User talk:GianniG46

Welcome!

Hello, GianniG46, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Srleffler (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fishes

Hi Gianni, I forgot about that usage of saying "peoples" or "fishes" - it's not universally accepted. Your usage of "fishes" would indeed be considered correct by some people Owen214 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Glass

First, thank you for trying to help with articles, but your section on transparency of glass is (i) uncited, (ii) dubious. Amorphization does not change band gap (to the first order), thus transparency is unrelated to that. You imply scattering by polycrystalline material, but this is not a correct comparison - shatter the glass, it will remain glass, but not transparent. Again, transparency is not related to being glass as a state of matter, it is related to the bulk perfection and the band gap. Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing

Hi Gianni. I got your note. It is pretty common for new contributions to be heavily edited. This is a big part of how Wikipedia works: One person contributes new ideas. Another changes the writing style. A third marks passages that need references and fixes spelling errors. Someone else shortens the text to better fit the scope of the article, etc. In the end, we end up with a section that is better than any of the editors could have achieved on their own. This can be uncomfortable for new editors, but you get used to it. Look at it positively: everyone is trying to help. Their changes to your text are not a rejection, but rather an acceptance of the ideas you introduced that were retained. The passage will undoubtedly get edited further.

Encyclopedias are written in a particular style. It doesn't have to be boring, but it is a little more formal and impersonal than some other styles of writing. We try to write Wikipedia articles in an "encyclopedic" style whenever we can. It's OK if you don't know how to do this. Other editors will help adjust your text where needed.

About citations: we are serious about requiring citations to sources. In principle, just about every statement in an article should be supported by a citation. Obviously, not all are at present and perhaps many never will be. By policy, anything that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged requires a citation. Once challenged, the material must be removed, and cannot be reinserted without a reference. Adding "citation needed" tags is a gentler approach: rather than outright challenging and deleting material, it marks it as something that should be supported by a reference, and gives editors time to find one. A tag might indicate that the editor who placed it is considering challenging and removing the statement, but it doesn't have to. One often sees such tags that have been in place for a long time. Sometimes another editor will come along and provide a reference. Editors are encouraged to implement the policy on citations responsibly: one should not challenge material just because one can. On the other hand, if one has doubts about the accuracy of material and it is uncited, one should feel free to remove it until a citation can be found to support it.

Don't take Jdrewitt's edits as final or authoritative. Feel free to look for ways to improve on them and make some adjustments to the text. If there are parts of the old version you want to go back to, though, do not simply reinsert them. Two or more editors each trying to restore an article to their preferred version leads to "edit wars", which are unproductive and strongly discouraged. The right way to handle disagreements about contents are to discuss them on the article's talk page. Most experienced Wikipedians are quite happy to discuss their edits. If there are things that have been removed that you think should be restored, explain them on the talk page. You can probably arrive at a compomise, and other editors may be able to help find a way to word your ideas that will be acceptable to everyone.--Srleffler (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mono-Si

In the policies, there is no precise definition of a stub. I kind of look at the article. If I find ten sentences and more then 3 or 4 paragraphs, I will consider that past a stub. So I don't really have a set guide I can provide. This article actually has significant length and covers a good amount of ground. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Adsorption

Hi GianniG46,

Both the "monomer" bit and the section you referred to as a "strange theory" were added by User:Waldemahr, who made several edits to Adsorption that I found problematic. I tried discussing at his talk page (link) but to little avail. You might consider whether a partial revert to a version from before Waldemahr's edits (link) would be for the best.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Scattering

Hello, I appreciated your re-wording of the blue-sky section in Rayleigh Scattering. However, I would dispute your comment that "nobody would ever expect it to be violet"; at one point the article claimed the sky really is violet, but we just see it as blue -- I never was able get my head around that one.

Because you appear to have some interest and knowledge in optical scattering, I would appreciate your opinion on the issue of scattering in the Sunset article. The current explanation for the colors of a sunset are, at best, unintelligible, and maybe even wrong. Two years ago, I got into a long, unpleasant discussion with another editor regarding the role of wavelength-dependent scattering and the red sunset. As no one else joined in, I eventually grew tired of the argument and just let it remain. Our discussion is archived at Talk:Sunset/Archive_1#Color_from_Mie_Scattering. If you can make any sense of it, I would appreciate your comments. I'll check back here for responses, or if you prefer, we can discuss on my Talk page. Spiel496 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,Spiel96. If I understand (I have read only sparsely your endless discussion), the main question is Mie vs. Rayleigh.

Even if I don't have at hand the Mie equations, from what I know (or believe to know), when the diameters are such that Rayleigh is not more valid, the lambda^-4 factor is gone, too, as can be seen from the graph reported in the article Mie theory: the left part is lambda^-4, the right part (circumference > 0.6 lambda) is substantially constant, apart from oscillations. Though this graph concerns a metal sphere, I suppose that dielectric spheres present a behaviour not too dissimilar (indeed, some time ago in the Mie Theory talk page I suggested (Results of the Mie solution) that some expert (your interlocutor?) added graphs on other typical cases, to make the article more complete).

So I believe there is no point in using Mie: the Rayleigh equations, beside the fourth-power dependence on the wavelength, have a sixth-power dependence on the diameter, which is sufficient to give you all reds you want from small particles. Instead, when your diameters force you to use Mie, you have no lambda dependence and a less relevant dependence on diameter (cubic at first, then quadratic, I presume), so "Mie" particles will not be so strongly dominant.

And, anyway, even if in some cases maybe you are less accurate using the approximate Rayleigh instead of the exact Mie solution, I don't believe this will dramatically change the amazing sunset or sunrise colors. So, I think I will give a look at the sunset article. --GianniG46 (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My last attempt to edit the section is here [1]. Spiel496 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that my disagreement with the current wording is not so much that it's technically incorrect, but rather that it doesn't explain the color. Labeling it "Mie scattering" is like saying "it's because of Maxwell's equations"; it accurately names the phenomenon but doesn't relate it to the colors. I don't think the editor (Fry) with whom I was arguing ever got what I was saying on this point. Also, I could never get out of him whether he was talking about the light coming directly from the sun, or the nearby "glare" from small-angle scattering.

I genuinely don't know which particle size dominates in the scattering. My guess is that is particles smaller than the wavelength but not strictly in the Rayleigh regime (diameter < lambda/10), but I'd like to find a reference. Spiel496 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I replied to your message on my talk page.--Srleffler (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Metastability

Hi GianniG46,

Hmmm, thanks for the heads-up. Yes, I do clearly see the problem you're referring to. I also see you're not the first to notice a problem with the article – see the talk page comment just before yours, which was added subsequent to Waldemahr's edits.

I think replacing the lead with the old version is a good idea. Rollback isn't relevant here – rollback is a tool for reverting vandalism quickly, nothing more. Disputing and reverting others' edits is part of the normal editing process that anyone can engage in. Just one suggestion: in the edit summary, you should write something like "replacing intro with version from December 2009 - see talk". That's to satisfy author attribution requirements, so it's clear the text was written by an earlier author.

It's way past my bedtime now, but I'll try and look further into W's edits later this week.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Example of violet from the rainbow.

Hey there. I've left a request for an explanation of your change of the violet example to Rainbow on the Rainbox talk page -- Vonfraginoff (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Sunset and Sunrise articles

I have already warned The Good Doctor Fry (and this socks) about his improper behavior and started a thread here. With no results, so far. What can we do more to stop this? Regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Lambert figure

About this edit: he put his description of the problem on the image's talk page. Based on the description at Lambertian reflectance, he is correct: the dot product that leads to the cos α dependence is between the normal and the vector pointing to the source of the light. --Srleffler (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I was running by and felt like leaving a comment. IMO, the image is wrong, but it will not be a sphere as IP said. If we are talking about > or < realistic case, it will a combination of specular (kind of Gauss around reflection direction) and Lambert law, but even if we remove the specular part (why should we though, in diffuse case), Lambert assumes random orientation of scattering particles vs incident angle. In practice, the orientation distribution will have a max. close to the normal, thereby skewing the Lambert cosine toward specular refection. Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I added my two cents on the image's talk page, explaining why I think it is correct. Dicklyon (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a Lambertian reflector has the same brightness from any point of view, so its luminance has a cos(theta) with respect to the surface normal, independently of the incident light direction. Of course there is also a global intensity dependence on the incident light direction, but the resulting cos(theta_i) multiplies all the figure arrows.

This is what approximately happens with most objects we see, e.g. if we look at a white paper sheet in sunlight. If, in addition, the white surface is glossy, e.g. a polished stone or an enameled ceramic, we continue to see it white from all angles, but, in addition, we see a specular reflection only in the specular direction. The two types of reflection are almost independent of one another, because the specular one depends only on the geometrical surface of the object, while, as I try to explain in the article, most of the diffuse one comes from the interior of the object, generated by multiple reflection/scattering from internal surfaces and inhomogeneities: fiber surfaces in the case of paper, grain boundaries in the case of a stone, particle surfaces in the case of a white powder or snow. The specular component can be blurred in imperfectly polished objects, and give a skewed diffuse reflection around the specular direction, but in most materials this component is small (a few percent). Reflection from the surface is predominant only in the case of otherwise transparent objects, e.g. a frosted glass, or of metals.

So the figure is not far from what we expect to find in most glossy objects. --GianniG46 (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Sorry, I used a wrong term: the luminance (the "brightness") is the same in all directions. The radiant intensity, instead, (total intensity emitted by the surface per unit solid angle) has a geometrical cosine term, see Lambert's cosine law (in which you can also find a figure similar to mine). --GianniG46 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wafer Dicing

I left a note at Wafer (electronics), but I wasn't sure if you are watching the page or not. Do you think you can handle transferring over the relevant info to the article you recommended? I would be happy to help with copy-editing afterward, but I don't have the technical knowledge to know exactly how/where to insert the info. Once the info is moved over, then I can go ahead and recommend Wafer dicing for deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

How to find templates

Hi GianniG46. I have responded to your question over at Wikipedia talk:Template documentation#Help for less experienced user.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

watermark removals

Was admiring your watermark removals. You do excellent work – JBarta (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A request

Hi, Gianni. We haven't met yet. How are you? I noticed you're a graphic editor. I was wondering if you could help me out? I wrote a Featured Article called Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias months ago. I added a lot of pictures to it, but they have a few issues. If you're willing and have enough time, could you take a look at this and this? Don't worry, none of them are hard to deal with. You'll see. I'd very grateful. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Gianni, I'm really, really grateful to you. Could you take a look at this too? Theese pictures need to be rotated and straightened a little bit. They look like crooked frames. I would have two other requests, if you don't mind. This is the signature of the Duke of Caxias. If you take a look at this article, in the infobox, you'll notice that the signature "touches" his photo above. Could you open a little bit of space on the top of the signature's file? The last request would be to create a translucid background of this photo in a new .png file. I'm starting to work on Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre and I plan to have it as my next FAC. --Lecen (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The article looks great now! Could you take a look now at the two requests I made a above? --Lecen (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added spaces all around the signature. In the new File:Conde de porto alegre 01.png, I've also adjusted somewhat the contrast and cleaned a series of white spots on the image. You have to check the info (categories and similar) reported in the file and in the other new Caxias files, as the derivative-loader program, DerivativeFX, has not worked properly. Bye --GianniG46 (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your hard work with graphics on Wikipedia. You've contributed enormously on improving articles. Don't give up! I'm really grateful, thank you very much! Lecen (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks to you, Lecen, for this great compliment. --GianniG46 (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

pictures

hey there i noticed u cleaned up some of the pics i poste don the request section. think u can help me with these?? --Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes! in some of them U Can still the watermark and their colors are too dull :S --Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanx for ur great work on the pics, i uploaded more that still need work (i hope you dont mind :) hehehe) Thanx for ur help again! --Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, GianniG46. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Asa and Lucy Thurston

Could you remove the noise on Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#Asa and Lucy Thurston without making it blurrier and also removing the color frequencies? Also please don't crop or drastically clean it (i.e. recreating the background or the clothing) or anything. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you look at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#La Famille Royale de Tahiti?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you crop one for Pomare III, the very top one?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded Pomare III.png, not a great image, but the best I could do. And, since DerivativeFx is still not working, and I am not able to use Upload Wizard for derivative files, a lot of info is lacking from the file. Could you complete it? Cheers. --GianniG46 (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)