Jeff, good job on the APEX and Lv stuff. Thanks. Dicklyon 04:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, why the "criscam" link? I don't see anything about EV there. By the way, I've used the Kyoritsu light box and patterns. I understand one can use it simulating lux levels, testing meter calibration, etc., but I still don't see how it's a usefil artical external link. Looks more like link spam. Dicklyon 21:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
JeffConrad 22:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This entry still isn't complete (or quite correct). The APEX section in Stroebel, Compton, Current, and Zakia (2000) is more than a bit confused: the text refers to "scene illuminance," and Table 2-3 on the next page uses units of illuminance (with the curious symbol Bv), but the example uses units of luminance, and the defining equation uses the symbol Lv. Although it probably was not the intent, this reference technically uses "light value" as a synonym for both incident-light value and luminance value. Consequently, I think we need to restore mention of incident light. I'm ready to do this, but I'd like to be sure that the usage in Zakia and Stroebel (1993) also is correct. I'm wondering if the table in Stroebel et. al. (2000) was copied from from Zakia and Stroebel (1993). I don't have a copy of that reference--do you (I noticed that you added it)?
Suffice it to say that "light value" has had so many meanings that essentially it is meaningless, and would seem an inadvisable substitute for "EV at ISO 100," however inelegant that expression may be. JeffConrad 01:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeff!
Thanks for bringing that up, I think this is what you were after?
Image:Wolf spider single frame.jpg --
Fir0002
22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeff - I am the user that made the two edits on the Depth of Field on 12/28/2010 changing "increases" to "decreases". The reason I made those edits was to make the article more consistent as it contradicts itself. I have added my explanation to the Talk page of the article. Talk:Depth of field Please feel free to respond. Thanks! Hergio ( talk) 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war, but I can't see what possible advantage the existing quotes at light value could have. For one, the punctuation is incorrectly located, according to WP:MOS (see also WP:REF for reference punctuation). Two, it makes reading the markup more difficult (necessary markup is one thing; obfuscation is another). Three, the article isn't even internally consistent (normal non-curly quotes were already used in several places). If you feel strongly that the curly quotes must be used (personally, I loathe them, but as there's no consensus either way...), at least consider using the toolbar characters (“”) for readability and fixing the punctuation location. -- Fru1tbat 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I just wanted to say thanks for the great work on the article. It looks to me like it could very easily be turned into an FA-class article in a short time. I'm not the expert on the topic that you are, but all I can see that is deficient at the moment is the amount of inline citations. What are your thoughts, and would you be willing to shepherd the article to the gold star? :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I don't mind that you took entrance pupil out of my DOF edit, but your reason is wrong. The exit pupil size and position determine depth of focus; but the entrance pupil size and position determine the depth of field; this is most obvious in the object field method. Of course, they turn out equivalent, too, since the f-number is the same whether you base it on one or the other, no? Dicklyon ( talk) 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The equations are indeed equivalent, as they had to be. From my Figure 4 on p. 21, your distance is
where is the distance from the front principal plane to the entrance pupil. Using my Eq. (81) for , and making appropriate substitutions for and in the difference of your equations for and gives my Eq. (104), which reduces to Eq. (105) when the subject distance is much less than the hyperfocal distance. Direct substitution into your approximate closeup expression 2SC/md also gives my Eq. (105). Note that c in my Eqs. (104) and (105) is the same as your C.
So is DoF determined by the entrance pupil or by the exit pupil? I guess it depends on how you approach it. The safest approach is probably to say that it's determined by the aperture, as the article currently does. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Jeff, my apologies it this is a faux pas, but I wanted to ask if you might be willing to help resolve some recent issues in the exposure (photography) article. I understand perfectly well if you would prefer to not get involved (please feel free to delete this section from your talk page), but I hope your contribution might carry some weight. I feel very awkward about asking you like this, but I don't what else to do for the best. Thanks for looking in ;)
The latest diff can be found here [2] and there is a considerable amount of discussion scattered around the discussion page. The conflicts began after I posted this contribution [3] although I later replaced the section I had overwritten with this version [4] in the hope of ending the dispute. -- Redbobblehat ( talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeff,
I'm desperately trying to track down one of the references you cited:
ANSI PH2.7-1986. American National Standard for Photography — Photographic Exposure Guide. New York: American National Standards Institute.
If you can help me, could you contact me through my talk page, thank you very much.
Ronan Ronomal ( talk) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that you had removed inline citations in a previous edit. I agree they look nasty this way; it reminds of how much I prefer the use of footnote numbers. Dicklyon ( talk) 08:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for calling my correction a "rant".
"AIN'T" isn't proper English no matter how many billion times it is uttered, accepted in the vernacular or not.
If you want to change my hour's hard work and citations/explanations of speed back again, you'd better have something better than "Canon and Nikon" say so. Kodak and Ilford have used the improper speeds too, BTW. Just because an improper convention is used over and over again doesn't make it right. And it *is* on. If you want to just revert a well-thought-out correction without any explanation or time in justifying corrupted speed ratings, you're the one doing the reader harm, not me. I at least LEFT the improper speeds. You didn't do the proper numbers the same courtesy. I have a race track photo from 1956 rated at 200,000 on my wall. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by ISOGuru ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
In any case, am glad to see digital cameras (and users) haven't been completely successful in rewriting photographic history. Your heavy-handedness has precluded me from wasting any more of my time on these silly political threads. But nice to see you finally got it right. Heaven forbid someone not know the rules of writing Wikipedia articles try to contribute something that isn't available in Google Books! Now I am off to process film, use my light meter with the 12,500 reading on it, and accelerate as much film as I want to. It's amazing how many "experts" on here don't have access to similar income from their photographic endeavors. ~Former contributor ISOGuru — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.196.146 ( talk) 16:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
In the article on Ansel Adams, you recently replaced a non-free image with J. Malcolm Greany's Ansel Adams and Camera on the basis that the latter image is in the public domain. How did you determine that this image is a work of the U.S. government? JeffConrad ( talk) 22:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'd made a brief remark in the comment when I'd added the advert tag, or at least I thought I did. Re-reading the article, I'm not sure it's so much advert that is wrong with it, it's just far too much detail. I kept reading yet another paragraph about another manufacturer's offering and thinking "so what?". I wouldn't expect that under an article for say, prime or zoom lenses. I know these are very speciailised bits of kit with an interesting history, but I only think that lenses of note should be described, with perhaps a link to the manufacturer page (on wikipedia) for the other players.
Cheers, sorry I did'nt explain that at the time 90.195.131.21 ( talk) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I've done an annotated critique of the Ansel Adams article, which I invite you to review at User:Cullen328/Sandbox Ansel Adams. My wife gave me a copy of the Alinder biography for my birthday, which I've just finished reading. I am now prepared to make a lot of edits to the article, but will start out with various factual "nuggets" rather than a major rewrite. I hope to hear your detailed thoughts on how the article can be improved, so that the process can be a collaboration among all interested editors. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Ahh jeff we meet again, haha. You know i actually do like you, you do a good job around here. Ok you got rid of my article. You know more about wikipedia then I do. How can I include it properly? 67.246.175.103 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC).
<ref>
... </ref>
tags; the key information to provide is the source (e.g., URL), title, author, date, and publisher. I agree that the citation templates are difficult to use for one unfamiliar to them (and perhaps to many who are familiar with them). Providing the basic information as it might normally be written (without the templates) makes cleanup a lot easier; the arrangement need not be perfect, though the more it resembles the displayed appearance of the other references, the better the article looks before someone cleans up a citation. Rearranging material is a lot easier than having to go to the source to retrieve it. As I mentioned, titles need to be given as they appear in the source, without paraphrasing.For critics that believe that the law is racially biased they have pointed out other perceived bills that have been introduced in the same time period. These bills were considered by them to be anti-Hispanic (insert source from article).
Is that NPOV? Sorry if i pissed you off it was intended. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 22:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
I was looking for a "patience"-barnstar. Doesn't seem to exist. I guess you know what this is for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC) |
[Moved from user page]
Can you add the young 1994 and pickering 2002 charts as well. [ User:MySchizoBuddy]
If you are at 1km above sealevel. your zenith angle at horizon will be greater than 90deg. Do any of these models work correctly for more than 90deg angles. Plus can you share your excel spreadsheet -- MySchizoBuddy ( talk) 08:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
can you send it to myschizobuddy@gmail.com. I will remove this email once you send me the file. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by MySchizoBuddy ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Like how you disaggregate and discuss things, logically. Very fun to read. TCO ( talk) 15:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jeff... I found a graph of yours relating how different papers calculate AirMass. I'm working on an algorithm that uses Airmass as one of the inputs into a solar energy performance calculation. The algorithm gets buggy as the zenith angle approaches 90. The Airmass calculation is part of the problem. I'm using the following formula:
AM = 1 / (Cos(Zenith) + 0.5057 * (96.08 - ZenithD) ^ -1.634)
But I could also use the Kasten & Young...
AM = 1 / (Cos(Zenith) + 0.15 * ((93.885 - ZenithD) ^ -1.253))
It occurs to me... The Kasten & Young calculation will have the same problem... I could use the Hardie calculation though? I was going to ask you if you had a suggestion but I'm just going to try the Hardie calculation. It keeps the AirMass value down at higher zenith angles. Thanks for putting that graph together. Best Mrshaba ( talk) 21:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
(Reply is on user Talk page) JeffConrad ( talk) 01:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Jeff, as a fan of good punctuation, can you nevertheless support the compromise to put an end to the hassles, at WT:MOS#RfC:_simple_resolution_to_disagreements_over_dashes? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello J. Thanks for your note. Things can get confusing when you get someone who is edit warring the way that editor was and edit summaries have a limited amount of room and its difficult to leave a full explanation of what one is doing. I appreciate the time that you took to explain things on my talk page. Cheers and have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 13:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article
Arizona SB 1070 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. –
Quadell (
talk)
13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The article
Arizona SB 1070 you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Arizona SB 1070 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. All the best, –
Quadell (
talk)
12:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Your upload of File:BennettAtmRefractVsAlt.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 13:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Jeff, I have enjoyed reading some of your writings on atmospheric refraction, or R, near the horizon. R here is the angle (usually reported as 34 arc minutes) below the horizon that a star (besides the Sun) just becomes visible. However I do find the integral equations you develop somewhat confusing. More on that later.
In addition, the R estimates are of interest. I think that the almanac authors have assumed an average value of elevation at sunrise or sunset of
Elevation = -(R + 16) = -50 arcminutes ... below the horizon
(with 16 arcminutes the approximate semidiameter of the Sun) to construct their tables of sunrise and sunset times. They never admit to this, or give any hint to their models.
I find much of what I read confusing about the viewing effect of atmospheric refraction, but your statements make sense, thank you. The problem I'd like to address is how much the variation in R will affect sunrise and sunset times estimates. I've read that it might be 4 to 5 minutes.
Leo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7F0E:BF00:4A0:245:BEFB:A7F7 ( talk) 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Jeff, we've missed you. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, JeffConrad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, JeffConrad. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JeffConrad. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I intend to improve the "Focus Stacking" wikipedia article and noticed that you added references on 27 July 2009 for Johnson 2008 Pg 336 ("How to do Everything: Digital Camera"), and Ray 2002 Pgs 231-232 ("Applied Photographic Optics"). I've been unable to view the relevant pages online or in print. Could you please tell me, if you recall, in what context the term "focus stacking" was used in those references and what relevant references were used by those books?
Thank you for your help.
NewageEd (
talk)
16:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Jeff, good job on the APEX and Lv stuff. Thanks. Dicklyon 04:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, why the "criscam" link? I don't see anything about EV there. By the way, I've used the Kyoritsu light box and patterns. I understand one can use it simulating lux levels, testing meter calibration, etc., but I still don't see how it's a usefil artical external link. Looks more like link spam. Dicklyon 21:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
JeffConrad 22:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This entry still isn't complete (or quite correct). The APEX section in Stroebel, Compton, Current, and Zakia (2000) is more than a bit confused: the text refers to "scene illuminance," and Table 2-3 on the next page uses units of illuminance (with the curious symbol Bv), but the example uses units of luminance, and the defining equation uses the symbol Lv. Although it probably was not the intent, this reference technically uses "light value" as a synonym for both incident-light value and luminance value. Consequently, I think we need to restore mention of incident light. I'm ready to do this, but I'd like to be sure that the usage in Zakia and Stroebel (1993) also is correct. I'm wondering if the table in Stroebel et. al. (2000) was copied from from Zakia and Stroebel (1993). I don't have a copy of that reference--do you (I noticed that you added it)?
Suffice it to say that "light value" has had so many meanings that essentially it is meaningless, and would seem an inadvisable substitute for "EV at ISO 100," however inelegant that expression may be. JeffConrad 01:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeff!
Thanks for bringing that up, I think this is what you were after?
Image:Wolf spider single frame.jpg --
Fir0002
22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeff - I am the user that made the two edits on the Depth of Field on 12/28/2010 changing "increases" to "decreases". The reason I made those edits was to make the article more consistent as it contradicts itself. I have added my explanation to the Talk page of the article. Talk:Depth of field Please feel free to respond. Thanks! Hergio ( talk) 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war, but I can't see what possible advantage the existing quotes at light value could have. For one, the punctuation is incorrectly located, according to WP:MOS (see also WP:REF for reference punctuation). Two, it makes reading the markup more difficult (necessary markup is one thing; obfuscation is another). Three, the article isn't even internally consistent (normal non-curly quotes were already used in several places). If you feel strongly that the curly quotes must be used (personally, I loathe them, but as there's no consensus either way...), at least consider using the toolbar characters (“”) for readability and fixing the punctuation location. -- Fru1tbat 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I just wanted to say thanks for the great work on the article. It looks to me like it could very easily be turned into an FA-class article in a short time. I'm not the expert on the topic that you are, but all I can see that is deficient at the moment is the amount of inline citations. What are your thoughts, and would you be willing to shepherd the article to the gold star? :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I don't mind that you took entrance pupil out of my DOF edit, but your reason is wrong. The exit pupil size and position determine depth of focus; but the entrance pupil size and position determine the depth of field; this is most obvious in the object field method. Of course, they turn out equivalent, too, since the f-number is the same whether you base it on one or the other, no? Dicklyon ( talk) 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The equations are indeed equivalent, as they had to be. From my Figure 4 on p. 21, your distance is
where is the distance from the front principal plane to the entrance pupil. Using my Eq. (81) for , and making appropriate substitutions for and in the difference of your equations for and gives my Eq. (104), which reduces to Eq. (105) when the subject distance is much less than the hyperfocal distance. Direct substitution into your approximate closeup expression 2SC/md also gives my Eq. (105). Note that c in my Eqs. (104) and (105) is the same as your C.
So is DoF determined by the entrance pupil or by the exit pupil? I guess it depends on how you approach it. The safest approach is probably to say that it's determined by the aperture, as the article currently does. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Jeff, my apologies it this is a faux pas, but I wanted to ask if you might be willing to help resolve some recent issues in the exposure (photography) article. I understand perfectly well if you would prefer to not get involved (please feel free to delete this section from your talk page), but I hope your contribution might carry some weight. I feel very awkward about asking you like this, but I don't what else to do for the best. Thanks for looking in ;)
The latest diff can be found here [2] and there is a considerable amount of discussion scattered around the discussion page. The conflicts began after I posted this contribution [3] although I later replaced the section I had overwritten with this version [4] in the hope of ending the dispute. -- Redbobblehat ( talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeff,
I'm desperately trying to track down one of the references you cited:
ANSI PH2.7-1986. American National Standard for Photography — Photographic Exposure Guide. New York: American National Standards Institute.
If you can help me, could you contact me through my talk page, thank you very much.
Ronan Ronomal ( talk) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that you had removed inline citations in a previous edit. I agree they look nasty this way; it reminds of how much I prefer the use of footnote numbers. Dicklyon ( talk) 08:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for calling my correction a "rant".
"AIN'T" isn't proper English no matter how many billion times it is uttered, accepted in the vernacular or not.
If you want to change my hour's hard work and citations/explanations of speed back again, you'd better have something better than "Canon and Nikon" say so. Kodak and Ilford have used the improper speeds too, BTW. Just because an improper convention is used over and over again doesn't make it right. And it *is* on. If you want to just revert a well-thought-out correction without any explanation or time in justifying corrupted speed ratings, you're the one doing the reader harm, not me. I at least LEFT the improper speeds. You didn't do the proper numbers the same courtesy. I have a race track photo from 1956 rated at 200,000 on my wall. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by ISOGuru ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
In any case, am glad to see digital cameras (and users) haven't been completely successful in rewriting photographic history. Your heavy-handedness has precluded me from wasting any more of my time on these silly political threads. But nice to see you finally got it right. Heaven forbid someone not know the rules of writing Wikipedia articles try to contribute something that isn't available in Google Books! Now I am off to process film, use my light meter with the 12,500 reading on it, and accelerate as much film as I want to. It's amazing how many "experts" on here don't have access to similar income from their photographic endeavors. ~Former contributor ISOGuru — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.196.146 ( talk) 16:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
In the article on Ansel Adams, you recently replaced a non-free image with J. Malcolm Greany's Ansel Adams and Camera on the basis that the latter image is in the public domain. How did you determine that this image is a work of the U.S. government? JeffConrad ( talk) 22:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'd made a brief remark in the comment when I'd added the advert tag, or at least I thought I did. Re-reading the article, I'm not sure it's so much advert that is wrong with it, it's just far too much detail. I kept reading yet another paragraph about another manufacturer's offering and thinking "so what?". I wouldn't expect that under an article for say, prime or zoom lenses. I know these are very speciailised bits of kit with an interesting history, but I only think that lenses of note should be described, with perhaps a link to the manufacturer page (on wikipedia) for the other players.
Cheers, sorry I did'nt explain that at the time 90.195.131.21 ( talk) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I've done an annotated critique of the Ansel Adams article, which I invite you to review at User:Cullen328/Sandbox Ansel Adams. My wife gave me a copy of the Alinder biography for my birthday, which I've just finished reading. I am now prepared to make a lot of edits to the article, but will start out with various factual "nuggets" rather than a major rewrite. I hope to hear your detailed thoughts on how the article can be improved, so that the process can be a collaboration among all interested editors. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Ahh jeff we meet again, haha. You know i actually do like you, you do a good job around here. Ok you got rid of my article. You know more about wikipedia then I do. How can I include it properly? 67.246.175.103 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC).
<ref>
... </ref>
tags; the key information to provide is the source (e.g., URL), title, author, date, and publisher. I agree that the citation templates are difficult to use for one unfamiliar to them (and perhaps to many who are familiar with them). Providing the basic information as it might normally be written (without the templates) makes cleanup a lot easier; the arrangement need not be perfect, though the more it resembles the displayed appearance of the other references, the better the article looks before someone cleans up a citation. Rearranging material is a lot easier than having to go to the source to retrieve it. As I mentioned, titles need to be given as they appear in the source, without paraphrasing.For critics that believe that the law is racially biased they have pointed out other perceived bills that have been introduced in the same time period. These bills were considered by them to be anti-Hispanic (insert source from article).
Is that NPOV? Sorry if i pissed you off it was intended. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 22:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
I was looking for a "patience"-barnstar. Doesn't seem to exist. I guess you know what this is for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC) |
[Moved from user page]
Can you add the young 1994 and pickering 2002 charts as well. [ User:MySchizoBuddy]
If you are at 1km above sealevel. your zenith angle at horizon will be greater than 90deg. Do any of these models work correctly for more than 90deg angles. Plus can you share your excel spreadsheet -- MySchizoBuddy ( talk) 08:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
can you send it to myschizobuddy@gmail.com. I will remove this email once you send me the file. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by MySchizoBuddy ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Like how you disaggregate and discuss things, logically. Very fun to read. TCO ( talk) 15:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jeff... I found a graph of yours relating how different papers calculate AirMass. I'm working on an algorithm that uses Airmass as one of the inputs into a solar energy performance calculation. The algorithm gets buggy as the zenith angle approaches 90. The Airmass calculation is part of the problem. I'm using the following formula:
AM = 1 / (Cos(Zenith) + 0.5057 * (96.08 - ZenithD) ^ -1.634)
But I could also use the Kasten & Young...
AM = 1 / (Cos(Zenith) + 0.15 * ((93.885 - ZenithD) ^ -1.253))
It occurs to me... The Kasten & Young calculation will have the same problem... I could use the Hardie calculation though? I was going to ask you if you had a suggestion but I'm just going to try the Hardie calculation. It keeps the AirMass value down at higher zenith angles. Thanks for putting that graph together. Best Mrshaba ( talk) 21:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
(Reply is on user Talk page) JeffConrad ( talk) 01:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Jeff, as a fan of good punctuation, can you nevertheless support the compromise to put an end to the hassles, at WT:MOS#RfC:_simple_resolution_to_disagreements_over_dashes? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello J. Thanks for your note. Things can get confusing when you get someone who is edit warring the way that editor was and edit summaries have a limited amount of room and its difficult to leave a full explanation of what one is doing. I appreciate the time that you took to explain things on my talk page. Cheers and have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 13:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article
Arizona SB 1070 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. –
Quadell (
talk)
13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The article
Arizona SB 1070 you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Arizona SB 1070 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. All the best, –
Quadell (
talk)
12:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Your upload of File:BennettAtmRefractVsAlt.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 13:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Jeff, I have enjoyed reading some of your writings on atmospheric refraction, or R, near the horizon. R here is the angle (usually reported as 34 arc minutes) below the horizon that a star (besides the Sun) just becomes visible. However I do find the integral equations you develop somewhat confusing. More on that later.
In addition, the R estimates are of interest. I think that the almanac authors have assumed an average value of elevation at sunrise or sunset of
Elevation = -(R + 16) = -50 arcminutes ... below the horizon
(with 16 arcminutes the approximate semidiameter of the Sun) to construct their tables of sunrise and sunset times. They never admit to this, or give any hint to their models.
I find much of what I read confusing about the viewing effect of atmospheric refraction, but your statements make sense, thank you. The problem I'd like to address is how much the variation in R will affect sunrise and sunset times estimates. I've read that it might be 4 to 5 minutes.
Leo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7F0E:BF00:4A0:245:BEFB:A7F7 ( talk) 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Jeff, we've missed you. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, JeffConrad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, JeffConrad. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JeffConrad. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I intend to improve the "Focus Stacking" wikipedia article and noticed that you added references on 27 July 2009 for Johnson 2008 Pg 336 ("How to do Everything: Digital Camera"), and Ray 2002 Pgs 231-232 ("Applied Photographic Optics"). I've been unable to view the relevant pages online or in print. Could you please tell me, if you recall, in what context the term "focus stacking" was used in those references and what relevant references were used by those books?
Thank you for your help.
NewageEd (
talk)
16:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)