User talk:Minimumbias: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:41, 25 November 2017

Welcome!

Hello, Minimumbias, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Minimumbias. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O. Rabin

He wasn't Visiting Associate Professor, he was Associate Professor. Also, many entries on List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ber31 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at his CV carefully, that's a visiting position (associate professor). Also, if you think many entries are wrong in the Berkeley list, you may correct them with reliable sources instead of coming to me and leaving such a general comment. Minimumbias (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

Concerning Todd and Debye, here is my argument: [1].

As far as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is concern, in 1947, it became incorporated into the new system of the United States Atomic Energy Commission; it was separated from UC Berkeley. SLAC is managed by Stanford University. In case of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, it is managed by the University of California System, and not just by UC Berkeley. Ber31 (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- For Todd and Debye, I agree with you. For LBNL, it seems tricky. Will post update later. Minimumbias (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- For LBNL, the official source (http://history.aip.org/history/acap/institutions/inst.jsp?lbl) states that:

1) "When the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was established in 1947, it became the primary patron of the Radiation Laboratory, and the laboratory was often counted a part of the AEC's system of national laboratories."

2) "Radiation Laboratory staff continue to be counted as members of the Berkeley physics department until Lawrence's death in 1958. However, that historical divide should be considered more-or-less arbitrary. Berkeley physics professors, post-docs, and students remained heavily involved in the work of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and information on this page should be cross-referenced with the ACAP page for that department."

Hence, 1947 should not be viewed as the year when LBNL was separated from UC Berkeley. Will have to figure out a better "turning point", if there is any. Minimumbias (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UC Berkeley Nobel laureates

As far as Felix Bloch is concerned, I agree with you. He should be on the page. He was affiliated with the lab before 1947 (or 1958). In case of David J. Thouless, he wasn't affiliated with Berkeley Physics department. He was affiliated with the lab.[2] Only those laureates who were affiliated with the lab before 1958 should be included in the list. Ber31 (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It is true that Ernest Lawrence died in 1958 (August), and in ACAP website, "staff at the Radiation Laboratory are generally treated as members of Berkeley's physics department up until Lawrence's death in 1958 (when the lab was renamed after him)." However, as ACAP itself has repeatedly pointed out that "the historical divide should be considered more-or-less arbitrary."

- http://history.aip.org/history/acap/institutions/inst.jsp?lbl - http://history.aip.org/history/acap/institutions/inst.jsp?berkeley

Hence, no one can really specify a particular date. One can only propose a reasonable time (year) and if most people agree then we will use this as a convention for counting Nobel laureates in Wikipedia.

Now, I do not agree that the time should be "before 1958". It should at the very least include the year 1958 (whole year). There are three reasons. First of all, Ernest Lawrence died on Aug. 27, 1958, not before 1958. Secondly, one simply can not use the exact death time of a person to judge the affiliations of thousands of others. It is not official and lacks formality. Thirdly, a more official event is the renaming of "Radiation Lab" to "Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory", which was voted & approved by UC Regents in September (http://history.lbl.gov/1950s/). Overall, it it much more reasonable to include the Nobel laureates who were affiliated with LBNL by 1958 (inclusive) - although this is already a most conservative view (one can also use 1960, allowing some grace/transition period). Minimumbias (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, since you have restructured the page of Berkeley's Nobel Laureates, you should at least complete the names of Nobel laureates (e.g., who are "Calvin" and "Cech" under the Chemistry category?). Moreover, since you have created tables for different categories, what is the meaning of saying "Nobel laureate in XXX" for each person again in the table? It seems redundant to me. Minimumbias (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UC Berkeley Nobel laureates and citation

I restructured the page after looking at similar other pages. I am also learning how to cite on pages. I think you should use publisher=Nobel Foundation (name of the publisher) rather than website=www.nobelprize.org (or www.berkeley.org). Here are some pages you may want to look at:

I want to make the Berkeley Nobel laureates page the very best. Thank you for your work for this website. Other pages (Fields Medal/Universities and Turing Award/Universities) that you have created are also very useful. :-) Ber31 (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

90

Arthur Kornberg makes the cut. There is another entry who was at Berkeley only for one summer session. He will be removed. As far as Berkeley lab is concerned, James Cronin and David J. Thouless will make the cut, and Richard E. Taylor and Michael Levitt will be removed. I have also unearthed 3 more Nobel laureates who had affiliation with UC Berkeley and they are not currently in the list. Overall, three names will be removed and three names will be added. 90 will be the final number. Ber31 (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

- 1) I don't remember having discussed "Arthur Kornberg" with you anywhere. - 2) We had discussed Berkeley lab, which I think is important because it is directly related to the criterion regarding Laureates working in a research organization affiliated with a university. It is not about a specific person. - 3) I am not sure why you wish to discuss the Berkeley count with me in details now. I don't remember having edited the Berkeley page a lot, except for a few times while I was restructuring the Nobel Laureates list last year and I realized something went wrong with the Berkeley count. - 4) But as a neutral Wikipedia editor, I think your work on the Berkeley page is constructive and I'd encourage you continuing the work. However, please remember that Wikipedia is not a research paper and nothing is "final". People can randomly drop by and make some changes. Most importantly, none of us is a final judge or holds the authority over the criteria of these Wikipedia pages. On the other hand, you may want to become a watcher (if you haven't done so) of the Berkeley Nobel laureate page in order to "protect" the page from vandalism or unreasonable changes.

Minimumbias (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your assistance and contributions. Ber31 (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University-affiliated schools

Hi,

I would like to thank you for your extraordinarily work on the wiki pages. Some universities run university-affiliated schools. Some universities such as the University of Illinois count prize winners who have graduated from their university-affiliated laboratory schools. The lead part of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation should say that graduates/attendees of university-affiliated laboratory schools are excluded. What are your thoughts on this matter? Ber31 (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your contribution and collaboration is also appreciated. Yes, they should be excluded, and we had thought about that issue long time ago. That is why at the very beginning of the Nobel counting list there is a sentence: "an individual laureate who received the Nobel prize while working at a research organization formally affiliated with or operated by a university is counted as an affiliate of that university." The emphasis is on research organization. In addition, for UIUC, there are such notes: "1) The University Count includes Philip Anderson and James Tobin as affiliates merely because they graduated from University Laboratory High School - Urbana; these two laureates are thus not included in the following list." Feel free to let me know how you think Minimumbias (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Eliot

Hi,

See Talk page of List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Chicago. Ber31 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seen. Minimumbias (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at the Talk page

The discussion has gone beyond CalTech. You should change the title (The issue of "Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Visiting Scholar" at Caltech) to something else. Ber31 (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have focused on Caltech. The discussion of Caltech was initiated intending to set up an example for many other universities. In addition, for most of the time my students ran this account (Minimumbias). We discuss things sometimes, and I may drop by to see changes if I have time. Minimumbias (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minimumbias Your comment above and note on your user page indicate that this account is being used by multiple editors which is a violation of the WP:Username Policy. Can you please explain? Melcous (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue. There is only one person who is doing every edit and is in charge of carrying out every final edit. There were never multiple editors. The person who is in charge of making the edits may have had discussions with other people who do not have Wikipedia account. Minimumbias (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what did you mean when you posted here that this account is "run" but your students, and on your user page that it is "maintained" by your students? Those words seem to have a fairly obvious meaning that is more than simply having off-wiki discussions. Melcous (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the policy, and sorry for any ambiguity. There has been only one Wiki editor throughout, and this editor was helping the professor built up the account, carried out the work and expressed his opinions. The professor never made edits himself. The discussions were always made private among students and the professor. But all final edits were the intentions of the professor, but one and only one student helped make actual edits. Minimumbias (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 115: / Line 115: @@
 ::: This is untrue. There is only one person who is doing every edit and is in charge of carrying out every final edit. There were never multiple editors. The person who is in charge of making the edits may have had discussions with other people who do not have Wikipedia account. [[User:Minimumbias|Minimumbias]] ([[User talk:Minimumbias#top|talk]]) 04:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 ::: So what did you mean when you posted here that this account is "run" but your students, and on your user page that it is "maintained" by your students? Those words seem to have a fairly obvious meaning that is more than simply having off-wiki discussions. [[User:Melcous|Melcous]] ([[User talk:Melcous|talk]]) 04:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
+::::Thanks for pointing out the policy, and sorry for any ambiguity. There has been only one Wiki editor throughout, and this editor was helping the professor built up the account, carried out the work and expressed his opinions. The professor never made edits himself. The discussions were always made private among students and the professor. But all final edits were the intentions of the professor, but one and only one student helped make actual edits. [[User:Minimumbias|Minimumbias]] ([[User talk:Minimumbias#top|talk]]) 04:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)