User talk:Izogi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Izogi and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Contents 1 Light Pollution 1.1 IDA 2 Wellington Botanic Gardens 3 FOV 4 my Guy Fawkes revert 5 Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand 6 Farm Cove 7 Te Papa page 8 Ruth Crisp 9 Auckland meetup 10 Thanks 11 Userbox Public Transit 12 Amateur astronomy book list 13 Telescope mounts 14 Lumens/Watt: An update

[edit] Light Pollution

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] IDA

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

[edit] Wellington Botanic Gardens

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)

[edit] FOV

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)

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)

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)

[edit] my Guy Fawkes revert

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)

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

[edit] Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand

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)

[edit] Farm Cove

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)

[edit] Te Papa page

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)

[edit] Ruth Crisp

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)

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)

[edit] Auckland meetup

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)

[edit] Thanks

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

[edit] Userbox Public Transit

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))

[edit] Amateur astronomy book list

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)

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)

[edit] Telescope mounts

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)

[edit] Lumens/Watt: An update

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)