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)

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)

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)