User talk:TimothyRias/Archives/2008

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you! :D

Welcome to Wikipedia, TimothyRias! I am Auawise and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 15:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical physics article

Hi there,

I was looking at this article out of interest, and I've done a rather drastic re-write. I've added a lot of wikilinks, birth and death dates for the people you mentioned, and also fixed some grammatical and syntactical issues.

My background in the subject is not that of a professional (just a well-read amateur) - so could you please have a look at what I've done and, style apart, see that it still makes mathematical and physical sense?

Regards,

Boethius65 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Emmy Noether

Wow! Thank you so much for those paragraphs; they're precisely what I had in mind. While I could source the first paragraph to the Ledermann & Hill book I have (it discusses the theorem in – from what I can tell – much the same way), we should probably give a source for the second ¶. Do you happen to have anything for this? Thanks again for your speedy and excellent work. – Scartol • Tok 11:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Definite article

Hi. Not that I'm particularly concerned about this but, certainly not enough to editwar, but I disagree with your argument that using 'the' before a country is proper grammar. Often the definite article is not considered obligatory and even archaic in official documents I have seen. See for reference the info boxes of Nobel laureates from the United States and the United Kingdom. Regards. Rozth (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet for some countries it remains customary to use the definite article. Adressen in the Netherlands are (and have always been) written: Name, street ##, postal code, City, The Netherlands. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Also wikipedia's flag template - {{NED}} - excludes the definite article (Netherlands), implying it is common practice to leave out the determiner in infoboxes. Regards. Rozth (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be, if it was not preceded by a city name. (although whether this is truly common practice can be disputed.) (TimothyRias (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

A few things can be disputed, particularly the addressing format passed off as standard in your first comment. Regards. Rozth (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Supergroups?

Your comment on the group talk page encourages me to ask you if you know anything about supergroups. The article claims they are generalised groups, but I don't understand it. I have a vague idea that when physicists talk about "groups" they sometimes mean something a bit more special than mathematicians, perhaps algebraic groups? So I wonder if it is correct to list them as generalised groups at group (mathematics). I can see it's correct in the case of Hopf algebras, though. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I know very little about supergroups. The most sense I can make from the wikipedia stub is that they are simply supermanifolds with a group structure. Anyway most of the time physicists are talking out of their ass when it comes to groups. (they tend to confuse lie algebras and groups. Als the "renormalisation group" is not actually a group, but a monoid. etc.) (TimothyRias (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. Perhaps we should just remove them from the groups article, because the two definitions live in too different cultures. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I agree with you that "Netherlands" without a definite article often (always?) sounds very strange. And if anyone can be trusted to do this right, then I would say it's linguists. [1] I wonder if it has anything to do with "nederlands". In English no confusion should be possible, but still… --Hans Adler (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Hi Timothy. I commend you for your patient explanations to User:David Tombe, and I understand he is quite a frustrating user, but please do try to avoid name-calling. If I might make a general suggestion for situations like this, borne of my own experience: if you conclude that someone is not listening to explanations, stop explaining. Instead, focus on making sure the relevant article is accurate and in accord with Wikipedia policies, and request administrative assistance in the case of disruptive editing. (In the case at hand, I am taking care of the administrative side of things at the moment.) Believe me, I know it's not easy—but it doesn't hurt to let a person be wrong on the talk page. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

D Tombe

I don't see signs that anybody but David believes there is any error in derivations, formulas, or the way the formulas are applied in any of the articles fictitious force, centrifugal force or centripetal force. Do you agree about that?

If so, please, what is the objective of the D Tombe engagement? If not, please tell me what is at stake here, because I'd like to clarify any points that really bother you. Brews ohare (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing at stake here seems to be Tombe refusing to accept that he is just dead wrong. Which annoys me, since I'm allergic to ignorance. Most of the derivations in the articles seem OK. (I haven't checked all of them) I'd personally prefer a presentation that is completely coordinate free, but that might be asking a little too much from most readers. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Emanuel Lasker

I'm editing the article about the chess champion Emanuel Lasker and have found that he's a much more significant mathematician than I realised, and I'm not qualified to judge his significance in mathematics. Since you've contributed to Emmy Noether, could you please comment on the parts of Emanuel Lasker about his mathematical work (and career, if you have material). Philcha (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello! I probably received this message by mistake and I do believe it was intended for you.
I will notify the user who posted it, and I have already changed what he requested to be changed.

Cheers! Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Amusing typo

Don't forget the last "s" in "assess", as in the edit summary here. We want wikipedia to be kid-friendly :-) --Steve (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics Poll

There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

help with an image

Hi Timothy,

I'm still impressed by the graphical clarity and beauty the images you kindly created for the group (mathematics) article (which I try to prepare for FAC). So I come back to you :) If you have the time, would you volunteer to create an image, graphically much like the ones there, which shows the composition of two group elements, such as

r₃ • f_h = f_c,

Perhaps three squares (first the original one, then the horizontal flip, and then the rotation, based on the flipped one)?

Thanks muchly,

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

redirecting blue shift

Why did you redirect blue shift without merging any information there to redshift? Why did you leave off the notice on where to find the disambiguation page? The redshift article mentions very little on blue shift. It would have been more helpful to redirect it to doppler effect, since atleast then you'd get some information. Please merge your redirected article, so that people looking for information on blueshift don't have to know the subject matter, to reinterpret the redshift page into a blueshift page. Since if they don't know the subject matter, I'd think they'd have a hard time of it. 70.51.9.237 (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The redshift page said more about blueshift than the blueshift page did. (TimothyRias (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Natural philosophy is not physics?

This is a puzzling edit. I think it would be helpful for your WikiProject to encourage those interested in physics to come and help improve this article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Kramers–Kronig relation

Hello TimothyRias, I do not know whether this is the right spot to react, but I do not agree with rating the Kramers–Kronig relation as "low". I would rate these relations higher, because they are very important both in experimental and numerical modeling work, relating frequency-domain characteristics of causal systems: e.g. real and imaginary parts, or amplitude and phase, of frequency transfer functions. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Entropy (information theory)

Saw you just gave this article a "C" -- "article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material".

It would be useful if you could sketch on the talk page where you feel the article is falling short and what need to be the priorities for improvement. Jheald (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrino

Thank you. If you need a copy edit (in exchange) I'll be happy to help. -Ravedave (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Centrifugal force (planar motion)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Centrifugal force (planar motion), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrifugal force (planar motion). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Top Physicists List

Have added quite a few to your list. Hope you'd find this useful.Nu 22:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Bci2

Stub vs. start

I reverted your change at Talk:Paraxial approximation, from start to stub class. While the article is short, it is long enough and provides sufficient information to be beyond stub stage. From the assessment scale, a reader's experience of a stub is "Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition". This article is well past that point.--Srleffler (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Antisymmetric wave function image

I wanted to stop by and say thank you for generating the wave function images. I added one of them on the electron article and both to identical particles. I'm sure they will be very helpful for our readers.—RJH (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the archived discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_October_2008#Antisymmetric_wave_function_image.3F, I made an inquiry[2] about a comparable probability density function illustrated here:

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/WaveFunctionsOfIdenticalParticles/

Apparently this shows the ground state for the fermions but not for the bosons.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

3C Catalogue

Well, is the big bang just astronomy? Th importance is mid or low I guess. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

v4641 Sgr

Thanks for catching this. This sourced statement originated from Sagittarius (constellation), which I have fixed. I would also appreciate review of V4641 Sgr. --IanOsgood (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Stubs

Hi Timothy. I've noticed for some time that you have been adding the physics project tag to article talk pages and classifying previously-tagged articles. I appreciate the work you are doing on this. I have noticed, though, that you often classify articles as "stubs" when they are not. Stubs are by definition short—typically no more than a few sentences. An article with over a screenful of text is clearly not a stub, and should be rated Start class or above.--Srleffler (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Matrices

Hi Tim,

I'm currently focussing on matrices. I think there are plenty of physical applications where I think it's best if somebody into the matter writes about it. Would be help out by adding some words about physics applications of matrices? The "see also" section of the article contains some key words I found interesting when browsing around, especially the quantum mechanics stuff. See you over there! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

TEM

Hello TimothyRias, You recently placed a class=c rating on the article Transmission electron microscope, an article which I have done some work on. Would you be interested in elaborating on this, to provide a "To Do" list, or a set of suggestions in how the article could be improved? I am keen to raise the quality of this article. Thankyou Hat'nCoat (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)