User talk:Hankwang/Archive 2008

Duplicate Image:Armillaria.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Armillaria.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Armillaria.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Armillaria.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Laser Safety

I just wanted to offer my compliments on your recent re-work of the introductory paragraph in the Laser Safety article. I had been trying to come up with something like that, but you did it better than I could have. Pzavon (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Han-Kwang (t) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

StubListBot

I was going over the list of bots and noticed that StubListBot (talk · contribs) has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Transfer-matrix method (optics)

On 9 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Transfer-matrix method (optics), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

conversion of JPG to PNG

Hi, you converted several of my JPG file creations to PNG. May I ask what is the benefit? Both formats are accepted for file uploads. It prompted a deletion notice on one of the older files (immersion DOF), although I disapproved on the discussion page.Guiding light (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

PNG

JPG

I'm sorry, I assumed that the reason was obvious. JPEG is a lossy compression algorithm that cannot deal well with line art, as you can see here. If the JPG doesn't show "dirt" around the the lines, your monitor's contrast setting might be to high. There's actually a standard template to tag JPEGs that should be PNG: {{badJPEG}}. You can read more on Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. Han-Kwang (t) 08:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not getting back to you earlier. After trying out png vs jpg on a few more cases, I submit it is better to use the png format, so I appreciate your conversions earlier. The immersion DOF graph had an error in the original calculation so had to be updated anyway; knowing better, I selected the png format, which I will use in future line chart/graphs. Thanks again.Guiding light (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Laser Safety

Hi,

Last year in August you edited Laser Safety, and on the (new) class 2 classification you mentioned a higher limit if the light is not spatially coherent. I can't find a reference for this in EN 60825, although I'm not that familiar with the subject. Do you have a reference?

Edgepedia (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's in EN 60825, but you have to read between the lines. A lack of spatial coherence means a larger angular subtense α (the parameter that distinguishes a laser beam from e.g. a high-brightness LED). The α parameter affects the C6 parameter. Hope this clarifies it. Maybe it should be clarified somewhere in an article, but I think this is too specialized for the scope of Laser safety. Maybe a separate article on the MPE? Han-Kwang (t) 10:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Edgepedia (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Error while using value {{#expr:}} in template:Nutritional Value

Hi Hankwang, I copied the Template for Nutritional Value from en.wiki to gu.wiki. The problem I am facing there is, wherever the value {{#expr:}} appears in template, in the actual page it is replaced by an error message reading "Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "�"%". Can you please have a look at it and advise why it would be so and how to fix it? Thanks in adviance.--Dhaval^Talk 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look, but I see no problems like that on the template page; all values are properly converted to percentages. Or did something change in the meantime? I cannot read a single word of what's on the talk page over there... But from the history it seems that the problem was that arithmetic with numbers in Gujarati script doesn't work. I don't know whether there are parser functions that can convert arabic numbers into Gujarati Han-Kwang (t) 18:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'll be on a wikibreak for a couple of days. Han-Kwang (t) 18:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, you are right, it was solved probably before you visited, and as you have mentioned, the problme was with the numbers in Gujarati script. I am in touch with other wikipedians to get the Gujarati script working, lets hope it will be so soon. Thanks anyways for looking in to the matter. Cheers...-- Dhaval^Talk 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL...

I thought your username was pronounced "Hank Wang". Oops...

--  Denelson83  13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Understandable, but I don't recall any embarassing remarks from you before. AFAIK Hank nor Wang are obscene words or anything. :) Han-Kwang (t) 14:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In English, "wang" is slang for a phallus. :s --  Denelson83  20:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, that meaning is indeed at the bottom of the Wang page. Ah well, a dirty mind is a joy forever. Han-Kwang (t) 20:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

....what???

The link I am replacing has less ceiling fan relevant material contained in it as compared to the site I am replacing it with. The link is NOT SPAM! I am only editing from one IP address, someone else is replacing it to, due to you continuously reverting it back. I would appreciate it if you would halt what you are doing to this wiki page, as I have worked on ceiling fans for over 10 years, so I know what I am doing.

Thanks, Dangeroustacos (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Dangeroustacos

See User talk:Dangeroustacos. Han-Kwang (t) 14:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverse funnel system

If you like you could start a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion about the merit of the redirect. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Han-Kwang (t) 07:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cardiac psysiology

Sir, I appreciate your feedback regarding my prior edits on cardiac physiology. I did not realize I had "style" in my edits until now but would have to agree. I read widely and remain fascinated by the possibilities available under public domain to assimilate known theory into a agreeable encyclopedic reference. I am specifically interested in vectoral performance of the heart muscle [myocardium]. Much of this work is already well documented in many references over the last 200 years. I think we would agree that low [compliance] LaPlace [physiology] governs short axis physics of the heart and is intrinsically tuned to optimal valvular coaptation within the collagen collar of the [skeleton of the heart]. Long axis physics of the heart is probably best governed by the [law] of [Robert Hooke]. High compliance Hooke physiology is a probably a chief determinant of both preload and afterload. Given known public domain on this topic, does it make sense to shed more light on both theories?--lbeben 04:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs)

I replied on your talk page. Han-Kwang (t) 07:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My thanks for your kind words. The proposed article would be "Heart Mechanics" and represents a composite of many parts dedicated to moving a blood bolus [mass] in a diverse set of specified vectors. In reading about the many components of heart performance in Wikipedia and other sources, it seems expedient to me to bundle these and rate their importance when applied to overall heart performance. Regarding [original research] and [encyclopedic] references, the article promises to be lengthy with the body written entirely by others. The only encyclopedic editing I would add is the grouping of the parts of the article under public domain. I would welcome your edits in this pursuit.--lbeben 00:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs)

I suggest that you take it to the folks at the Wikiproject Medicine; I don't think I have the right background to contribute to such an article. Han-Kwang (t) 19:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Spam warnings

Hi Hankwang. I don't always go through all four warnings but it is the standard way I work. In the case you highlighted if I'd realized there were meat/sock accounts involved then I probably wouldn't have (I'm not at my most alert today). In general I think our four warning system over does it and I'd be happier to see something that was less accommodating of spam only editors but I try to work within the general community consensus. I've frequently found that when I don't veer on the side of more warnings my requests for blocks etc. get knocked back. I expect it also depends a little on how much I can be bothered on a particular day, and if I'm feeling like I'm lacking patience I'm less likely to trust my judgment to skip the warnings.

On 3RR - it's always been my understanding that 3RR doesn't apply to reverting vandalism. I've never had any problem from that perspective.

From a practical perspective on the spam project side - if we can make warnings work, so much the better (and I've found that people often stop after the level 3 warning - I think the wording of level 2 is particularly ineffective personally). Blocks of IPs can also block legitimate editors and the blacklist carries maintenance overhead, so if we can use it only when it's needed that's a good thing.

But I don't have any problem with you deciding to skip warnings and take it directly to a block or the blacklist if in your judgment it's better.

If you really see problems with the approach I have maybe a discussion at WikiProject Spam could gain more community input and I'd feel more comfortable being more aggressive - I mainly go through the motions because it's what I've come to think of as community consensus. -- SiobhanHansa 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive reply. I have been searching through various policy pages, but I can't find anywhere that one needs to go through 4 warning levels, except in the (anti)spam project. I think AIV requires a L3 or L4 warning before blocking and WP:VANDAL#Warnings says one can start at L1 to L3 depending on the circumstances.

3RR indeed doesn't apply to obvious vandalism, but in my book, obvious vandalism is page blanking and inserting profanity, not adding external links with a COI. In any case, even if it is not breaking 3RR, it clutters the page history.

I'm not too worried about side effects of IP blocks, which usually don't last that long. Most people in the world with an internet connection do not edit Wikipedia. I do look at the edit history of a suspect editor just in case it seems to be a shared IP with legitimate edits as well, but usually this is not the case.

I stopped reading the Spam project pages a long time ago; it's just an endless list of reported URLs that tends to freeze my browser. Any meaningful discussion is overwhelmed by all the URL reports. I think participating in Wikipedia policy discussion is a waste of time in general, since it requires endless arguing to get a single word reconsidered on a policy page, but that is another story.

Han-Kwang (t) 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) Each to their own then I guess! Could you explain your issue with "cluttering page history"? It's not a concern I've heard before.

(2) I don't think the 4 warnings are written in policy and as I said I don't always go through them. I've just found that I don't get blocks or blacklistings I request as often if I haven't gone through the motions - hence it's my interpretation of community consensus. -- SiobhanHansa 21:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) See Help:Reverting#Revert_wars_are_considered_harmful. Edit warring with a spammer is no different IMO. (2) See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam#Tag_.27em_to_stop_.27em.

Usually, spam stops after a L3 or L4 warning, as you have noticed, so I didn't need to resort to AIV very often, but I don't recall a requested block there ever being denied to me. Han-Kwang (t) 21:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Hmm. Thanks. I'll give that some thought.

2) A WikiProject is not policy. Though sometimes I wish it was! I think the participants would likely change it to be significantly more severe if they thought it would be accepted especially in cases that appear chronic from the start. -- SiobhanHansa 22:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Links

I don't think that adding external links to NON-PROFIT associations that include relevant information is spam, advertising, etc. I'm sorry if you disagree, but isn't that the POINT of external links? To get more information about a topic? Valerielgreen (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the guidelines on WP:COI and WP:EL#ADV first. Han-Kwang (t) 21:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam in GRAPE

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on GRAPE, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because GRAPE is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting GRAPE, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edits

While disappointed that my several edits were reverted, I understand the reason. External Links sections could quickly be bloated; besides that it is against the Wikipedia policy as you pointed out (not a repository). It did seem rough to remove the large section of magazine, journal, and institute links from the Nondestructive testing page. But I guess that is what Google is for -- to find relevant external links. Still, I often find the most useful part of an article is the External Links section. As you can see I am divided on the issue, but I must agree that the external links need to be kept under control. Thanks for taking the time to keep spam out of Wikipedia. SouthLake (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors like me tend to be more relaxed about external links if they are added by someone who also adds real content to articles and who does not seem to be affiliated with the linked website. If you are knowledgeable about these subjects and you know reliable material that was covered in articles in this journal/magazine but is lacking in articles, you can consider expanding the articles with facts and explanations, for which you can add references to specific articles, rather than whole magazines. But you should not only add references pointing to one single website, because that will look like spam, too. Han-Kwang (t) 16:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. SouthLake (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

wrong about monochromator collimators

Han,

I am not going to take the trouble to find a reference right now, but, believe me, the collimators for the instruments I am intimately familiar with are spherical. These are the Applied Physics, later Varian-Cary, double prism and prism grating, .4 meter focal length instruments, which are considered high precision for chemical/biological work. When Aviv started to manufacture their own monochromators in the 1990's, paraboloids were under consideration because their cost had dropped, but I do not know if they were actually incorporated in the final product. There are a lot of tradeoffs, spheres are generally good enough. The real trick in the Cary design is the kinematic mirror mounts that make alignment shock resistant. The challenge for performance is stray light, not resolution.

--AJim (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply on Talk:Monochromator Han-Kwang (t) 09:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yerba Mate Association of the Americas

You reverted my addition of this to the article on Yerba Mate, saying it is "one big advertisement." Are you claiming it is a commercial advertisement? I can't find anything commercial in it at all. IMHO it is full of useful information about Yerba Mate, from a specialist organization in the field. Please be more specific about your objection. Lou Sander (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

reply on Talk:Yerba maté. Han-Kwang (t) 19:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)