a picture of several different nine-pole CD/DVD spindle motors (which are technically DC brushless motors but are, practically speaking, operated as three-phase synchronous motors). Strange, but true! There's no theoretical reason to prevent odd-pole motors, especially for external-rotor designs where the flux flows through the middle (the merger) of the stationary field coils (as compared to internal-rotor designs where the flux flows through the circumference of the field-coil laminations). But as I mentioned, they pretty much do have to have a number of poles that is a multiple of the number of phases or things would get really weird! :-)
Atlant 14:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Blandford Cemetery[edit]

Thanks for the improvements to Blandford Cemetery. Vaoverland 22:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! I just happened to get there via "Random Page"; you can find a lot of interesting pages that way!
Atlant 10:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Serial commas[edit]

I note you've added what you refer to as a "Wiki-standard final comma" to several articles I've been involved with. Looking at the relevant section of the Manual of Style, it doesn't seem to me that there's a standard to be applied. Indeed, the Manual of Style says:

In most cases, however, the presence of the final serial comma does not affect ambiguity of the sentence, and in these cases there is no Wikipedia consensus on whether it should be used.

I don't object to its being there, and I'm not going to revert it, but whatever else it may be the final serial comma isn't as Wiki-standard as you seem to imply. Certainly in the sentence you changed on the Watership Down page, I think the comma-less version looks better, and is certainly the more common style here in Britain. Loganberry 22:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

That text has been changing in the MoS. Here's what it said about a month-and-a-half ago:
As stated by Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, the Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White, and other authoritative sources, when a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more elements, a comma is used before the conjunction: "The wires were brown, blue, and green." The reason for the final serial comma is to prevent the last two elements from being confused as a unit. Consider its utility in this sentence: "The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and Pope John-Paul II." See serial comma for further discussion.
So at that time, my statement was correct; thanks for calling this change to my attention! I guess I'll have to wade into this debate because I feel quite strongly that Strunk & White got it right (in their call for always including the final comma).
Atlant 22:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. I feel the other way, as I've said before (except in cases where including the comma clearly avoids an ambiguity), but on the whole I take a fairly pragmatic view that it's largely a British/American split, and tend to treat it in much the same way as artefact/artifact and leave the style as the original author wrote it. Carry on changing my style if you like, but I see no need to use the commaless style to begin with. I know Oxford use the comma here in Britain, but they're in a minority in this country, just as they are in preferring the -ize suffix; the vast majority of Britons (including me) use -ise. Loganberry 23:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I know Oxford use the comma...
And I was just about to say...
"But don't you guys own Oxford?" :-)
Atlant 23:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Apple Cinema Display[edit]

There are consumer video cards with Dual Link DVI ports now? I thought you had to get a multi-grand workstation card like a Quadro 4000. What changed?

Even at the introduction of the 30 inch Cinema display, Apple was selling the Nvidia GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL Video Card "loose-piece" for about US$600, so at that moment, there was certainly a "consumer" card available that could be purchased by anyone at a reasonable price. Now, there appear to be quite a few possible cards from both Nvidia and ATI, although a lot of the dual-link cards still seem to be packaged as "Macintosh" editions.
But you're starting to have lots of choices, for example, [2] and the Apple Store is now selling the (easier to use, single-slot) ATI X800XT at US$500. Also, it isn't just the Apple dislay that uses multiple links. That monster IBM 200 dpi display also needs them if you expect to use a refresh rate gigher than a dozen Hertz or so.
I knew about those since WWDC 2004. I meant for PC's, because I didn't think the PC versions had it. —RadRafe | t 23:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if this is true, but I've been told that the "Mac" versions of many of these cards differ only in that they contain the Open Firmware support that's missing from the PC versions of the cards so they're "upwards compatible" from the PC versions. This also makes the Mac versions (of at least some PCI cards) compatible with Sun Microsystems systems running Solaris.
Atlant 23:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
(By the way, dual-link capability on the external DVI port is now standard on the new 17" PowerBook and an inexpensive option on the 15" model!)
Atlant 11:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

HP-35 batteries[edit]

Are you sure about the HP-35 battery pack? I've long since discarded mine, but I'm pretty sure it was wholly proprietary and not 3 AA batteries in a pack. (Later calculators such as the HP-33C did use such a pack and the batteries are indeed user-replaceable even though HP wouldn't come out and say so.) Do you still have a 35's battery pack around for verification? - Rlw 13:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Almost certain; my disassembled HP-35 battery pack is sitting in the bag along with my disassembled HP-35. I haven't taken a dial caliper to the cells, but they sure look like "AA" cells, just with welded tabs to form the connections within the pack (and the last two tabs "extend" out to form the gold-plated contacts of the battery pack). By the way, 'got a circuit schematic for the HP-35's internal power converter? That's what's broken in this calculator. But my '55 still works fine, dead batteries aside. :-)
Atlant 13:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'm sure your eye is good enough and calipers ain't needed. The fact that I bought my 35 new as a college sophomore reveals I'm an old guy with fading memory. But I didn't think AA NiCd cells even existed back in '72. Sorry, no schematics. My 35 still runs fine off AC power, and I've replaced the dead cells in my 33C (still my favorite calculator), no problem. I <heart> RPN! - Rlw 14:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


I'd like to remind you that WP:MOS clearly states that it is not required to be followed. I'm currently calling for scratching the bit we've had a mini-revert war over on Electrical wiring (UK). It was unilaterally added by a user and I find no support of it through discussion. Cburnett 06:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

And the coolest thing about the MoS is that, like New England weather, it changes all the time! So if you read what it said a month ago (and perhaps it was "all text shall be set in black type") and you come back today, some PoV pusher has made it read "all type shall be set in Fuschia". So we'll just wait a while before we decide whether any given style is good or bad.
Atlant 13:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

electrical wiring UK[edit]

Hi, nice to see someone taking an interest in what I have been doing. I started making some alterations to the page but it became clear that there is quite a bit of stuff on different pages which is relevant and not referenced or integrated. Also saw plugwash had been taking an interest. Apart from your link to fuses, he has a link on circuit breakers. Gave up in view of the hour. will get back to it.

Atlant 13:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hey man :) OS/360 *itself* was lightyears ahead of anything at the time. OS/360 as a software engineering project, was horribly late and out of budget due to the points that Brooks made. That's why I tagged it with Category: Software engineering disasters. Maybe we should make an explicit mention in the article? what do you think? Peace! Project2501a 07:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about it being way over budget and late, and Brooks clearly formulated a lot of his thinking as a result of his experience leading that project. But when I looked at what was actually currently included in the category of Category:Software engineering disasters, it seemed to me that OS/360 isn't really eligible for inclusion yet. There are a *LOT* of far-bigger software disasters than OS/360 that haven't made the "cut" yet. Denver International Airport comes to mind; at least OS/360 shipped. At DIA, after their initial design crashed and burned, they basically scaled it down to half its size and decommited features all over the place; what eventually was brought up was nothing like the oeiginal plan. And there are plenty of other disasters that ought to be listed long before OS/360.
I'll start trying to think of some and, if I get a chance, check several books. (Ed Yourdon's Death March will be one, but I have others.) Once the category starts showing some meat, then it might be
Thanks for writing!
Atlant 11:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your fine work, my error, etc.[edit]

Hi, let me start out by saying i've now sampled your dedicated editing, and find it wise and careful.

And i'll continue by making sure you realize that my overkill response on Talk:BASF reflected my mistaken assumption that you had been rv-warring against both User:Christopherlin and some IPs, and that it'd take firmness and thoroughness to rein you in. Far from the truth!

And it's embarrassing to go off half-cocked as i did, making assumptions too early.

I will offer you my observation that it's wise to limit the term "revert" to instances of using either the admins' roll-back button, or a save (without having edited it, and in defiance of the "editing an out of date page warning") of an old "revision" that you reach via the Page-history tool. Calling it an "rv" when you have merely tried to edit the old version of a passage back in can (if you make any mistake) at best confuse others who later read the history, and at worst create (however briefly) the appearance that you are using the summary "rv ...." to camouflage stealthy vandalism.

I particularly noted some "Swept Away ..." edits you did, including the lk-via-cmt to a talk page. Do you think it'd be justified to make Swept Away the title of what you so deftly called "the real" one, with a Top-of-Page Dab lk'g to (probably) Swept Away (2002)? The full title of the original is so seldom used (i slightly dread being asked to reproduce it!) that i think the two-word title belongs to the original. (At a glance, i'm pretty sure [Always knock on wood!] that the move won't even require deletion of an obstructing redirect.) What sayest thou?

--Jerzy·t 1 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

No worries -- Thank you for writing! Like any internaut, my first instinct was to "blast back" but I've been around that loop more than once in my youth so I instead gave a lot of thought how best to respond to you, finally deciding that I just caught you on a bad day and I shouldn't respond at all. Then I saw your comment associated with your "dummy edit" and already felt a lot better about things. And here you are confirming that!
I think your advice about the use of the term "revert" is good; sometimes I'll revert someone explaining that "the other version was better/more clear/etc." but perhaps I shouldn't be using the word "revert" at all in that case.
With regard to Swept Away versus Swept Away by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August, yes, I thought exactly what you thought: Swept Away (2002), but:
  • I figured I'd caused enough chaos for one day and I'd let the dust settle from all the earlier edits. (I wondered if my tweaks against SA2002 would provoke a response, but I'm weak and simply couldn't resist making some of them.)
  • Also, my watchlist has gotten caught in the new "Wikimedia 1.5 won't update watchlists" bug so it's a lot harder for me to see right now how people are responding to edits I make; I sure hope they fix that bug soon!
If things do settle out okay and if you don't beat me too it, I'll probably make the re-arrangement that you've proposed. There are only about a dozen "Madonna-related" links from the current SA2002 page so it wouldn't be too messy to do the switch.
Thanks again for writing -- you've made me feel a lot better and I really appreciate you having taken the time!
Atlant 1 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
Swept Away (2002): Done (well, in process at this instant, I just reached this Wikilink, so done Real-Soon-Now!).
Atlant 5 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

Wrong way Hoffman[edit]

Hi, noticed your change to SF-Oakland bay bridge. I've been chatting about this with User:Calton. I suspect that there are two scenes where he is driving on the top roadway of the bridge, once towards SF and once towards Berkeley. I haven't found any definitive citations, and I haven't seen the film in years. -- Samuel Wantman 7 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)

There's one shot -- what either of you "suspect" has nothing to do with whether it's true. Instead of vague suspicions, how about some documented proof BEFORE making an assertion? --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

Would you two please conduct what's starting to sound like a brawl somewhere else besides my personal discussion page?
Atlant 8 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

Lumens per watt[edit]


Over on the Lighting page, you recently reverted an anonymous user's claim that fluorescent lighting systems can achieve better than 100 lumens per watt. My interest in lighting systems is mostly through the Light pollution aspect, and I'm not a lighting engineer. There are definitely sources around that claim that level of efficiency, though.

One that comes to mind is the International Dark Sky Association -- at least one of their information sheets (over here) claims that HPS, Fluorescent and LPS lights can all do better than 100 lumens per watt... with some Fluorescent lights apparently being able to get 600 lumens per watt.

Is it the sort of citation that would satisfy you? Izogi 23:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That last bit (600 L/W) is patent nonsense, so I'd worry about citing any source that claimed that. :-) The maximum theoretical efficiency of an optimally-colored monochromatic light source (at 555 nm so "greenish-yellow") is ~683 lumens/watt and the maximum efficiency of "White" light is somewhere around 200 L/W depending on the CRI that you're willing to accept. Google for "theoretical-maximum lumens watt" for a lot of references, many of which aren't HTML unfortunately, but here's one very good .PDF link: [3]. It contains a graphic that clearly explains how luminous efficiency relates to wavelength and another that shows common efficiency ranges (with full-sized and U-tube fluorescents topping out below 100 L/W and compact fluorescents topping out at about 55 L/W).
But if a reputable vendor, scientific report, or trade study claims a production fluorescent lamp with >100 L/W, that would satisfy me just fine.
Thanks for writing!
Atlant 11:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments -- you've just given me another reason to be quite skeptical of the IDA's resources. I know they have the best intentions and I agree with what they promote in principle, but I've found reasons to be cautious of some of their resources in the last few years. (Not clearly dated, no clear references or sources cited, mixing good objective information with things like poetry and people's rants, and now this.)
Anyway, I'll re-visit this if I come across any sources that might confirm it more clearly. Much appreciated.
Izogi 21:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


I'm not going to bother reverting again, but note that there's more than one standard for the use of dashes; the one that I'= (and many other people) have always used reserves em-rules for setting of or introducing a separate thought (something like, but not exactly, a colon), while en-rules are used as parentheses. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


If you insist on having AIX in Comparison of operating systems, please at least add it to ALL the tables, instead of just 1 of 3. --K. Sperling 11:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add it, I merely reverted it back in. But any of us could at least add the placeholder to the remaining tables while we wait for an AIX expert to come along and supply the data.
Atlant 11:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
But any of us could at least add the placeholder to the remaining tables
Thank you for doing so!
Atlant 12:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

School vacation[edit]

[4]. Yes, true. But not all of us are like that! Honestly! Cheers, smoddy 16:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

But not all of us are like that! Honestly!
I have complete confidence you're correct! Thanks for being a Wikipedian!
Atlant 16:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Color theory revert[edit]

My Color Theory links that I had added had been erased/reverted, and the explanation that you had given was that you were reverting deletions. I don't recall deleting anything, only adding links (though they had no summary; I figured it would have been obvious that I was simply adding links). Is there a reason my edits were reverted?

You're correct; based on your deleting your own HSV color space link, I completely misconstrued what was going on. I've reverted your edits back in.
Thanks for catching my error!
Atlant 23:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)