Dicklyon
DLP
In DLP#Three-chip_projectors, you deleted the following text:
Single-chip DLP systems are capable of displaying 16.7 million (24-bit) colors, whereas three-chip DLP systems can display up to 35 trillion (45-bit) colors.
Your edit comment characterized the text that you removed as "silly numerology", once again displaying the gratuitous rudeness that is a frequent feature of your WP participation and is unnecessarily disruptive of collaborative editing.
The explanation that you added is, of course, a worthwhile contribution to the article. However, unless the text that you deleted is inaccurate, it seems to me that the specifics belong in the article in addition to your explanation. Are the deleted data inaccurate? If not, they should be restored. If the data are accurate, I would suggest restoring them after your explanation substantially as follows:
Hence, three-chip DLP systems can display up to 35 trillion (45-bit) colors, whereas single-chip DLP systems are limited to 16.7 million (24-bit) colors.
Further, you really should modify your editing behavior rather than having to apologize so often for it.
Finell (Talk) 14:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- I felt that "silly numerology" would be the best way to characterize what was there. I can't help it that you don't like my style, so, per your suggestion, no apology. Dicklyon 15:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please answer: Are the numbers that you removed correct or incorrect? They weren't mine, by the way, so no apology would be due me in any event. Actually, I do like the "style" of the writing you contribute to WP. It is usually a clear and concise expression of worthwhile content. The explanation that you added to DLP#Three-chip_projectors is a fine example of your very useful contributions. However, I am far from the only Wikipedian who is bothered by your disruptive manner and rude words; others have expressed the same to you. Rudeness is not a "style"; it is anti-social behavior in which you persist. For some time I tried to correct your behavior gently and diplomatically. As that approach failed to improve your behavior, I have become increasingly blunt—a "style" that you ought to understand. Finell (Talk) 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I get your blunt style. I'm still a bit unsure, though, why a comment about the removed material being "silly numerology" sets you off. It's a fair characterization of the material, and connotes my attitude toward it fairly, and is hence an informative explanation for my edit.
- Condemning the conscientious (even if sometimes misguided or mistaken) contributions of other editors, who donate their time to WP, as "silly" or "twaddle" is rude and insulting. That is what "sets [me] off", and sets off other editors. You may think that you are merely criticizing text, but in fact you are insulting the human being who wrote it. Frankly, I don't understand why this is not obvious to you, intelligent as you are. When another editor (an admin) called you out for a similarly rude edit summary, you asked if there was some official governing etiquette. I quoted to you from WP:ES—Use of edit summaries in disputes, which says, in part, "Avoid using edit summaries ... to express opinions of the other users involved." That is policy, and it trumps your urge to express your self-perceived superiority over others. Look at the number of criticisms of your behavior, on your own talk page and on the talk pages of articles that you edit. Most active Wikipedians do not draw such criticisms with anywhere near the frequency that you do, and for every criticism that you see, figure that there are 10 more who are equally offended but who lack the courage to confront you. What do you gain by this behavior? More importantly, what does WP gain, and what does it lose, by it? If nothing else, aren't the arguments that you inspire a waste of your time and the time of others? As you see, I have not given up hope of reforming you. I have repeatedly said that you have very worthwhile contributions to make to WP, and I hope you will continue to make them. However, your repeated rudeness, which your own numerous apologies admit, diminishes your usefulness and the willingness of others to accept your edits. Finell (Talk) 08:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Finell, I hear your point, but I don't agree that I've operated outside the suggested policy here. "Silly numerology" was an objective comment on the text, not a remark about the person who wrote it. It is a concise way to let that person know that what he wrote may make sense numerologically, but not otherwise. I didn't think I needed to do some politicing on the talk page to document the reason for a simple edit. And there was no argument, either prior to or inspired by my comment, except from you. Now go home. And as for that other admin, one has to wonder who allowed him to become that, increasing his abusive use of power. It you want to see how one recomes involved in raging arguments, even while remaining polite on surface, study his history. Now go away and stop bothering me. Dicklyon 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dick: I will continue my efforts to socialize your WP behavior when I see behavior that warrants it, but not otherwise. I am as persistent as you are stubborn. Finell (Talk) 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I look forward to your input. Not. Dicklyon 17:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, Finell, did you notice the high praise and agreement I got from my nemesis? He said "OK"; the nicest word I've got out of him. Even nicer, he didn't revert my changes now that I've proven that truth and verifiability are not in conflict. Dicklyon 05:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dick: I will continue my efforts to socialize your WP behavior when I see behavior that warrants it, but not otherwise. I am as persistent as you are stubborn. Finell (Talk) 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Finell, I hear your point, but I don't agree that I've operated outside the suggested policy here. "Silly numerology" was an objective comment on the text, not a remark about the person who wrote it. It is a concise way to let that person know that what he wrote may make sense numerologically, but not otherwise. I didn't think I needed to do some politicing on the talk page to document the reason for a simple edit. And there was no argument, either prior to or inspired by my comment, except from you. Now go home. And as for that other admin, one has to wonder who allowed him to become that, increasing his abusive use of power. It you want to see how one recomes involved in raging arguments, even while remaining polite on surface, study his history. Now go away and stop bothering me. Dicklyon 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Condemning the conscientious (even if sometimes misguided or mistaken) contributions of other editors, who donate their time to WP, as "silly" or "twaddle" is rude and insulting. That is what "sets [me] off", and sets off other editors. You may think that you are merely criticizing text, but in fact you are insulting the human being who wrote it. Frankly, I don't understand why this is not obvious to you, intelligent as you are. When another editor (an admin) called you out for a similarly rude edit summary, you asked if there was some official governing etiquette. I quoted to you from WP:ES—Use of edit summaries in disputes, which says, in part, "Avoid using edit summaries ... to express opinions of the other users involved." That is policy, and it trumps your urge to express your self-perceived superiority over others. Look at the number of criticisms of your behavior, on your own talk page and on the talk pages of articles that you edit. Most active Wikipedians do not draw such criticisms with anywhere near the frequency that you do, and for every criticism that you see, figure that there are 10 more who are equally offended but who lack the courage to confront you. What do you gain by this behavior? More importantly, what does WP gain, and what does it lose, by it? If nothing else, aren't the arguments that you inspire a waste of your time and the time of others? As you see, I have not given up hope of reforming you. I have repeatedly said that you have very worthwhile contributions to make to WP, and I hope you will continue to make them. However, your repeated rudeness, which your own numerous apologies admit, diminishes your usefulness and the willingness of others to accept your edits. Finell (Talk) 08:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- As to whether the numbers are "correct", what do you mean by that? If you mean can one sensibly expect to get 2^(3*15) different colors out of a projector, no, that's just silly numerology. Dicklyon 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the information on the CBS Color wheel standard. I thought the information was interesting, but it needed a link, so I reverted someone's earlier edit. What you put back helped out a lot! Thank you! --Mdwyer 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Mousepad problems
Hey. I've been keeping an eye on Mousepad lately, 'cause it seems to be a target for a lot of vandalism, or at least harmful edits. It seems like the same person is doing them, too, overemphasizing stuff and introducing grammatical errors. I noticed you've been working on the article -- or at least getting rid of the semi-vandalism. Would you mind keeping a closer eye on it? It's not that popular an article, and I'm having some trouble dealing with the bad edits, so I wondered if you're interested in helping out/cleaning up. Switchercat talkcont 01:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the "silicon/e" bits in my reversion, by the way, as I seem to have been a little too brutal with the changes. Good to know that that anon user is correcting some factual errors, at least. Switchercat talkcont 01:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was thinking of recommending it for deletion. It's obviously written by the inventor himself, trying to stake his claim to fame. It's perhaps a partially fair claim, backed up by the Xerox disclosure journal, but the amount of verbage about him is ridiculous, as is not citing Engelbart who showed a mousepad 10 years earlier. It needs work if it stays. Who has time to take on such a trivial thing, though? I got onto it via some bad stuff he put in the mouse article, which I watch. Dicklyon 02:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- My dad worked at Xerox around that time, actually, and he's contesting some of the stuff. Says they first used vinyl board cover, not silicone. (And he just looks at what I'm writing and goes, "Dick Lyon! Richard Lyon? Did he work for Xerox too? He did optical mouse." I don't know if you're that guy, but that's kind of interesting.) Mousepads seem notable enough that a vote for deletion wouldn't get rid of it. It is trivial, yeah; I suspect I'll revert the vandalism and leave it at that for now. Thanks for the input on the disclosure journal, though; I might look into that if I feel like contributing more. Switchercat talkcont 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, that's me. All older now, and wasting my time on wikipedia. Who's your dad? He can mail my handle at acm.org. Dicklyon 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- My dad worked at Xerox around that time, actually, and he's contesting some of the stuff. Says they first used vinyl board cover, not silicone. (And he just looks at what I'm writing and goes, "Dick Lyon! Richard Lyon? Did he work for Xerox too? He did optical mouse." I don't know if you're that guy, but that's kind of interesting.) Mousepads seem notable enough that a vote for deletion wouldn't get rid of it. It is trivial, yeah; I suspect I'll revert the vandalism and leave it at that for now. Thanks for the input on the disclosure journal, though; I might look into that if I feel like contributing more. Switchercat talkcont 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Gutenberg
Very helpful recent edits.including a better wording for my awkward phrase. DGG 04:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- please check the Village Pump (policy) for an attempt to reopen some related issues.DGG 05:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Stop capitalizing
Sorry About That - I didn't read that. I have a thing for capitalized titles. Christopher Kraus 01:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. I fixed one already, and assume you'll take care of it. Welcome to WP. Dicklyon 01:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Supernumeray rainbow image
Hi Dicklyon,
I woud disagree with the replacement as the image I uploaded is of higher res and better quality --Fir0002 05:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- But the green and purple stripes are not as easy to see as in the one you replaced. Dicklyon 06:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Gutenberg
Thxs for making my talk page stuff clearer. M has moved on to woodcut now, so maybe things will be quieter for you! Johnbod 20:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Re:Logarithms.png
Looks great! Thanks for letting me know. enochlau (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Old VICAR manuals
Sorry but I can't help you with that, I just stumbled on to Billingsley's link with VICAR by coincidence so I added it to the wiki.--Rxke 11:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
STOP THE HARASSMENT
Do NOT delete my external links. The external links that I provide have 100% to do with the article I leave them on. You need to leave my links online as they meet the wikipedia external links policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by West wikipedia (talk • contribs) 05:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
- It is customary to answer on the page where the conversation was started. Read the reasons there (on your talk page), instead of deleting them. It is not harassment, just trying to help wikipedia stick to policies. Dicklyon 05:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
STOP
I also left this on my user page. You are a spammer and you need to knock it off! Quit deleting relevant external links —The preceding unsigned comment was added by West wikipedia (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
- I'm amused by your interpretation. Dicklyon 05:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I also left this on my discussion page - It meets the criteria... You need to stop doing this. If you think this is a violation then why dont you wait and see if any of the other millions of users do
- Not a violation, just not in accord with editorial policies. I'm sure someone else will revert you after I go to bed. Dicklyon 06:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: your recent revert to Luck
Hello! Just wanted to ask you about your curious edit here. I'm thinking, based on my review of your interaction with West wikipedia, that it may have been an error. I've been doing what I see you do; removing superfluous external links, but your reversion there actually restored them. Heh. Anyway. Just curious. Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I goofed on that one by not reading your diff; already reverted myself and apologized. Thanks. Dicklyon 06:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- No worries! Like I said, it looked like an error, and not malicious. Have a good one! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 06:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
West wikipedia
Is there a reason you reverted and deleted my comment on his talk page? I'm just wondering. - Eron Talk 17:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Did I do that wrong? My intention was to restore your comment that he deleted. Dicklyon 17:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm looking at this diff. I think he deleted a comment before mine, and then you reverted to restore that deletion. He hasn't actually edited the page since I commented. No worries, it was an honest mistake. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a perceived problem with my comment. Thanks. - Eron Talk 17:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolute Jerk
This is extremely innapporiate and childesh of you to put this kind of material on wikiepdia. "Speaking of external links, this guy User:West wikipedia is spamming lots of pages with his links to his earlyhistory.googlepage.com pages, which are trivialized histories with lots of error, not anything useful. If he puts one back here, someone else deal with him for a while, as I'm getting tired of it. Dicklyon 06:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)" Because of you and your stupidish child like behavior I am no longer planning on ever using wikipedia. You need to grow up. How old are you? Maybe 11 or 12. Have a good day West wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by West wikipedia (talk • contribs)
- OK, I will. Dicklyon 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Climate change
Thank you for cleaning up my text on 'Climate change' The only reason that I intruded into the article was to correct one statement about all the energy in the earths climate system coming from the sun. Energy and heat are not the same, the energy needed to keep the atmosphere in place on the surface of the earth comes from gravity, while the energy used to move warm air from the equator to the poles is the spinning of the earth. The source of the heat comes from the sun and I would imagine its close to 99.9 percent. While friction might contribute some heat and geothermal some, its very small. Note if you go into caves or mines most any were in the world the tempeture. is lower than the yearly average of the surface for that ___location ( the same for the bottom of the oceans) - so geothermal does not contribute much if any surface warming. Thank you for your time. Hardyplants 11:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome, but I think you're very confused about what energy is. I just fixed the grammar. Dicklyon 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Dither" dictionary images
Hello! Thanks very much for uploading the images of old dictionary definitions; I found them extremely interesting. However, I did remove them from the article Dither, because they really aren't relevant to image dithering, no matter how interesting they are on their own.
Have you looked into Wiktionary's policy on images? I've never seen an image on Wiktionary, but if they are image-friendly, that would be the perfect place for those images. Dither already links to wikt:dither, so they'd be almost as accessible from there. --Quuxplusone 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I thought the images supported the "origin of the word" section pretty well, by showing that the meaning was long established and just got adapted to this technical use. It's often hard to find good PD images for articles, which look so drab as just text. I might put them back... why don't you bring up the question of relevant on the talk page and see how others feel? Dicklyon 19:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I object your suppression of the above term without discussion on the discussion page.
- You could, if you wish, comment on its use,or lack thereof, but you cannot ignore the fact that it is the name for the "number sign" according to Merriam-Webster's!!!
- Don't worry, it is not being ignored. In fact it was I who added most of the content of the octocthorp section, including the mention of the Merriam-Wester Book of Word Histories 1991 article. You should read that one. Maybe I'll add a quote from it. I also an in contact with two of the guys that have written up their claims for having originated the term when at AT&T: Doug Kerr and Lauren Asplund; I need to write up a bit about the latter now that he has sent me his evidence, which doesn't actually say much. Dicklyon 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Octothorpe
Google hits: 74,200 [1]
- Yours truly,--Ludvikus 04:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- And number-sign and pound-sign each have over a half million. So what? Dicklyon 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Octothorp 2
It seems people are unaware that this term had entered the language in 1971: octothorp \ak-te-thorp, -to-\ noun [octo- + thorp, of unknown origin; fr. the eight points on its circumference] (1971)
- the symbol #
- C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
- Why do you think we are unaware? Read what the article says. Octothorp remains an obscure and unofficial name for the number sign, and we should not be elevating it the way you have. I have reverted your changes. Anyone object? Dicklyon 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)