User talk:NathanHawking/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive01 Posts through Oct. 30, 2004


Contents


Hi NathanHawking, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~. (Just so you know, some people won't pay attention to unsigned comments).

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or Village Pump.

Above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

-- T.P.K. 06:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks for restoring links

Hi; you're quite welcome. I didn't think you removed the interlanguage links intentionally. The spam/vandalism was indeed added by 221.197.20.66—the same spammer/vandal returned today via 221.198.74.212. Since this is an obvious (and shameless) attempt to use Wikipedia to increase the page ranking of the spammer's website (see Wikipedia:Spam), I've put in a request at m:Non-development tasks for developers#Spam regex requests to have the domain shop263.com added to the project-wide spam filter. With any luck, a developer will see the request before too long. Once the domain is on the filter, a page containing the domain cannot be saved (annoyingly, there are ways to get around this, but it usually takes care of the problem).

Anyway, nice work on the rewrite. I hope you like it here and choose to stick around! Cheers, -- Hadal 07:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On War

neat job :-) |Philip Baird Shearer 08:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Zone system

I would appreciate your leaving the mention in. First Ansel Adams, in his three volume 1980 basic photography series, presented the Zone system this way and he explicitly said, in so many words, that his aim is not to force his own system of photography on anyone, but to encourage photographers to better understand their equipment in order to control the finished photograph. He disapproved of winging it, not of any particular system. The Zone system worked for him. And the Zone system is controversial, believe it or not. I know of at least one vocational school photography teacher (years ago when I lived in Montreal) who told students not to bother with it, and it seems he was not alone.

Also, please wait a few days before doing a major edit job. I liked the article as it used to be and I was sorely tempted to revert most of your changes, but did not. I particularly liked the wording "dynamic range" and miss it, and I'm sorry to say I now personally find the article less approachable to a newcomer.

Dynamic range is very appropriate: for instance (I'm making numbers up here for the sake of argument) if we say reality has a Zone 0 to X range of 1 to 100,000 , then a finished print has a range of 1 to 10,000 , while a typical digital camera will only provide a range of 1 to 1,000 . A move from 100,000 to 10,000 to 1,000 seems pretty dynamic to me...

However, since I'm not going to reread the whole Basic Photography series or even go into a darkroom again (space is at a premium in Tokyo) I'm not willing to put too much effort into maintaining this page. Vincent 05:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Vincent:
Which idea, specifically, did you wish to restore to the zone system article? That the zone system is/was not advocated by all? (I'd say that's probably true for most any school of thought.) That Ansel Adams was not dogmatic about this being the only way to do things? (I'd say that unless there is a large public misimpression that he was dogmatic it's not worth mentioning, no more than it's necessary to mention that every painter or sculptor or engineer held other approaches to various disciplines were equally valid.)
Here's the problem with "dynamic range," Vincent: it's inaccurate jargon. (It's oft-used and familiar jargon, but sloppy and inaccurate nonetheless.) First, it's redundant. The meaning most attribute to "dynamic" is this context is completely conveyed by "range." (Think about it.)
To illustrate, we speak of a film as having a [something] range from X to produce a minimum change in opacity to Y to produce a maximum opacity. Now, precisely what is that unspecified "[something]" which has a "range" in film? A "dynamic"? No, it isn't a "dynamic" which ranges; it is sensitivity to light energy which has a range.
Thus, "dynamic range" is redundant and does not convey with any precision what the term "sensitivity range" conveys.
(The collection of changes in film/paper sensitivity curves which arise from changes in development chemistry and times and temperatures, on the other hand, would represent a "dynamic" situation, but once a fixed procedure is selected, the dynamics are at an end. At that point, it's simply a matter of a fixed curve of how much light energy produces what density.)
Similarly, using the redundant term "dynamic range" to describe the lighting of a scene does not come close to the precision of "luminosity range." Or "density range" for a print or developed negative.
Your note that there are vast differences between scene and film and print and digital camera is true, but there is nothing "dynamic" about difference. "Dynamic" means "changing or changable," and the differences between scene luminosity and film sensitivity represent a fixed and measurable difference in range, not a dynamic circumstance.
For what it's worth, I had conversations with Ansel Adams on such topics, and he appreciated precision in use of words as much as the precise use of photographic technology. Perhaps the term "dynamic range" deserves a mention, though, as a less-precise term some use to represent luminosity/sensitivity/density range. What do you think? --NathanHawking 07:00, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
Well yes, exactly, the sensitivity range changes from one media to the next, over the entire collection of media. Isn't that the point of the zone system: to understand how sensitivity curves change among all useful media? And if there were only two or three different films with fixed properties to choose from, we would hardly need the word "dynamic" but given that there are hundreds (thousands?) of different media each with its own way to handle the range of luminosities (some narrow, some wide, some narrow in blue but wide in red, etc.) then the wealth of differences motivates a term and dynamic fits: the range the photographer has at his disposal changes from one film to another; that range is dynamic, not fixed. Vincent 07:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Look closely. You're comparing apples and oranges. If you wish to describe the ever-changing product lines and characteristics of film and paper as a "dynamic" market or products, I think that's a valid use. How various materials respond to changes in processing could also be described as dynamic, i.e., they respond to changes by changing their nature.
But that's not what the various "ranges" in the zone system describe. In the zone system, we pick a specific film, a specific developer and processing parameters, a specific paper and repeatable darkroom procedures. The zone system is really all about eliminating the "dynamics."
What the zone system really does is allow us to predict, by measuring specific values in the luminosity range of a particular scene, and adjusting our camera (and maybe the film development) so that the selected luminosity range produces a predictable opacity range in the film and thus a predictable reflectance range in the finished print. True, the respective ranges of those three may be 100,000:1 and 10,000:1 and 1000:1 of their respective units of measurement, but there's nothing "dynamic" about it, in any given circumstance. "Range" is sufficient, without the aid of the redundant "dynamic."
Think of it this way: we normally describe the distances to which various field artillery types can fire their shells as their "range." To compare them, we don't refer to their "dynamic range." It's just range. --NathanHawking 09:03, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not going to get into an edit war over this issue. Seems to me you're in missionary mode, out to convert the heathens. I think you're wrong, my point was made succinctly and correctly, and it needs no further elaboration. Lighten up... Vincent 00:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic range

Hi Nathan,

I was thinking about dynamic range and what it meant- it seems to have a meaning different than range alone. For example; in my mind it is usually associated with logarithmic progressions, maybe not in all cases, but the main ones (luminosity and volume). Like the dynamic part describes the changing quantity of progressive units. The phrase wasn't in any dictionary I have.

Anyway, I'm ok with you phrasing in the zone system article, event though I still like "dynamic range" better  :)

And the zone system article is looking very nice with your recent edits, good job. Duk 23:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Duk:
Thanks for your comments on dynamic range. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online has an entry for dynamic range, but it simply refers to "the ratio of the strongest to the weakest...", a concept that is handled just as well by range alone.
I understand the tendency to think that an often-used phrase must have some special meaning, something beyond what is conveyed by just one of the words, but I can think of no ordinary case of dynamic range where that's actually true. See my recent addition to redundancy.
There are situations where the term could be accurate, though. Under normal circumstances a film has a fixed sensitivity range with a given developer. This can be plotted as a light energy vs. opacity curve. Vary the development times or developer concentration, however, and this curve will shift to different places on the graph. Thus we have a range (normally fixed) which becomes dynamic. Each range curve could be labeled with its corresponding developer time/concentration. Dynamic range would be fitting here, though sensitivity range dynamics would be even better, if the context were clear.
Thanks for your comments on my zone system changes.--NathanHawking 00:13, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

[edit] Edit "commit" out of Suicide.

You mention this on your todo list. Was wondering what you meant here? dpen2000 01:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Suicide. Explained there. I introduced the issue recently (NPOV) and another contributor subsequently said he edited the article accordingly; I haven't checked it yet.--NathanHawking 02:02, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

[edit] Pleonasm questions

Regarding Wikification, or most other style questions, feel free to check Wikipedia:Manual of style, specifically the links section. That said, there are a number of ways that the guidelines there could be applied. I tend to favor an "idiot-friendly" approach, in which I link everything that a person has the slightest chance of not knowing, and this is supported by our guidelines; the opposite approach would also be acceptable. In the end, it's a matter of personal taste.

As for British vs. American spelling, the rule is to use appropriate spelling in appropriate articles. For example, in articles on U.S. topics, use American spelling (for example, Chicago has an area of 57 sq. kilometers, vs. London's 57 sq. kilometres). On topics that aren't clearly defined (e.g. pleonasm), go with whatever the original author used. So if somebody comes through and changes your spelling, feel free to revert them.

Hope this helps, and feel free to come to me with any other questions. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:23, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions on Wikification and style

Hi there. I saw your questions posted to Meelar and thought I would take the time to answer them since I knew of two articles that related to exactly the questions you were asking.

The generally accepted rule when dealing with the latter issue is to use the style of grammar that is appropriate for that article (i.e. an article about United States Supreme Court cases would use American grammar, while an article about the British House of Commons would use British grammar). With regard to the former question, you'll get a lot of different answers depending on who you ask. Some Wikipedians favor linking most words in an article, some only link ones that pertain directly to that article. Personally, I link words that either have a relation to the article or that I know have a substantive entry that the reader may find useful if they are not familiar with that word/phrase/concept.

The Manual of Style has a lot of great information and helps you avoid stepping on people's toes. I suggest learning a bit by reading and then learn a bit by example and editing. When in doubt, be bold and let it be. If someone doesn't like it or it conflicts with Wikiquette, don't worry about it. You can be sure another user will come along soon enough and change it.

Hope this helped you a bit. Welcome to Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is knowledge. Knowledge is power.

Skyler 02:45, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed that Meelar answered your question about 20 minutes before me. Sorry about the double-answer. I starting answering then got side-tracked a bit and finished later. At least you have two points of view now ;-) Skyler 02:51, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide article

Dear Nathan, The sentence as I revised it reads:

Reducing substance abuse and domestic violence in families are long-term strategies to reduce mental health problems in general.

The key issues are as follows. This strategy is a general strategy to reduce psychopathogy in the children who would otherwise come out of such families. It is not specific to suicide, whereas restricting the means is. That is what the general was about, flagging that this is more general than the other strategies. Those which are not specifically expanded, such as research, are meant to imply research on the topic and thus be specific to suicide. The issue of reducing substance abuse is that it is protective of these children if it is targeted at families and that is why I added that, albeit clumsily. Reducing substance abuse in adults who live alone will also reduce their suicide risk but will not have the long-term, flow on effect that this particular strategy is also meant to produce. The original before your edit read:

Reducing the incidence of domestic violence and alcohol and drug abuse are long-term strategies that could be expected to result in the reduction of many mental health problems given links demonstrated by research.

Your edit, while simplified, did lead to a reduction of information, my inserts have been a bit clumsy. We have lost the research backing for this but I don’t really mind that since I am not offering a reference. After thinking about this one sentence now for some time I am happy with the following.

Reducing domestic violence and substance abuse are long-term strategies to reduce many mental health problems.

How do you feel about that? --CloudSurfer 06:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me, CS. Thanks for giving my arguments careful consideration.--NathanHawking 06:43, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I did have a look at the other wording changes and they were fine. I agree about the use of "suicide" as a verb as being jarring and flagged that on the talk page. It doesn't jar to me to read, "Fred Smith suicided in 1972 ..." Well, I don't think it jars. I am an Australian by the way. If we can tolerate the rather longer "took his own life" then that's fine. I suspect the issue is that we are all used to the term "committed suicide" and thus suicide as a verb seems wrong.
In formal writing "took his own life" is OK, in my view. In conversation I've trained myself to use "chose suicide" instead of "committed suicide" and nobody seems to notice. I think I may have used that a few times in my edit of the article. I imagine suicide(d) as a verb will eventually gain more currency in the US. (Yes, I noticed on your nice User page you're an Aussie. UK, etc., vs. US language differences are interesting to me. I'm frequently surprised at some of the subtle and not-so-subtle differences, and try to remain aware in my edits.)
If however we wish to change the language usage to remove "commit" from the term then we will all have to get used to it. The article is coming together nicely. I must say I have not sat back from it recently and taken an overview of it. Instead I have been tinkering with parts and not the whole. --CloudSurfer 07:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Try "chose suicide" in conversation for awhile and see if it doesn't grow on you. Yes, I'm still left with the sense that the article would benefit from reorganization, but nothing specific has yet presented itself to me.--NathanHawking 07:49, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant expressions

Sorry, but I'm busy doing other things. Try asking User:Nohat instead. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 23:02, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the heads up about logorrhoea

I originally intended to re-write a part of the article on logorrhoea when I had more time but I had forgotten about it. Thanks for the reminder! I removed the NPOV tag. - Dejitarob 05:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding problems with other users

I'm not sure that giving up is the right solution. The best option, I think, is to go to the talk page and try to come to a consensus you can both live with. If that's not going to work, you can ask the opinions of others, either informally or in a mediation request. Good luck, and don't give up--as soon as you edit the page, it will show up on watchlists, and the conflict will continue. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:32, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect protection procedure

I understand you've tried to protect Prolixity. Unfortunately, it won't work because 1) you're not an administrator; and 2) even if you were, you must not protect pages in order to win an editing dispute. I'll remove the {{protected}} notice. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:50, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned my error in my request for protection--I simply misread the instructions.--NathanHawking 23:36, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
(I should also note that I didn't protect to "win" an editing dispute--I sought protection to elicit cooperation.) --NathanHawking 01:59, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

[edit] Darker images and Photoshop

Hey, just read your post at the Help Desk, and thought I could help you on this problem. I had the same darkening problem with Photoshop, where images were getting darker when saved.

To avoid these problems, you can see how the image will really look like by clicking on "View -> Proof Setup -> Monitor RGB". Note that you'll have to do this every time you open any image, since this option isn't saved for later. Hope that helps. Cheers :) — Kieff | Talk 03:11, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Use of external links

External links often have their own section in an article. They rarely occur within an article, except when citing the source of a quote or paper. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#External_links. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:49, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Heteronyms

I turned the n-dashes into ordinary dash characters but I bet someone turns them back within 48 hours.

I believe the bolding and italics are more or less necessary if the page is to be comprehensible, which is, after all, the point of the thing. Is it possible that someone will mess it up? Yes, but I for one will keep it on my watchlist, and I doubt those errors will last long. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:27, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I personally feel that the use of a dash with no space before it and with space after it is quite wrong here. Literally the only place I have ever seen that in print is either to split a word across a line or to allow something to be suffixed to a word: e.g. "him- or herself". But I really don't care a lot, have at it, change it to what you want; with all due respect, if you don't like my formatting I have more important things to work on. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On my edits at heteronyms

A bona fide attempt to change the pronunciation system, and all I get in return is shouting? Remember, assume good faith. This is the second time you've detested my edits. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:26, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] It's not yours

Nathan, it looks like you need to get past the idea that articles you create are "your" articles. They are not. They are Wikipedia articles that can be edited by any user or visitor to Wikipedia. (See the bold text under the edit box when editing any page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.") OTOH, I understand your frustration about your "plans" for articles being disrupted, so to avoid such problems why don't you just create articles that you'll be developing over a period of time as subpages of your user page, as I have for a few articles I'm working on. If it's under your user page, you have an absolute right, as I see it, to revert any unwanted edits. If it's in the main article namespace, however, you really don't have any standing to consider your vision for the article to be the only allowable one. - dcljr 18:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not an issue of territory. It's a matter of common sense and courtesy that the author of an article which is clearly "under construction" should not have to deal with massive changes to his or her fledgling efforts within minutes or hours of a first draft--especially without discussion.
Those who believe that clobbering a new article falls under the "edited mercilessly" should be prepared to have their edits "edited mercilessly" by reversion then, correct? What's sauce for the goose...--NathanHawking 21:26, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)