User talk:Farry

Welcome!
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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! As an aside, if you're interested in furry fandom, you might find WikiFur interesting as well. --GreenReaper 09:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Notes to myself
Useful templates

TTD

My script page

REALD cinema
Farry you made the following edit on the REALD cinema page quite a while ago.

Real-D however uses a single projector that alternately projects the right-eye frame and left-eye frame, and circularly polarizes these frames, clockwise for the right-eye and counterclockwise for the left-eye, using a liquid-crystal screen placed in front of the projector lens.

There are two conventions with regard to the definition of clockwise and counter clockwise. Refer to the article on circular polarization. Here are some quotes.

Circular polarization may be referred to as right or left, depending on the direction in which the electric field vector rotates. Unfortunately, two opposing historical conventions exist. In physics, astronomy, and optics, polarization is defined..........In electrical engineering, however, ..........To avoid confusion, it is good practice to specify "as seen from the receiver" (or transmitter) when discussing polarization matters.

I'm personally assuming it is from the view of the projector, but the sentence is not absolutely clear on it.

I am writing an extensive article on it for WikiAnswers.

Could you please clarify this for me and maybe give me your source.

Thank you

Dave3457 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't give the source because it was somebody's blog (as I said on the talk page). I'd have to Google it to find it again, and you're likely to have as much success as me. I put it in Wikipedia on the principle that unsourced questionable info was an improvement over what it replaced which was unsourced misleading info. --Farry (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I mailed the inventor last night, he didn't know off hand but said that he might get back to me. However if nothing turns up, I think it should me removed as an unknown blogger isn't quite enough,(in my opinion). I personally took it at faith and may have lost time. That being said, my article depends on it and if I have to somehow test a pair of glasses, I will.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Davenport Lyons
Hey,

I saw you'd reversed all the edits to the Davenport Lyons article made from a London based IP address sometime in July. There's another series of edits from the same IP address between 30 September 2009 and 27 November and the opening of the article currently reads like a brochure for the firm. I'm new to this so wanted to check before I did anything - should I remove the edits again?

Thanks!

(Furtled! (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC))


 * It's not as bad as the last changes from that IP, but I think it should be changed back, yes. Go to the page history, click on the date of the last edit before those changes to display that version, click edit page, in the edit summary put something about that IP address as having been previously identified as Davenport-Lyons staff, and save it.--Farry (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've reverted it back and will keep an eye on it. :)

(Furtled! (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Shaikh
I apologise for that edit. A few dubious edits occurred while I slept, and I just put it back to a version which seemed 'clean'. I admit I haven't read the Polish stuff closely. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Though things at DRN didn't turn out quite as you may have liked, I'd like to thank you for your work to help to improve Wikipedia and for utilizing the processes we have in place to work things out. Please keep up your efforts and don't let this one setback daunt you. WP is a complex place and we all have to make course corrections from time to time. Your heart and efforts are clearly in the right place and we need good editors like you. I look forward to seeing you around the Wiki. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Basis point definition
Thank you for your comments on my change in the page Parts per notation. The frequent omission of the words "per annum" can be confusing indeed. Hoping to clarify things, I intend to change the paragraph as follows (also adding a ref to an article explaining Basis points):

One part per ten thousand is denoted by the permyriad sign (‱). Although rarely used in science (ppm is typically used instead), one permyriad has an unambiguous value of one part per 10000 parts, one part in 104, and a value of 1 × 10−4. This is equivalent to about nine seconds out of one day.

In contrast, in finance, the basis point is typically used to denote changes in or differences between percentage interest rates (although it can also be used in other cases where it is desirable to express quantities in hundredths of a percent). For instance, a change in an interest rate from 5.15% per annum to 5.35% per annum could be denoted as a change of 20 basis points (per annum). As with interest rates, the words "per annum" (or "per year") are often omitted. In that case, the basis point is a quantity with a dimension of (time−1).[4]

Please let me know if you would like to see additional changes. If not, I will change the text as indicated (probably tomorrow).

--Keesal (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)