User talk:Srleffler

Archives
Oct. 2005–Mar. 2006 Mar. 2006–Jul. 2006 Jul. 2006–Dec. 2006 Dec. 2006–Mar. 2007 Apr. 2007–Sep. 2008 Oct. 2008–Nov. 2009 Jan. 2010–Aug. 2011 Aug. 2011–Nov. 2013 Dec. 2013–Dec. 2015 Jan. 2016–Dec. 2017 Jan. 2018–Dec. 2020

Hi, feel free to leave me a message. Kindly leave messages on new topics at the bottom of this page. Srleffler

Your edit

Noticed the edit you made on Optic fiber and would like to thank you for doing such. Though it is a minor one, it's highly appreciated. Yogibur (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

40k

Congrats on 40k edits! Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 02:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Spelling edit to Radiometry article

Thank you for reverting my edit, here: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometry&type=revision&diff=1006523348&oldid=1006110230

I was aware of the wikipedia policy about the different varieties of English. I was not aware that 'gasses' is an acceptable spelling for the plural of 'gas' anywhere. In British English, the plural form is 'gases'. I just looked on the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, a major United States English dictionary. This states

" plural 'gases' also 'gasses' "

Thus, if you want to use the unusual form 'gasses', that is fine with me.

I understand you wrote quite a lot of this article: thanks for informing me on this subject!

Best wishes, Boleslaw (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I had looked at Collins and the Cambridge dictionaries, both of which showed "gasses" as an acceptable plural. --Srleffler (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling lesson. I had thought 'gasses' was not an accepted spelling anywhere; it seems that it is accepted, though less common, in both United States and British English. All the best. Boleslaw (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit on polarization

Hi,

I noticed you reverted my edit on the Polarization_(waves) page.

The gif was recently updated to include a projection in the xy plane. (You may need to clear your browser cache for it to update)

Kind Regards,

Davidjessop (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I missed that the image had changed.--Srleffler (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries --Davidjessop (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Favorite References

I enjoyed looking through your favorite references as Wangsness is a fairly uncommon choice for E&M, but was by far my favorite undergrad text. Additionally, John Greivenkamp was my professor last year and is a thoroughly wonderful fellow! I'm actually hoping to work with him this next year to develop a page on the history of the College of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona.

Cheers,
DavidJonBloom (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Smaller than a human hair

Yeah, but no laser can emit one single wave length (or one color). Impossible! Terrible use of the English language and a dreadful description of what really happens.

Depends on how you define "wavelength" or "color'. Most people don't mentally distinguish between colors beyond what you'd find in a box of Crayons. When it comes to the spectrum, most people don't distinguish much beyond 7 or 13 colors, so in this sense, a laser most certainly can emit only one color.

Then there's wavelength. How do we define that. Most lasers emit a bandwidth, or line width, that is centered on a certain wavelength. Some, such as untuned dye lasers, can emit linewiths of 100 nanometers or more, while others, such as highly-tuned dye lasers, can emit linewidths of only a small fraction of an angstrom, or a few orders of magnitude smaller than a nanometer. That is as close to one color as you can achieve. So, it all really depends on where you draw the line, but for a general audience, "one color" is usually sufficient. Zaereth (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If the article said a laser could emit one single wavelength, it would be wrong. It does not say that, though. It says that a laser can emit "light with a very narrow spectrum". Since the lede needs to be comprehensible for an audience that may not understand what that means, we rephrase as "i.e., they can emit a single color of light", which is true enough at that level of detail. If you're talking about a narrow-linewidth laser's output in terms of "color" rather than wavelength or frequency you don't need to qualify it by saying that it is approximately a single color. "Color" is already an approximate quantity. --Srleffler (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A request to contribute to the discussion

Good morning,

please express your opinion in the thread "relativistic mass" in the discussion with DVdm:

"The legitimacy of removing entries by DVdm in a topic of relativistic mass"

thank you in advance, Best Regards, RodriguesVector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodriguesVector (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Gaslight - making good faith edits

I made 6 good faith edits to the disambiguation to make it more consistent with other disambiguation pages. You reverted and therefore rejected all 6. Shouldn't you consider what the editor (me) was trying to do to improve the page and only edit the specific part you think was not an improvement? Here is the page. [1] What was "not helpful"?

All the exact terms "Gaslight" were listed before the variations of the term (e.g., gaslighting, gaslighter, gaslighted, etc.)

The descriptive phrase for one entry was charged to be consistent with the article's opening/summary paragraph

The formatting of the stage and film entries were changed so they were exactly the same.

The subhead "Fiction" was changed to "Stage and Film".

I reverted your edit and ask that you change the parts that specifically seem wrong to you and then we can discuss if there is more to be said. Fair?

Thanks! 97.99.90.245 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I see someone else already did a partial revert. I had a couple issues with your changes:

• Having two entries with the form "Gaslight is..." at the top of the article is not the correct format for a dab page. When there is no primary topic, dab pages begin with a line of the form "Gaslight may refer to:", followed by the dab entries. When there is a primary topic (as in this case), the page begins with one entry of the form "Gaslight is...", followed by "Gaslight may also refer to:" See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages
• Putting entries with the exact term "gaslight" first does not make sense. The reason is a bit subtle: every entry on the page must be ambiguous with "gaslight". Mere variations of the term don't belong on the page at all. Entries where the link is a variation on the term appear only when the term "gaslight" itself can also be used, and where that usage is covered on the linked page. So, for example, "Gaslighting" appears because "gaslight" is the present tense form of that verb. Since every entry is ambiguous with "gaslight" ordering based on the exact form of the link does not work. For the same reason, alphabetizing dab page entries is not useful. Entries are typically sorted by type or by importance.
• I don't have a problem with "Stage and film" as a section head, but note WP:MOSHEAD: section headings should be in sentence case
• The Manual of Style (link above) forbids piping links on dab pages except in certain circumstances. [[Gas Light|''Gas Light'' (1938 play)]] is not allowed.
• None of the other changes seemed necessary, and given the number of problems with the edit it was easier to revert than to fix, so I did.

--Srleffler (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the above list now that I take a closer look at it:

• Your edits removed the indentation that reflected that the films were based on the play, and removed the phrase "based on the play" from several descriptions.
• Your edits moved Gaslighting into See also. It belongs in the main list because gaslighting is the gerund form of the verb "to gaslight".
• "Places" is less specific than "Clubs"

The only change that was actually an improvement was the change from "Fiction" to "Stage and film".--Srleffler (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

F. J. Duarte

If you would be willing to lend a hand at that bio, your expertise improve it. Duarte is justifiably notable, but his bio has been inflated with promo sourced only to primary research papers. IPs based in Johnson City, TN seem to be responsible. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi Srleffler. I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for all you do here, especially on optics and laser-related articles. And thanks for all the help you've given me in the past. All you do here is very much appreciated. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas, and may the coming year bring you much happiness and joy. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too Zaereth!--Srleffler (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Coherence length formula for a Gaussian source

Hi Srleffler, I see that on the Coherence Length wiki page, you revert changes to the coherence length equation for a Gaussian source that remove the square root. I looked at the paper you referenced, and I believe the paper is incorrect. In the paper, they say that the coherence length is the FWHM of the modulus of the complex temporal coherence function (Eq. 2 in the paper), but actually the coherence length should be the HWHM (half width half maximum), which is the FWHM/2. The coherence length being the HWHM agrees with the explanation that the coherence length can be thought of as the path offset at which the fringe visibility drops to 50% (when measured with a Michelson interferometer), and is also why the path offset is +-L. This is why Equation 8 in the paper is off by a factor of 2 from the "correct" answer, i.e., they report the FWHM number incorrectly as the coherence length, when the coherence length should actually be the HWHM. As for why Equation 12 looks "correct" in the paper but actually refers to a Lorentzian source, again they are off by a factor of 2 and Equation 12 should also be divided by 2. Thus, the conclusion should be that given some bandwidth, the coherence length of a Lorentzian source would be half the coherence length of a Gaussian source.

We can derive the correct answer (which again is Equation 8 in the paper divided by 2) using the fact that the fringe visibility is related to the Fourier transform of the source spectrum (in frequency). Starting with a Gaussian source that has a FWHM of Δν and some center frequency ν0, we first find the standard deviation of the Gaussian, σ, using the fact that FWHM = 2*sqrt{2 ln(2)}*σ, then we can write the full description of the Gaussian in frequency space. If we compute the Fourier transform of the Gaussian in frequency space using a Fourier kernel of e^{-i2*pi*ντ), where τ = l/c (τ is time, which corresponds to length divided by the speed of light), we get another Gaussian in length space with some standard deviation σ', which we can find in terms of σ. The coherence length is the HWHM of the Gaussian in length space, and when you plug in for σ' in terms of σ, and σ in terms of Δν, then use the fact that c/Δv = λ^2/Δλ, you find that there is no square root. We can sort of see this now, since the FWHM and the HWHM equations both have sqrt{2 ln(2)}, and when you do the math the two square roots are multiplied together and thus gets rid of the square root. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:6E01:72AE:9922:7A36:ACAC:8CC0 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Looking back over the history, I see that the equation has been flipped back and forth between the two forms at least five times over the last nine years. It appears that there are two different forms of this equation in the published literature, and users are editing the page to match whichever book or paper they happen to have.

We can't derive the correct answer. One of Wikipedia's foundational policies is No original research. We only report what has been published elsewhere, ideally in reliable secondary sources.

The current article cites a paper by Akcay, which you assert is incorrrect. Interestingly, the article originally had the form you prefer and cited a book by Dreyler. An editor back in 2015 asserted that that book was incorrect, and changed both the formula and the reference. Between a book and a paper I would normally take the book as the more reliable source but given the number of times this has been flipped I think the article probably needs to address both to prevent continual churn on this formula. I'll take a look and see what I can do.--Srleffler (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:F/2

Template:F/2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:F/m

Template:F/m has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. () Hi Srleffler, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement on your revision

I honstly hate having to yap on your page about this. I saw your revision on my edit claiming it is "Not ambiguous with 'lens'". To be clear, there has been disambiguation pages that has linked to past idents such as Circle (which is linked), Balloon (same thing as well), and even Cube (its the same). As I'm trying to do, I'm trying to make these disambiguation pages easier for people to search for them instead of having to fiddle around the search bar anyhow. Look, I'm in strong disagreement with your decision on claiming it isn't ambiguous when in reality, I've seen other pages that have it directed to those IDs and its considered relevant. 20chances (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to talk it over with you. From WP:PARTIAL, "A disambiguation page is not a search index. A link to an article title that merely contains part of the disambiguation page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion between them ... should not be included." Unless a reasonable person might use the word "Lens" by itself to refer to a BBC One 'Lens' ident, it doesn't belong on the disambiguation page.

About the other examples: Wikipedia works on policies and guidelines, not precedents. I'll take a look at those entries and remove them as well if they have the same problem.--Srleffler (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply (I was at work). On my view, I honestly have no problem keeping them as is. Even if it makes it easier for them trying to look for them. I still (even at a higher end) disagree with your point, especially if it's just the name of a set of IDs used for a network. Even if it's just the name, it should have a right to be placed in the disambiguation page anyhow. Still, I was trying to make sure they become more accessible. 20chances (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Balloon shadow 2

Shadow of hot-air balloon

Re Retroreflector You may prefer this slightly earlier photo, which shows the aura better, but at higher resolution adds nothing, where in the first shot individual blades of grass are discernable. We probably don't need both but now you have a choice :) Doug butler (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the one that is in the article. This one is a nicer picture, but it has too much going on. The other picture focuses attention more on the baloon's shadow.--Srleffler (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That's cool. At first I thought you regarded the aura as a bit subtle, which is not the case with this one. And a bonus is that the aura is centered on the upper LHS of the basket.

This has been a nice experiment, though hardly ground-breaking. I had noticed the aura effect on the plane's shadow while travelling on light aircraft, and never got a satisfactory explanation, just a bit of hand weaving and dark mentions of sharp edges. Doug butler (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Fête

I don't know if you read French, but you might want to glance at this article to see why I don't think an article entitled "Fête," even in English Wikipedia, should be narrowly focused on the English-speaking world.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%AAte

Jcejhay (talk) Jcejhay (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary: the topic of an article is not the article title, but rather the thing the article title describes. It's not clear to me that the French word fête describes the same thing as the English word fête, particularly to the extent that we are distinguishing the latter from party, celebration, and festival. The article Fête can exist only if it describes something that is distinct from those other types of event. What makes that thing distinct is the particular cultural tradition arising with the British village fêtes, and passed on to other parts of the English-speaking world. From a quick skim of the lead of the French article, it does not appear to me that the French fête is connected to this tradition. Note that the interlanguage link from the French article to English Wikipedia does not point to Fête, but rather to Party.--Srleffler (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, but it still seems to me that there's something a little arbitrary or random about the (English-language) article called "Fête." Are we sure the article should exist at all? Jcejhay (talk) Jcejhay (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to that argument, but if we were to remove this article, we would probably need to create Village fête, which would be even narrower in scope and even more Britain-centric. The current title makes it easier to cover things that are related to the British tradition, but aren't specifically village fêtes.--Srleffler (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I edited the lede to make the article's topic clearer. It was actively misleading as it was.--Srleffler (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. That solves the problem, imo. Jcejhay (talk) Jcejhay (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi Srleffler. I just wanted to say thanks for all you do around here, and for all the help you gave me over the years. I you're doing good on this frigid winter's day. I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. Zaereth (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of a cite in the article Incandescent light bulb

User:Srleffler hello: I removed the cite near the lumen efficacy of LED lamps, because it looked to me as unrelated to the topic. Thanks. זור987 (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Civil time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blue Monday. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Electric light

A few articles says Joseph Swan's home was the first to use electric light, but no specific date or year, and most importantly; I have not been able to find any information about what he used as a power source. He did use batteries during his experiments, and if he made use of light bulbs in his house, they must have gotten their energy from batteries if there were no generators fueled by coal or used hydroelectric power. Maybe there was, but as mentioned, I have not been able to find any information about it.

What I have found is that Cragside house, which belonged to William Armstrong, was the first who used electric light back in 1878. As a power source he had his own hydroelectric power station. At first it was the arc lamp, and in 1880 the arc lamp was replaced by Swan's light bulbs.J.P. Morgan was the first outside UK it seems, and used a coal fueled steam engine to produce electricity for his light bulbs. https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/18/geeks_guide_to_britain_cragside/ and https://co-curate.ncl.ac.uk/electricity-pioneers/history/ Rhynchosaur (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello. Please refresh your memory about when to revert. Apart from disagreeing with your assessment of my reordering the arts section, you have actually reverted a lot of necessary copyediting on Divergence (disambiguation), including the intro, non-alpha order which separated, for instance, Divergence (eye) and Divergence (optics), and the differences between "divergent", "divergence", "diverge", and "diverged". I put quite a bit of work into sorting that all out, and do not want to do it all again. If you really want to keep the arts as one section, which in my opinion looked muddled, then at least alphabetise the order of the words. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Alphabetization of dab pages is generally a bad idea. You're sorting by the names of the ambiguous articles, which is precisely the thing that the reader does not know. If they knew that, they would not be on the dab page. Dab pages should be ordered by how likely each link is to be the one the user wants. More common topics should be listed ahead of more obscure ones. I reverted you largely to undo the alphabetization.

I did consider keeping the '"divergent", "divergence", "diverge", and "diverged"' at the top but felt that it was more distracting than helpful. A reader looking for diverge won't be perturbed to find themselves on the divergence page. We don't start every article by listing every conjugation of its title. I'm open to putting that back if you feel it's important though. Srleffler (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Divergence (eye) and Divergence (optics) have nothing to do with one another, by the way. Srleffler (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I've always been guided by WP:DABORDER, which I believed I was following with my changes.

Yes, I know that those two have nothing to do with each other, but as the terminology used for the article names is on the face of it similar, IMO it is useful to list one following the other (and it happens to follow alphabetical order that way too). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm good with WP:DABORDER, although I put more emphasis on "Within each section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article" than on some of its other guidance. When there isn't any other ordering that makes sense, sorting by similarity to the title and alphabetizing make sense. A major novel series that spun off multiple feature films should appear above several other novels by the same name, though. Films based on a novel should be listed with the novel. To do otherwise would be confusing. A reader is much more likely to be looking for the 2011 novel or its film adaptation than the 2007 novel by the same name. Listing the former and its sequels and spinoffs together makes it jump out at a glance as the better known novel of the two. In a similar vein, I always list songs after albums, and albums after bands. Individual TV episodes rank lower than films. In each case, my goal is to present more likely choices first, to best assist the reader in finding what they want.--Srleffler (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Photometer, a bit more explanation

I noticed that you said in your edit summary here that you didn't understand why I had reverted that edit, so I will give some more explanation. The user I reverted Ettrig had been going around for several months adding AI-generated text to lead sections without any regard for the issues that such content may have. Most of the text they added had issues, not all of which were immediately obvious (such as subtle factual errors introduced by ChatGPT). Other issues included lack of wikilinks and unusual wording which could obscure the intended meaning of content. Of course, as I said in the summary, if you have thoroughly checked that content and are willing to take it on as your own responsibility, I don't object to you reinstating it. Cheerio and happy editing! 🙂 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I did find the administrator's noticeboard discussion after I reverted you. It would have been helpful if you had linked to that in your edit summary. Saying "Large language model" or "AI-generated" rather than "LLM" would also have helped.

Yes, I reviewed the AI-generated material and I think it is OK.--Srleffler (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Ball lens

Hi Srleffler! I just now noticed that you created this article just a few days ago. What a coincidence. Just a few days ago I took a photo for the purpose of adding it to the fluorescence article. That caused me to stumble across the ball lens article, and, finding no room to add my photo, I decided to make some room. Hope you don't mind me expanding it a little. Thanks, and have a great day. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Nicely done. You added some good content.--Srleffler (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I liked your changes as well. You added some good points that never occurred to me. I think it could probably use a quick mention of GRIN balls, although I think they're still just theoretical. (I came up with a way to make balls with a negative gradient but so far I've never found a way to make a positive one. Still working on it.) I'll leave that for another day. Zaereth (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

GRIN ball lenses exist. See Luneburg lens.--Srleffler (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Laser use in Delineation

I understand your edits and thank you for them. I was adding a new use of lasers as reported in the many citations I found on the subject. I thought we as Wikipedia contributors should give as much pertinent and relative information as possible on any given subject that would be of interest to that page as possible. Enoska13 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Context is important. Lasers are a very broad topic. The laser article covers a lot of ground. Applications are only a small part of it, and many applications that are much more important than delineation get only a few words. You could add something about delineation at List of laser applications, though. --Srleffler (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Good advice. Thank you. Enoska13 (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Stubs

It seems that you have a better understanding if what a stub article is compared to some other editors. I think you should work on Category:Electronics stubs. I tried cleaning it out on another IP address but other editors seem to think that anon editor knows nothing. As a logged in editor I racked up over 100,000 so I reckon I know how WP works. I get really pissed off with how WP, an important and influential website, is being mismanaged. Cheers. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look if I have the time.

It's important to understand that collaboration is a social exercise not just a technical one. How you present yourself and how you work with other people matters. You can be right on an issue but if you don't communicate what you are doing well you will struggle. A tiny effort to communicate can save so much effort getting what you want to do done. -- Srleffler (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Entrance pupil dependency on the object plane location

Hi Srleffler.

I noticed that you have reverted my update (made on 2023-10-05) on the Wikipedia page Entrance pupil. The update had information that the Entrance pupil depends on the object plane location. You wrote a reason of your undoing the update as that the pupil depends only on the location of the aperture (I think it means the aperture stop) and the arrangement of optics in front of it, not the object plane location.

However, as the reference "Hecht, Eugene (2017). "5.3.2 Entrance and Exit Pupils". P. 184. Optics (5th ed.). Pearson. ISBN 978-1-292-09693-3." said, the aperture stop (so the entrance pupil) depends on the object plane location. If the object plane moves, then a different optical component plays the primary limiter for the cone of rays (emitted from the axial object point), i.e., that optics becomes the aperture stop. I think that a lecture note "Lecture, Section 11 Stops and Pupils, Geometrical and Instrumental Optics, OPTI-201_202, John E. Greivenkamp, Arizona University, 2018-12" also mentioned the dependency of the Entrance pupil to the object plane.

Thus, could you confirm if the aperture stop as well as the entrance pupil are really not depending on the object plane? If you think that I'm right, then my update needs to be revived. Goodphy (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The entrance pupil does not in general change when the object plane changes, but a change in object plane can cause a different optical element to become the aperture stop. If the aperture stop changes, the entrance pupil changes. This is not a particularly common thing. Most optical systems have an element that is designed to be the aperture stop of the system (eg the iris in a camera) and are not likely to be used with an object distance that causes some other element to become the stop.

This fact should be in the article somewhere, but maybe not in that paragraph. I'll take a look and see where it best fits.

By the way, I have noticed that you very often use parentheses to insert technical details into sentences. This makes for sentences that are very hard to read and understand, especially for a reader who is new to the material. In general, if you're inclined to use parentheses you should instead consider rewriting the sentence or breaking it into two sentences to express the concepts more clearly.--Srleffler (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I have seen your effort to harmonize your writing style and my request to add the Aperture Stop / Entrance Pupil dependency on the object plane location as well as lateral object point location at the given object plane. I have added a citation for the lateral object position dependency.

For challenging my writing style, I will consider your point although I do not fully understand why Wikipedia pages should not be so technical. I have seen pages that have detailed technical point of views and in my point of view, it is good for students and researchers. Goodphy (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The level of technical detail varies with the topic, and varies within each article. A topic that is unlikely to be of interest to a broad audience can be more technical. A topic that may attract a wide audience should be less technical. A good rule of thumb is that an article on a technical subject of broad interest should be written so as to be comprehensible by a bright high school student. Even very technical articles should start with an introduction written for a general audience if possible, and explain the topic in simpler terms first, before diving into more technical content.

In the case of Entrance pupil, besides students of optics this topic is of interest to photographers, who may have little or no optics education. It's important that the article remain approachable to a broad audience. We can cover technical details, but we need to make sure that we explain the basics first, in a form that is digestible by someone with no training in optics. --Srleffler (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Mission "Laser"

Hello Srleffler.

I recently noticed that you have made some edits at a level 3 vital article I am particularly interested in, Laser.
Lately, I have been thinking of mobilising a team of physics-specialised editors to bring the goal of a GA-status Laser article to fruition and couldn't think of many an editor more suitable for this mission than yourself.

If you have the will and time, please do inform me, so that we can start moving the vital article towards GA status.

By the way, thank you for your general contribution on Physics-related wiki-topics, L'Orfeo^{Son io} 22:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much time, but will probably jump in once editing starts.--Srleffler (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Your contribution alone is enough to motivate me! I'll wait a tad bit for the rest invitees to answer and then I'll begin! Thank you! L'Orfeo^{Son io} 11:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Quote

Hello. Just read some of your user page and am impressed by your quote "I think Wikipedia is quite possibly the best invention since the library." Worded well. Can I use it on my talk page intro, quoting you? Is it quoted somewhere else on the site - there should be a page of user quotes like that, I'm not familiar with it if it exists. Yours seems a good descriptor of the importance, scope, and concept of Wikipedia, and a good conversation topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to quote me.--Srleffler (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)