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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	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

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

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

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

You changed my revised short description for the Photometry (optics) page from visible radiation (light) back to visible light because you felt the latter was less ambiguous. There is no such thing as invisible light, at least according to standard definitions (which are cited), and we shouldn't reinforce old/bad habits. Could you clarify why you believe visible radiation (light) was ambiguous? I'd change it to visible radiation (i.e., light) but it sounds like you feel that would be too many words, and I don't want to get into an editing war. Jrtuenge (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I changed it from visible radiation (light) to visible light because the latter is both shorter and clearer. I didn't shorten it all the way to just "light" because in physics the term light frequently includes radiation outside the visible band. I disagree that this usage is either old or a bad habit. From Light: "In physics, the term "light" may refer more broadly to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.¹²" --Srleffler (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'm grudgingly on board now... I wasn't convinced by the sources you cited, so I've added the following to that page accordingly to show more authoritative/recent usage: "This is why visible radiation is commonly termed visible light".³⁴ Jrtuenge (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Srleffler: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas to you too, Danilo!--Srleffler (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		I just wanted to thank you for speaking up and giving me the benefit of the doubt. Jrtuenge (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you!--Srleffler (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The redirect Gaslight has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 9 § Gaslight until a consensus is reached. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Srleffler, I have moved the discussion you started at User talk:Kvng § CFLs to Talk:Incandescent light bulb § CFLs as the latter seemed more appropriate; please check the new location for any responses. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I notice you have removed {{Electronic component}} a few places. Why are Transformer and Incandescent light not electronic components? ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm distinguishing between electrical components and electronic ones. Devices that just convert electricity into other forms of energy or vice-versa are electrical, but not necessarily electronic. Electronic devices use electricity to carry and process information (signals). I also removed items that are electronic but not components. If you solder it to a circuit board, it's probably an electronic component.

There's a lot of grey area in between, and items that cross over the boundary. A small incandescent light designed for use as an indicator in a circuit would qualify as an electronic component, but those are rare compared to bulbs designed for illumination. A transformer might be used in an electronic circuit to process signals, but they are much more commonly used for changing electrical power from one voltage to another.--Srleffler (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think a lot of grey area is a potential understatement. Those definitions sound plausible but I doubt we could get a good consensus on them. Nevertheless, I guess if an article is not linked in the template then the template shouldn't be transcluded in the article and Transformer and Incandescent light are not linked in the template so, I guess carry on. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would like to get more input on the deletion discussion, as the nomination has been relisted twice now with very little interest. I know there used to be a way to draw more attention to languishing nominations like this, but I can't find it anymore. Eladynnus (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how to draw more attention to it. The lack of attention may be sufficient reason to keep the article. Articles that merit deletion have no trouble getting !votes.--Srleffler (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply