User talk:Deglr6328/Archive1

What happened to this simple lightning article edit?

 * from the pump

I edited the page on Lightning to remove a line about unsubstantiated speculation on the shuttle columbia crash being caused by lightning (a single sentance removal) and it made all these [] other changes I didn't make!!? Did I do something wrong? Is this a bug?? Deglr6328 03:23, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Look at this comparison: -- it's the difference between  07:40, 27 May 2004 80.43.180.179 (positive and upper atmosphere lightning expanded) and your initial change.  Somehow you ended up editing a version from 12 revisions ago (this one). --Yath 06:09, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- ke4roh 12:47, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Captions
I just noticed a new (to me) user adding a picture to the Chandra X-ray Observatory and wondered how hideous the caption might be when I looked. What a pleasant surprise - thanks for the good caption! Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Writing Captions? It'd be great to have you along to help caption pictures. -- ke4roh 12:47, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to the 'fate, 'fide, 'fur debate
Hi - and welcome to the phray, or is it a phight? I see you have met Mr. Connolley, he is a bit stubborn :) He also doesn't think that atmospheric chemistry is important in his phavorite phield, global warming. Had quite a discussion on his talk page recently. Good luck there. Also thanks for the mineral edit, I was going to do it when making some other changes I have planned. There has been quite a bit of ph nonsense there, too. Thanks - Vsmith 16:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I submitted the article talk page, where I copied the conversation from his userpage, to requests for comment. I really hate that he's brought it to this point, so trivial. I mean it's ONE "sulphur" in the whole article, he's making such a mountain out of a molehill. Sigh... I guess after the empire went, all those silly Brits have left now is their "sulphur". (just kidding Will!!) :o) --Deglr6328 22:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The IUPAC has no jurisdiction over the English language. Both spellings are acceptable. Please respect the choice of spellings of original contributors. This is the wiki-way. Mintguy (T) 08:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You might want to note that a Google search for "sulphur site:.gov" (which is restricting itself to sites belonging to the United States Government) gives 40,000 hits. Both spellings are perfectly acceptable. Mintguy (T) 08:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The IUPAC does have "jurisdiction" over scientific nomenclature and shoud be respected as a form of standardization in articles of a scientific nature. Also, what part of "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings (it can be jarring to the reader). In particular, for individual words and word-endings. For example, don't use center (American) in one place and fibre (British) in another." is unclear to you? --Deglr6328 14:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The more important part is whether Latin pronounces ph as a p or an f. It's best to use truth in fonetics [and punctuation!], next best to preserve etymological spellings such that some Commonwealth variants, closer to Latin and Greek but not befouled (corrupted) by French, are kept.  Though these compete with the best to keep dialectal variants in so as to learn the backgrounds of whomever contributed.  (I speak out the p in pseudo-, BTW.) lysdexia 23:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Laser guide star
Hi,

I hope you know something about this topic (you only inserted a picture but there's only a not-very-active anonymous user who contributed significantly to the text) - my question is already on the discussion page of the article: Why does the laser ray not get distorted on its way to the upper atmosphere? Thanks in advance for any answers. 193.171.121.30 20:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It does! IANAAstrophysicist but I'm certain the beam is affected by atmospheric effects on the way up just as the light on the way back down is. Thing is, who cares! All that's being done with the laser is to form a small area of fluorescing sodium atoms (ionized? dunno..) in the upper atmosphere. The area at high altitude emitting light then, is probably no bigger than a beach-ball or so in diameter (it's likely many meters in length though, I'm not intimately familliar with the thickness of the "sodium layer" in the mesosphere) since the divergence of a good quality laser beam is not sufficient to expand it appreciably over a small distance of ~50 miles. So you've got this relatively small glowing area of gas which is above much of the atmosphere, the light it emits then travels back down to the telescope and is "imprinted" with the aberrations intrinsic to the column of atmosphere it went through at that instant. It dosen't matter if the phase or shape or whatever of the laser going UP is distorted because the process of fluorescence destroys that information, and even if it weren't I doubt (I don't really want to do the calculations right now) that the telescope could achieve the resolution to resolve the glowing sodium as anything more than a spot even if it were diffraction limited. Again IANAP, but I'm confident of the accuracy of what I've said here. --Deglr6328 21:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still don't understand it completely - let's say you've got a seeing disc with a diameter of x = 0.5 arcseconds, then, if the divergence of the laser beam is low enough, in height h you should get a spot with the size h*x, which is about 0.2 meters in 90 km height. Now the real spot size is smaller (diffraction limited by laser optics) but it moves around in the 0.2 m region due to atmospheric convection.

Now I'm a bit confused. The timescale of fluorescence (the time the excited atoms need to fall back to ground state) could be much larger than the timescale of atmospheric fluctuations, so the laser excites the whole seeing disc up there (I know it's not really a disc but more like a cylinder) and the telescope mirror is adjusted to see this well-defined disc undisturbed. But according to this webpage, the lifetime is about 10-8 seconds, while the twinkling of the stars can be seen with the naked eye. So this is not the case. Now the timescale of the fluctuations seems to be longer than the time the light needs to go up there, get re-emitted and come back down (0.6 milliseconds). So the light should come back to the laser along the same path - interesting, but I just realize this is not relevant for the telescope, which is not at exactly the same position as the laser, and the spatial variability scale is about the size of a human pupil or a bit larger. Now the spot stays small but moves around there in the 0.2 m seeing disc up there? So we can adjust the mirror in a way that a dot appears but this dot moves around a bit? 193.171.121.30 01:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bhangmeter
Hi, I have been adding to your article on Bhangmeter but I am not sure that its etymology is obvious.

If I had to guess why it was called a Bhangmeter, then I would have said that it was a reference to the apparent pause early on in the nuclear explosion from the perspective of the sensor as the first peak dies and before the second, much larger one arises. e.g. as in B-ang. But who knows? But cannabis had such a poor press from the late 1930s right through to the end of the 1960s that I would not have expected a scientist working in the cold war military-industrial complex in the late 1950s or early 1960s to draw attention to his use of it. --Jll 23:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for your input. First, I noticed you put the tag "dubious" next to the 'never known to fail' claim. I got that information from here (I included the word "the" in the search because google's highlight color for the second word in a search makes it almost invisible against the background of that site). As for the bhang controversy; immediately upon seeing the word and learning of its definition I couldn't help but think (and especially so, just having finished reading Leslie Iverson's fascinating "The Science of Marijuana") that this must be a pun (a not uncommon practise among scientists: see ). So I searched for it....and found this . I must admit I find the "B-ang" hypothesis to be a bit of a stretch. The possibility of "bang" being spelled "bhang" for some other reason and merely by chance having the same spelling as a psychedelic drug very popular at the time must be extraordinarily low. Further, these were highly educated people, the scientist wouldn't be drawing attention to his use of it, in fact by naming it this, a bit derisively, he would be in fact mocking the use of marijuana. No?--Deglr6328 03:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi. I had intended the "dubious" tag against the marijuana claim rather than the "never known to fail" one. My suggestion of an alternative derivation was really only to highlight that (IMHO) without some corroboration then speculation can never be certain, only suggest something that is possible or likely.  However, with the reference to the National Atomic Museum your explanation now seems perfectly fine to me. --Jll 11:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IPL/Laser Epilation
Just wanted to drop a note that I read your comments about my IPL notes, and I appreciate your kind words. We apparently share the same skepticism and distaste for pseudoscience and the obfuscation of real science that it causes.

Keep up the great contributions.


 * Thanks! Though I'm not sure what comments I made that you are referring to...  :o)--Deglr6328 19:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Scepticism is okay as long as one doesn't pose pseudoscepticism, or cynicism, as it. I've a history of destroying the latter kind. lysdexia 23:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey that's super, though no one here really cares what you think. --Deglr6328 03:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LLE
Are you sure it was a good idea to move LLE to LLE (disambiguation) and make LLE into a redirect? I think it worked better at LLE, as there now is an unrelated redirect at the top of Laboratory for Laser Energetics. Thue | talk 20:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I dunno. I just figured it was the predominant use of the acronym "LLE" so why bother with a disambig page to start at....wouldn't bother me any if you want to change it back, just be sure to get the redirects sorted....--Deglr6328 21:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

South Park Republicans
Let's keep an eye on this page and not let that Jucifer guy run rampant with it. googuse 08:43, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Eh, I'm not too eager to get into an edit war over such a trivial article. I mostly edit science pages. There seem to be a lot of eyes on it now and there are PLENTY of other articles far far worse than that one. --Deglr6328 04:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Werner Heisenberg.jpg
Image:Werner Heisenberg.jpg. Hello, this image has been uploaded on the Frech wikipedia and I would be grateful if you cold provide me with more information as to its tag as it's being questionned there. Thanx a bunch notafish }<';> 13:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What happened to this simple lightning article edit?

 * from the pump

I edited the page on Lightning to remove a line about unsubstantiated speculation on the shuttle columbia crash being caused by lightning (a single sentance removal) and it made all these [] other changes I didn't make!!? Did I do something wrong? Is this a bug?? Deglr6328 03:23, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Look at this comparison: -- it's the difference between  07:40, 27 May 2004 80.43.180.179 (positive and upper atmosphere lightning expanded) and your initial change.  Somehow you ended up editing a version from 12 revisions ago (this one). --Yath 06:09, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- ke4roh 12:47, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Captions
I just noticed a new (to me) user adding a picture to the Chandra X-ray Observatory and wondered how hideous the caption might be when I looked. What a pleasant surprise - thanks for the good caption! Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Writing Captions? It'd be great to have you along to help caption pictures. -- ke4roh 12:47, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to the 'fate, 'fide, 'fur debate
Hi - and welcome to the phray, or is it a phight? I see you have met Mr. Connolley, he is a bit stubborn :) He also doesn't think that atmospheric chemistry is important in his phavorite phield, global warming. Had quite a discussion on his talk page recently. Good luck there. Also thanks for the mineral edit, I was going to do it when making some other changes I have planned. There has been quite a bit of ph nonsense there, too. Thanks - Vsmith 16:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I submitted the article talk page, where I copied the conversation from his userpage, to requests for comment. I really hate that he's brought it to this point, so trivial. I mean it's ONE "sulphur" in the whole article, he's making such a mountain out of a molehill. Sigh... I guess after the empire went, all those silly Brits have left now is their "sulphur". (just kidding Will!!) :o) --Deglr6328 22:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The IUPAC has no jurisdiction over the English language. Both spellings are acceptable. Please respect the choice of spellings of original contributors. This is the wiki-way. Mintguy (T) 08:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You might want to note that a Google search for "sulphur site:.gov" (which is restricting itself to sites belonging to the United States Government) gives 40,000 hits. Both spellings are perfectly acceptable. Mintguy (T) 08:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The IUPAC does have "jurisdiction" over scientific nomenclature and shoud be respected as a form of standardization in articles of a scientific nature. Also, what part of "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings (it can be jarring to the reader). In particular, for individual words and word-endings. For example, don't use center (American) in one place and fibre (British) in another." is unclear to you? --Deglr6328 14:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The more important part is whether Latin pronounces ph as a p or an f. It's best to use truth in fonetics [and punctuation!], next best to preserve etymological spellings such that some Commonwealth variants, closer to Latin and Greek but not befouled (corrupted) by French, are kept.  Though these compete with the best to keep dialectal variants in so as to learn the backgrounds of whomever contributed.  (I speak out the p in pseudo-, BTW.) lysdexia 23:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Laser guide star
Hi,

I hope you know something about this topic (you only inserted a picture but there's only a not-very-active anonymous user who contributed significantly to the text) - my question is already on the discussion page of the article: Why does the laser ray not get distorted on its way to the upper atmosphere? Thanks in advance for any answers. 193.171.121.30 20:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It does! IANAAstrophysicist but I'm certain the beam is affected by atmospheric effects on the way up just as the light on the way back down is. Thing is, who cares! All that's being done with the laser is to form a small area of fluorescing sodium atoms (ionized? dunno..) in the upper atmosphere. The area at high altitude emitting light then, is probably no bigger than a beach-ball or so in diameter (it's likely many meters in length though, I'm not intimately familliar with the thickness of the "sodium layer" in the mesosphere) since the divergence of a good quality laser beam is not sufficient to expand it appreciably over a small distance of ~50 miles. So you've got this relatively small glowing area of gas which is above much of the atmosphere, the light it emits then travels back down to the telescope and is "imprinted" with the aberrations intrinsic to the column of atmosphere it went through at that instant. It dosen't matter if the phase or shape or whatever of the laser going UP is distorted because the process of fluorescence destroys that information, and even if it weren't I doubt (I don't really want to do the calculations right now) that the telescope could achieve the resolution to resolve the glowing sodium as anything more than a spot even if it were diffraction limited. Again IANAP, but I'm confident of the accuracy of what I've said here. --Deglr6328 21:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still don't understand it completely - let's say you've got a seeing disc with a diameter of x = 0.5 arcseconds, then, if the divergence of the laser beam is low enough, in height h you should get a spot with the size h*x, which is about 0.2 meters in 90 km height. Now the real spot size is smaller (diffraction limited by laser optics) but it moves around in the 0.2 m region due to atmospheric convection.

Now I'm a bit confused. The timescale of fluorescence (the time the excited atoms need to fall back to ground state) could be much larger than the timescale of atmospheric fluctuations, so the laser excites the whole seeing disc up there (I know it's not really a disc but more like a cylinder) and the telescope mirror is adjusted to see this well-defined disc undisturbed. But according to this webpage, the lifetime is about 10-8 seconds, while the twinkling of the stars can be seen with the naked eye. So this is not the case. Now the timescale of the fluctuations seems to be longer than the time the light needs to go up there, get re-emitted and come back down (0.6 milliseconds). So the light should come back to the laser along the same path - interesting, but I just realize this is not relevant for the telescope, which is not at exactly the same position as the laser, and the spatial variability scale is about the size of a human pupil or a bit larger. Now the spot stays small but moves around there in the 0.2 m seeing disc up there? So we can adjust the mirror in a way that a dot appears but this dot moves around a bit? 193.171.121.30 01:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bhangmeter
Hi, I have been adding to your article on Bhangmeter but I am not sure that its etymology is obvious.

If I had to guess why it was called a Bhangmeter, then I would have said that it was a reference to the apparent pause early on in the nuclear explosion from the perspective of the sensor as the first peak dies and before the second, much larger one arises. e.g. as in B-ang. But who knows? But cannabis had such a poor press from the late 1930s right through to the end of the 1960s that I would not have expected a scientist working in the cold war military-industrial complex in the late 1950s or early 1960s to draw attention to his use of it. --Jll 23:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for your input. First, I noticed you put the tag "dubious" next to the 'never known to fail' claim. I got that information from here (I included the word "the" in the search because google's highlight color for the second word in a search makes it almost invisible against the background of that site). As for the bhang controversy; immediately upon seeing the word and learning of its definition I couldn't help but think (and especially so, just having finished reading Leslie Iverson's fascinating "The Science of Marijuana") that this must be a pun (a not uncommon practise among scientists: see ). So I searched for it....and found this . I must admit I find the "B-ang" hypothesis to be a bit of a stretch. The possibility of "bang" being spelled "bhang" for some other reason and merely by chance having the same spelling as a psychedelic drug very popular at the time must be extraordinarily low. Further, these were highly educated people, the scientist wouldn't be drawing attention to his use of it, in fact by naming it this, a bit derisively, he would be in fact mocking the use of marijuana. No?--Deglr6328 03:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi. I had intended the "dubious" tag against the marijuana claim rather than the "never known to fail" one. My suggestion of an alternative derivation was really only to highlight that (IMHO) without some corroboration then speculation can never be certain, only suggest something that is possible or likely.  However, with the reference to the National Atomic Museum your explanation now seems perfectly fine to me. --Jll 11:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IPL/Laser Epilation
Just wanted to drop a note that I read your comments about my IPL notes, and I appreciate your kind words. We apparently share the same skepticism and distaste for pseudoscience and the obfuscation of real science that it causes.

Keep up the great contributions.


 * Thanks! Though I'm not sure what comments I made that you are referring to...  :o)--Deglr6328 19:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Scepticism is okay as long as one doesn't pose pseudoscepticism, or cynicism, as it. I've a history of destroying the latter kind. lysdexia 23:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey that's super, though no one here really cares what you think. --Deglr6328 03:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LLE
Are you sure it was a good idea to move LLE to LLE (disambiguation) and make LLE into a redirect? I think it worked better at LLE, as there now is an unrelated redirect at the top of Laboratory for Laser Energetics. Thue | talk 20:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I dunno. I just figured it was the predominant use of the acronym "LLE" so why bother with a disambig page to start at....wouldn't bother me any if you want to change it back, just be sure to get the redirects sorted....--Deglr6328 21:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

South Park Republicans
Let's keep an eye on this page and not let that Jucifer guy run rampant with it. googuse 08:43, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Eh, I'm not too eager to get into an edit war over such a trivial article. I mostly edit science pages. There seem to be a lot of eyes on it now and there are PLENTY of other articles far far worse than that one. --Deglr6328 04:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[[:Image:Werner Heisenberg.jpg]
Image:Werner Heisenberg.jpg. Hello, this image has been uploaded on the Frech wikipedia and I would be grateful if you cold provide me with more information as to its tag as it's being questionned there. Thanx a bunch notafish }<';> 13:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I can't provide anymore information on who took it or when exactly it was taken. Really, I don't even remember where I got it! Werner is clearly in his 20's in the picture (certainly no more than 30) and that makes the image over 70-some years old, if any copyrights ever existed on it (doubtful) they are all expired now.--Deglr6328 00:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That doesn't follow at all. Lots of things are more than 70 years old and remain covered by current copyrights. -- Reuben 09:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I couldn't  even begin to count  the  thousands  of  places this image is  used  completely  without mention  of source. In fact, I can't ever recall seeng a note of who actually took it. All I've ever seen is "Heisenberg in Gottingen c1927". I mean, he died almost 30 years ago people!--Deglr6328 22:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that a lot of people use this image on their web pages doesn't mean anything. Heisenberg's date of death is equally irrelevant.  You can't call it public domain unless you have a good reason to do so. By marking something as public domain, you are telling others that they may freely use that image without restriction.    Please understand that it's important not to make this claim if you don't know it's true.  -- Reuben 04:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This proving public domain thing is striking me as being more and more like proving there are no dragons in one's garage! If no one knows where an image came from, and it has been floating around for the past 70-odd years with everyone using it then what CAN be proved to be in the public domain? How is it even possible? How do we know this picture of James Clerk Maxwell isn't under some sort of copyright? Who knows who took that? I guess it's irrelevant that he's been dead for over a century! Irritating!--Deglr6328 05:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's irritating, and has the effect of creating whole classes of works in statutory limbo - if it's impossible where something came from, then you can't know if it's public domain and you can't contact the copyright holder for permission. Complain to your representatives in Congress.  In the meantime, you have to be careful, and you must assume everything is copyrighted, with all rights reserved, until and unless you find out otherwise. -- Reuben 05:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RTGs
Hi. I see you reverted my contribution to the Radioisotope thermoelectric generator article. Please see the talk page. Andrewa 10:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. I hope I didn't sound nasty rv-ing that. I had to leave and didn't have time to leave a comment. I think Pu238 is fissile. Like you said, see talk page. :)--Deglr6328 23:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CDMS image copyright
You have added the image Image:CDMS_parameter_space_2004.jpg with the claim that it's public domain. However, this image is taken directly from a talk by Richard Schnee on the CDMS home page. The image still has his name at the bottom, from the presentation slide! It does not appear likely to be public domain. Please explain or correct this. -- Reuben 09:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if that automatically makes it copyrighted, does it? There are no copyright restrictions anywhere on the CDMS site, so far as I can see. Also, I've seen this very image used in several other presentations and news stories on CDMS2. The plot was made with this generator. I'll change it to fairuse and give a link showing where it came from though. --Deglr6328 21:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Practically everything is automatically copyrighted in Berne convention countries (such as the U.S.). You can't just assume anything is in the public domain, ever.  Fair use is probably OK in this case, but you should note this and credit the source.  You might want to read Copyright and Image_copyright_tags for information on how to tell if something is public domain.. -- Reuben 04:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust Picture
Thanks, I thought it was very interesting too. I got it from the United State Holocaust Memorial Museum. In one of the articles it described it has a picture of a couple who were sent to concentration camps never to be seen again. It's a good illustration of the human toll suffered by many groups during the time period. -- Apollomelos 15:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Aha! found it! . I'm just going to add some info to the image about where it's from.--Deglr6328 05:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why so anonymous?
Hi Deglr6328 ! A really catchy Nom de Wiki - You're very shy on the bio stuff: so what you do? --Brookie 16:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * :o) Hello, I am an optics technician on the Omega laser (current worlds biggest/highest energy laser) at the Lab for Laser Energetics LLE. I'll add pictures...someday.--Deglr6328 01:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Great Brookie 09:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"List of vandals"
Please note that disagreeable content doesn't make an edit vandalism, or is contributor a vandal. Such disagreements should be handled by discussion, not by threats to revert on sight. Gazpacho 03:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * He has added factually incorrect material to several articles and constantly reverts users who correct him and who remove his inappropriate religious material from otherwise good writeups. If he can't even be bothered to take the time to get a username why should those of us with serious intentions on wikipedia waste our time with him. If he does it again I'm listing him.--Deglr6328 04:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll add what I please, when I please, and no bigot who doesn't even understand the subject is going to stop me. The links I added were perfectly scientific, and the one I removed simply said "a recent study" with no documenation. 220.244.224.8 05:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No actually they were what we call pseudoscientific. And you are very close to being listed as a vandal. good day.--Deglr6328 05:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

requests for comment/138.130.194.229
please see requests for comment/138.130.194.229

Scintillometer
I just fixed "scintillometer" and you added that the usage for radiation detector is now rare. I was planning to say that, but when I looked on the Web, I found a lot of them for sale or in use. e.g.

       Maybe you will fix it back?

Thanks

Peter


 * Hi. I don't know, I really do think its use is quite rare these days in comparison to the proper unambiguous use of "scintillation counter", see here . The former has less than ~2% of the usage of the latter. I've tweaked it a bit and I think its ok now. (as a sidenote, please sign your posts with the signature/timestamp tool) --Deglr6328 20:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Teller-Ulam device
I purposefully simplified the diagram in many respects as generally encyclopedia diagrams are supposed to convey basic concepts, rather than pretend to convey "secret" information. So I only included things that I thought were either necessary for the explanation of the concept (as Morland describes it, which is not without disputation among people who spend their spare time speculating about such things), or which would illustrate concepts previously mentioned (levitation and boosting). I'm also suspicious towards anybody who claims they really know what these things are like, as most of the details about even the more primitive nuclear weapons are still officially classified. So the answer is: probably, maybe, I don't know, is it vital? I figure that if people want more speculative knowledge and nitty-gritty details, they can look it up elsewhere, and that Wikipedia should just be giving people really basic information about such things (which even then is pretty speculative, in the case of H-bombs). My goal was that people would just understand that the Teller-Ulam device is a complicated way to squeeze fusion fuel, just as the Fat Man device was a complicated way to squeeze plutonium, and to make it clear via the visual tropes that this wasn't supposed to be anything close to a blueprint. --Fastfission 23:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, alright then.--Deglr6328 16:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

email
email me please. Dunc|&#9786; 15:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope, that didn't work. Try emailing my username at hotmail.com with an _ between the c and the h.  Dunc|&#9786; 18:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Featured pix - Honolulu
By "focus" do you mean the photographic focus is blurry or that the subject matter is not specific enough?


 * The composition is fine really, it's just too blurry.--Deglr6328 02:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feature pic candidate: Fushimi Inari shrine
The photographer Neep (Paul Vlaar) left a positive message on the discussion for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kyoto Fushimi Inari shrine. He has a higher density pic available. Since I am not familiar at all with this technology, perhaps you can explain what he could do with it to change your reluctant oppose into a vote for support? Many thanks! &mdash;Sandover 11:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Melanin
Hey. Returning the visit. I'm not sure which edit you're speaking of, but I'll watch the melanin talk page for any questions or comments. Before I wrote the business about melanin and potential technological applications, I did some research on the web. Lots of interesting stuff. (I don't know if that's what you're referring to?) Anyway, I'll check back later. Peace. deeceevoice 02:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes this is the section I'm referring to. Like I say on your talk, my concerns are all on the "black supremacy" talk page. --Deglr6328 02:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:FPC
Hi, the Treasury of Athens photograph has been re-done; can I ask if you would consider changing your vote? Cheers, Smoddy (tgec) 13:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

parkinson's disease
hello, I saw your edit on black supremacy and noticed that you have re-added the quote by Steve Jones about the relationship bewteen melanin and parkinson's disease. I believe that deeceevoice (I can't stand the person btw) added this information originally because I mentioned the quote in the talk page a while back. But the quote I got was from a one sentence mention from Stephen Howe's book on Afrocentrism, so we don't really know if Steve Jones is disapproving this notion, supporting it, repeating a quote by others or talking about his own research. That's why I deleted it after deeceevoice inserted it apparently without reading my concern on the talk page. I did a major purge of pseudoscience crap on the article and then you re-added it in the last edit. I know you're into skeptical inquiry (kinda like me, btw my first substantial exposure is reading Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World) and wouldn't add bullshit, so I wanna know if you have actually read Steve Jones's book and tell me under what context is he talking about the relationship. Thanx a lot. Wareware 05:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have not read the book and I re-inserted that just to corroborate the likelyhood that the parkinson's melanin thing is not real and merely a bit of wishful thinking on the part of the supremacists. If it needs to go for other reasons/or whatever that's fine. By the way, nice to meet you, "The Demon Haunted World" is probably my second favorite book of all time! (first is Cosmos :o)) I remember reading TDHW for the first time around 11th grade in high school, as it was also my first exposure to rigorous skeptical thinking and rationalism in general. It was wonderful, like sticking my head above the clouds and seeing a clear blue sky for the first time....Cheers. --Deglr6328 05:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanx a lot for clarifying it. Good to know you too, we need more skeptics in the world :)   Wareware 06:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sonoluminescence
"removing entire nonsensical pseudoscience theory section since no one has improved it."

Nonsense? Pseudoscience? Huh. I obviously don't think so. I don't like it when people delete large chunks of articles... See Talk:Sonoluminescence. - Omegatron 14:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, see talk page.--Deglr6328 17:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blue marble
Hi Deglr6328. Could you please go to Image:Earth-apollo17.jpg and indicate everything you know about the version of the image you uploaded? In particular, where did you get it, and how did you modify it? I'm trying to sort out the conflict between that image and Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg. Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 22:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * yep--Deglr6328 22:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wareware RFC
Hi, editors are not allowed to add comments to other editors' evidence sections during RfCs. You're welcome to add a comment in the comments section if you want to. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 15:07, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Rope tricks
If you can scan the image at a higher resolution and upload it as a low-compression jpg or no-compression png, I can probably remove the moire patterns. -- brian0918 &#153;  15:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does your scanner have a "descreening" setting? Try that. If not, you might want to try these tricks for preventing moire: http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/Tips/moire.html -- brian0918  &#153;  15:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/First Photograph
I just got a high-res version, and the image is public domain. Please support the high-res version. -- brian0918 &#153;  17:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image sources
Hi,

When you upoad a picture that comes from an online source (such as Image:Godiva device.jpg), could you please include a URL? It would often be nice to be able to look for other similar pictures, verify the copyright, and so on; usually it also makes it easier to contact the author if necessary. Thanks! --Andrew 04:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * This image is a compilation I made from two separate images from the government report I refrenced on the image description page.--Deglr6328 05:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Actinide phases.gif
I am totally mystified by the "Actinide phases" diagram. What is it supposed to mean? The horizontal axis seems to be continuous, but is labelled according to a discrete variable...

Could you indicate where it comes from? It would be good to be able to go read the description of the original, and to know where the data comes from. --Andrew 02:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/nmt/nmtdo/AQarchive/00fall/00fall.pdf it just indicates the crystal phase of the pure element Vs. temperature. as temp. goes too high they all melt (obviously) as shown by the "liquid" parameter space at the top. I would guess that the space bwtween elements is interpolated to make the plot continuous but I'm not certian and maybe the X axis is not Z but rather Daltons with the specific masses for the most common isotope of each element marked...?--Deglr6328 03:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Image talk:Actinide phases.gif.

Brookhaven owns copyright on its images.
Hi,

A work of the United States government is only a work by a direct federal employee - a contractor or a commercial laboratory that gets federal funding can keep copyright. So Image:Technetium Generator.jpg is not in the public domain. (Yes, it's a scam. But we should be thankful the US Government releases anything at all - most other governments, including US state governments, don't.)

More generally, if someone claims copyright on an image, be really certain (and willing to hire a lawyer) before just taking it and claiming it's in the public domain - someone who believes your tag could get very badly burned. --Andrew 07:26, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * ??But.....they're a national lab...funded entirely by DOE/DOD! Eh. --Deglr6328 02:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually emailed them to ask about a couple of pictures, and got back a not-very-permissive permission. I think it's terrible that the US Government can so easily dodge its responsibilities, but without a pretty convincing proof that those things are really in the public domain I'd be reluctant to claim they are. There was a big debate about this for the Z-machine picture, and the conclusion was that it sucks, but we have to live with it. --Andrew 03:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Rope tricks
Hi, I was going to promote Image:Tumbler Snapper rope tricks.jpg, except I notice there is no source information on the image page. Without a source, I can't tell who to credit for the photograph and we can't verify that it is a {PD-USGov} license. -- Solipsist 06:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * ok, I put some info. there--Deglr6328 16:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The HCN Gas Discharge Laser
Would (historical) information about the HCN (337 μm) laser be acceptable? I only looked at Wikipedia to see if there had been any developments in the last 25 years, but could not find even an historical mention. As a complete newbie I do not wish to offer details that would be off topic.

You mentioned lasers discovered in the 70s and 80s. Dr Gebbie discovered the HCN laser round about 1966. I worked on it 1968-1976 so may be able to find some old publications. It was certainly used as part of a chain of lasers for the determination of the speed of light. I wonder what method they use today. I could not find anything on that topic.

If I read it correctly the diagram showing laser types versus wavelength indicates that no lasers operate in the sub-millimetre region so that could be improved. Silver Physicist 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)