User talk:Srleffler

AfD Nomination: Cluedo characters

I've nominated the article Cluedo characters for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Cluedo characters satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cluedo characters. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Cluedo characters during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Captainktainer * Talk 19:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Misc. comments

Thanks for the edits, Srleffler. You're right about the phot, stilb and candlepower! Cmglee 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

feel free to delete this. I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up the elliptical polarization page I added to. I'm new to this site as a wikipedia member. Thanks again. the head of wikipedia, forgot his name, spoke at my school at UF. Now i'm graduated, working for a consulting company in antenna communications in conjuction with the army. I love this site. What a wonderful idea.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flashjmg (talk • contribs) .

Response to Optical fiber

Normally, if an edit contains few grammatical errors, I can easily fix them. However, if the grammar is quite poor, and I don't understand entirely what is being conveyed, I cannot do that. I normally would have left a message as to having the user make the edit better, however, "This is the proxy IP for Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, NYC Headquarters. This IP address is shared by multiple users--i.e., virtually all employees, contractors working at Pfizer's NYC Headquarters.", this anon is used by many people. I could have left a message at the article talk page to convey the subject in hindsight. --Porqin 02:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Photonics and Optics

Thanks for the wording improvements - much better than what I had put in. j-beda 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Template

Sorry I forgot to protect it. I was in a bit of a hurry and ultimately forgot. My mistake Joelito (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Gamma rays

Your comment for your recent edit to Annihilation says '"two gamma rays" has no meaning. Two *quanta* of gamma radiation are produced.' However, both of these are correct in the current language of physics. It is completely standard to speak of "two gamma rays". It is also fine to say "two gamma ray photons", of course, but if you really want to be a purist, you should probably drop "rays" completely, since that word has no precise meaning. (They are either waves or particles. What's a ray?) --Strait 04:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comsign

Hi, Srleffler. I would like to accept your reminder and the action of removing the link optical-network dot com although I think there are some connections with those pages. Anyway, I would like to accept your suggestion and would not post the link any more. Really appreciate your services here. I would like to make some contribution for this group as well. I wonder how I can do it for this group. Thanks! Comsign 11:30, 03 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Srleffler. I have some concepts or terminology explaintations for some terms like OADM and OXC on my own site. For example for OADM, I have copied and pasted those explainations from my site to wiki OADM page, which was a "stub" page before. However, I just wonder how I can refer to my original sources and there would be any copyright issues if I copy my own materials to Wiki.(Comsign 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

Hi, Srleffler, I have updated the OXC page but did not put any reference link there, but added some hidden comments in the history page on the copyrights. (Comsign 06:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for the changes to the OADM page. The two terms are accurately edited and connected to other pages (Comsign 02:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for wording in the OXC page. Looks much better. (Comsign 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

C. Kumar N. Patel

I have no issues with the article as it stands today; looks good. Valrith 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramsey/Karr merge suggestion

Could you please actually make a proposal on the Talk page to which your merge proposal template points? Thanks. --Serge 03:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I could guess at the reasoning, but I like to encourage the person who inserts a template with a reference to a discussion to actually initiate that discussion. --Serge 03:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ellipticity/Eccentricity

Regarding your response to my comment on the talk page for polarization.... I seem to be interpreting the statement about ellipticity differently than you are. The article says

"Ellipticity is used in preference to the more common geometrical concept of eccentricity, which is of limited physical meaning in the case of polarization."

You seem to read

"Ellipticity is used [by the field]."

whereas I read

"Ellipticity is to be preferred over eccentricity, which has limited physical meaning."

I believe I'm competent to disagree with the latter statement (or at least its second clause) without "original research." My question might have been better posed as: Is there a tradition (perhaps well-justified) of using ellipticity in the field of optics, (and if so, why)? In any case, unless I'm missing some point, I think the sentence should be reworded on NPOV grounds. Would it have been more appropriate for me to add a "citation needed" tag instead of posting to the talk page and planning an edit?

I've appreciated reading your thoughtful comments and good advice on Wikipedia policy on a number of physics-related pages. Gnixon 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Polarization--Srleffler 04:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, especially the procedural advice. I posted here hoping to spare you, e.g., tracking down Russell, but I appreciated that, too. Instead of "competent to disagree," please read "confident that the literature would disagree." Gnixon 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dont disturb, Please

Dear Sir, Nowadaya I am not editing the articles Physics and India. I left those articles for their fate. Please remove the template -multiple accounts- from my discussion page. I am a wanderer that is why my ip addresses changes frequently. Forgive me. But I haven't yet edited without an id. Now, whenever I enter with my id, I get the message that you have a new message. Really disturbing. Please remove it. I sware, I will not edit the articles Physics or India further. Thanking you Naveen Sankar 11:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for making things clear. Actually I tried to keep the wikistandards as much as possible and to put the article Physics in an appropriate order as appears in other encyclopediae. But, being a new user, I made so many mistakes. And I also recognized that editing the pages are really a waste of time. Now I use wikipedia just as a reference, mainly as an enclopeida, edits a few and for discussion purposes. I hope experienced wikipedians like you will take step to keep the standards of articles that appear in wikipedia. Once again Thanking you, Naveen Sankar 06:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hafnium(II) .. eh .. Hafnium(IV) oxide

Hi Srleffler, I have moved Hafnium(II) oxide to Hafnium(IV) oxide, the latter being the proper name for HfO₂. Hafnium(II) oxide (which would be HfO) is now blank (may not even exist, but I am not sure about that) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Owen

My edit on Michael Owen's page was, IMO toally valid. We all know that Michael, although a good striker, is injury prone. As a footballer supporter myself, in general discussion he is referred to as 'the wimp' and I'm sure most football fans would know that 'The wimp' is Owen. Alas, I see no problem with this edit—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.170.54 (talk • contribs) 15:36, August 29, 2006.

You seem to have left a message for the wrong person. Your edit was reverted by User:Sagaciousuk, not by me. (I can't even imagine how you ended up here; I've never edited that article or interacted with you at all.)--Srleffler 23:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Illuminance

Thank you for illuminating that for me =) Binarypower 04:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Diffuse sky radiation

I tend to contribute basic physics without reference, because it is so far from what might be considered basic research in the research community that it is clearly not subject to that rule. For example automotive suspension, which is just classical mechanics. Of course i might be wrong but readers can easily fix the mistakes because I am only writing what follows simply from accepted laws. Sometimes it does turn out to be controversial when I don't expect it to, like about the the probabilities in quantum experiments.

What I wrote here still seems to follow from basic physics that I am confident in but can't remember where I learned it. David R. Ingham 07:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to your comment on my talk page about the point source link in Fraunhofer diffraction

Srleffler, the old "Point source" article was a disambiguation page. I created a new primary article Point source which is not a disambiguation page and discusses only the various types of point source pollution (air, water, noise, and light). At the same time, I moved the old "Point source" disambiguation page to a new page named Point source (disambiguation).

The Fraunhofer article originally linked to that old "Point source" disambiguation page, which is now named Point source (disambiguation). So when I changed the link on the Faunhofer article, it linked to exactly the same page as it always had done.

By your reversion of my change, the Fraunhofer article now links to the new Point source article rather than to the same page it had always pointed to. I don't think that is what you want, do you?

I did the same thing for all the non-pollution related articles that linked to the old "Point source" disambiguation page so that they all now link to the new Point source (disambiguation) which contains exactly the same content that they had always linked to.

I hope this explains why I corrected the link in the Fraunhofer article. I'm sorry that my change confused you. Regards, - mbeychok 07:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

More about the new Point source article

Yes, now that I have seen what you did by links to the Wiktionary, I understand your point of view. Thanks for explaining. Meanwhile, there is a discussion on the Point source discussion page about the pros and cons of the article being specifically focused on pollution sources, as differentiated from radiation, optic, wave, and other uses of the phrase "point source". I would very much appreciate it if you would enter into that discussion. Thanks in advance, - mbeychok 22:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to the Discussion page at Point source ... but I fear that it is going to end up resembling a PhD treatise on physics, no matter what you and I say. I created Point source so that the articles on air pollution dispersion modeling in Category:Air dispersion modeling would have an article to which they could link their many occurrences of the words "point source".

I am going to wait a week or so and, if Point source ends up as hopelessly complicated as I think it will, then I will create a new article that addresses the subject I intended for Point source. But this time I will make sure that the title does not include the words "point source". Once again, thanks for your help. - mbeychok 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You've still got Point source (pollution). That seems like a good title for your article. Why not work there?--Srleffler 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Photographic Cheat Sheet

Hi, I've replied to your deletion request on my talk page. I hope we can discuss this further as I'm keen on sharing information and not hiding it from other users. BTW. I like your articles... especially the Inverse Square Law, something that has significant effect in photography. --GordonMcKinney 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Life on Mars

Hi, I'm just leaving a note to explain that I didn't know that it would cause a hassle to rename "Life on Mars"; I just wanted to clarify the title for anyone using Wikipedia. I am not trying to vandalize this site and I didn't know about the MOVE function earlier. Thanks. Hotspur

Diopter stuff

I was unaware of (and disagree with) the SI standard for not separating units and their values. Furthermore, I resent your lazy reversion of the article, since, I had also corrected hyphens into correct minus signs, and other small edits. I am going to re-revert the article, and then put the (arguably) unnecessary nonbreaking spaces back in. Please do not revert that.

RadicalPi 06:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries, but I think the hyphens are correct, since in these cases, the unit and value are being used as adjectives. Have a good one.

RadicalPi 06:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

more image vandalism: Elisabeth of Bavaria

In this article, I see the Image:Elisabeth von Ungarn-Östenreich.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Empress Elisabeth. has been hacked in a similar way to the History of technology article's top image. Perhaps you may wish to publicize this new method of attack, and maybe suggest a systematic method of repair. --Ancheta Wis 09:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that one was deliberate vandalism. It looks like a mistake by an editor with an otherwise-good recent editing history. In fact, it looks like the image filename contains a typo, and the editor "fixed" the typo, without realizing that this would break the link to the image.--Srleffler 15:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Cardioid vs. Nephroid

I've answered on my talk page. -- pne (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Photobiomodulation

Damn - I just spent 2 hours preparing a neat response to your concern that this might be a psudoscience and accidentally quit the page and there seems to be no way to recover it

I'm new to Wiki and dont tknow the syntax

I have other things to get on with so I'll be brief

Photobiomodulation is phenomenon supported by hundreds of sustentative peer reviewed papers published in reputable scientific medical journals

you seem to like people at SPIE so start here http://spie.org/Conferences/Calls/07/pw/bios/index.cfm?fuseaction=BO111

and here http://spie.org/Conferences/Programs/06/pw/bios/index.cfm?fuseaction=6140

and USA Natioanl Institute of Health http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=pubmed&details_term=photobiomodulation[All Fields] OR ("low-level laser therapy"[Text Word] OR "laser therapy, low-level"[MeSH Terms] OR LLLT[Text Word])

My very old and out of date pages http://www.thorlaser.com/LLLT/index.htm

Upcoming conferences http://www.thorlaser.com/conferences/

is this the best way to communicate ? how do I know if you respond ?

Academia salad 11:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

skew rays

Thanks for fixing up my addition to "paraxial." Actually, if you look closely at the links and the literature you will see both sagittal and skew rays. The skew rays are "worse" - see [1], as the sagittal rays are confined to a plane. Yikes - I read a book on this whan I was about 14 (in 1949)(Principles of Optical Engineering, by Donald Jacobs (McGraw-Hill, 1943) and remember the Seidel aberrations, but it is nicer if people like you fix things up. I just fiddled there because it was so barren. Carrionluggage 22:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fiber Laser Article

I'm trying to get about 6 of my colleagues to collaborate on a very good article for fiber lasers. Would you like to be involved? -M Rekow

Not sure. I might jump in if you start working on it. I'm fairly busy these days. I see that the article Fiber laser exists, but needs a complete rewrite.--Srleffler 22:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tomahawk (geometric shape)

Hi! You marked the above article as "diagram needed", so I thought you might be interested to know I've added two. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Point source mutation

Thanks for spotting that this is the same as Point mutation = I don't know enough about genetics to have spotted it myself, but I was hoping that the categorising it would trigger someone who does! DuncanHill 09:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reitzaleah

Fair enough; I've reduced UserReitzaleah's block to 31 hours. Luna Santin 02:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Taking down my post

I do not understand why the links I added have been taken down. There were links to photonics.com in the past and they were OK. Photonics.com has been receiving 100-150 visits weekly from those links and we belived that adding them in other pertinent technology areas would provide users with access to more information.

Photonics.com is the most complete reference to all aspects of photonics technology anywhere on the Internet. It includes articles from the Photonics Handbook, the Photonics Dictionary, a Corporate Guide, daily industry news articles from Photonics Spectra, Biophotonics and Europhotonics magazines, trade show information and reviews and new product reviews.

Hundreds of thousands of industry individuals visit each month to obtain the latest news and information on the industry.

Laurin Publishing, parent of Photonics.com. has been serving the photonics/optics industry for more than 50 years. We serve and support the industry and do not engage in spam or any unethical practices. To insinuate so is unfair and uniformed.

To deny a link to this unique and valuable resource is, in my humble opinion, to pervert the very purpose Wikipedia avows.

Maybe you should edit the MoS

Be careful when stripping articles of inappropriate bolding and duplicate links. I have reversed some of your edits. In particular, bold has more uses than you think. As you know, the article title appears in bold the first time it occurs in the body of the article. What you don't seem to realize is that so does any other term that redirects to that article. So, for example, in mirage "inferior mirage", "desert mirage", etc. all appear in bold because those terms redirect to mirage. The 7 in refraction was bolded because it is standard practice in physics bibliography (and on Wikipedia's physics articles) to print the volume number of a journal in boldface. There are also some cases where a duplicate link is appropriate.

Do not remove nonbreaking space characters (& nbsp;) between values and units. These display as a space, but keep the number and its units from being separated by a line break. (eg. 8 km)--Srleffler 12:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Metrax"

I appreciate the help, but what you are saying disagrees with the Manual of Style. From what I understand, the MoS was agreed upon by many editors over a long period of time. I appreciate your concern about physics bibliographys, but is the encyclopedia subordinate to physics or is physics subordinate to the entire encyclopedia? Since one of the main goals of the encyclopedia is to be consistent in look and feel, it occurs to me that you should probably be addressing these concerns in the Manual of Style rather than in a discussion with me. If the Manual of Style agrees with you, then it means that all the other editors (more or less) agree with you. It would make things a lot easier for everyone involved not to have conflicting sets of rules to go by. On the flip-side of that, if every subordinate field of interest from physics to religion had a different manner of text formatting, then there wouldn't be any reason to have a Manual of Style at all. Metrax 16:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the convention of printing the journal volume number in bold is part of Wikipedia's "house style". It is implemented in the very widely used {{cite journal}} template, for example. The description at MOS:BOLD is not meant to be exhaustive. There are other narrow special case exceptions, covered in other style documents.

I added redirect names to the list at MOS:BOLD. I have no doubt that this change will "stick". This has been part of Wikipedia's house style for some time.

The thing to understand is that the MoS attempts to describe the "house style" that has arisen organically over time, by consensus of Wikipedia's editors. There are cases like this, where the description at MoS doesn't completely capture the full picture. --Srleffler 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an old song, maybe you remember it... "I tip my hat to you. I really do. I'd tip my hat to you, but I haven't got a hat." This situation reminds me of that. Thanks again for the help, and thanks for updating the MoS. Metrax 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response

Hi, Srleffler. I am Meno25. Thank you for your response on my question here.

--84.36.143.135 17:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback re: Lovemarks

Hi Srleffler,

Thanks for your feedback and being supportive. And thank you so much for all the fixes. Those nasty typos, etc. (smile) It will take me some time to make the entry better and I really appreciate yours (and other users') support here. It is a nice community indeed.

Cheers – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - Kevin Roberts 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Srleffler, I just re-read the Lovemark entry and realized the content fixes that you put in to make it clear that Lovemarks were invented to replace or go above brands. Thanks. I am seriously enjoying this collaborative process. – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - Kevin Roberts 17:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Taking down my entire submission

Hi Sreffler,

Thanks for your feedback about my submission pertaining to my company, FitzFIBER. I thoroughly read Wikipedia's rules and suggestions for posts pertaining to companies and the strict prohibition on advertising. I went out of my way to make sure that the submission contained no promotional or advertising language. In fact, if you read the entry for "Fitz's rootbeer," for example, upon which I modeled my entry, you will notice that my submission is less promotional and ad-based than this and many others. In fact, the Fitz's rootbeer submission highlights their beverage line, their dining experience, and their history, followed by only one external link - to their own website. I purposely included information that was less promotional than this to avoid being surreptitiously deleted - I briefly stated the history of the company, what it is known for, and specific information pertaining to multipin fiber optic sights for bowhunting, followed by an external link to FitzFIBER's website along with informational links to websites explaining how fiber optics work. I would ask that you apply the same standards to every post on Wikipedia, rather than targeting a page which, based on your submissions, is completely irrelevant to your area of expertise.

Fitzcollings 17:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Fitz

laser diode

No it was totally ment that way, only EN is not splitting up. there are 2 articles. a laser diode which is the small component used, and a Diode laser , which is the whole unit. Just follow the links, reg. Mion 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Like de:Laserdiode and de:Diodenlaser, well i think its not working anyway, bots will reconnect both. reg. Mion 22:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however most the wikipedia's have 1 or the other, or both articles, something is wrong here. and for me personal i prefer both articles, nice unit description and nice component description.

On second thought it shall be something like it starts with an article abouw the unit, and when the component section gets to big, its lifted out of the article, strange that didn't happen in the EN version. reg. Mion 23:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good point, however if we dont fix the link issue, the ones reading the component version will never be aware that there is a unit version page and vice versa, a second thing is that in language terms speaking (technical) you also talk about laser diode for the component, and idem diode laser for the unit. marketterms then. reg. Mion 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer the double linking, it would be best if EN would be the only wikipedia which has in the interwiki section al links twice ? Doesn't make sence to me ? Mion 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The best solution would be to split the article in the EN wiki also, so that the title also matches the article. It would solve all our problems this evening. Cheers. Mion 23:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you do me favor ? Google on both terms, Laser diode and Diode laser and you will see that its more based on marketingnaming. reg. Mion 00:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Final thing, as i am not native english and this might be a pure language point, wherein you are totally right, its up to you, Cheers. Mion 00:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Argon laser

Can i ask you a question ? i'm about to translate to Dutch the Argon laser, would that be best under that name or krypton laser or as suggested ion laser ? reg. Mion 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Argon-ion and Krypton-ion lasers are two distinct types of laser (although quite similar). In principle, each should have its own article. Since they are so similar, however, it makes some sense to deal with both together. The naming of Krypton laser is clearly wrong, since the article deals with both. If you are going to have a combined article, it should be under a name that reflects both types. I'm not sure if ion laser is the best name, though. I don't work with that type of laser, so I don't know if there is an appropriate generic name for this type of laser. --Srleffler 00:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see, Argon-ion laser and Krypton-ion laser to start with, thanks for the help, oh, and i requested namechange because of wikilinking problem with the YAG laser types, [[2]] Cheers Mion 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Tsjuder, etc.

I have done quick assertions of notability for Tsjuder, Penumbra and Deströyer 666 per WP:MUSIC. I removed the tags, so if you think it's not enough, add them again or take it to Afd, please. I was busy with work earlier, which is why I just removed the speedy tags to prevent the articles from disappearing, which is what happened to Grand Belial's Key earlier. However, many band articles on Wikipedia are created by newbies who are unaware of WP:MUSIC, but general consensus is that failing to meet WP:MUSIC does not make an article a candidate for speedy deletion. Article has to assert some "importance or significance". Note that If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead. Controversial assertions include record labels and related bands that might to you seem non-notable. I will be glad to improve articles to meet WP:MUSIC, but that can't be done if they're gone. Thanks, Prolog 22:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, your changes seem to address the issue. And I agree that failing to meet WP:MUSIC is not grounds for CSD, but the article does have to actually claim notability. In the context of many of these articles what was needed was actually any indication that at least two of the albums was released by a "known" label. I did not CSD articles where the discography showed which label the disks were on, or where there was some other indication of notability.

Sorry, if my csd spree seemed like an overreaction. Penumbra (band) tripped my fancruft radar, I think mainly because the text is not very encyclopedic in tone and it is full of redlinks to non-notable bands and musicians (as are many of these articles). Most musicians in a barely-notable indie band should probably not have their names linked.--Srleffler 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't know if you overreacted. I was just escaping work by clicking to CAT:CSD, and didn't expect to see especially Deströyer 666 there, which despite their horrible name - or maybe because of it - is pretty much mainstream in terms of heavy metal music. I agree about the red links. The reason I didn't remove them from the Penumbra article was simply my laziness. But I see you cleaned it up well now. Cheers, Prolog 01:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Optical fiber

I feel that even though fiber-optic communication is linked to in the text of Optical fiber, including a link to optical communications in the see-also section of optical fiber may be misleading. In general, I feel that Optical fiber is relevant to Fiber-optic communication, which in turn is related to optical communications, but the two aren't directly related. johnpseudo 01:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the lesson. I suppose I should be more familiar with the manual of style. johnpseudo 02:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Numerical aperture

GOOD AFTERNOON SIR, PLEASE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT NUMERICAL APERTURE.I WOULD BE VERY GREATFUL FOR YOUR HELP.THANKS—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KEHINDE1 (talk • contribs) 08:40, November 1, 2006.

What do you want to know? (By the way PLEASE STOP SHOUTING. Typing in all capital letters is impolite. It is considered equivalent to shouting at people. Very rude.)--Srleffler 15:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Template

The template header is only a portion of the information needed by someone who wants to use the template. For users who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's coding system, field information can be a formitable feat for them. Keep content such as: {| | align="center" style="font-size: 90%;"| 1901: [[Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen|Röntgen]] </div> </div><noinclude> Is needed for users to see how to fill in the template. Its easier for them to replace information and remove what they don't want, than to have them guess how to imput information from scracth, thus the point of templates. You also deleted the noinclude tag needed for the category. Mkdw^talk 07:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it then. The template requires the information inside and at the end for users to use it best. Mkdw^talk 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I deal with templates on a continous basis. The template is still a template, whether the content inside of it is being used or not. Since no one has written a self filling template with already blanked and easy-to-fill defaults, you keep the current content so that people wishing to use the template will know the format in which they need to fill. It has nothing to do with the textual content of the template. I don't think you understand all the coding information one receives by using the current information in the template. alignment, style, font size, &nbsp, /div are all fields that without the content as an example, new users would have no idea how to fill. Please trust me as someone who writes a lot of templates to leave the information. Mkdw^talk 07:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also the article Anthony James Leggett has a link on the bottom that directly links to the template you blanked. What would be the point on having a template header link to a blanked template? If the template you blanked already has all the needed information, you would require Wikipedians to reinput that information. Mkdw^talk 07:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole point was to replace those stubs of wikicode with template calls. I have done this, but created a new template so that the long version is preserved for cases where it is wanted. It was actually used on very few articles. The new template links readers directly to Nobel Prize in Physics and List of Nobel laureates. This is a better solution. If all we want at the end of the articles is a little box with a link to a list of laureates, it makes way more sense to link to the main list rather than having a separate list that needs to be maintained.--Srleffler 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

highly

Regarding your edit to Fabry-Pérot interferometer, isn't "highly-reflecting" correct grammar?--Srleffler 03:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Adverbs ending in -ly are never hyphenated. Check any usage guide of hyphen. SDC 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not quite correct. I've also pointed out several cases where removing a hyphen is the wrong thing to do, and asked SDC to try to clean up the mess, at user talk:SDC#Machines shouldn't dictate writing style. —Michael Z. 2006-11-14 18:08 Z

In Reply

Q: "Are you trying to make a point, or do you just enjoy going around sticking "unsourced" tags on random articles?"

A: No, I am not trying to make any points--and no--I do not "enjoy going around sticking unsourced tags on random articles." Firstly, it is very tiring, annoying, and time-consuming for me to have to placed them due to other people's inability to write good articles. Secondly, why do you ask? I would appreciate you not asking me seemingly unimportant questions when I am doing a job; and if you do ask, I would hope you ask it in a more polite manner WP:Civil. Thank you.FactsOnly 07:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page as a closing. Since I think we are done, you may delete this section, if you wish, as to not clutter up your talk page. FactsOnly 07:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerns

I may be mistaken but I think the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_National_Front is in fact {{unsourced}}. The same goes with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Township%2C_Hardin_County%2C_Ohio. I you do not have an issue, then I will rv these two. As for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Anansi_Press, your are correct it is notable; I should have been more careful, though I am going to put back the {{Unsourced}}, unless you disagree. FactsOnly 08:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"How many sources do you think a one-sentence article needs? It is nonsensical to criticize such a short article as being "unsourced", especially when the sentence is as banal as "Washington Township is one of the 15 townships that make up Hardin County, Ohio."

Well, I think it should have at least one. You know just a link to the "Washington Township" site or something like that. Is that acceptable to you? FactsOnly 13:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/files/S0/Hardin.pdf as a sourcePatrick Berry 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi! Who are you? You messed around with my talk pages and disorganized dead talks. It's not a big deal but hopefully in the future you will help build Wikipedia instead of wasting your time with wastage that is of zero value. You can savage crap from your local garbage collector if you want to find gold or buried treasure. Aside from my "Humble Quotations" section, you will not find any other things that are worthwhile at my talk page. Have we met? Oh, I am on WIKIBREAK so do not contact me as I will not be able to reply. Goodbye! —SolelyFacts

It's considered polite on Wikipedia not to delete conversations from your talk page. Deleting conversations very rapidly, as you have done, is considered particularly rude. Additionally, it makes other editors suspicious of you—you look like you are trying to hide something, and indeed you do seem to be trying to hide criticism of your editing style by other editors.

Also, I was a bit concerned about deceptive editing: You set up a nice system of archives, and even told Milo that the comments you deleted had been moved to an archive[3], but in fact the archives are empty. Whether you deleted the comments directly, or moved them to an archive and then deleted them there, your reply to Milo was dishonest.

One might also wonder whether your pattern of making many, many, small changes to the page while reshuffling the comments before deleting them is an attempt to obscure your page history and make it difficult for editors to determine what has gone before. An archive is a useful tool for cutting through obscurity.--Srleffler 05:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Added Note: It was not very rapidly, now it will be.

Be suspicious, it's your choice to be so it is your fault.

Last thing to add: I consider it polite and nothing wrong with it. Goodbye person I never met before.

Not "deceptive editing" you [blank]!!! (I told someone I would not make any personal attacks...)

I did moved it to an archive, but at that time, I didn't know how to set it up correctly, so when I was fixing it, it messed up and I didn't realize. (This was before I said that.) So shame on you for interpreting wrong and then accusing me. This is the last thing I will explain to you. Read original post below for how to get more words from me. —SolelyFacts

One more thing: If you become (just being direct, no hard feelings) a nuisance, a pain, a pest, a pickle in my work, a stressor, and a bother, your going to be ignored and treated like that one thing.

I have no issues with you since I nevered talked to you. So please, think twice.

Oh yea, READ the Top of the Talk Page.

Your intepretation is extremely incorrect. I always make small changes. Everything you said is wrong, as you are not me and do not know anything that is accurate. It's going to take me a really really long time to explain everything to you, and since I do not know who you are, I feel no need. How can one cut up the last week think he or she knows everything. That's just funny. And again, I'm going to continuing making small changes on my talk page. If you want more information, come back in a week or more, when I have remove my WIKIBREAK sign. That is how you will get the best response, otherwise you will find that my replies (be them deleting or whatever) will likely not be one you are looking for. Be smart! Don't be that one stupid person. Goodbye. —SolelyFacts

About Please stop

Hi, Srleffler, Concerning the message you left me here, I answered the part concerning User:Mets501 on his talk page, you can see it there. About your part, yes I would like to be an administrator in Wikipedia. I started contributing inWikipedia on April 14, 2006. I plan to be an administrator by July 2007. That's after 8 months not now. On my first day in Wikipedia, I didn't know even how to make a link. Now, I learned many things, but I don't know still how to expand a template or design a portal. So, I have still some things to learn before being an administrator. I currently have 2200 edits in Wikipedia but the important ones (I mean those of the main name space) are only 880 edits which is very few. However in the coming months, I hope to make really important contributions in Wikipedia that qualifies me to be an administrator.

• You are a physicist. Oh, I wish more than anything else in the world to be a physicist. Wish me good luck.

--Meno25 06:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute reply. Funny-- a very stark contrast to my very serious response. Good luck you and your admin quest! —SolelyFacts

RfC for Rrfayette

Hi. I have filed an RfC about the conduct of Rrfayette (talk · contribs). Since I mentioned you as one of the editors who have tried unsuccessfully to talk some sense into him, I thought you'd appreciate the info and perhaps would be able to give your two cents on the subject at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rrfayette]. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 06:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Best Friend

Hi, Srleffler.

• Being a physicist makes you my new best friend as the Captain of the research ship in the Titanic film said. I can't believe that I know a real physicist.

Cheers!

--Meno25 14:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

copyright template

that was from my edit this morning trying to add a new parameter - I reverted and will fix later. --Trödel 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Peelbot

Hello. I've left a response to your comment on User talk:Peelbot, and would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Intensity (physics)

Thanks for the helpful message. I was wnodering: is there a reason "Amplitude" links to a Wikipedia article but not "Strength" or "Pressure"? Thanks. TWCarlson 04:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)