Misplaced Pages

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy, took precedence over the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

New MOS:CAPS discussion

The topic of an inconclusive discussion that you participated in (Misplaced Pages 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/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)

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/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/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/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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." 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)

You're welcome, and thanks for all your efforts at keeping WP professional. I learned that same lesson the hard way. Pausing is better; let B2C or Apteva be the loud troublemaker, rather than letting yourself be dragged in by their trolling and stupidities, and things become more clear... Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

AE

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dicklyon Apteva (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

M or m

Hi,

Your opinion about technical moves of monasteries to Monasteries would be appreciated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Those would need to be considered individually. Some may be proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

à la writers in some European languages

Good morning Mr Dick Lyon,
Apologies for my anglicising revision to Dash made yesterday. Careless of me to have not noticed that it was within a quotation. Thank you for reverting me.
Sincerely,
— Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh Buzzard|—08:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The difference

The difference between what I ask of you and what I did on WT:D is that you make specific/personal remarks about specific people on article/WP pages, and I'm asking you not to do that. My comments were general and impersonal, and made no mention of anyone in particular. Note that my ignore the signature rule applies - my comment stands without regard to who made the comment to which I was replying. If you observed and adhered to that same line, I would not have an issue with your commentary. --B2C 23:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So if I refer to the small group of one usual suspect who pushes for minimalist titles, that would be OK, because I could avoid your name? Seems silly to me. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the context. If your comment would not make sense in reply to my same words but made by someone else, then it would not be okay. And I'm of course not the only one. Consensus is with me on this, title after title, with few exceptions, usually when special circumstances apply. --B2C 00:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Luminosity.png

Hi Dick, I am presently trying to grasp the basics of photometrics, and have come across your Luminosity.png. Please could I ask you to complete the graph by labelling the quantities and units of the axes ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you click the image you can find its description, which includes links to the data sources for the plots. The abscissa is wavelength in nm, and the ordinate is relative sensitivity (that is, relative to the most sensitive wavelength, which is plotted at 1.0). The different curves are scotopic sensitivity (rod-cell sensitivity) in green and three different estimates of photopic sensitivity (which should be some linear combination of cone-cell sensitivities) in black. The curves of relative sensitivity can be compared for shape, but not for height, since each is self-normalized; rods are much more sensitive than cones. Probably the caption at the article where you found it has more info. The info page links 4 en articles that use it, so maybe they don't all have great captions, so try the others. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Between films of the same name

Dicklyon, can you start a discussion at WT:NCF clarifying your reason for reverting the expansion of the "Between films of the same name" section? I think I know what you might mean but would like some articulation and maybe a couple of examples. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Betty said "if anyone is not happy with the rewrite feel free to revert", and I gave my reason in the edit summary. Next step, per WP:BRD, is if someone disagrees with the revert they can start a discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I started a discussion here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 19:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

AE request result

Per this discussion at WP:AE, you are reminded of the importance of maintaining civility and of avoiding gratuitous comments on contributor in discussions related to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy, and that failure to do so may result in the imposition of standard discretionary sanctions. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)