User talk:Srleffler

Archives
Oct. 2005–Mar. 2006 Mar. 2006–Jul. 2006 Jul. 2006–Dec. 2006 Dec. 2006–Mar. 2007 Apr. 2007–Sep. 2008 Oct. 2008–Nov. 2009 Jan. 2010–Aug. 2011 Aug. 2011–Nov. 2013 Dec. 2013–Dec. 2015 Jan. 2016–Dec. 2017 Jan. 2018–Dec. 2020 Jan. 2020–Dec. 2023

Hi, feel free to leave me a message. Kindly leave messages on new topics at the bottom of this page. Srleffler

You are correct

I really should have linked the discussion I was referring to avoid confusion. I’ll have to remember this for the future when talking about behavior; I should also try to write things a little more earlier than midnight ;) (When I woke up after that night I had to edit a lot if clumsy grammar mistakes I made). Wolfquack (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My post was more directed towards the editors who participated in that “consensus”, which is why I didn’t think I needed to add the link. Definitely a mega oof. Wolfquack (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hi Srleffler! I've seen so many people come and go over the years. I'm glad to see you're still around. Your help on optics and laser articles is always appreciated. I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas! I hope the coming New Year brings you happiness and joy! Zaereth (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you too, Zaereth!--Srleffler (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Google books URLs

Hello Srleffler, I hope all is well.

I'm about to engage in a new round of laser-related edits, and, since I'll be citing sources, I'd like to know whether I am to include URLs to Google books or not — a matter previously discussed here, albeit without a conclusion having been reached.

Think about it and let me know. Thank you. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 12:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better to include it, especially if you can link to the actual page where the information is. Srleffler (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you for your feedback! L'Orfeo^{Son io} 23:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nodal points and EFL

Thanks for your edits in the nodal point section, and about efl. This is fundamental to optics, but it was never really clearly rationalized. The response of Zemax seems to have been to remove any definition for EFL, rather than to clearly state what it is. In the 60s or so, Kingslake said just use "focal length" (but only considered lenses in air), but Warren Smith started using efl, and it seems like Welford had dealt with lenses for bubble chambers, which may be why his equations were particularly clear. And there have been terms like "reduced power". And Arizona had a different definition, which might be the biggest issue. The thing about the n=1 comment is that if the object and image media are different, something else happens (and a paper editor spelled it out with a worked example, but it is not published anywhere yet). Anything that makes this crystal clear will help. Regards. Mike Simpson YesYes42 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the trouble is the concept of focal length itself. Everyone gets attached to it because it's the first thing you learn about lenses, and for an ideal thin lens in air it has a simple, intuitive physical meaning. The problem is that once you move beyond that the concept of "focal length" becomes less physical. For the general case of a thick lens or a multi-element optical system with differing media on each side the EFL is the only thing you could call "the focal length" of the system. It isn't a distance from anything to the focal points, but it is the inverse of the optical power of the system so it does have a clear physical meaning.--Srleffler (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answer for Amaravathiputhur

Hi Srleffler,

Thanks for completing the changes requested for the page "Karaikudi Metropolitan Area". I saw there is a question for Amaravathiputhur, it has been added to the revised Karaikudi Municipality earlier upgrading the city to a corporation, now they are upgraded the already converted Karaikudi Municipality with Amaravathiputhur to a Corporation. I added the population, wards and area as per the details earlier for Amaravathiputhur, but feel free to remove that as the newly formed Karaikudi LPA or Urban Metropolitan doesnt have any details specifically for this village as it might have included along with Karaikudi Municipality already. Feel free to reach me if there is any questions.

Thanks, Cvcs84 Cvcs84 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Srleffler (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber optics

Hi Srleffler, we had a short conversation on Talk:Fiber-optic communication back in September last year. I want to thank you for the kind words of appreciation of my fixes and updates there, and in case you contributed to the article, or otherwise care about it, feel free to check the message I have just left there. 188.66.35.75 (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I replied there.--Srleffler (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lumen (tech company)

We actually do need disambiguation of some kind here. Look here. It is not obvious that either is the primary topic, and I would argue Lumen Technologies is the more likely target.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that after and put the dab page back.--Srleffler (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you also changed Lumen. The problem there is that Lumen is the name of the company. It might be acceptable to leave it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, but check and see if my final edits resolved it.

The company that makes the metabolism tracker does operate under the trade name "Lumen", so "Lumen (tech company)" is a viable description of either. I agree that we don't need the hatnote on the metabolism tracker article anymore, now that the redirect is gone. --Srleffler (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lumen disambiguation page should probably have the name of the company, Lumen, rather than the product it makes. I created a redirect so that this could be done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to worry about that. It's plausible that someone could refer to a Lumen metabolism tracker as simply "a Lumen". We can justifiably link from the dab page directly to the article on the device. We don't need the redirect Lumen (metabolism tracker).--Srleffler (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's there if someone wants to change the Lumen page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm glad you found a third entry for the tech company disambiguation page. I didn't think of that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mueller Calculus

Hi Srleffler, You reverted a change I made on the Mueller calculus page regarding the change of "Stokes vectors" to "Stokes parameters". It seems to me that Stokes parameters are not actually vectors, and therefore shouldn't be referred to as such. Must matrices always act on vectors? Gingalain (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Stokes parameters § Stokes vectors. The Stokes parameters are not vectors, rather the Stokes vector is something you construct from the Stokes parameters. The vector form combines all four parameters into one object, ${\textstyle {\vec {S}}}$. The Mueller calculus is a matrix method that operates on the Stokes vector, not on individual Stokes parameters. --Srleffler (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply combining the parameters into a single object doesn't make a vector. I would suggest we also update the Stokes parameters page to also reflect the fact that these aren't actual vectors. Perhaps "array" would be a better term than either. Gingalain (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are actual vectors. As mentioned at Stokes parameters, the set of possible polarization states of light constitutes a four-dimensional vector space, which is spanned by the Stokes vectors. This is analogous to the way that states of a quantum mechanical system can be represented as vectors in a Hilbert space.

If this doesn't sound familiar, you may not have sufficient background for this topic.--Srleffler (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Stokes parameters page, the inequality I² > Q² + U² + V² must be satisfied. Such a space is obviously not closed under scalar multiplication, assuming our field is the real numbers. Gingalain (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. The claim at Stokes parameters that the Stokes vectors span a vector space may be incorrect. That will need to be resolved, with reference to appropriate sources. Nevertheless, the usage of the term "Stokes vector" seems to be well established in reliable sources, which is sufficient for using it on Wikipedia.--Srleffler (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For being so kind and checking in – we need more of that on here! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Optical space

The article Optical space has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 10 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Makes no sense to me. WP:TNT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the issues that were raised, to the extent that they were relevant. The article is now referenced. Lack of an article in other languages and/or whether the topic makes sense to you are not our problem.--Srleffler (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Callaway

I'd again removed the notability tag at David Callaway purely for the procedural reason that the article is at AfD, which will presumably determine the question. See the template instructions. I don't think it matters much here, though! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing what you apparently saw in the template instructions, but I'm content to let AfD handle it.--Srleffler (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hello! I saw that you reverted the deletion of what I saw as personal attacks over at Talk:Ejaculation. Were they merely uncivil, I would agree that they should remain, with a warning to the editor. But they appeared to cross a line to me, per both the policy you mentioned and TPNO. However, if you don’t think they constitute personal attacks, I won’t revert a second time. Just wanted to check. Thanks! Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing of those comments doesn't comply with the guidelines. You edited Jugutierrezzz's post in a way that changed its meaning, without leaving any indication that you had done so. In particular, his last sentence was left confusing and without context as a result of your edits. It's not clear to me what you felt crossed the line between merely uncivil and a personal attack. You removed a statement that another editor doesn't understand what censoring is, and a statement suggesting indirectly that other editors think there is no equally suitable alternative to the video in question available, and a complaint about one editor imposing his vision on another. The tone was uncivil and inappropriate, but I don't see anything there that rises to the level that would justify editing it. Even if it did rise to that level, WP:TPO is explicit that you must "[n]ever edit...someone's comment to change its meaning". In the case of a post that clearly crosses the line, the guideline might allow you to remove the post, not to edit it in a way that modifies the person's argument. In the rare cases where it is permissible to edit a post, the guideline recommends leaving a note that you have done so. Finally, it says that in these cases "normally you should stop if there is any objection." You didn't do that; instead you ignored my objection and reinstated your edits after I reverted them.

I don't agree with Jugutierrezzz, but censoring his post was not the right way to lower the temperature in the discussion or move things toward a civil resolution.--Srleffler (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't going to agree on any of the points you made - starting with "not complying with the guidelines". Well, other than that I should have made a note to that effect. You're correct there and I apologize on that omission. Take care. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to revert my removal of the bot notice about a deletion discussion that doesn't seem to exist? I'm assuming that was just an edit conflict.--Srleffler (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure was! Sorry about that. I didn’t even notice that your deletion was restored when I added my comment. Not sure why I didn’t see the usual warning at the time. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. Thanks for taking care of it.--Srleffler (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]