User talk:Sodium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About continuum spectra: it's actually pretty complicated, as I understand it. The main component at UV-vis-IR wavelengths is black body radiation, which comes from thermal movement of charges, but at X-ray wavelengths there is bremsstrahlung (Breaking radiation, which is caused by electrons decelerating due to atomic nuclei), Compton scattering (photons scattering from electrons), and synchrotron radiation (electrons in magnetic fields). Perhaps it would be better off being explained in a seperate article, with a link from EM Spectra. I'll have a go when I get the time. -- DrBob

Hi Sodium: Thanks for the reply, I'll let you know what DrBob reckons...

Here's the comment, man: I'm going cancel the "Fundamental Dimensions" revision that you made.

Please leave it in place and add a "comment" as I did here. Thanks

little_guru

Why did you create a comment page just for me, am I that important. :-)? If you replace the revision, rewrite it clearer. It is not obvious what the article is about. 'Fundamtenal dimensions' could exist - I am only doing A-level physics, but the text written on the page was either very obvious or covered elsewhere. -- sodium
ANSWER:So what? Can't I creat a comment page just for you? Yes you ARE important like all the wikipedians here...

You do not create a separate Comment page as well as a Talk, and you don't move somebody elses text there.

You may be a student, and I may be a teacher. Sometimes to explain really difficult concepts you got to put them in a way that LOOKS obvious, and I can assure you that the SI it's NOT obvious at all...

The article you wrote was full of unnesecary comment and repitition. It had one point (that you can't add different units), and it listed some of the SI units. The SI units have their own page. I don't think you'll find many people attempting to add speed and time.

Anyway Fundamental is misspelt: it seems that in a subconscious way you underestimate what is fundamental in life.

Yes obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be spending hours on the internet :-). -- sodium

Those illustrations you added to Chord are great. How did you make them? -- GWO

Thanks! I actually have a (slightly old) version of Sibelius which I do all my music work on. I save it as bmps then use Corelxara to turn it in to a PNG, adding any text that is needed. I'll be happy to do some more score-illustrations if you (or anybody else) needs any. --sodium

Thanks for the pointer. How do you think the articles can be combined? --riatsala.

I was going to develop the figured bass page concentrating on theory of how it is interpreted. Maybe the Basso continuo should be kept to explore the history and its usage by composers, and the figured bass page whould stick with the theory? (By the way, nice work on all the articles you have started, music was starting to get a bit quiet :-) ) -- sodium

Sodium,

I appreciate your attempts to be a moderating influence in the Christian Anti-Semitism Talk page. I just want to echo what I think RK has been saying. The question of whether Jews can be anti-semites is a matter of semantics. But in my experience, Jews do not hesitate to call "self-hating Jews" anti-semites if they turn their hatred against other Jews. In any event, to say that the authors of the New Testament could not be anti-semites "because" they were Jews is just sophistry. The question is, are there passages in the New Testament that express hatred towards Jews and provoke hatred towards Jews? Like others, you may conclude that the answer is no, that these particular versus do not express or incite hatred. But this is all that matters -- do they, or don't they? It really does not matter who wrote them.

Unless, that is, you want to infer intention based on authoriship. This is not a matter of semantics ("by definition" a Jew cannot be an anti-semite) but rather psychology -- a Jew is not capable of hating Judaism, the Jewish people, or Jews. But, as RK observed, in fact there are Jews who are capable of hating Judaism, the Jewish people, and Jews. It doesn't matter what you call them, the point is, the fact that they are Jewish does not in and of itself help us decide whther what they wrote is hateful or not.

Finally, although the authors of the New Testament, or most of them, anyway, were born Jews, they were creating a new religion and distancing themselves from the Jewish religion and the Jewish nation -- SR

There is no such thing as an exact definition of a word, and this is where the confusion over the importance of authorship comes from. A definition arises out of how the word is used and obviously different people can use the same words in different ways. I think it is misleading to call Jews who hate Jews antisemites, because to a lot of people an antisemite is one who hates *all* Jews. There is some justification for this view: antisemitism is not simply hatred of Jews, it is the irrational hatred of Jews because of a perceived feature of the Jewish group resulting from their religion/race/economic-status/etc... If someone hates one group of Jews but not another, the feature of this group that they hate does not necessarily emerge from their Jewishness. For example if a person hates a group of Jews that has moved in to his community, he could be said to be an antisemite. But it is more accurate to say that he is an emigrant-hater, because he does not (in my scenario) hate the Jews that stayed behind, whereas he does also hate other non-Jewish emigrants.
Similarly I suppose it could be said that some Jews are antisemites, but this is stretching the definition of antisemitism and is likely to cause confusion--basicly I think should be avoided and more precise wording should be used instead. -- sodium (BTW, it was not me that commented on whether the writers of the New Testament could be considered antisemites. Considering that the NT was written a time after christianity had been established, I suppose the writers would probably be considered christians not jews.)

As everyone probably knows, I agree with Sodium against SR and RK. An antisemite is someone who hates Jews because they are Jews. A Jew can hate some, many, or most other Jews; but they are not anitsemitic, so long as the following conditions hold: (a) they identify themselves (both internally and externally) as Jewish, and (b) they accept the people they hate as also being Jews. Because if those two conditions hold, then they consider both themselves and the people they hate as Jewish, and therefore they do not hate the people they hate because they are Jewish, because otherwise they'd also be hating themselves, which they do not. (Neturei Karta, who RK says are Jewish antisemites, do not hate themselves.)

I don't think its psychologically impossible for a Jew to hate themselves because they are Jewish. It probably happens a fair bit. However, I don't think any groups like Neturei Karta hate themselves. In fact, "self-hating Jew" is a favourite weapon of intra-Jewish propaganda (i.e. its a name which Jews use to insult other Jews). Most Jews who get labelled "self-hating Jews" do not hate themselves or their people at all -- they just dare to question certain sacred cows of the Jewish community (e.g. be critical of Israel). And in any case, even if some Jews do hate themselves, this "hatred" is a different phenomena than the hatred exhibited by non-Jewish antisemites, so even Jews which hate themselves and all other Jews are still not antisemites.

Non-Jewish antisemites advocate violence against Jews. Find me one "self-hating Jew", which thinks that violence against their own people is a good thing? Find me one "self-hating Jew", which would like to see Jews returned to the ghetto, and would love to wear a yellow star? Find me one "self-hating Jew" who can't wait for Auschwitz to be reopenned so he can be the first victim of Holocaust II? Find me one "self-hating Jew" who thinks that the Protocol of the Elders of Zion is true? I doubt very much you will find any. So, even if some Jews do hate themselves because of their religious/ethnic background, this is a very different phenomena from the hatred which non-Jews exhibit towards Jews, and so it is inaccurate to refer to Jewish self-hatred as antisemitism. -- SJK

Hi Sodium,

I am fairly new around here so forgive any breach of local etiquette. If you are interested in an opportunity to do one of your excellent chemical diagrams, I just created an initial entry on Vulcanization.

The entry would be much clearer with a diagram showing some basic polymer chains of rubber linking to form a longer chain and then the two sulphur atoms forming the crosslink. The reference I checked shows the process as (a) isoprene monomer (I think this is the rubber latex) (b)isoprene polymer (resulting from two isoprene monomer linking end to end) (c) three polymer coil-like chains cross linked with the sulphur.

I might be able to photograph/scan the diagram I was referencing and email it to you if this would be useful.

Please disregard all of the above if uninterested or busy. user:mirwin

Sorry I have taken so long to reply, I have been very busy with university interviews, all of which seem to have arrived at the same time. I would be happy to do a diagram for vulcanization. I think I have an idea of what is needed but I might take up the offer of a scan if I run in to difficulties. user:sodium

Hi, from another Bristol Uni wikipedian (you make it 3 I believe) :)

You might possibly even have seen me around, especially if you joined the computer society (BITS) as I was manning BITS stall at freshers fair for a fair bit of the time.

--Imran 23:07 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Imatinib

My compliments on your fine edits and the nice picture. I'd never imagined someone was going to expand on that page for some time! Impressive work for "a first year medical student".
A bunch of medical contributors to Wikipedia has joined forces on WikiDoc to coordinate efforts to improve Wikipedia's medical side. Your company is most certainly invited. In due course, we'll move everything to a WikiProject, but only after our agenda has assumed some semblance of shape.
JFW | T@lk 11:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PS Could you find an image of Imatinib's chemical structure? I've made some myself for pioglitazone and metformin, for example.

Ah, you've refreshed your user page.
Personally, I find Wikipedia work hugely educational. I'm supposed to be locumming around, but it's a bit of a quiet time. Having MRCP Part 1 behind me, there's little organised studying to do. However, Wikipedia has forced me read up details on serpins, G6PD, PPARs and thiazolidinediones! So I agree with you on revision-by-wikipedia-editing.
To join the WikiDoc effort, just add your name to this page and see what's happening there...
JFW | T@lk 21:36, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the nice diagram on this page (this one) is spoiled slightly by being a jpg rather than a lossless format like png. Could you upload a png version? Lupin 12:25, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. And while you're at it, correct the spelling Gleevac to imatinib or Glivec or Gleevec :-) JFW | T@lk 21:39, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is WikiDoc moving?

Please follow this link for some information.
JFW | T@lk 12:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Diagrams on Phase (waves)

Hi Sodium,

I suspect that you may be the author of some of the diagrams at Phase (waves). is that correct? --AstroNomer 08:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

I was kicking myself in the butt for not reading much of Morality and legality of abortion before rewriting the intro. After seeing what you removed, and a bit more thats left, I dont feel so bad. :) -St|eve 01:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bcl-2

I just merged Bcl 2 to Bcl-2, but the article needs a read through by someone who understands all this a little better.