Izogi

I obtained the information from my local library. I cannot recall the month it was released. Though I can assure you the information is legit. Unless ofcourse Backpacker magazine was inaccurate. When I find the time I'll confirm what month the edition was released, and I'll write down the article word for word. R Lee E 20:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos (though misguided) -- all I did was fix a spelling error: excesive -> excessive. --CelticWonder 07:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

hi izogi,, yes i have the references..but it ll take me a while to dig them out...the blood pressure issue is well established, whereas the sexual performance is researched but not as well...what is your field of study?...ill add refs when i can...im in the middle of an office move jsut now and hope to come accross refs in next month...by the way you mihgt like to read the article ive just worked on on Atmospheric diffraction....cheers Anlace 13:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

hi again izogi, ive now added two new references to light pollution to reference health effects, learning efficiency reduction and decreased worker efficiency...i have more and better references coming...im still finding documents as i reorganize my office :) best regards Anlace 17:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

hi izogi,,,thanks for the quick feedback on the material i added to light pollution. this topic is extremely important for a variety of reasons, so i shall work on it more...i agree that it would be great for this article to be the defining short treatise on the subject of light pollution....i am a physicist who has worked in the area of lighting design and energy conservation through lighting design...i have been working recently on the wikipedia article lighting...as a scientist i have also worked on numerous health and annoyance studies regarding light pollution as well as noise pollution...cheers Anlace 19:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Great job on the light pollution article. I'll bet IDA would welcome your help as a volunteer writer/editor.

Cheers for fixing that dupe page, I think it just needs some more pictures now and we'll be totally sweet.

I guess you know Joel from the MSc CompSci ... its a small world! We really enjoy using our Wiki as a sort of collaborative website to dump stuff and write articles. Its great fun.

See ya round! Ppe42 14:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

G'day Izogi. You are correct most amateur astronomers do calculate it that way because eyepieces tend to be advertised that way. (Marketing 101, bigger sounding numbers are better <sigh>)Anyhow, what has happened is that you are coming to it backwards.

In order to calculate the magnification you divide the focal length of the telescope by the focal length of the lens(an approximation do to the small angles involved) as it said in the article you linked. You can then measure (often by measuring two stars of known separation) the actual field of view in your eyepiece. For example, if two known stars are 5' apart, and they appear one just inside one edge and the other just inside the other edge. Then your actual field of view is 5'. (timing star drift is another, albeit slow, method of measuring actual field). Finally, to find out how big everything looks like(or appears to be), you multiply the magnification by the actual field.

Basically I guess I'm saying that you must start from mathematically known or measurable quantities to come to the apparent field. The apparent field is not something you can directly measure. Again, marketing is the key to understanding why everyone talks about apparent views of view as a lot of assumptions go into those "measurements" including focal length of your telescope and how far away your eye is from the lens. Hope that helps? Would you like me to edit the FOV sections and try to add some of this clarification? Flehmen ^{Work with me} 23:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that's making some sense now. If you have time, I'd appreciate it. I wonder if it's also worth noting the marketing thing, if only because a lot of the information out there gives the impression that that's the way to do it. I'd always guessed until now that the apparent field of view was some kind of measurement of the blurily visible field if looking through the eyepiece when not attached to anything. (Not to imply that it'd actually be useful to do that.) Izogi 07:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hmmmmm.. well I've just had a go at it, which doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. Izogi 10:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

You asked why I reverted the anon's content on Guy Fawkes. That's actually a very good question. I just took a brief look at it and thought "well, while I'm reverting anyway ...", without really reading the additions. You're right that it needs refactoring, not deleting! Mea culpa, and thanks for pointing it out to me — I'd moved on without a second thought. I'll revert again. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Neat, thanks. Izogi 00:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, You might want to consider adding {{User NZ res}} to the top of your user page, which will add you to this category automatically and also add a nice graphic. Onco_p53 07:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Izogi - I wasn't sure one way or the other. It looked like it wasn't notable enough for an article, but the planet discovery business made me re-think. I recall the edit-war you mention (ISTR it was an observatory near Benmore that caused a lot of the fuss). I'll leave the article there for now, it's harmless enough, though I wouldn't be shedding any tears if it was deleted. It's got an observatory-stub template on it now, so at least editors in the know will see it and be able to assess whether it needs to go to afd. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mike

I reworked some of your recent edits on the Te Papa page after checking with the website and annual report. While you introduced more precise language, in some cases the result was either less correct or a bit confusing for readers.

• Visitors sounds more precise then visits, but their annual report says that it is visits that are counted, rather than unique people
• I'm not sure how a reader could interpret "next to Cable St" as for practical purposes it is both on the waterfront and on Cable St
• The description of the Tory St building in their annual report is "collection storage and scientific research facility" and that seems to better indicate the scale of it
• I deleted the Ed Hillary opening bit - I'm unsure of the significance of it (ref?). The two children who did the actual official opening are shown in the Getting to Our Place doco, but I can't recall their names so did not include them.

Tweakie 20:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

yes you are correct, but as i have almost zero info on Ruth Crisp, the facility info will fill the space until i get it. I just need to visit Carter during the day and collate whatever is availabe. maybe then we can move the facility article to something such as Ruth Crisp Observatory, or integrate it with Carter article ... i dont know.. you would have seen i put out a general call..

i will be happy with any improvements to either article, i am happy just to shove the stuff there....moza 10:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You will possibly be a bit happier to know that I learnt you just cant "shove stuff" .. lol. anyway Ive been fairly active and have a better grip on many facets of this environment.good to see youre back. happy tramping! checkout the Milford Trackarticle, needs some help.moza 07:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for correcting my horrible phrasing in the light pollution article! Albester 10:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to Wikipedia:The German solution, here’s a a tip for you: {{User:Olve/Userboxes/Public transport}} (in lieu of the blanked template:User Public Transit). -- Olve 21:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (corr. Olve 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC))Reply

Hello. I notice you've just re-merged the List of amateur astronomy books with the amateur astronomy article. I don't really disagree with your nomination to delete the list entirely, but did you read the discussion about why it was removed from the article that you've merged it back into? I'm just wondering what your thoughts are. Thanks. Izogi 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Alas it wasn't me who nominated it for deletion. I'd rather see it merged back in the AA article than deleted entirely. The list might not be considered sufficiently notable to survive as a stand-along article. — RJH (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my mistake. I noticed you'd merged it back in and assumed it was also you who'd nominated it. Thanks for the quick response. Izogi 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Izogi. After a wile of editing telescope related articles I found my self going "lemme see, that info is in Telescope mount?... oh no its in Altazimuth mount... wait a minute.. shouldn't Open fork in Equatorial mount be next to Altazimuth mount /fork mount to note the similarities?" grrrrrrrr. In other words-- yeah--- I think all those Telescope mount articles should be on one page. More at you post Talk:Telescope_mount#What.27s_the_role_of_this_article. Halfblue 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Quite some time ago, you and I were discussing (on my talk page) the potential efficiency of fluorescent light sources. At the time, I claimed that 100 L/W was about the tops for a fluorescent lamp with a decent CRI. I've now seen data that suggests we've topped that by a little. So-called "T-5" (5/8", 16mm) fluorescent tubes now claim about 105 L/W for the non-"High-Output" flavour.

Atlant 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Izogi! Given your interests and fine edits I wanted to draw your attention to the following task force. Please consider taking a look (and of course I'd be thrilled if you were to join). All best! Benzocane 21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 09:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colin McKenzie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JohnDobson1787 Head photo by paul moss.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:JohnDobson1787 Head photo by paul moss.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. czar 14:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply