User talk:Dicklyon

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

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Taking my break more seriously for a while...RL calls. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

refs in Astronomical naming conventions

In reference to "Don't add malformed citations to sources you haven't looked at". 1) If they are malformed, then you should format them better instead of removing them wholesale and 2) I think that I have seen enough text to be sure that they support the statements in the article.

If you have a problem with those sources, maybe you should ask in WP:RS/N. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.22Fragment_view.22_in_Google_Books_for_short_statements_of_fact. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have problems with the sources, since I don't know even whether they exist. Why is the title unknown? I don't believe you have looked at these sources or know what they say. Dicklyon (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

[Dick, thanks for your work on the RFC/U. I have sent the following message to all participants in it:]

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

• Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 04:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to do that, but got distracted by actual work. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Additive color article

Hello,

Glad to see that you have taken on the labor of Hercules over at the "Additive color" article. I am certainly not the best person to be attending to that task, but having linked to the article from quite a few others I was horrified when I looked in on it last night and saw what it had become. My editing in immediate response was strictly a "Round One" rev 1.0, meant to be heavily rehashed in short order, so please don't judge me too harshly by it.

The one thing I will lobby for is some prominent embodiment of the gist of one of last night's additions:

"The additive and subtractive systems, although superficially so different [that they may appear] contradictory, are [...] simply the two polar opposite approaches to reproducing a wide range of colors by controlling the relative amounts of red, green and blue light that reach the eye."

I know from sad personal experience how inadequate most textbooks are in getting this across. It took me years to recover from what Science: The Key to the Future taught me about color systems in the eighth grade. Another WP editor, who shares many of my interests and is very well-informed about most of them, is woefully unready for prime time when it comes to the subject of color, as demonstrated by a talk page comment suggesting that CMY filters are preferable to RGB when making separations for reproduction with a CMY system, because it "saves a step", or words to that effect.

Confusion about the additive and subtractive systems is ubiquitous and needs to be clearly and succinctly attended to in the related articles. I am still groping my way toward some optimal and technically correct stock wording for accomplishing that end. Constructive suggestions are very welcome.

Happy Holidays! AVarchaeologist (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And happy holidays to you, too. I mostly just do a bit of reactive tweaking, so no big plans to take it on. The bit about "may appear contradictory" and "polar opposite approaches" would be OK if sourced and attributed, but seems too interpretive to be normal encyclopedic reporting. Find a source or two that makes the comparison in a way you like and base it on those. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Negative value

"there is negative value in piping to avoid redirect"? Hyacinth (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:Redirects#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Numa Numa

Hi Dick, I don't know if you always watch pages where you participate in RMs, but either you or I has missed something at Talk:Numa Numa (Video)#Requested move. Please take a look when you get the chance. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! Yes...my family considers it to be some kind of addiction...here is how I explained it six months ago http://mechanicaldesign101.com/mechanisms-and-robotics/. I may need a better story soon. All the best. Prof McCarthy (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOC

In your article and policy talk page content, please remember WP:FOC:

Focus on article content, not on editor conduct. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to our community. Bringing up conduct often leads to painful digressions and misunderstandings.

It can be difficult to focus on content if other editors appear to be uncivil or stubborn. Stay cool! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind, which will only serve to derail the discussion. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue detailed below.

I bring your attention to this because of your focus on editor conduct (mine) rather than content. Two recent examples are here ("no need to disrupt a long-stable name just because Born2cycle finally got his way at Yogurt") and here ("This is just another tool that Born2cycle can use to argue to try to get his way").

--Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

junk

speaking before 1454 ad ... square root was the topic ... http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/EgyptianAndGreekSquareRoot.html

I guess your editing of these facts keeps wikipedia in the modern time period. enjoy the present bye,

Milo Gardner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milogardner (talk • contribs)

Yes, I do often revert junk that's too incoherent to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

too terse does not capture your emotional actions ... that are not justified by the math history topic under discussion ... a topic that will resolve itself shortly ... miloi

thank you .. this issue will resolve itself shortly... outside of Heron's "Metrica",

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/263417/Heron-of-Alexandria#ref218221

your domain of math thought .. math is my primary language ... English is only a means to an end .. to report math history as it took place .. concerning Archimdes arithmetic and algebra ... Heron came later ...

Maybe you can get an English speaker to help you. Try posting your ideas on the article talk page and ask for help turning them into article prose. Dicklyon (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:US airport data

As per your request on my talk page, I have updated the documentation for {{US airport data}}. Thanks for the reminder. -- Zyxw (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Name titles and style

Hello Dicklyon. I see your post at WT:TITLE#Distinguishing between Descriptive Titles and Name Titles and I continue to think that Born2cycle's have more merit than they seem credited. He does, however, seem to write too much, and I tend not to read it all. I also see evidence of a lot of bad blood complicating things. I wonder if you could help bring me up to speed, especially with respect to title styling of names. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a long and complicated history. Before I ever interacted with him, B2C was on the campaign he describes on his user page, and in 2009 he became a big influence at TITLE, rewriting parts of it to deemphasize recognizability and precision in favor of conciseness and algorithmic approaches to naming. In 2011 he came to my attention with his push to totally eliminate en dashes from titles and from wikipedia more generally; kind of like Wikid77's recent thing. Probably no reason to dig deeply into all that, but it might give you an idea why I usually distrust his proposals and often disagree him in RMs involving tradeoffs with recognizability and precision. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

See current example of his thinking here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunny 16 rule

Hi Dicklyon, I just read your message. I added a minor update on this article by giving it a link to a new article about night photography, titled Looney 11 rule. I would like to receive any correction and advise as I'm still newbie here. I even doesn't know how to reply your message at first. Thanks for your help. Adithia.kusno (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Golden Ratio Links

Hi - got your note and I respectfully disagree with your removing the link to the Irrational Numbers Search Engine. Did take the time to follow the link? There are no other sites that I am aware of that offer this unique capability and the engine has processed over 400K searches in last 3 years. JamesT (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) jdmt (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

James, your edit history suggests that your main or only contribution to WP is to place links to subidiom.com. That makes you a de facto spammer. If you think these are good links that ought to be included, feel free to explain why on the article talk pages. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Dickylyon, I take exception to your characterization - Please take a moment to more fully review my contributions to the site; while I am not a prolific user, I have made meaningful contributions to a variety of topics over the years. I am familiar with the linking policy I firmly believe that the links in question fall into the "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" category and indeed, have proven useful to many users interested in the studying large irrational numbers. Finally, the linked-to site is content driven and completely non-commercial. Please help me understand your concerns, and refrain from attacking my character by referencing me as a 'spammer' on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmt (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your 2012 contributions involved exactly 4 articles, and the subidiom.com link on all 4. Before that, I didn't check in detail. I'm not attacking your character, just commenting on your behavior. As I suggested, "feel free to explain why on the article talk pages." Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Tristimulus (audio)

Hello. Thanks for tagging this for notability back in Jan 2008. I've looked it over but am not sure. You may want to take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved once and for all. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be a few secondary sources referring to the "tristimulus timbre model", so I moved it to that. It needs work, but probably passes notability with this title. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Golden Ratio".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Caps Hi, quick question, only if you have time: I just created a bio stub with the disamb "(Coptologist)", am I right to capitalize? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Excellent question. But knowing nothing about it, all I can say is that it looks likely. I'm not sure what the underlying proper name would be. Copt? Coptic? Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I suppose both. I'll leave it as it is, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC) WP:MOS guideline revert concerning WP policy COMMONNAME Earlier you reverted the edit by User:Kim Bruning to WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Kim's edit added that the WP:COMMONNAME policy takes precedence over the MOS guideline. This edit was a result of a very long debate concerning the capitalization of the title of Star Trek Into Darkness (the debate was not only ongoing on the article's Talk, but had spread to a number of other article Talks, as well as to a couple MOS project Talks; the debate later spread into the "real-space" media as a result of an xkcd web comic from Jan 30th by User:Xkcd—Randall Munroe—which commented on the duration and content length of the debate). The publicity that resulted from the comic included several real-world articles disparaging Wikipedia as "uptight", "bureaucratic", and its editors as "idiots" (among other things). All this brought admins not aware of the debate to investigate. They determined that COMMONNAME, being a Wikipedia policy, took precedence over the Wikipedia guideline of the MOS (a result of which, admins User:Mackensen and User:Prodego, against the ongoing debate and RMs, moved the article to its present location). It also resulted in Kim Bruning's addition to the MOS project article which you soon after reverted. I thought that I would bring this to your attention in case you were not aware of it as the revert may spawn some debate at MOS Talks (particularly about Wikipedia policy versus guidelines), as well as potentially other editors making similar additions to the MOS in the aftermath of the STID debate. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC) I just noticed that you were participating in a discussion in the MOS Talk about this. Apologies for not checking that first before posting here. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Sexology arbitration case opened The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology has been opened. You have been mentioned as a potential party by one or more of the current parties to the case. If you would like to become a party to the case, please add yourself to the main case page linked in the same format as the other parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC) New MOS:CAPS discussion The topic of an inconclusive discussion that you participated in (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 8#Apparent conflict of guidelines) has been brought up again at WT:MOSCAPS#Contradiction and divergence at MOS:MUSIC. You may (or may not) want to express an opinion at the new discussion. Deor (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Indian railway line pages I shall be grateful for your kindly having a look at 1. Sealdah - Barasat - Hasnabad - Bangaon - Ranaghat Railway Line and 2. Sheoraphuli – Tarakeswar – Arambagh Branch Line. A new editor Bubaikumar has moved these pages. In the first case I had used the names of only the terminal stations in the heading. Bubaikumar has added an intermediate station. In the second case, the line is under extension to Bishnupur and the extension up to Arambagh has been completed. So, it may be all right to add Arambagh. Once it is extended to Bishnupur, the heading will have to be changed again. More importantly, please see the style in which the heading is set. Should it be line or railway line? Is the spacing in order? Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I undid those moves, since they mangled the styling of dashes and capitalization; see MOS:DASH and MOS:CAPS. Whether to include the various other names is a question more appropriately addressed by looking at how these are referred to in sources. You might want to start a discussion on the relevant article talk pages. Dicklyon (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Please have a look at the Asansol Junction Railway Station page, or rather its talk page. - Chandan Guha (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks once again - Chandan Guha (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC) f-number unit hyphenation Nevermind. I found that wikipedia's style guidelines differ from English standards on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens Balazer (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I understand the logic of unit hyphenation, and I used to do the same. But the SI specs say to not do that. I can't find the official doc, but here's a web page that notes "Use a hyphen between a numeral and its unit only when necessary to form a compound modifier, and only with a unit name, not a unit symbol: 3.5-inch diskette, 35-millimeter film." : http://www.poynton.com/notes/units/index.html – Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Color Subjectivity Hi Dick, The edits on the color page that you reverted are common knowledge to perception researchers, not POV. If you are curious to read more, Stephen Palmer's text book Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology, Chapter 3 on Color Vision, makes exactly the points that I summarized. I will add references when I have more time. Also, the informal paragraph that I deleted is misleading and largely irrelevant. The only useful lesson to be drawn about color perception from comparing a black and white photo to a color photo is that only one of three color dimensions is preserved in b&w: lightness. The other two dimensions, hue and saturation, are excluded by the process. This tells us something about technology, not about subjective color perception. Thanks for keeping an eye on this page. I appreciate that your intentions were good, and hope to collaborate on improving this page. Jj1236 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I think it would be good to represent what Stephen has to say about this. But the point about the lightness not showing breaks between different color categories is a completely different point; you could can challenge it if you want, but don't sneak it out by saying you're just rewriting it to be more encyclopedic when you're really replacing it with something unrelated. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Please read the talk page. The discussion is already there, from other people. You are commenting on my comments, not on my edits, and you are obstructing improvement to the article. The edits in question remove content that was judged ON THE TALK PAGE, BY OTHER EDITORS, to be poor and irrelevant. I concur with these views. It is not productive to rewrite irrelevant commentary. Instead, I added encyclopedic discussion of relevant topics. I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful, and respect your efforts. However, please do not make edits on topics that you do not have knowledge about. First seek the relevant knowledge. There are infinitely many things I don't know about, but I teach college level courses on color perception, and am qualified to make the edits that you reverted. Jj1236 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Hello, Dicklyon. You have new messages at Buaidh's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Flip-Flop Diagram You said you want to take the logic-diagram I inserted into the Flip-Flop article to your talk page. Sho what should I improve in it? And what does crazy-busy mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flipflop_%28switch%29 Ohnemichel (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC) I meant to the article talk page: Talk:Flip-flop (electronics)#New animated diagram. Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Bortle Dark-Sky Scale Hi. You probably have it watchlisted, but thought I'd drop you a note anyway. I just closed Talk:Bortle Dark-Sky Scale#Requested move as not moved, but as I said in my close, feel free to start a new RM as soon as you want. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Brand New disambiguation I appreciate your help, but be careful to get it right. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Damn. Semi-brainless typing loses again. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Hi Dicklyon Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country? United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC) No, no time for that. Good luck on it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 14 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CIE 1931 color space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stimulus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Wine grape caps discussion Hi Dicklyon, we've butted heads in disagreement over capitalization issues before, so I think nobody can accuse me of WP:CANVASSING by posting this. A RM discussion that currently involves only the participants of WikiProject Wine is ongoing regarding capitalizing the names of wine grapes. See Talk:Vidal Blanc#Requested move and especially Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Capitalization move request at Talk:Vidal Blanc. Your contribution of your knowledge regarding the application of MOS:CAPS, Ngram, etc. might benefit the discussion. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Demographics of Tibet I am puzzled by your edit summary here: "let the discussion play out". What discussion? Talk:Demographics of Tibet does not even exist. Can you please let me know where the discussion is taking place? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Oh, never mind, I found it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Frame Re Talk:Frame (beehive)#Move? - there is a very similar proposal at Talk:Frame (nautical)#Requested move which might be of interest. 188.29.25.115 (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Belated thanks for good advice Hi, Dicklyon! I want to thank you for some good advice you gave me back in November: "Let others speak." [1] You were quite right that I had been dominating that conversation almost as badly as B2C. It's been a hard habit to break; if I'm the first one to see a comment I want to reply immediately. But I have found that if I wait a few hours or half a day before replying, very often someone else will make the same point as well or better. I've certainly found that to be the case at the latest discussion. So, please consider that comment of yours to have been bread cast upon the waters; you never know when a casual comment may make a difference to someone. Just wanted to give you that feedback. --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Warning Per WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes". You may disagree, but you may not personalize your disagreement by naming anyone.[2] If you wish to contact me, the place to do that is solely and only on my talk page. Apteva (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)