User talk:Complexica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Complexica, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Pamri • Talk • Reply 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)



Contents

[edit] Hello!

Who R U?FroggyJamer 05:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)GO TO MYTALKPAGE!!:)

[edit] Also Hello

I suspect your additions to General Relativity may be questionable but I can't read what you wrote because the second figure you added hides a bunch of equations. Could you shrink it, please? Thanks. Carrionluggage 05:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Electromagnetic Wave Equation

I realize that you are trying to improve the article, but I think you have gone more than a little overboard with the photographs and images that you have added. The article is supposed to be about the electromagnetic wave equation. There are already articles specific to just about every topic for which you have added an image. Furthermore, in many cases, I don't see any relevance of the image to the topic of the article other than that the image is related to electromagnetic waves, and so is the article. Finally, the article is now so cluttered with images that it is difficult to find the text and the equations.

A few images scattered throughout the article certainly provide some richness to the article, but too much of a good thing....

I am tempted simply to start deleting many of these images, but I thought I would let you know my thoughts and give you a heads up.

-- Metacomet 04:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Those pictures are a lot more appropriate for a general-audience article on electromagnetism or electromagnetic waves. Pictures like that, thought quite beautiful, are not appropriate for a math-infested article aimed at undergrads/grad students. I strongly suggest that these pictures be moved to Electromagnetic radiation or possibly Electromagnetic spectrum. linas 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the pictures have now been moved or removed by metacomet and myself. Complexica 16:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Physics

You may enjoy visiting and communing at the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, which is where a lot of general discussion and wrangling takes place. linas 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh by the way, thanks for the work on Larmor formula. linas 01:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just signed up. My name in the real world is Roger D. Jones Complexica 17:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reflexive pronouns

Since this is an encyclopedia we might try to optimize the English. You wrote: "Most of the pictures have now been moved or removed by metacomet and myself." But the reflexive pronouns are to be used either reflexively (e.g. "He tripped himself up." ) or as intensifying pronouns (e.g. "I, myself, am responsible."). (See Strunk and White). Today, it is common, but poor usage, to say things like "If anybody needs an extra ticket, please see Janet or myself." The "myself" should be "me" or, if necessary for emphasis, "me, myself." Sorry if I seem to be nit-picking. Cheers 17:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson. I am from the deep South. I speak English as a second language. Complexica 17:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Now don't you let them damn Yankees tell y'all how to talk all proper. King's English is perfectly acceptable round these parts. linas 19:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] maxwell's equations in curved spacetime

Hi,

You seem to be the person behind the section on "maxwell's equations in curved spacetime". I'm tempted to recommend ta you start a new article for this. Several reasons: The current "maxwell's equations article is already a bit long. Next, it tends to get a lot of traffic and some vandalism, and so watching over it is hard. By contrast, a distinct page, whch appeals nly to those with "advanced" interests is a bit easier to watch over, check for accuracy, etc. It also allows for easier future expansion. linas 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

linas, you may be right. i was planning to add some more this weekend. maybe it would be best to split it off. Complexica 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Complexica.
Actually, I had noticed that 'sentence' problem in Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime. I couldn't figure out what it meant, so I left it. I think it may be irrelevant, and was thinking of removing it completely. But maybe we should check with Lethe - who wrote it - before doing this. Thoughts? MP (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Just noticed that Lethe fixed it. MP (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikola Tesla

Hi, I see you are a trained physicist. I am seeking comments from Ph.D. physicists in Talk:Nikola Tesla: was he a great inventor/engineer, as I claim, or a great physicist/scientist, as C-c-c-c claims? TIA ---CH 03:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright tags

Hello. I'm writing to you about the image Image:060731c Normalized basis functions.png which is included in Radial basis function. It seems nobody explained to you the whole business about images and copyrights. It is not enough to say that you created the plot, you should also include an image copyright tag which states under which license you release the picture. You can read Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators for more information. To make a long story short: The text you write is licensed under the GNU Free Document License (GFDL), and if you want the same license to apply to the plot, just add Template:GFDL-self to the image page (go to Image:060731c Normalized basis functions.png, press "edit this page", and type {{GFDL-self}} in the text box).

I hope this clarifies the situation. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just did that.Complexica 20:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Mike Peel 17:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am being more wikidiligent now. Complexica 18:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Norman Packard.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Norman Packard.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fundamental physics concepts

Hi. I see you are adding a lot of articles to Category:Fundamental physics concepts. This is fine. I just wanted to request that when you put category tags on articles, please do not put in a cat sort key "|articlename", unless the needed sort key is different from the article title. Manually setting the sort key to the article title is bad, because if the article is later renamed the location of the entry in the category will not be automatically updated.--Srleffler 01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ok. thank.Complexica 15:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Hartree-Fock... it surely does not belong in Category:Fundamental physics concepts. Also, the category is being flooded! You should cut down on the volume, I think. Karol 10:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] speed of light article dispute

Hi,

Could you have a look at the Speed of light article and the discussion? An editor in Hungary has decided that a formula is wrong and resents my efforts to clarify matters. He may have been the one who recently blanked the article. At least he has promised to make trouble.

Thanks. P0M 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you. I got some help from another editor and later I looked at the third of my three textbooks on relativity theory where I found an exact explanation of the addition of velocities. For some reason they all use "velocity" in the name of that formula when they should use "speed." I guess it's one of those things that are hallowed by tradition. The editor who was upset is apparently in Hungary and perhaps has a different standard of civility. Anyway, everything seems to have cooled down now. P0M 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links towards Autocatalytic reactions and order creation

I referted about five links in the systems articles towards the article Autocatalytic reactions and order creation. If you make one or two links here it's ok, but all those links are very curious. Please don't push that article to much. -- Mdd (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:060815 polaroid.png

A tag has been placed on Image:060815 polaroid.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)