text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin fulpagare

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Was speedied. Wikibofh 15:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sachin fulpagare
Vanity, no real argument for notability. Recommend userfy. Dvyost 17:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy as another college grad with a job...--Isotope23 18:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Tintin 22:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:83.26.89.63

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:83.26.89.63


text: User talk:84.21.31.69

title: User talk:84.21.31.69


text: User talk:81.104.215.228

title: User talk:81.104.215.228


text:
User talk:THE INTERNATIONALIST LIBERATION FRONT

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Also, please change your username. Some may find it offensive. Thank you. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 17:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Abd Allah al-Mahdi Billah

Untitled
This article is only the half truth of al-Mahdi. There are great parts of his bio missing. Check out "The Empire of the mahdi" by Heinz Halm for further reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorroz (talk • contribs)

The rise of the Fatimids is also an authentic source but the best primary sources for a biography on the Fatimids are their own works, literary and historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahashoeb (talk • contribs) 13:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Abdullah al-Mahdi Billah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210110054/http://archive.mumineen.org:80/awliya/aimmat/e_imammehdi_11.html to http://archive.mumineen.org/awliya/aimmat/e_imammehdi_11.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Do we need a disambiguation page for "Al Mahdi"? Ileanadu (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"Imam-Caliph"
, why did you revert the changes to the caliphs' articles? The Imam status of the Fatimid caliphs can be mentioned in the body and lead, it does not belong in the infobox as Template:Infobox royalty is reserved for monarchs, which Imamism is not. If it must be added, then it should not be in the succession parameter along with "caliph". Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * because that is the title given to them in the modern bibliography; because the imamate was the basis of their claim to the caliphate, and by far the more important title in their own eyes and the eyes of their Isma'ili followers; because in the conception of the Fatimids, the imam of the time was a monarchical title, his realm being the entire world. Constantine  ✍  17:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Up to the 8th century 'imam' was used synonymously with 'caliph', and the word only started to acquire different meanings in some specific (mainly quietist Shi'i) contexts from the 9th century onward. In the context of the Fatimids, however, the term 'imam' did remain synonymous with 'caliph', and because of this duplicity –and the religio-political connotations this carried in an age where the functions of 'caliph' and 'imam' had de facto (and in the budding Twelver Shi'ism of the age also de iure) been split– modern historians tend to refer to the Fatimid caliphs as 'Imam-Caliphs'. Ultimately, it is the fact that this a common designation among historians that justifies our use of it in the infoboxes. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 17:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for articulating it so well, . The Abbasids also claimed the title of 'imam', but as a means of also claiming pre-eminence in religious and judicial affairs against the ulama and faqihs. This was never really accepted, and the demise of the Mu'tazili experiment put an end to these pretensions. OTOH, the Fatimids were already acknowledged as divinely guided imams by their followers, and their entire legitimacy rested on the imamate. For the Fatimids, the two titles are really inseparable: the Fatimid caliphs are effectively those Isma'ili imams who headed not only a religious movement (da'wa) but also a state (dawla). Constantine  ✍  08:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abd Allah al-Mahdi Billah


text:
Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-3

The Schempp-Hirth Nimbus 3 is a glider built by Schempp-Hirth.

Design and development
The Nimbus-3 uses carbon-fibre extensively and has a new wing profile compared with the Nimbus-2. It has a four-piece carbon-fibre wing with a 22.9 metre span but may be increased to 24.5 or 25.5 metres with tip extensions. The outer wing panels are slightly modified Ventus wings. When rolling at large aileron deflection, small spoiler flaps deploy at the inner wingtip to compensate for lack of rudder power. It was first flown on 21 February 1981 by its designer Dipl.-Ing Klaus Holighaus. A glide ratio of 60:1 has been claimed. The Nimbus-3T version has a sustainer engine.

Nimbus-3s took the first three places in the Open Class in the 1981 World Gliding Championships although there were only 12 entrants. In the 1983 World Championships it took the top six places, and it won again in the 1985 Championships.

The D-model (Nimbus-3D) is the two-seater version. There is also a self-launched two-seat version (Nimbus-3DM) and a two-seat sustainer version (Nimbus-3DT). The first flight of the D-model was in May 1986.

The Nimbus-3 was succeeded by the Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-4.

title: Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-3


text:
California State Route 220

State Route 220 (SR 220) is a state highway in the U.S. state of California, defined to run between State Route 84 and State Route 160 on Ryer Island in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. At the eastern end of Ryer Island, the road crosses Steamboat Slough on the Howard Landing Ferry, a cable ferry.

Route description
State Route 220 is defined under the California Streets and Highway Code to run east from State Route 84 on Ryer Island in Solano County to State Route 160 in Sacramento County. The route includes the toll-free Howard Landing Ferry, where the cable-drawn vessel J-Mack takes vehicles across Steamboat Slough. Both the Howard Landing Ferry and the Ryer Island Ferry along State Route 84 are the only state-run ferries, and there are no plans to replace them with bridges due to the low traffic numbers around Ryer Island, The only road bridge connecting Ryer Island is on its north side, which results in longer commutes for residents if one or both ferries shutdown.

title: California State Route 220


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insurance Investigations

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Insurance Investigations
Aside from the need for cleanup, I wouldn't consider this encyclopedic. Maybe appropriate for Wiktionary, but I'm not sure about that either. Soultaco 17:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Notable form of work for private investigators. Alternatively, redirect to Private investigator. Capitalistroadster 18:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: File:KPRS.jpg

title: File:KPRS.jpg


text:
Lockport Powerhouse

The Lockport Powerhouse is an American run-of-the-river dam used by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago to control the outflow of the Sanitary and Ship Canal and limit the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Des Plaines River.

History
The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal reached Lockport, Illinois in the 1890s. As part of this construction, a lock and dam was built in Lockport. Seven waste gates, used to control the level of water in the canal and Des Plaines River, were part of this project. From 1903 to 1907, the canal was extended from Lockport to Joliet. Construction on the Lockport Powerhouse began as part of this extension in 1905. Designed by Frederick L. Barrett, the red-roofed Beaux Arts powerhouse was constructed with concrete blocks coursed to resemble stone. The powerhouse featured four Francis-style turbines to generate electrical power, capable of generating 40000 hp. These turbines have since been replaced with two vertical Kaplan turbines. The powerhouse was also the home of the waste gate controls. The lock and gates were designed to manage a 40 ft drop in canal elevation between the two municipalities.

A second phase of construction occurred from 1922 to 1933 to handle differing water loads following the opening of the Ohio River Standard Navigation Lock. First operational in 1907, the powerhouse is now recognized as the oldest hydroelectric plant in Illinois. The Lockport Lock, Dam and Power House Historic District was recognized by the National Park Service with a listing on the National Register of Historic Places on March 10, 2004.

Navigation Lock
The lock next to the dam & powerhouse is largely used for barge traffic and has a 39 foot (11.8 meters) drop. It is the second of eight locks on the Illinois Waterway connecting Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River.

title: Lockport Powerhouse


text: User talk:84.40.192.143

title: User talk:84.40.192.143


text:
John Mulcahy (rower)

John Joseph Francis Mulcahy (July 20, 1876 – November 19, 1942) was the winner of the 1904 Olympic double scull event with his partner William Varley. The duo also won the silver medal in the pair without coxswain event. Mulcahy was one of the most accomplished rowers to come from the New York City area and served as president of the Atalanta Boat Club (established in 1848) on New York City's Harlem River. He graduated from Fordham University in 1894 and established Fordham's first rowing team in 1915. He was inducted into the National Rowing Hall of Fame in 1956 and the Fordham University Athletic Hall of Fame in 1991.

title: John Mulcahy (rower)


text:
User talk:Carillonneur

Sonata on the 94th Psalm
Hello. I've just written this article on the sonata by Julius Reubke. I found you through the project: Pipe Organ. Do you have this piece of music in your repertoire? I wonder if you would consider making a recording that we could put on the page? It would be an excellent addition to Wikipedia and make the article complete. Thanks for considering. I have also contacted a few others who listed that they were a good organist, who were listed on the pipe organ project page, so if someone notifies me that they are able to do it, I will let you know. Thanks. Clavecin 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ORGAN
Are you aware of the above WikiProject? if so, are you a member? If not, please join!--Vox Humana 8' 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop
Hi. I have recently started the article Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop. Since you are listed in the category Yale Alumni, I thought you might be interesting in contributing to the article. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea Getting Killed
Carilloneur:

Hi. I'm from Stamford too & lived there from birth ('56) to 1989.

 * The only reason I'm contacting you is you list backpacking as an interest and am looking for some constituency for an article.

Dunno, but it seems remotely possible you'd be interested in this. Wilderness Diarrhea is getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests.

I get around a lot in the outdoors and rarely treat water, but WD article had some good stuff.

 * After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

These guys have irrationally convinced themselves that WD isn't a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article.

 * I've pointed out several bomb-proof arguements to no avail. I'd say the strongest is the vast number of published articles that discuss WD as a separate concern from TD. They are both environmental health topics, and obviously the context of each are far different.

 * They simply ignore all this.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hartford Meetup: We need your help!
The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!
The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Images of Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki
Hi! I'd be very happy if you could help with this request. Particularly with the image which will soon be on wikipedia's mainpage as DYK. Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 08:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

You're invited!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Invite
I see you have self-identified as a backpacker by using the ”This user enjoys backpacking” user box. I invite you to join the backpacking project. The project recently reactivated. There is plenty of good work to do improving the encyclopedia’s coverage of backpacking equipment, organizations, celebrities, books, skills, and trails. The project provides a system to rate articles and prioritize editing efforts. Visit the project’s page, take a look, and please consider joining me in improving the articles and coverage of an activity we both enjoy.

—¿philoserf? (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Carillonneur


text: User talk:70.129.69.249

title: User talk:70.129.69.249


text:
User:Carillonneur

Ellen from Stamford, Connecticut, USA.

Teacher of lessons in piano, organ, and carillon

Member of the Guild of Carillonneurs in North America and the College Music Society

Feel free to email me by clicking on "E-mail this user" in the left column.

title: User:Carillonneur


text:
Csongrád County (former)

Csongrád (Csongrád, Чонград, Čongrad) was an administrative county (comitatus) of the Kingdom of Hungary. Its territory, which was smaller than that of present-day Csongrád-Csanád County, is now part of Hungary, except a very small area which belongs to Serbia. The capital of the county was Szentes.

Name
The county was named after a town of Csongrád, which has a Slavic origin, meaning "black city" (čon/čorni = black, grad = city/town).

Geography
In the late-19th and early-20th centuries Csongrád county shared borders with the Hungarian counties of Pest-Pilis-Solt-Kiskun, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok, Békés, Csanád, Torontál and Bács-Bodrog. Prior to the reforms of the late-19th century it had shared borders with the Kiskunság/Jászkunság, Pest County, Heves County, the Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar (1849-1860) and its predecessor the Banat of Temeswar (until 1786). Until the mid-18th century the southern part of the county, including Szeged, had been part of the Military Frontier, which the rest of the county bordered. The river Tisza flowed through the county. Its area was 3544 km2 around 1910.

History
Csongrád county arose in the 11th century as one of the first counties of the Kingdom of Hungary. It was taken by the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century, and reconquered by the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary at the end of the 17th century (recognised in the 1699 Treaty of Karlowitz). The southern part of the county, including Szeged, was part of the (Mureș) Military Frontier until the mid-18th century.

On 1 June 1786 the county was merged with Békés and Csanád counties to form Békés-Csanád-Csongrád; they were re-separated in 1790.

In the period following the revolutions of 1848 (1849–1860), Csongrád was part of the Military District of Pest-Ofen.

The county gained Kiskundorozsma with the abolition of the Jászkunság in 1876. Prior to that the area had formed a large salient (panhandle) mostly separating the southernmost area from the rest of the county; the two areas were connected by a small section of land between Kiskundorozsma and the Tisza only around 3.2 km across.

In 1920, the Treaty of Trianon assigned a small part of the territory of the county – a small area around Horgos (now Horgoš, Vojvodina) in northern Délvidék – to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (renamed to Yugoslavia in 1929); the rest remained in Hungary. During World War II, Hungary annexed the lost territory, but after the end of the war the previous borders were restored.

In the 1950 reform of the Hungarian counties, the south-western part of Csanád County (which comprised the Hungarian part of pre-1920 Torontál County and the south-western part of pre-1920 Csanád County) was added to Csongrád county; Kardoskút was transferred to Békés county. Csongrád County was renamed Csongrád-Csanád County on 4 June 2020.

Subdivisions
In the early 20th century, the subdivisions of Csongrád county were:

Earlier subdivisions
In the early 19th century Csongrád County was divided into two processus, which were separated by the Tisza: Processus Cis-Tybiscanus in the west and Processus Trans-Tybiscanus in the east.

In 1854 Csongrád county comprised the following Bezirke (presented as they appear in the defining act):
 * Stuhlbezirk Csongrád
 * Stuhlbezirk Szentes
 * Stuhlbezirk Vásárhely (Hódmezővásárhely)
 * Landbezirk Szegedin (i.e. the area around the city)
 * Stadtbezirk Szegedin (i.e. the city itself)

title: Csongrád County (former)


text:
User:HighlandMark

Highland is me - Mark Thomas. I've joined Wikipedia in order to create a page about my home town Newtonmore.

title: User:HighlandMark


text:
User talk:Scimitar/Archive 004

Talk Archive IV from September 2, 2005 - October 5, 2005

Helen Love
can you give me a chance to write the Helen Love artivel before deleting it please. I did put that it was a stub! I'm just sorting out the various other links that should go to it before i fill it out Spute 15:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, i've put a stub up, it will be expanded soon. Sorry my initial stub was a bit too scrappy, but it was only a quicky. Spute 15:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Barrett's Privateers
It's just the rules for Wikipedia categorization -- Category:Stan Rogers songs is already a subcategory of both Category:Canadian songs and Category:Folk songs, so you don't directly file a song in all three categories. No article should ever be simultaneously filed in both a parent category and a subcategory of that parent category at the same time. Bearcat 16:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Atatürk
Hi, I remember you showed some interest in the Greco-Turkish relations page, a new page called Criticism of Atatürk has been created. There is a disagreement running in the discussion whether Ataturk should be accused of a genocide or not, your input would be appreciated. --A.Garnet 21:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for replying, no problem. --A.Garnet 23:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine now
Yay, no more overlapping boxes! android 79  23:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken
Perhaps User:Francis Schonken should understand that he is expected to receive criticism at same level at which he himself has "attacked" others:, - Conduct towards others is usually a two-sided thing. 217.140.193.123 12:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

About my RfA
Hi Jonathan. You chose to be neutral on my RfA, but I appreciate the fact that you made your concerns public. I just would like to assure you that I will still work my best on Wikipedia, in order to prove wrong any fears you may still have about me. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 08:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Scimitar,
I would not, I stress not, add the "Template:SockpuppetProven" to Arrigo's user page, neither did I do that.

The Sockpuppet page has:"The  template should not be added in the cases of accusations of sockpuppetry which have not been proven. Instead, add Template:Sockpuppet to the page"so, that's what I did, with a link in the template to a sample of the evidence.

In reply to that I've received several e-mails and messages on my talk page by other wikipedians, each of them appearing to have their own evidence, in addition to the evidence I also already gathered at User talk:Francis Schonken/Arrigo disruption, in preparation for an RfC. I thought that an RfC could be avoided, and that the warning would work in itself, to bring Arrigo to his senses w.r.t. his disruptive behaviour. It appears like there's going to be an RfC nonetheless.

User:Deb wrote on my talk page:"Dear Francis, as I'm sure you are aware, I share your concern about this user's activities, particularly his careless page moves and disruption of votes. Incidentally, he has used several other IP addresses to access wikipedia, for example 62.78.104.14, but as far as I know he is currently only using the two 'identities'. This in itself I consider to be worthy of an RfC. However, this note is just to tell you that, much as I would like to support the RfC you are considering, my opinion would surely be disregarded because of the disputes I have already had with him (I'm pretty sure it's a 'he', partly because of the misogynistic streak he occasionally displays.) If I do ever contribute to an RfC on the subject of this user, it will have to be one I raise myself -- at the moment I'm not quite ready to do that, as I feel he could still make a worthwhile contribution to the project if he would only abandon his arrogance."

A sysop provided me a host of links to other circumstantial and hard evidence of sockpuppeterial behaviour of Arrigo and his most preferred IP (217.140.193.123). This is one of the contributions of that sysop to my talk page:"However, because it can potentially resolve many issues, I'll spend some time to look into it. I think it is very sneaky for an IP to do that - it's misleading for one thing. I'll get back to you in a bit!"Later the same sysop added I am wondering if something more severe is required. [...] I did some searching around; you might be interested in this link here and here. In particular, the last sentence may be of interest to you. Also, consider the context of these links here and here. Let me know what you think, and if I can help you out any further. Cheers! --HappyCamper 03:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

And there are still more links provided by this same sysop on my talk page!

Another user sent me an e-mail telling me there would be more evidence at:
 * Votes for deletion/Prince Felix of Denmark
 * Votes for deletion/Prince Nikolai of Denmark
 * Votes for deletion/Prince Sigismund of Prussia
 * Talk:Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich of Russia
 * Votes for deletion/Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich of Russia

I've not got the time to check the soundness this last list of links (accidently my web server has been under DOS attack the last few days, so that makes even surfing extremely slow for me these days - I'm not even sure whether I'll be able to post this message to you: it took me half a day this morning to download my mail) --Francis Schonken 15:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Flynt vs. Bush
"scimitar", did you find flynt vs bush story to be inaccurate?

"When I said that we had proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that performed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time, who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion. The young lady does not want to go public, and without her willingness, we don't feel that we're on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because she would say it never happened... One of the things that interested us was that this abortion took place before Roe v. Wade in 1970, which made it a crime at the time. I'd just like the national media to ask him (Bush) if abortion is okay for him and his family, but not for the rest of America..."

Thank you
I am so glad to see someone used my "Anon vandal" template. At first I thought it was a real waste, but you have reassured me.

You have recently vandalized a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

We hope that you will become a legitimate editor and create an account. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing. If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future punishments such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own.

Just kidding : )  V. Molotov    18:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. : )., I was hoping to allow the user to see other ways to edit beside vandalism, and I thought those would be better than "Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.  " or something like that. Take care,  V.  Molotov    18:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ping
There is a new reply posted to your talk at User_talk:Gmaxwell. Delete this notice at your leisure. --Gmaxwell 18:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Hopefully your warnings will work. Maybe it'll bring them to their senses. Guettarda 19:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Good work. KHM03 19:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, sorry. I see.  Anyway, I think it's a content dispute masquerading as a formatting dispute.  Ken reverted Mick's changes, but reverted it too far.  Both of them have messed up my footnoting, to some extent, but I really couldn't care less about that - it's no big deal to fix if I had a stable version to work with. Guettarda 19:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism wearing the protection of 3RR
I have had an entry on Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda regarding Able Danger deleted numerous times by people pretending not to understand the reason it is on the page. I have continued to expand the entry almost every time to improve readability and to explain how it relates to the subject. One of the those deleting the entry said I should not violate the 3RR and I just got the same message from you. No doubt this person contacted you. I have not violated the 3RR because it is not the same entry. Anyone who reads the entry or the discussion on the Talk page, which occurs in more than one place, can tell that the entry clearly relates to the article and should be included. This vandalism has to stop. Your assistance is requested.RonCram 01:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I did not contact Scimitar - he/she reacted on his/her own accord to a violation of the 3RR. There is no conspiracy to suppress you, and the discussion on 'talk' for that article does not at all indicate the section should be included - quite the opposite. It's largely unrelated to the article's title (Saddam/al Qaeda), from a non-corroborated, highly partisan source (WorldNet) and does not, in fact, contain verifiable facts to back the allegation. So, it's not factual, and is instead unencyclopedic. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool
Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Tools. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is paste the following into User:/monobook.js: // User:Lupin/popups.js - please include this line

document.write(' ');

popupAdminLinks=true; Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin 01:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

RonCram vio
Hi there - I didn't mean to hurt your feelings by saying there had been no response to my initial report - it's just that I didn't know you had warned him/her, since the 3RR hadn't been updated accordingly. No worries - I have respect for the community's rules and have never violated 3RR (even when combatting a 14RR vio by another user!) - and I never will. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, have a good day. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 15:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk softly and wear a thick skin
The user we are dealing with is still very new, and I am sure that he means well. He's trying to be faithful, and feels surrounded by the enemy. For whatever it's worth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not a very active admin. You didn't bungle. Thanks for your efforts to help. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Abuse removed
Thanks. I just get wound up about it. I've got tonnes of stuff ready to add to several articles, stuff I've scanned in and researched, just this guy polices my edits in the most spiteful way. It really gets my goat. I even considered looking up his address and going round to his house, and ... well anyway. Put it like this- I want to edit the wikipedia, the project helps and amazes me everyday. I just can't do it when my every edit is "corrected" by him within 24 hours. What do suggest? I honestly am a reasonable person. Leonig Mig 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Michael Krop
Greetings. An article you voted to keep in a previous VfD (Votes for deletion/Michael Krop) has been nominated for deletion once again. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 03:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi there. Thanks for the support on my RfA; I was surprised at how widely supported it was. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I learn my way around the new buttons. Thanks again. -Splash 16:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

to:Scimatar
I wanted to first tell you that the Biblical scientific foreknowledge dispute has finally been resolved.

Secondly, I want to clear up something so that future potential disputes are solved more expeditiously.

I know that Wikipedia states it is not merely a tertiary source that goes along with the expert consensus and it in fact welcomes minority views. In short, Wikipedia recognizes the limitations of peer review.

Here is what Wikipedia states on its opening webpage info in response to common objections about Wikipedia:

....There is a problem with the concept of peer review in general. Many great advances in the social and natural sciences have come by challenging the status quo and, because of that, their contributions were ignored or belittled by their peers. For example, George Akerlof, Nobel Laureate in Economics in 2001, had his classic paper (for which he won the Nobel Prize) entitled "The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism" rejected by the American Economic Review for being trivial and by the Journal of Political Economy because it conflicted with economic theory. Only after submitting it to a third journal, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, did the breakthrough article become published. Wikipedia allows for discourse where other venues would not.

Now here is what Wikipedia states about minority view articles:

None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

Why does Wikipedia says this:

The Wikipedia people were astute enough people to recognize the foibles of men and that they would use brevity/conciseness complaints in order to exclude minority views from being full expressed. Therefore, they were quite clear that minority views can go into "great detail" in minority view articles and that there is "no size limit to Wikipedia". The minority view status of this article overrules any brevity/conciseness claims. In short, Wikipedia set up a system of checks and balances so the majority view would get more attention but at the time allowing very liberal rights to minority view articles with few restrictions.

ken 17:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Android79's RfA
Thank you the baboon for your his support on my RfA and for your his kind and baboon-y comments. ;-) android  79  22:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia Problemss
Hopefully one day if I get nominated to become an adm. nobody will try to dig this up against me

I have three big problems with Wikipedia and its policy the first being

1. A detestable lack of recognition for several users (at first including myself, but I have been recognized lately, and so have no right to complain on my own behalf but the right to complain for others - case in point User:JCarriker )

2. The ability for anon IPs to create articles, when about 70% of newly created articles by anons are deleted because they are either a. nonsense or b. plain vandalism, and many times c. patent stupidity. Thus, I propose that IPs be able to edit and to read articles, but not be able to create them - due to the simple fact that they could create a user name to do so.

3a. As yourself, the general hierarchy of Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales, in my opinion, should not have dictatorial status on this site, as he sometimes may be either too busy to handle individual users, or maybe just apathetic. (I completely understand this though, I wouldn't answer everyone if I were in his shoes either, and I do have a modicum of respect for the guy). Perhaps there should be a oligarchy of all editors with over 10,000 edits with Jimbo and Angela Beesley - I guess we could call these guys "superadmins".

3b. The jobs of beauracrat and admin. should be dissolved and just put into one position.

3c. There should be way more admins. With the power mixture stated above, the status pro number of administrators/beuracrats would be too powerful, and thus greedy. Generally speaking, all editors with 3,000+ edits, and who have generally have gotten along with/ and are beneficial to the WikiSociety should be admns., thus allowing thousands of general representatives rather than the tiny 500 or so to govern over 300,000 registered users - and perhaps several hundreds of thousands of IPs. In my opinion, there should be atleast 5,000 of these "sysops"

Under this pyramid system we have

1a. Jimbo Wales - stripped off dictatorial powers, but still having ceremonial rights (such as the Queen of England officially can stop bills from the House of Commons - but doesn't)

1b. "Superadmins" with over 10,000 edits (atleast 3,500 to articles); numbering in the hundreds - sharing Jimbo Wales current powers (i.e. stripping sysops of their sysopability)

2. Regular admins - who have combined beauracratic power - but have much higher numbers, as not to be too greedy for power. (about 5,000 - 10,000)

3. The general registered editor (300,000+)

4. The anon IP - who may not create articles (several hundreds of thousands)

5. General readers of the encyclopedia (several millions)

Thus, there would be a scheme for the one (Jimbo Wales would still have a little power over the superadmins, but not much more), the few (the superadmins and regular admins) and the many (the editors - you and I).

I hope my opinions are worth something. Molotov (talk)  18:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * An excellent set of suggestions. It would certainly streamline things.  And no...you're not crazy.  If you really are looking for the safety and security of institutionlization, why, come on out here!  The weather's cooled off and the Betty Ford Center is right down the street from my job.  One of my co-workers is putting his master's degree to good use by working there as an intern!  Talk about an "in!"  :) - Lucky 6.9 00:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your diligent attention to matters concerning my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Sincerely, Leonard G. 03:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * With regards to your about to change to support, I would appreciate it if you could post that as a remark in the RfA, just for the record. I have read your remarks concerning the WP Problem and concur, but with the suggestion that your proposal remains with oversized steps. There should be small, well defined increments, a mentoring and teaching system (possibly including testing) and other refinements. I was surprised to see how much we are in agreement given that others were referencing your (neutral) comment in their rejections. Others had suggested that my responses were argumentative and that I should just keep quiet, in which case you would probably have not been able to see my point.

 * As for the lack of a one button revert - I have stopped looking at my watch list. Instead, I will periodically select an article noted on my user page and review it for changes from my last visit and then think about possible article improvements. New articles will only be added as I obtain images that could use a home. This way - no see, no stress. Leonard G. 18:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Scimitar, I hope you're not away too long.. don't let the trolls and vandals get you down! Cheers, Fawcett5 20:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:MIND 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for participating in Round Two of the Mind Benders! The round will officially close on Friday, September 16, and round three (which is complete) will be open in the immediate days after that. A notice will be sent to you at least 48 hours before round three is set to open, to insure fairness. Round three offers 11 new exciting questions, this time written by Deryck C.. Please be sure to join in the fun! Also, congratulations to Riffsyphon1024 for winning our logo competition! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:MIND 06:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, ! This message is to inform you that round three of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Wednesday, September 21, at approximately 22:00 UTC. While the opening time may vary by two or three hours, the round will open no earlier than 22:00 UTC. In addition, there are several rule changes, which will be detailed when the round opens. Everyone who answers a question correctly will receive points, but speed does give some extra points! Round three offers 11 new exciting and mind-bogglind questions, written by Deryck C.. These promise to be lots of fun! We sincerely hope you join us.

Also, congratulations to ROYGBIV for winning round two; it was an extremely close game, with the runner-up, Spondoolicks, only two points behind. Let's keep round three competitive! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 06:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:MIND 06:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, ! This message is to inform you that round three of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Wednesday, September 21, at approximately 22:00 UTC. While the opening time may vary by two or three hours, the round will open no earlier than 22:00 UTC. In addition, there are several rule changes, which will be detailed when the round opens. Everyone who answers a question correctly will receive points, but speed does give some extra points! Round three offers 11 new exciting and mind-bogglind questions, written by Deryck C.. These promise to be lots of fun! We sincerely hope you join us.

Also, congratulations to ROYGBIV for winning round two; it was an extremely close game, with the runner-up, Spondoolicks, only two points behind. Let's keep round three competitive! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 06:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:MIND 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, ! This message is to inform you that round three of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Wednesday, September 21, at approximately 22:00 UTC. While the opening time may vary by two or three hours, the round will open no earlier than 22:00 UTC. In addition, there are several rule changes, which will be detailed when the round opens. Everyone who answers a question correctly will receive points, but speed does give some extra points! Round three offers 11 new exciting and mind-bogglind questions, written by Deryck C.. These promise to be lots of fun! We sincerely hope you join us.

Also, congratulations to ROYGBIV for winning round two; it was an extremely close game, with the runner-up, Spondoolicks, only two points behind. Let's keep round three competitive! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Breaking
Hi Jonathan. I return to find you missing! Thank you for your kind offer of support. I had an enforced wikibreak at the beginning of the month (paid work expanded to fill time unavailable), then The Ashes filled a further 5 days, and I realised that I was relieved to be away from the wikiconflicts so I chose to stay away a bit longer. I will not stop looking in but I do not expect to resume my previous level of activity for some considerable while. I trust that all is well with you. —Theo (Talk) 18:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

User Categorization
You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians of British Columbia for instructions. --Doviende 20:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for the support in my RfA. I know how controversial VfD can be, and I'm glad there are still many of us not put off by the ill-feelings it can generate. -R. fiend 19:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Earth is Flat!
When everyone believed the earth was flat, the earth WAS flat. Earth changed shape when everyone stopped believing it. Alternatively, you may also say that earth turned from flat to round, when some people strongly believed in earth's roundness. Earth may revolve around you, if you believe it. Flat-Earther 13:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder Arbitration case
Hello,

The Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA!
My dear Scimitar, I simply wanted to drop by now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. It came at a very important time to me, when I felt I was being somewhat distrusted, and your confidence gave me strength. I also want to thank you for your beautiful words towards my work, and I'm very happy that you enjoyed it. I hope that we continue to be in contact in the future, and you have in me a new friend. Hugs! Shauri Yes babe?  19:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your intervention in NPOV'bg Alain Vivien. IMO, there is a concerted effort by several editors to remove criticism of France and French officials in regard to freedom of religion. --ZappaZ 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ic ne tellen tha honour
Thanks a ton for the barnstar (my first) (yes, my first, although there have been other awards). Oddly enough, I was working on Peterborough Chronicle with the aim of nominating it to Featured Article in a day or two. I need to supply a reference or two more, and possibly get some of the boring linguistics stuff in there, and then I think it'll be ready. However, if you think Peterborough Chronicle is something, take a look at Ormulum. Now thaes is bad pining! Thanks again. Geogre 17:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, they kind of take me for granted, until I start yelling at them (wp:an/i anyone?), and then someone tells me that I'm not being pleasant. Anyway, I got the Prose Rose and Nobel Prize from Bishonen, and I invented the Rouge Admin award (I think it's Image:Rouge-Admin.png, but I'm not sure of what capitalization I used) for myself and many, and I hear that Image:Geogre-7.png was recently affixed to AfD as a mascot, but no Barnstars until today.  I'll keep it safe and mossy. Geogre 18:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar, it was so nice of you to write those words; I don't deserve them, but they inspire me to try and fulfill them. I don't think I've ever quite received such a thoughtful compliment on WP; this was very kind of you. Coming from such an obviously talented WPn, it means that much more. Thanks— enceph alon  06:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Daka
I dont want to take up much space with this... i have already posted what i have to say here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daka A response would be appreciated. Thanks for your time.

title: User talk:Scimitar/Archive 004


text:
User talk:Soultaco

Howdy Soultaco, and welcome to Wikipedia! I saw your name pop up and I thought I'd swing by and say hi.

Here's the usual boilerplate--a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page (below).
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Happy editing, and have a good time! If there's ever anything I can help with (or if you just want to say hey) feel free to swing by my talk page! --Dvyost 17:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Naturopathic Medicine
Dear SoulTaco. I have responded to your question on the Naturopathic medicine talk page. Please give it a look. And if you're interested, I would like to read some of the sources you have used to come up with your opinion. Please send me anything you find relevant. Thanks! --Travisthurston 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Home High School
Continuing to add false information to the Sweet Home High School page will not make it come true, no matter how much you want it to. Please see my note added to your bullet point on the Sweet Home High School talk page. I have verified my edits, and if necessary, I can refer you to both the McKnight, AND Gallo families. Please state the source of your information so I may notify the McKnight and Gallo families of these anomalies. Thank you. Osirisrising (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Soultaco


text:
Talk:Dispersion (optics)

Material dispersion in optics
Is this correct:

"that is, refractive index n decreases with increasing wavelength λ. In this case, the medium is said to have normal dispersion. Whereas, if the index increases with decreasing wavelength the medium has anomalous dispersion."

There appears to be two different definitions of anomalous dispersion. The first: Normal dispersion means refractive index increases as frequency increases, i.e. dn/df > 0. Anomalous dispersion means dn/df < 0. The second: Normal dispersion means not only dn/df > 0, but also refractive index is linearly related to frequency, dn/df = const. Anomalous dispersion means a refractive index that is a nonlinear function of frequency. It is glasses with the second type of anomalous dispersion that make apochromatic lenses possible. See Tamron's discussion http://www.tamron.com/lenses/optical.asp. I'm not an optical engineer, so my assumption that normal dispersion is "linear" may not be accurate, but it's fairly close. ChrisMaple (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I've never heard of the second definition you give; what is your citation for that definition? I don't see that definition given explicitly anywhere in your link.  Note that no material has dn/df = constant if you look in a sufficiently large bandwidth, and in general d2n/df2 in general only vanishes at isolated frequency points, so your second definition seems like it would very rarely be strictly applicable.  — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The second definition is absolutely wrong! The property of having a linear relation between refractive index and frequency, which as Steven points out is not generally the case, I have called "first order dispersion" in my own work (however that is not a universally accepted term, I just don't know of any other!). See my further discussion of that issue below (GVD section). Anomolous dispersion is a particular feature of the refractive index in the immediate vicinity of an absorbtion line (which is the only reason that it is possible, since it would otherwise predict a signal velocity greater than c).

Interferometrist (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sort of out of my depth here. In the Material Dispersion In Optics section I see a chart with the caption: The variation of refractive index vs. vacuum wavelength for various glasses. The wavelengths of visible light are shaded in red. There is no red shading. Blue shading looks like the visible range at first glance. But units shown are off by a factor of 1000. Micrometers would be correct, but people usually use nanometers for visible light wavelength (I think ~400 nm to ~700 nm would fall within the visible range of the typical human eye, or ~.4 um to ~.7 um might be rightly applied due to space constraints). Actual limits to the range are probably correct, my numbers are guesses. Scale and shading appear incorrect.Jeffreagan (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Jeffreagan (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Group velocity formula
I recently added what I thought was the more general formula for the group velocity:

 * $$v_g = v - \lambda \frac{\partial v}{\partial \lambda}$$

which user:Stevenj has removed saying it's not generally true, only in the case of low dispersion. I though this came from the definition of the phase and group velocities:
 * $$v = \omega / k$$

and
 * $$v_g = \frac{\partial \omega}{\partial k}$$

hence:
 * $$v_g = v + k \frac{\partial v}{\partial k}$$

and from $$k = 2\pi / \lambda$$, giving:
 * $$v_g = v - \lambda \frac{\partial v}{\partial \lambda}$$.

So, what am I missing? Are my velocity definitions wrong? (I accept that none of the equations are valid for inhomogeneous media.) -- Bob Mellish 17:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, now I see what you meant. My problem is with the $$k = 2\pi / \lambda$$.   Ordinarily, in equations like this (or in most of optics for that matter) λ means the vacuum wavelength, i.e. $$\lambda = 2\pi c/\omega$$.  Using the wavelength in the material is problematic — not only for inhomogeneous media, but also for anisotropic homogeneous media — but mainly I think people don't use the medium-dependent λ because it is just more convenient to talk in terms of conserved quantities.  (I wish this article would start with the general definitions and then give the specific formulas for special cases like homogeneous media, but I don't have time to do major re-working myself right now.)  —Steven G. Johnson 04:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It looks like essentially every usage of λ in the article means vacuum wavelength, but it never says that explicitly. Sigh.  —Steven G. Johnson 05:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hrrm, I didn't think of k being wrong. Yes, vacuum wavelength makes more sense to use. Unfortunately I've forgotten most of the derviation of this stuff, if you've got a good modern reference I could look it up and try to improve the article, if you're too busy. Personally I'd prefer it to start with the simple cases and move to the most complex ones, but then I've never worked with photonic crystals or the like. -- Bob Mellish 16:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The classic reference on all of this stuff is:
 * Léon Brillouin, Wave Propagation and Group Velocity (Academic: New York, 1960).

You can also find some discussion in Jackson (Classical Electrodynamics) etc. However, even so most of this discussion is limited to homogeneous media. In general, the group velocity is defined as dω/dk, where k is the Bloch wavevector in a periodic system (of which a homogeneous system is a special case). In a periodic system, on the other hand, there is no perfectly satisfactory definition of phase velocity, since k is only defined up to a reciprocal lattice vector. A proof that dω/dk is equal to the energy velocity for dispersionless, lossless systems (including periodic systems and also including waveguides) can be found in Sakoda, Optical Properties of Photonic Crystals (Springer: Berlin, 2001). This can be extended to systems with material dispersion (using the proper definition of energy density in a dispersive medium, as can be found in Jackson), but I'm not aware of any single reference that contains the complete derivation for all cases (arbitrary inhomogeneity and dispersion). Once you include loss, of course, or when you are looking at evanescent modes (complex k), then the group velocity is no longer the energy velocity; this is described in the Brillouin reference, which also describes the front velocity and other concepts. A good description (without too much math) of the phenomena and consequences of dispersion (both material and waveguide, but not in general periodic media) in communications systems can be found in Ramaswami and Sivarajan, Optical Networks: A Practical Perspective (Academic Press, 1998); this is an excellent introductory textbook overall (although a little specialized to fibers, in which things simplify because the inhomogeneity is weak). In particular, Ramaswami also gives a more general definition of the dispersion parameter D, which is especially pertinent to this article. —Steven G. Johnson 18:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Heh, I actually have the Brillouin book right here; I grabbed that equation from page 3 (eqn. 9b). I've been reading it with aim to improving the front velocity and signal velocity articles. I'll try seeing if the library has the other works you mention. -- Bob Mellish 18:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * To Steve/Bob: So is the equation v(group) = v(phase) - lambda*[d(v(phase))/d(lambda)], true always? If yes, the correct expression for v(group) in terms of the refractive index is : v(group) = c*[(1/n) + (lambda)*(d(n)/d(lambda))/n^2], which is only approximately equal (upto first order term) to the formula typed out in the article currently i.e. v(group) = c*[n - (lambda)*(d(n)/d(lambda))]^(-1). So which one is the correct formula and which one is the approximate one? -- Mvpranav —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvpranav (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

waveguide dispersion vs. modal dispersion
what's the difference? Pfalstad 15:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Modal dispersion comes because the waveguide supports multiple modes at the same frequency that travel at different speeds. Waveguide dispersion refers to the fact that for a single mode the speed depends on the relative size of the wavelength and the waveguide geometry, which causes the solution's field pattern to change. —Steven G. Johnson 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dark Side of the Moon
Anyone agree with a mention or even a photo of Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, which of course featured dispersion on the cover? Wwwhhh 02:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Conceptual animation
I thought we could use something more visually appealing to explain dispersion, so I came up with this little animation. Maybe it's too conceptual to the point of being entirely misleading, so I'm putting it here first so you can be the judge. Oh, and if I screwed up with anything, keep in mind I've been awake for 30 hours. :P — Kieff 21:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice animation, but has a couple of issues. (1) the refraction angles at the left and right surfaces don't match. The green component (3rd from above) travels through the glass horizontally, which means that it should come out at the same angle as how it went in. (2) The ratios of the velocities inside/outside the prism don't seem to match the refraction angles, although i didn't check very carefully. If you draw the light as wavefronts rather than dots - or as two rows of dots -, both (1) and (2) should be satisfied. I think this type of properties should be visualised correctly. Although it would require the GIF animation to be an enormous number of frames, which would be a disadvantage. (3) Using a prism for visualisation actually demonstrates two effects at the same time: temporal dispersion and refraction. It might actually be more to the point to only have a beam traveling through a slab or rod of glass rather than a prism. Han-Kwang 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted this earlier onver on the image page 65.202.227.114 (talk)mjd 2008-03-14 09:14EDT I think the "refracting dots" model is more intuitive, but there are some issues that I think should be considered. Your white dots entering the left side of the prism could be considered light "packets" and as such have a wavefront associated with them. They may or may not be coherent - which is unimportant - but they have a definite phase relationship associate with the wavefront, which is also approximately a plane wave. The chromatic dots leaving the prism have a curved wavefront which is exactly correct, and both the curvature and overall tilt of the wavefront are very instructive. What happens inside the prism is quite a bit more problematic. An inquisitive student would notice that the various wavefronts entering the prism are segregated and recombined into new wavefronts before exiting the prism, which is of cource incorrect. It is precisely that the wavefront itself is refracted according to wavelength or frequency in the material that is the take-home message for this sub-topic, and one that great pains should be taken to illustrate correctly. Wonderful graphical work, in any event. 65.202.227.91 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)mjd 2008-03-06 13:21EST

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Light_dispersion_conceptual.gif"

A version with waves is now available. — Kieff | Talk 04:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The version with waves is flawed and should not be used. The red rays are clearly moving faster than the purple ones outside the prism. Unless the space outside the prism is supposed to be some odd medium with very high dispersion, this is incorrect. The version of the image with little balls had this detail correct. --Srleffler (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is now fixed. — Kieff | Talk 03:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Measuring Dispersion
Hi, I wanted to add a part about measuring waveguide dispersion. do you think it should be a new page or a part of this page? Sr903 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say Waveguide is a better place to discuss dispersion in waveguides. I actually think the waveguide discussion should not be so prominent at the top of this page, but rather in a section, but I might be biased by my background in spectroscopy rather than telecom. Han-Kwang 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point but as someone from more of a telecom background. How about a page named Waveguide Dispersion? We could then redirect Fiber Optic Dispersion. In the Telecom world Dispersion is a big thing and I would expect to see the amount of content on this subject growing.Sr903 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Any comprehensive discussion of dispersion has to include both material dispersion and structural (a.k.a. waveguide) dispersion.  One problem with the current page, however, is that the discussion of waveguide dispersion is misleading.  "Waveguide dispersion" isn't just any dispersion that happens to take place in a waveguide.  It's dispersion that occurs because you have a waveguide, which breaks the scale-invariance with respect to the wavelength, and it happens in addition to material dispersion (although they aren't literally additive except in low-contrast media such as doped-core fibers...the combination is more complicated in general).  More generally, you get structural dispersion in any inhomogeneous medium that is periodic or uniform along the direction of propagation (which is necessary to get a well-defined group velocity).

 * There are other problems with the current page as well, for example it pointlessly specializes the equations of group velocity and the dispersion parameter to homogeneous media, rather than starting with the general definitions.

 * Group-velocity dispersion is a very general phenomenon. An encyclopedia article on such a general phenomenon should describe its general features, definitions, and sources first, and then give more detailed equations for specialized cases like homogeneous materials, doped-core optical fibers, etcetera, possibly in sub-articles.  The top-level article should most certainly not be written from a narrow perspective, but this is unfortunately the present situation.

 * —Steven G. Johnson 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or doesn't the page specify what are the units of dispresion? (Ran Shenhar 2 May 2007)

 * I added the general definition of the dispersion parameter D, including waveguide and material dispersion, and the physical interpretation as pulse spreading per unit distance per unit bandwidth, and the typical units (for optical fibers) of ps / nm km. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Refraction?
Much of this article is about what I understand to be refraction. Refraction concepts are included, such as refractive index, without explanation except by way of link. Even if the articles are not merged, there should at least be some discussion of the relation between dispersion and refraction; how they are the same and how they are different. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say there isn't much connection between dispersion and refraction; you can have either without the other. The Material dispersion in optics section explains the effect of dispersion on refraction (i.e. it gives rise to angular dispersion). The other sections don't relate to refraction at all, except for the very small Dispersion in gemology and Dispersion in imaging sections. Maybe these should be sub-sections of Material dispersion in optics? Perhaps the prism picture in the lead is suggestive of a stronger connection with refraction than is apparent from reading the whole article. --catslash (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree, they are independent concepts. One can have refraction in a non-dispersive medium.  One can also have dispersion without refraction (e.g. we talk about material dispersion and pulse spreading in a homogeneous medium, where there are no interfaces to refract through; another example would be waveguide dispersion in a hollow metallic waveguide, where there is reflection but no refraction).  —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for clarifying the difference. But my point stands. Essentially all of the introductory paragraphs of the article describe what most people would understand as refraction. There needs to be some reconciliation in the article of the two concepts, rather than simply confining it to the discussion. I've put back the mergeto note as a bookmark to people who know that the two concepts are different to explain how in the article and as a bookmark to people who don't know that the two concepts are different to see some deficiencies in this article. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I've modified the introduction to make it clear that prisms/rainbows are just one familiar example of a dispersion phenomenon, and are by no means the only example. (Still, even for the original version of the intro, your comment was hyperbole—exactly two sentences referred to prisms/refractions, and both sentences gave them as examples; the rest of the intro did not mention refraction at all.) —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I would like to see more clear treatment of the case of angular dispersion (the prism example; interface between media with different phase velocities) and a subsequent generalization to waveguide dispersion (which can be viewed as an extension of the single-interface refraction problem to one having two parallel interfaces and utilizing the internally refracted rays). Anyone?  Ryan Westafer (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Can someone disprove (or strengthen) this statement? "Material dispersion is equivalent to the case of refraction through infinitesimally distributed (relative to the wavelength) interfaces of arbitrary spacing and angle with respect to the incident wave (k)."
 * For instance, when a system has "internal" (characteristic dimension smaller than the wavelength) degrees of freedom, energy might couple to corresponding refracted, reflected, and/or trapped modes (angles, polarizations, defect states, etc.). Then the transmitted wave exhibits propagation loss with respect to the incident wave mode (polarization, angle, etc.).
 * If one knows the sub-wavelength details of the medium, one can compute its average or "effective medium" parameters (refractive index, etc.) corresponding to 0th order dispersion (n=0 Fourier expansion of the space harmonics of the sub-wavelength inhomogeneities). Ryan Westafer (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 * A dielectric medium with a sub-wavelength microstructure can be dispersive in two circumstances: (a) the size of the microscopic elements is a significant fraction of the wavelength (say at least 1/20) and/or (b) the microscopic elements themselves have a frequency-dependent response (are dispersive). Barring these circumstances, different wavelengths will be indistinguishable on the scale of the microstructure, and so will elicit the same behaviour - the bulk medium will therefore show no dispersion. Not at all sure if this answers your question. --catslash (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Group velocity dispersion formula wrong
The equation
 * $$D = - \frac{\lambda}{c} \, \frac{d^2 n}{d \lambda^2}. $$

looks wrong, like a mixup between two correct versions:
 * $$D = - \frac{\lambda}{c} \, \frac{d^2 n}{d \lambda d \nu}. $$ where $$\nu$$ is frequency
 * $$D = \frac{\lambda^3}{c^2} \, \frac{d^2 n}{d \lambda^2}. $$

I'd prefer the latter, which is found at page 962 in the book "Fundamentals of Photonics" by B.E.A. Saleh & M.C Teich (Wiley-interscience 2007). $$\lambda$$ and $$c$$ are the values in vacuum. Assuming --ErikM (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there are two different conventions, depending on if you use the sign from a frequency derivative of a wavelength derivative. The article now says ''If D is less than zero, the medium is said to have positive dispersion. If D is greater than zero, the medium has negative dispersion. but with the formula from Saleh & Teich (actually for what they call $$D_\nu$$) the naming seems more reasonable: If D is less than zero, the medium is said to have negative dispersion. If D is greater than zero, the medium has positive dispersion.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikM (talk • contribs) 11:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The formula in the article is correct. Your formula is also correct.  They correspond to different definitions of the dispersion parameter D.  Both definitions are given in Saleh and Teich.  I think you have a different edition of Saleh than mine because our page numbers don't match up.  Saleh calls the definition you are using $$D_\nu$$ (equation 5.6-20 in my edition) and the definition the Wikipedia article uses $$D_\lambda$$ (equation 5.6-21 in my edition).  The latter definition is more widely used in the fiber/telecom industry.  Also, the latter definition corresponds to the more general definition given in the Wikipedia article (generalized to inhomogeneous media, i.e. including both material and waveguide dispersion):

 * $$D = D_\lambda = -\frac{2\pi c}{\lambda^2} \frac{d^2 \beta}{d\omega^2} = \frac{2\pi c}{v_g^2 \lambda^2} \frac{dv_g}{d\omega}$$

 * To get the homogeneous-medium equation in the article, substitute $$\beta = n\omega/c$$ and recall via the chain rule that $$\frac{d}{d\omega} = -\frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi c} \frac{d}{d\lambda}$$. The definition you are using corresponds more generally to:

 * $$D_\nu = 2\pi \frac{d^2\beta}{d\omega^2} = -\frac{\lambda^2}{c} D_\lambda$$

 * (equation 5.6-9 in my edition of Saleh). The difference is whether one wants to describe pulse spreading per unit frequency bandwidth ($$D_\nu$$) or per unit wavelength bandwidth ($$D_\lambda$$), as explained in Saleh. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The current (2019-09-02) wikipedia text tells: "If D is greater than zero, the medium is said to have positive dispersion (normal dispersion). If D is less than zero, the medium has negative dispersion (anomalous dispersion). If a light pulse is propagated through a normally dispersive medium, the result is the shorter wavelength components travel slower than the longer wavelength components." Also the dispersion parameter defined there is:
 * $$D = -\frac{\lambda}{c} \frac{d^2 n}{d\lambda^2} $$

that is $$D_\lambda $$ from the discussion above. But in this case the text is wrong because $$D_\lambda >0 $$ corresponds to anomalous dispersion. Can we change the text into "If $$D$$ is negative, the medium is said to have normal dispersion. If $$D$$ is positive, the medium has anomalous dispersion. If a light pulse is propagated through a normally dispersive medium, the result is the shorter wavelength components travel slower than the longer wavelength components"? Ang1972 (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

GVD
Hi Stevej, Your recent edits to the lead could be read as meaning that dispersion and group velocity dispersion are the same thing. They are of course interdependent, but if you quantify them, then in general they'll be different numbers. If the dispersion relation was something like $$\omega = \omega_0 + A \beta$$ (over a limited band obviously), then there would be "phase velocity dispersion", but no group velocity dispersion. Regarding periodic structures; each space-harmonic of a given mode has the same group velocity, and a different phase velocity (but it still has a well-defined phase velocity).--catslash (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 * In periodic structures, the phase velocity is a problematic quantity that is not uniquely defined. By different "space harmonics" I suppose you mean different Brillouin zones, but you should realize that these are merely different labels for exactly the same mode and field pattern.  Hence the ambiguity.

 * Once could certainly talk about phase-velocity dispersion as distinct from group-velocity dispersion, in cases where the former is well-defined. The latter seems much more common as a precise numerical quantity, however.  Do you have any references that define a quantity analogous to D for phase-velocity dispersion?

 * — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't know if I have a good reference (outside of what I have written, mainly unpublished) but in my nomenclature there are two (and more) levels of dispersion. "First-order dispersion" is exactly what you are refering to, in which case dn/df is constant (over a region) and this causes 1)a change in the group velocity relative to the phase velocity; 2) a change in the phase of the wavepacket at its center. However the latter effect is not easily observed in most conexts which I'm sure is why it has received little attention.

 * "Second order dispersion" in my system is equivalent to "group velocity dispersion" in which the group velocity, as well as being different from the phase velocity, is a function of optical frequency. This DOES cause pulse broadening which is more easily observable (such as the degradatation of signals in communications). In my decomposition 2nd order dispersion, the term for second order dispersion adds to the refractive index a constant times ((f^-1) - 1)(f^-2) -- I hope you can read that! Higher orders of dispersion create terms like ((f^-1) - 1)^N * (f^-2) with N>1.

 * In this context (including first order dispersion in the definition of dispersion) the statement early in the article that "Dispersion is sometimes called .... group-velocity dispersion (GVD) to emphasize the role of the group velocity." is inaccurate. GVD is just better appreciated but does not describe all dispersion in a strictly mathematical sense.

Interferometrist (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 * First-, second-, etcetera, order dispersions are just the first-, second-, etcetera derivatives of the dispersion relation ω(k) (in a periodic medium, the k label is ambiguous under addition of reciprocal lattice vectors, and hence there is no unambiguous phase velocity, but the derivatives are unambiguous).  First-order "dispersion" is just the first derivative, which is the group velocity (or its inverse, depending on which variable you differentiate); first-order "dispersion" alone causes no pulse-spreading whatsoever and refers to no "change" in the group velocity.  See e.g. here.  The terms are confusing, but as far as I can tell if you just say "dispersion" by itself in optics (as opposed to "dispersion relation"), you're referring to a phenomenon where different colors get separated in some way.  — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ultrashort Optical pulses
Something is missing to this article, namely a sub-section of travelling ultrashort pulses and the partial differential equation that governs the carrier envelope of these pulses subject to dispersion. Such a presentation is essential. I found this out because the ultrashort pulse section has a link to this site on dispersion but the material is not sufficient.

 * There are lots of different ways to simulate ultrashort pulses. If any partial differential equation deserves to be called "the" equation, it would be Maxwell's equations and not any particular approximation.  People also make various approximations, usually Taylor series expansions of the dispersion relation, and plug these approximations into Fourier transforms or slowly varying envelope approximations (SVEA), but there's no reason to single out a particular order Taylor series SVEA from a particular paper as "the" method here.

 * Unfortunately, our SVEA article basically sucks right now (it has an incredibly narrow perspective on what is really a very broad subject), but that's not a topic for the Dispersion article to address.

 * I've added a brief section on higher-order dispersion (which is the name for what you are trying to get at, and is not specific to ultrashort pulses). I doubt any more detail is appropriate for this article at this point -- considering that our discussion of second-order dispersion (D) is so brief, it doesn't make sense to go on about higher-order effects in great detail until/unless the lower-order effects are treated in more depth.

 * — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Steven, this tug-of-war has to stop! :-)

First of all, this treatment is not just 1+1. The pulse propagates in the z-direction and the coefficients themselves depend on the angle theta from the z-axis. So this is a 3-dimensional problem assuming cylindrical symmetry. So the treatment is quite general. Given that people gave complained that the formulae on this site are wrong, the computer algebra treatment ensure correctness of the coefficients. The paper is just used as a reference for the coefficients. I know this paper and I can assure you that it applies to ultra-short pulses or pulses propagating over long distances where terms to higher order (i.e. 3rd order) are needed. Let us come to an agreement before continuing any further action is taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.55.181 (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry, you're right that the equation you wrote down was not 1+1 dimensional. Of course, that means it's also wrong if you're talking about waveguides, which are (in the SVEA) 1+1 dimensional.  Take your pick.  (And you hardly need a computer algebra system to write down a Taylor expansion.)

This is ridiculous sophistry! First you criticize it for being 1+1 (which it isn't) and then you criticize it for not being 1+1 for SVEA. That paper is correct, I can assure you. It was peer-reviewed and published in Optics Letters. The paper itself uses SVE defines well its domains of application. You have a pulse propagating in the z-direction. You have cylindrical symmetry. Nothing is lost. The SVE approximation used overlaps greatly with what your very web-site and its links are describing.

 * The basic problem here is that highlighting a particular SVEA based on a particular-order Taylor expansion as "the" way to handle higher-order dispersion is simply wrong. And if you're going to write an infinite-order Taylor expansion, you might as well not Taylor expand at all (e.g. in a split-step method you can plug in the whole dispersion spectrum without Taylor expansion).  And when the pulses get really short, you eventually have to give up on the SVEA and should be using the full Maxwell's equations anyway, especially in a waveguide.  Going into great detail on one particular approach does not belong in this article; it would belong in the (currently lamentable) SVEA article, if anywhere.

Nothing is "wrong" with a Taylor series. The first order coefficients beta_1 and beta_2 were well known in the literature. No pretense was made that this was "the" way although you claim yours is the "way!. This paper extended the Taylor series to higher-order and can in principle yield the coefficients to any desired order.  Again you're contadicting yourself: your writeup also mentions the use of a Taylor series!

 * (Besides which, it's pretty crazy to give any detailed equations for third and higher-order dispersion when we haven't even shown explicitly how to compute pulse evolution with second-order dispersion.)

For the given Physics described in that paper, nothing was actually lost.

 * — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is fruitless. No agreement can be reached and it is clear you are pushing through a particular method: your own. The tug of war will be endless. It is clear I am not dealing with an honest individual in good faith. No point in any further communication.

 * What method do you think I'm pushing? The paragraph I wrote describes several methods (including SVEA).  You're not making sense.

 * The point that I have been consistently making is that it doesn't make sense to single out a specific method here, especially one restricted to particular circumstances (whether an SVEA for homogeneous media or an SVEA for waveguides), nor is this article the right place to go into a particular variant of an SVEA (out of many variants in the vast literature on this topic) in great depth, nor is an SVEA in terms of the Taylor expanded dispersion relations the only way to approach this problem. (I never said it was wrong when applied under appropriate circumstances.  Just that it, like every method, has its limitations, and singling it out as the method is what is wrong.  The only method that, in principle, is correct under all (classical) circumstances is solving the full Maxwell equations, but as a practical matter it is often desirable to use approximations when they are valid.)  (You are the one who called this SVEA variant "the partial differential equation" governing this problem (emphasis added).)

 * Your resort to ad hominem arguments is out of place. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)   PS. On Wikipedia, it is considered poor style/etiquette to intersperse your comments with someone else's.  Don't break up someone else's comments — make your comments as a contiguous block.  It is also good to sign up for a username.

It is not an ad hominem remark to point out the endless contradictions and attributions you make within your arguments. One merely needs to walk through the discussion blog to see complaints and your endless responses of merely rebuttal and action taken strictly on whatever terms you dictate. You still keep going on about Maxwell's equations when this is the very starting point about that the Optics Letters paper which was (i) authoritative, (ii) correct and (iii) found to be very useful in the community. I NEVER claimed it was "the" method. This is your jihad. I never claimed there were no alternatives. You clearly do not know how to communicate effectively with other people and no it's NOT A method you are pushing, it is simply your (narrow) point of view (however contradictory it is) that you are enforcing no matter what. No compromise, no collaboration, no fruitful outcome is possible in such cases. BTW, that is a discernment, no an ad hominem remark. You bring up etiquette and don't even respect it. The neutrality of this particular site is therefore highly in doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.55.181 (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 * There is finally some kind of resolution to this dispute in that the material removed by — Steven G. Johnson has been revised and placed in the section on Ultrashort pulses where it has been accepted (and vindicated). Hopefully, this will bring peace of mind to all.  Having said all that, this does not remove the fact that we witnessed a serious and intense debacle.  Though I understand that Johnson initiated the article and his efforts should be applauded, nowhere does it say that he is the final authority on the subtle and complex subject of optical dispersion. Excess of zeal can be very destructive. TonyMath (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Kramers–Kronig
The Wikipedia article on Kramers-Kronig relations links to this article and that article back to this one. But other than that, there is no reference to Kramers-Kronig on this page. What gives? This is not a useful reference. Nor do I see any formula on this page that even remotely looks like a Kramer-Kronig Formula. 67.95.202.34 (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Note that Kramers–Kronig is exclusively about material dispersion (and other linear susceptibilities), which is only a subset of what is discussed on this page. I agree that it would be nice, in the section on material dispersion, to mention that material dispersion is indirectly related to absorption loss by the Kramers–Kronig relations, and link to the latter.   I doubt that we should actually give the Kramers–Kronig formulas here.   (Unfortunately, last time I checked, the K–K page on Wikipedia seemed pretty awful, but that's a topic for that page, not this one.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I've added a mention of K–K to the section on material dispersion, as I proposed. (It looks like the K–K article is not so bad these days, although it could use a more accessible introduction.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispersion and Spatial dispersion
While I agree that "dispersion" in optics automatically refers to the frequency dispersion, also a note of the spatial dispersion should be added. As a matter of fact, this phenomenon is present in many solids, being responsible for different phenomena, and its study has a long history. If nobody objects, I will try to write some notes in the future.FDominec (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Pinging . If you consider this split still necessary please mention it in the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. If not, please remove the tag. A. C. Santacruz  ⁂  Talk  09:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Anomalous dispersion
It would be good to have a diagram of refractive index surrounding an absorption resonance peak (i.e. a picture of anomalous dispersion), and some more explanation of why the dispersion curve has the features it does (e.g., precisely where anomalous dispersion is encountered; and the mechanism behind normal dispersion being normal). Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Split proposal
I agree with the Nov.2015 suggestion that 'Dispersion measure' be split out into a separate article. DM is not just about pulsars any more. Since the Mar. 15, 1980 article by Linscott/Erkes and particularly since FRBs [http://science.sciencemag.org/content/318/5851/777 Lorimer et.al. Nov 2 2007], the dispersion measure has become a valuable tool for discovering what's in the neighborhood of many kinds of pulse sources. Too important to be relegated to a skimpy paragraph at the end of a broad introductory optics article. Twang (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have renamed section so that this can count as split proposal discussion. (If anyone still wants to discuss a split) Footlessmouse (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Addition of a History Section
I think this page would be greatly improved by the addition of a history section describing the original discovery of dispersion and the scientists involved with the formalization of the subject. I will probably try to add some of this in the next couple months, but there may be others more capable of adding it in short order. DavidJonBloom (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Dispersion
Refractive index formulae 41.78.136.116 (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Factor p
Wherefrom does the factor p comes in
 * $$\frac{\partial^p}{\partial\omega^p}k(\omega) = \frac{1}{c}\left(p\frac{\partial^{p-1}}{\partial\omega^{p-1}}n (\omega) + \omega \frac{\partial^p}{\partial\omega^p} n(\omega)\right)$$?

And the same question for the phase. Madyno (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Sorry, got it. Madyno (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:Undue content Generalized formulation of the high orders of dispersion – Lah-Laguerre optics
The section "Generalized formulation of the high orders of dispersion – Lah-Laguerre optics" has two primary refs. One is a preprint and the other has 9 citations. The section consists of one paragraph, three pages of formulas, and one figure from one of the papers.

I think the topic should be covered in one sentence or not at all. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dispersion (optics)


text:
Bracken's World

Bracken's World is an American drama television series that aired on NBC from September 19, 1969, to December 25, 1970. The series was created and produced by Dorothy Kingsley. In addition, Kingsley also wrote several episodes. The Lettermen performed the second-season theme song "Worlds".

Synopsis
The series centres on a powerful head of Century Studios and a group of up-and-coming starlets.

During the first season, Eleanor Parker received top billing as Sylvia Caldwell, executive secretary to John Bracken (voice-acted in the first season by Warren Stevens), who was sometimes heard, but never seen. Parker left the series after the first 16 episodes, citing the limited nature of her role. When the second season began, Leslie Nielsen joined the cast to portray Bracken.

Other cast members included Elizabeth Allen, Dennis Cole, Jeanne Cooper, Peter Haskell, Linda Harrison, Karen Jensen, Madlyn Rhue, and Laraine Stephens. Guest stars who appeared in various episodes of Bracken's World included Jack Albertson, Anne Baxter, Joseph Campanella, Gary Collins, Shelley Fabares, Sally Field, Lee Grant, Arthur Hill. Carolyn Jones, Lee Majors, Monte Markham, Tim Matheson, Darren McGavin, Ricardo Montalbán, Lois Nettleton, Lane Bradbury, Stuart Whitman, Larry Pennell, Edward G. Robinson, Martin Sheen, Barry Sullivan, Richard Thomas, Forrest Tucker, and Tony Curtis and Raquel Welch, who appeared as themselves in the pilot episode.

Bracken's World aired on Friday at 10:00 pm (replacing the cancelled Star Trek), a day and time known as the "Friday night death slot", and was cancelled 15 episodes into its second season. "Had they done it like a continuing drama and focused on the regular characters", co-star Linda Harrison said in a 2001 interview, "it would have lasted longer. NBC, however, wanted a one-hour contained show, so they would stock each episode with a big guest star. After a while, you run out of story." The last episode of Bracken's World aired on Friday, December 25, 1970.

Cast of characters

 * Warren Stevens as John Bracken (season one; voice only)
 * Leslie Nielsen as John Bracken (season two)
 * Eleanor Parker as Sylvia Caldwell (episodes 1-16)
 * Bettye Ackerman as Anne Frazer (episodes 17-41)
 * Elizabeth Allen as Laura Deane
 * Dennis Cole as Davey Evans (season one)
 * Jeanne Cooper as Grace Douglas
 * Gary Dubin as Mark Grant
 * Linda Harrison as Paulette Douglas
 * Peter Haskell as Kevin Grant
 * Karen Jensen as Rachel Holt
 * Stephen Oliver as Tom Hudson (season one)
 * Madlyn Rhue as Marjorie Grant (episodes 1-28)
 * Laraine Stephens as Diane Waring

Tom Selleck was seen in the minor recurring role of Roger Haines in several season-one episodes; he made a guest appearance as a different character in season two.

In popular culture
The show was mentioned in Mad Men: "Time Zones", when Megan Draper's agent told her she had received a call back for the Bracken's World pilot.

title: Bracken's World


text:
User:Keddslaya

'If you didn't know you know now. I the keddslaya the number 1 slayer in maryland. '''In [Mt.Hebron High school] having a great time. Kinda dorkish but im in the band. But i dont play any queer insterment. Im in the precussion unit.''

title: User:Keddslaya


text: User talk:66.204.136.126

title: User talk:66.204.136.126


text:
Oriental despotism

Oriental despotism refers to the Western view of Asian societies as politically or morally more suspectible to despotic rule, and therefore different from the democratic West. This view is often pejorative. The term is often associated with Karl August Wittfogel's 1957 book Oriental Despotism.

title: Oriental despotism


text:
The Most Deadly Game

The Most Deadly Game is an American television series that ran for 12 episodes from 1970 to 1971. The series was produced by Aaron Spelling Productions, with Aaron Spelling as the executive producer. It stars Yvette Mimieux, Ralph Bellamy, and George Maharis.

Overview
The series follows the lives of three criminologists who only take on high-profile cases.

Cast

 * Ralph Bellamy as Ethan Arcane
 * George Maharis as Jonathon Croft
 * Yvette Mimieux as Vanessa Smith

title: The Most Deadly Game


text:
Religious rejection of politics

Religious rejection of politics is a philosophy that can be found in a life of contemplation of nature. Adherents to this way of life find it preferable, while some ascetic schools of Hinduism or Buddhism also reject political involvement for different reasons.

Adherents
In Christianity, some groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Amish, the Hutterites, and the Exclusive Brethren reject politics on the grounds: Christ's statements about His kingdom not belonging to this world means that earthly politics can or must be rejected. Not necessarily all forms of politics are rejected. For example, among the Old Order Amish, running for office is not allowed but voting is only discouraged, not forbidden.

Others, like those of the Baháʼí Faith, do not take part in partisan politics. They neither endorse particular candidates, or join political parties. They are told to vote their consciences as individuals. If asked to register they tend to do so as independent.

In other religious systems it can relate to a rejection of nationalism or even the concept of nations. In certain schools of Islamic thinking, nations are a creation of Western imperialism and ultimately all Muslims should be united religiously in the ummah. Therefore, Muslims should be in hijra as nations, in the Western sense, are basically deemed apostate.

There are some aspects of the early days of the radical Takfir wal-Hijra that hint at this. Likewise various Christian denominations reject any involvement in national issues considering it to be a kind of idolatry called statolatry. Most Christians who rejected the idea of nations have associated with the Christian Left. Satmar Hasidic Judaism rejects the state of Israel being created before the return of the Messiah, therefore members of this group refuse to vote in Israel. This group does not reject all politics, but it does reject participation in Israeli politics.

Lastly, some religions do not specifically reject politics per se, but believe existing political systems are so inherently corrupt they must be ignored. In some respects the view of governments as apostate relates to that. In the early stages of the Nation of Islam, for example, many adherents rejected the idea of voting because the US political system was rejected in strong terms. In recent decades, however, this view has declined in popularity among Nation of Islam adherents or been rejected outright. In Hellenism, voting in elections deemed 'non-democratic' is not permitted and namely affects believers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia.

In the United States, a 2006 survey indicated that 2% of those who did not register to vote cited religious reasons. The same survey reported that 22% of voting-age Americans are not registered to vote, meaning that 0.4% of all voting-age Americans did not register to vote for religious reasons.

title: Religious rejection of politics


text: User talk:81.86.108.28

title: User talk:81.86.108.28


text: User talk:82.43.147.81

title: User talk:82.43.147.81


text: Category:Environmental sayings

title: Category:Environmental sayings