User talk:Complexica

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)[reply]

Hello!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just noticed that Lethe fixed it. MP (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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:

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [[ Talk:Image:060815 polaroid.png|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)[reply]

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} 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:060818 Normalized basis functions.png

A tag has been placed on Image:060818 Normalized basis functions.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 a 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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:060818 Normalized basis functions.png|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. rootology (C)(T) 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autocatalytic Brusselator reactions

Hi! I wanted to know which software you used, and how in order to show the graph about the stable limit cycle for the brusselator reactions. Thanks in advance!

PS: Great contributions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.13.158.2 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just coded it up in excel. There was no special software. Complexica (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:100828 Hall interaction.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:100828 Hall interaction.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add a description. I am not sure I did it correctly. Complexica (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:100926 Angular Momentum 15.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:100926 Angular Momentum 15.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:100926 Angular momentum 11.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:100926 Angular momentum 11.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:100906 Hall lattice.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:100906 Hall lattice.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Photon dynamics in the double-slit experiment for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Photon dynamics in the double-slit experiment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon dynamics in the double-slit experiment until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Casti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:John L. Casti phograph.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:John L. Casti phograph.jpg, which you've attributed to A VRT notice was applied over 60 day(s) ago, but no message at VRTS has been found since this tag was applied.. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Info Mesa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Info Mesa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Info Mesa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Jones (physicist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uber. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:Harvey Lloyd Portrait.jpg

Hello, Complexica. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Harvey Lloyd Portrait.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Complexica. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Complexica. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

For creating Continuity equation, have a brownie, you deserve it! Keep up the good work, its quite the good page. --Hubble_{Three_{Know me more}}🔭(talk with me)☢(contributions) 13:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Solving the geodesic equations

The article Solving the geodesic equations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article has not been substantially improved in years. Even if it was, it would be a how to guide - wikipedia is not a how to guide. Perhaps we could make articles for individual techniques for solving the geodesic equations, but this article doesn't have much potential on its own.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reason for deleting this page. I wrote this page many years ago and wikipedia has evolved since then. I can see how the page is no longer appropriate. Complexica (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work and for being understanding!

QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation

The article Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is just a hodge-podge of random content covered much better in other articles. It does not seem to have any theme or unique content. While the content is vaguely related to the Schrodinger equation, nothing in the content directly addresses the title subject.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written many years ago. Wikipedia has changed significantly since then. Yes, please remove the article if appropriate. 37.159.47.44 (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Roger Jones (physicist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Jones (physicist), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Jones (physicist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]