User talk:Hankwang/Archive 2009-2010

Request unprotection

You indef-protected {{Tag}} a while ago. Given of the nature of the vandalism (only one day by a single user) and the use of this template (trancluded only 50 times or so) I think an indef-protect is overkill. Can you please unprotect it? Han-Kwang (t) 09:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You're talking to the wrong person. User:Wknight94 was the admin who protected the template, as indicated by the protection log]. You'd be best off asking him first. Harryboyles 12:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

link at Laser Diode

maybe I understood something wrong, but I checked the other links and I thougt there is a link missing to systems for laser diode bonding. Laser diodes can not be assembled by hand - this external link could be a help for all people working with all kind of laser.

What is the difference to the following link? Maybe I can get an explanation for the following link: http://www.arroyoinstruments.com/ 50% Off Fixture Sale! Want to save 50% off the price of your next laser diode mount? Now through the end of the year, purchase any LaserSource laser diode driver and TECSource temperature controller, and receive 50% off the price of any fixture. This could save you hundreds of dollars! Click here for more details...

I already know that all links are set to "no follow" - If I'm using Wikipedia to learn something about a new topic for my job - I'm absolutely happy to find more external links (no Wiki links) concerning to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.216.250 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That link should also be removed then. If I happen to notice that someone (like you) adds the same link to several article pages at once, my standard procedure is to remove that link from all those pages and inform the person who placed the links of the external links guidelines. If I feel like it I will examine the other links as well for suitability, but this time I did not. Han-Kwang (t) 17:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Diffraction Gratings Tutorial?

The external link i have added to 'Diffraction Gratings page'(http://www.jobinyvon.com/SiteResources/Data/Templates/1divisional.asp?DocID=616&v1ID=&lang) have been removed and the reason i was given was that it does not comply with the guidelines. I would like to point out that the external links is a Diffraction Gratings tutorial page and this link has not been added to wikipedia for page ranking. I would also add that there are other external link on the diffraction grating page which link to other diffraction gratings tutorial websites but have not been removed. i am quite confused about this and would like a clear explanation of why a link to a turorial page has been removed when similar type of external links exist and have not been removed from the page. please also let me know in which way i can alter the page in order to comply with wiki guidelines.

Afrine (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:EL#ADV: do not add links to websites you are affiliated with. The fact that almost all your contributions consist of added YobinYvon links shows that you are affiliated. The message I left on your talk page includes the following advice: "If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it", and I'd suggest you follow it. Han-Kwang (t) 12:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi i would be very grateful if you could help me with this query.I know that someone affiliate with a company are not allowed to edit wikipedia pages, however what if this person has an interest on particular topics and would like to improve Wikipedia's coverage. can you please tell me the procedures to do so.Afrine (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly allowed to edit articles if you have a company affiliation, just not the article that covers the company. It is also frowned upon if the majority of your contribution consist of adding links to the company website. But if you add a paragraph of useful content in Diffraction grating which applies to gratings in general, not just to HJY products, you can add a reference to a technical document to the HJY website. See also WP:COI. Han-Kwang (t) 17:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Xenon flash

Hi Han-Kwang. Looking for you opinion. I just completed my research on flash lamps, and have finished my work the article. It turns out, there is very little difference in the output spectrums of flashlamps with different gasses. All gasses show spectral curves on a graph that look remarkably similar. The only major difference is efficiency. The heavier the gas, the more efficient, and hence the use of xenon. (I'd bet radon would be even better, but is not used for obvious reasons.) Do you still think we should change the title to Flash Lamp, or leave it as Xenon Flash Lamp?Zaereth (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think moving the article to Flash lamp would be a sensible thing to do, but you have to follow the procedure on WP:RPM. Han-Kwang (t) 11:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. After finishing my research I was sort of on the fence about it. I will now take it up with WP:RPM. Thanks Zaereth (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Equivalent 35mm focal length

Hi.

We were looking at your table for conversion between several versions of the f35 focal length and the first entry seems to have been corrected from 34.6 to 33.8. According to my computations the first number seems to be the correct one and compatible with the 43.3 diagonal length of the 35mm film - can you explain why you did that change?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drono (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. The math behind it was on talk:35 mm equivalent focal length, but I mistakenly thought that 4:3 is 1.25 rathere than 1.333. I corrected it. Han-Kwang (t) 11:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Coherent Inc. logo.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Coherent Inc. logo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost

I have reverted your last edit to DreamHost. In your edit summary, you claimed that most hosting companies use a custom interface. This is simply not the case. Most use cPanel, and DreamHost's custom interface unusually integrates billing and other non-hosting related features (like giving charity donations, etc.). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your last edit seems reasonable, but I will be seeking a reliable source that mentions the control panel because it is rather unusual, quirky, and difficult for new customers to get used to (which is why it was described as "unique" before). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean the use of the word "unique" was actually sarcastic? Han-Kwang (t) 07:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hubbert's peak

Please see discussion at commons:User talk:Hankwang. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you have another look at File:Hubbert peak oil plot.svg. The labeling is misleading, as it does not indicate that the image is only referring to reserves, past production, and future discovery "As of" 1956. NJGW (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not claim any ownership to the file; you can add a description yourself if you feel that it is appropriate. Han-Kwang (t) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

monochromator tutorial

In looking over the monochromator article, I noticed that you had removed a link, on 13 Oct 08, to what appears to me to be a thorough discussion of monochromator design by recognized experts. You called it linkspam, presumably because they are a manufacturer. It seems pretty relevant to me though. I have not read it yet, but from the table of contents it appears more informative than commercial, and the topic list addresses issues that I strongly think should be understood by users as well as designers of monochromators. I put a link back under external references instead of see also. I really think it does more good than harm. I hope we can reach a consensus about this. I will watch for a reply here. --AJim (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Most likely I found out that the editor who added the link had a contribution history consisting only of adding links to the same website, after which I reverted all the editor's edits. In that case, it is linkspam, even if the website has meaningful information. Han-Kwang (t) 17:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. I am glad, though, to see that you have left it in for now despite this. I did read through the tutorial and it does seem helpful. I believe the discussion is not specifically oriented to their products. These authors obviously have a lot of experience actually designing monochromators, and their observations will be helpful to someone trying to master it. One of my objectives in contributing here is to make this information more widely available. It is rather obscure right now, but I believe that there are many people who may benefit from this knowledge.

By the way, if you look, you will see that these authors also assume that most monochromators will have spherical mirrors. There is a discussion of the astigmatism introduced by this. The monochromator is only a component in a larger system. The main issue is generally whether the entire system has adequate optical performance for the intended purpose. The external optics have a large effect on this. --AJim (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHYS

Hey, I noticed that you had some expertise in physics (optics and spectroscopy particularly). Might I interest you in joining WikiProject Physics? There's also WikiProject Spectroscopy that might interest you. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation. However, I'm not so sure whether I would want to join those projects. My feeling is that most wikiprojects (I'm not sure whether that applies to the ones you mention) spend most of their time arguing and slapping quality labels on articles. Most physics articles that are in my expertise seem to be pretty good already, and I think that there are plenty of non-physics science-related articles that are much more in need of attention, and my time at the moment is already severily limited (changed job recently). Han-Kwang (t) 13:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Suit yourself. However, you could still watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts and see if something catches your eye from time to time. This is a bot-updated list, which details AfD, Peer Reviews, etc... See you around.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Message Homebrew

Hi, I was contacted by you relating to a supposed link I placed in the Homebrew section, but I have placed no links nor have I ever editited that page. I have viewed the page recently, though. Might is be possible that somebody else editited that page and placed the inappropriate link but was mistaken for me? I would like to hear back regarding this issue, as this is somewhat disturbing. Thanks! Tallguy1618 (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, I don't remember. Could you give some details? Which article? When did I contact you and how (email, talk, ...)? Han-Kwang (t) 16:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's about this: User talk:87.210.46.124. Your internet provider may have changed your IP address so that you see a warning that was supposed to be for someone else. Han-Kwang (t) 08:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a few days ago. It was before I created an account, so the next time I visited Wikipedia it showed as a message left for me. It pretty much said Wikipedia's policy on providing links, and that I had supposedly broken that policy by providing an inappropriate link in the article titled Homebrew. I had visited that article, but never edited it. I have also never edited anything and posted a link. And yes, that is the message I received. Why did I get it?Tallguy1618 (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Question from Zaereth

Hi Han Kwang. You've been very helpful in the past, so perhaps you could help me with a question. I've been working to improve the air combat manoeuvring article when I came across basic fighter maneuvers and dogfighting, all of which are incomplete and two of them have plagerism issues, (which I've mentioned on their talk pages). Since these three articles are covering the exact same topic, I think they should be merged into one, rewritten to avoid the plagerism issue, and expanded upon with multiple references. What would the proper procedure be for recommending this merger? Zaereth (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Although, after some comtemplation, the entire topic is rather huge. Maybe it would be better to concentrate the dogfight article on the historical aspect, since the word has mostly historical significance, and the ACM article on the more tactical aspects. The BFM article is probably fine with a little expansion, concentrating mainly on the maneuvers themselves. I know this is not your area of expertise, but thought you might have an opinion anyway, if you have the time. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I didn't read the articles in detail. For plagiarism it is simple, see WP:COPYVIO (remove offending content in any case, whether you are going to replace it or not). Just make sure that the other website didn't copy the content from Wikipedia in the first place. For merging: see WP:MERGE. To me it looks like BFM could be merged into ACM, with short descriptions for each maneuver and links to articles with more details. Keep DF as historical overview, but consider a title change (move the article).

When you want a major reorganization of article content, you have to get consensus first. You could post a message on the aviation wikiproject to draw attention to the issue, or on the individual talk pages. Be prepared to compromise. :-) It is also possible that everybody agrees, but doesn't feel like spending time on it. Then you have to do everything yourself.

I personally tend to not care so much about information being spread out over several articles, as long as they are well interlinked. Missing information can be added whether it is a single article or not. Reorganizing takes a lot of time and doesn't add new information, and for me, my time for Wikipedia is very limited.

Good luck... Han-Kwang (t) 09:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the info. It appears the source website copied the material from a Funk & Wagnall's encyclopedia article that was written in 2006, before the Wiki articles in question were written. It looks like someone already picked up my comment on the DF article. I'll go ahead and work out any changes through the articles' talk pages. Thanks for your advice. Zaereth (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DreamHost

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Planck's law

Hi, Han-Kwang, just noticed (very belatedly) your edits around 6:30 on 30 Aug 2008 to Planck's law considerably tightening up the text around the equation between the contravariant integrals, and other improvements. Great job, don't know how I overlooked that opportunity for further cleanup following my edits right before yours, very obvious in hindsight. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Han-Kwang (t) 22:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hubbert graphics

Hi. I´m writting in a wikigroup about energies in the Spanish Wikipedia. I notice that the svg with the Hubbert's graphic have some problems (some letters are hidden and the orange´s letters are difficult to read). Can you send me the file in order to make it work, or maybe do it yourself? Thanks.--Andreateletrabajo (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. At the bottom of the description page, all data is available to recreate the image. It's made with Gnuplot, which is freeware. Han-Kwang (t) 12:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference Help

Hi,

You've helped me with editorial issues in the past, and I was wondering if you can help again. I just wrote a new entry called Housewares Design Awards. While I think the text is fine, would it be possible to help me figure out how to post the references? I've tried using the help page, but I'm still having technical issues. I ended up leaving the reference section out of it because it wouldn't post correctly.

I would like to list and link the article to the official Housewares Design Awards website, the HomeWorld Business magazine official website, and the International Housewares Association website. All three of these are already external links, but they work as references as well. I've seen similar entries that have them listed for both.

Can you give me an example on how put these in a reference section, and also how to link them to the text in the actual article?

Any help is much appreciated.

Regards, Sarah

Scsbn4 (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple way:

 article text...<ref>[http://www.example.com/ Example website title]</ref>
 ...
 bottom of article text
 ==References==
 <references/>

Keep in mind though that you should be very careful when adding articles about your own company (if you are affiliated with the company); see WP:COI and WP:EL. Hope this helps. Han-Kwang (t) 12:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Housewares Design Awards Wikipedia Entry

Hi,

I appreciate your help with my reference question last week.

The Housewares Design Awards entry was just removed from Wikipedia. It was marked with a tag that said it was unambiguous advertising. I'm a bit confused as to why this is. The Housewares Design Awards is an independent award, judged by an independent panel that is chosen by the International Housewares Association (an entry that is included in Wikipedia). I see that other product design awards are featured in Wikipedia that are very similar in nature to the entry I posted.

The original Housewares Design Awards Wikipedia entry is below. I would really appreciate any input you have on how this can be improved. Would it help if I removed the sponsor website external links?

Thanks, Sarah

Housewares Design Awards Wikipedia Entry The Housewares Design Awards, introduced in 2003, is an annual U. S. product design award competition focused on the housewares industry.

Awards include 13 “Best in Category” Awards and “Best of the Best” Awards at the Gold, Silver and Bronze levels. Three “Green House Design Awards” recognize innovative eco-friendly products. The categories are:

Cook and Bakeware

Cooking Electrics

Cutlery

Floor Care Electrics

Food Preparation Electrics

Furniture

Home Environment Electrics

Home Organization, Laundry and Non-Electric Cleaning

Kitchen Hand Tools

Kitchenware and Barware

Lighting, Home Décor and Outdoor Living,

Personal Care, Health & Garment Care

Tabletop

The awards are presented by HomeWorld Business®, with educational support from the International Housewares Association (IHA) and sponsorship by the New York International Gift Fair and DuPont™ Teflon®.

Eligibility and Evaluation Criteria

All manufacturers and marketers of housewares products may enter designs that have been introduced and made available for consumer purchase within a specific yearly time period.

An independent panel of judges made up of designers and retail buyers chooses sixty-five finalists and then the winners from hundreds of product entries each year. The panel is chosen and supervised by the International Housewares Association.

Products are evaluated along multiple dimensions. Criteria include unique appearance, functionality, positioning, innovative technology or materials, safety, environmental benefits, emotional appeal, social impact and the ability to meet consumer needs.

External Links

Housewares Design Awards: www.housewaresdesignawards.com

HomeWorld Business: www.homeworldbusiness.com

International Housewares Association: http://www.housewares.org/

New York International Gift Fair: http://www.nyigf.com/

DuPont™ Teflon®: http://www2.dupont.com/Teflon/en_US/index.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsbn4 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The first question is whether you are affiliated with this organization. Are you? If so, then you should not write this article.

If not, then still your text indeed reads like it is copied straight out of a brochure written by the organization. A proper article should provide a balanced overview of third-party opinions about the subject, not just what the subject says about itself or what you as an editor believe. I suggest that you read the notability guidelines. Specific points here could be:

• Coverage by mainstream media or notable industry-specific media;
• Examples of award-winning designs, preferably products from the early years that are still well known;
• Remove mentioning of the winner categories, fancy award names.
• Remove all external links except the official website of HDA.
• Provide a reference for every statement in the text.

Good luck. Han-Kwang (t) 13:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Gamut.tar.gz

A tag has been placed on File:Gamut.tar.gz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela

Hello Hankwang. Thanks for reading the reference and clarifying the sound. Cheers,  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coherent Inc. logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coherent Inc. logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Temporary de-orphaning 100px; article deleted WP:Articles for deletion/Coherent (company).

Conducting pattern image

As the original contributor of the original version of the image of the shape a conductor traces when conducting in 4/4, what are your thoughts on the image's removal due to the current version of the image being backward? Which orientation is correct? AtticusX (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)