User talk:Polyamorph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Jdrewitt)
Jump to: navigation, search

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of February 2013.


Hi Poly,

In my opinion every editor has the right to be informed about the course of a discussion. WP:TALK states:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.

As you can see in the segment you deleted, this was my opinion about the arguments added by another editor to the discussion.

If you don't like my opinion, please read WP:NOIMAGE. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your contribution is irrelevant to the Falklands discussion and improvement of that article. It does not belong on the talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Polyamorph, it seems that browbeating administrators is now the good way of doing things ([1]). And they like it! Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, there was very little in that discussion that was worthwhile, so I think Toddst1 actions were the right thing to do. Since it's been discovered that Abenyosef was a sockpuppet of a well-known disruptive user the entire discussion was unfortunately a waste of time and designed purely to cause disruption - and it clearly succeeded in that goal. But it's good to know Abenyosef has now been blocked. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for deleting contributions[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Polyamorph,

you wrote Your contribution is irrelevant to the Falklands discussion and improvement of that article. It does not belong on the talk page. Would you be so kind as to explain me why do you think so?.

I don't understand why an editor can restrain the right of another editor based only in his opinion. Do you think you and M. have the right to delete my opinion?. Do you think that I have this right?, Can I delete your contributions to a talk page if I find that Your contribution is irrelevant to the X discussion and improvement of that article. It does not belong on the talk page?. Wikipedia has enormous problems to find a way to dispute resolution. What do you think would be the consequence of the proliferation of your behaviour thoughout the talk pages in wikipedia?. What do you think of collaborative work, Tolerance and Freedom of Speech?.

Please, be exhaustive in your rationale and consider in your answer that user M. had referred to the War of the Pacific, to the Bolivian Declaration of War and he had referred directly to me. Moreover, the user Abelyosef had also referred to the Bolivian Declaration of War of 1879. Why did you delete my contributions and not their contributions?.

Thanks in advance, --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Keysanger, please stop with this constant badgering of editors. The following two diffs demonstrate that you first brought to subject of the War of the Pacific into the discussion: (Text from FI article and Comparisson with WoTP article).
Lastly, my mention of the WoTP was used as an example to the Falkland Islands discussion. There was nothing wrong with that. It's like that folk legend that Christopher Columbus used an orange to describe the shape of the Earth (the discussion was not about fruits, it was about the planet!). Taking things out of context is not appropriate behavior, and doing such in talk pages goes both against the WP:TALK guidelines and WP:NOTFORUM. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this resolved already? Your wall of text was irrelevant to the Falklands discussion and the subsequent personal attacks in that discussion were disruptive. That's why I hid the text. Todd then saw a better way of dealing with it since that entire discussion was doomed due to trolling by a banned editor. Now kindly get over it. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
You repeat the empty gesture was irrelevant, personal attacks, were disruptive. You didn't address the questions. I thought you were able to respond for yourself. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The issue has been resolved. Kindly leave me alone now. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thanks for the moral support. :-) You and User:David Levy seem the only ones who understood what I meant by "arguments against my interpretation of the guideline", and you explained it better than I ever could. Diego (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tea! Polyamorph (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Molecular dynamics[edit]

You wrote that the edition of Sirjasonr is "cited and relevant". It is really cited but not relevant.

1. The original edition contains an entirely fair statement: "This implies that AIMD is limited to smaller systems and shorter periods of time". This is true, and this is well-known fact. And this is a very sad fact. If the situation has changed in the field of molecular modeling the revolution would occur. Unfortunately, the link does not promise a revolution. This is just the link to one of the myriad of original works.

2. Quotations of the original work is admissible only in case a real significance of this work. Meanwhile it is an ordinary work.

3. Such phrases as "recent developments", "highly parallel" are not typical for an encyclopedic style. I believe that the purpose of edition does not improve the article, but give a link to Fragment Molecular Orbital.

In view of these circumstances, I believe that we should go back to the original version. P99am (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, it is true that the boundaries of limitation are being pushed all the time and this gives an example of which direction AIMD is going. The fact that it provides a link to Fragment molecular orbital is a good thing and very nicely illustrates the point that methods are available to use ab initio MD to compute very large molecular structures. Polyamorph (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We do not have good ab initio methods for calculation of very large structures. This is exactly what was said in the original version.

OK, feel free to revert to your preferred version then. I was under the impression FMO was an ab initio method. Polyamorph (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
FMO is indeed an ab initio method; no empirical approximations are made and explicitly correlated ab initio wavefunctions are used. Large structures can be calculated accurately, as I have found in my own work (see But I'm new to this Wikipedia-ing, so I'll leave the debate to more experienced editors. Sirjasonr (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The Fragment molecular orbital could do with improvement, feel free to expand and improve that article, I'm sure your expertise will come in very handy. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have nothing against FMO. I'm just worried about the weakening of the original phrase. This may give the impression that a significant shift has occurred in this field, but this was not.P99am (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well to tell you the truth, I don't necessarily agree with the implication (in the original phrase) in the first place. I think it is a little subjective and prefer simply the statement that AIMD is more costly -- I think everyone is in agreement with that. I mean, "highly parallel" methods aside, what really limits the system size or simulation time is the hardware you have. As for the FMO article itself, I'll see what I can do... It could be character building considering the exchange over this sentence alone (not that I have a problem with this!) ;) Thanks for the thorough discussion, Polyamorph & P99am. Sirjasonr (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
There have been many instances on wikipedia where very small changes to a single sentence have led to some intense discussions - however, don't let it put you off, usually editing is more straightforward, by all means be WP:BOLD and edit away :) Polyamorph (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


doneSebastian barnes (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

occurence plutonium[edit]

thanks again for wikified re-edit i guess it needs to be checked i see that several groups have an interest in this article and it is featured ; ive corrected my spelling as best i know; this is the last day i have a web connection im really content to let someone achieve it or whatever the process is ..i got in trouble last time i tried..monthes ago,18/04/2012Sebastian barnes (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas,[edit]

Hi Polyamorph,

Long time, no see. I just thought I'd stop by and wish you a Merry Christmas. Thanks again for being so friendly when I was a newcomer, and I hope the coming year will bring you much happiness and joy. Zaereth (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


Working on getting this article to GA. I am happy with the first few sections but unhappy with "society and culture section" as I think they need improvement. Would you be interested in helping? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland[edit]

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Polyamorph[edit]

-Vatsan34 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! :)

Merry Christmas, Polyamorph![edit]

Hi Polyamorph, I hope you're enjoying your retirement. I'm sorry to see you go, but am glad if it's the right decision for you. I don't know if you'll get this message, but I just wanted to wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas, and may you have a wonderful New Year! Zaereth (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zaereth, I occasionally log in just to see how things are going, too busy in real life. If you ever need any help with anything though feel free to contact me here and I'll be happy to help out. Hope you had a nice christmas and happy New Year to you! Polyamorph (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand, as I'm usually very busy myself. I'm lucky if I get to spend more than 10 minutes a day on the computer, and my computer at home is mainly set-up as an eight-screen flight-sim. That way I can do dangerous things that they don't let me do in real life, like flying through the Grand Canyon at ~ 400 knots. (Takes just over an hour if you don't crash.) For the most part, Wikipedia is just something to do when I'm at work; on hold, or break, or whatever. I haven't been working too much with glass-related articles recently, unless it has to do with lasers or optics ... although I did add a section to the welding article recently.
Anyhow, it's nice to hear from you again, Polyamorph. I hope your holidays were great. I appreciate the offer, and if you need anything, feel free to ask as well. Zaereth (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)