User talk:Pra1998

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ever considered joining WP:PHYS? You'd fit right in I'm sure. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Headbomb, I would appreciate it. How could I do it? --Pra1998 (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Information.svg Hey there Pra1998, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Pra1998. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Alcubierre drive[edit]

Why do you say nonsense? Are you disputing that WP:LINKVIO applies or that the paper is in violation? It seems clear enough to me, the paper contains a diagram lifted from Commons without attribution to the author as required by the CC licence. There is no exception for scientific papers. SpinningSpark 10:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As these authors proved Alcubierre drive not working and is a scientific paper, how should I insert such a scientific result in a scientific article like Alcubierre drive is? Please, consider that this is just a preprint and, probably, it will appear in a well-reputed peer-reviewed journal. In such a case, will Wikipedia sue the authors?--Pra1998 (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I have copied your reply back here to keep the conversation together. In my view, while the copyvio remains, we cannot use the material at all. That is why I deleted it. If it is cleaned up when published (and I would hope peer review would do that) then we can use it. Wikipedia will not be sueing anybody, as the foundation does not own copyright on any of the material here, that belongs to the authors. I will ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and perhaps they have some suggestions. In the meantime would you please remove the material from the article, Wikipedia considers copyright to be a serious issue. SpinningSpark 10:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on this issue. I will try to get in touch with authors. Meanwhile, I will remove the citation. If you agree, in the note I will point out this problem.--Pra1998 (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for cooperating with this and for taking the trouble to contact the author. I know copyvio is rampant all across the internet but on Wikipedia is it simply not permitted at all. There may be better ideas on how to handle this from the admins on the copyright problems page, they deal with these kind of problems all the time. SpinningSpark 12:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantum eletrodynamics[edit]

Thanks for your time and responsiveness! Since this article is quite technical and not easy to understand for everybody there is a chance the article will be reassessed, but even though it will help make it still better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helianthi (talkcontribs) 21:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Garrett Lisi[edit]

As I saw your edit in his page, I would like to mention that I'm trying to get a reasonable and NPOV version of Antony Garrett Lisi's page, that currently has been under censorship from User SherryNugil that does not want to include the current status of the Lisi's theory and that wants to keep all the articles and interviews and tv appearances and blog entries and forum discussions about Lisi. Not even for Nobel Prize Laureates there is such a complete list. I am also reporting that user for several reasons and it would be good if you could participate to the discussion giving your opinion, given that in the past you contributed to that page. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You, if you like, can also help us reverting the versions where it's clearly stated that Lisi's theory is incorrect and doesn't work. Thanks for your comments. This user SherryNugil in Lisi's page and Scientryst in Lisi's theory page always manage to have a control on the page because not enough people are trying to edit the page. People sometimes get tired and let go, and after a few weeks these users go back and make pro-Lisi modifications. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I would prefer this page to be completely removed and the reason is that only notable contributions to science must be recorded. In this case, the intervetion of some administrators must be required and, eventually, the removal must be voted. But if you keep on being an anonymous user, it will be more difficult to fight for this.--Pra1998 (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Pra, perhaps you missed my earlier comment about recommending deletion. What I said was, is that anyone who keeps commenting that the article should be deleted can expect me to drag them to WP:ANI and ask that they be blocked. The very fact that you can find dozens of mainstream news articles talking about Lisi automatically makes him notable. Wikipedia does not just judge the notability of scientists based on whether or not their theories are right or accepted. All we care is whether the person or theory has been the subject of multiple, detailed discussions in independent, reliable sources. This is how Wikipedia defines notability; you can read the full definition that is usually applied at WP:GNG. Numerous people continuing to call for the article's deletion are absolutely and completely disruptive to the process of regular editing. In fact, it benefits Scientrist, SherryNugil, etc., because it lets them act like they're defending the page against the malicious deletionist attitudes of biased scientists who don't understand how Wikipedia works. Please note that I agree 100% that the article on Lisi and the article on E8 need to clearly state that Lisi's theories were novel, were widely covered in the popular press, but were, most importantly, judged to have little to no scientific merit. I fully agree that at times, Scientryst has exerted unfair control over the E8 page (I only recently started watching the Lisi page). But deleting the pages is absolutely a non-starter. Please drop this stick (both of you), and focus on trying to make the article that must exist better. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

FA review?[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that you are involved with the physics articles on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could help me out. Right now, I'm working to bring the article AdS/CFT correspondence to FA status. So far, people have had many good suggestions and many positive things to say about the article, but I'm having trouble getting people to support or oppose the nomination.

I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at it and tell us your thoughts at this page. Please note that you do not have to be an expert on the subject. The article has already been checked quite carefully by other reviewers, and at this point, I'm just looking for people who can check that it meets the FA criteria.

Please let me know if you're interested. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for considering me into this process. I will check the article and eventually post on the candidate page. Meanwhile, I hope you will reach the aim.--Pra1998 (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help with this. I've made some changes to the article based on your comments. Please let me know if your concerns have been addressed. Polytope24 (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yang–Mills theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cornwall (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) 09:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Pra1998. You have new messages at Talk:String cosmology.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request to review an article[edit]

Hi, I have created and developed a page on Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for SU(3). This is my first article. It will be really helpful if you find some time to take a look at the article and propose any improvements if necessary. Thank you. Arkadipta Sarkar (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Arkadipta Sarkar

Yang-Mills Theory - Mathematical Overview[edit]

Hi, I've just started a research review on classical Yang-Mills theory as part of my undergrad degree. In particular, all the books and articles I've found seem to implicitly assume that there's no distinction to be made between upper and lower Lie indices. I'm not very comfortable assuming this in my review without specific citation (mostly because many of the examiners will not be familiar with the specifics of Yang-Mills theory beforehand and may view it as an error), seeing as you added the note about it being legitimate to the Yang-Mills article (the only explicit statement I've been able to find anywhere), I was wondering if you could point me towards a citation for it.

I've also made a post on the reference desk about the same thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&oldid=648352928#Citation_for_Yang-Mills_Theory_-_Mathematical_Overview

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjlr2 (talkcontribs) 18:13, 22 February 2015‎ (UTC)

As a rule, sign your comment by inserting four tildes at the end of your comment. This can also be obtained by clicking the symbol of the pen with the start of a signature in the menu at the head of the comment area.
About indices, the fact that you distinguish between upper and lower indices is due to the metric. Lorentz indices distinguish between up and down but Euclidean metric does not and this is a well-known mathematical fact that does not need any citation. Things are not different for Lie groups involving internal indices as upper or lower is just a matter of taste and not a deep mathematical matter in need for a citation. This indices are just enumerating the generators and so, the way you put them in your equations is not relevant. Working with the Lorentz group changes the situation, as already said, as in this case the generators are numbered by Lorentz indices and you should be careful.
So, Euclidean metric just don't care, Minkowski metric be careful. That's all.--Pra1998 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand that, my concern is that the examiners will see it as an error if I provide no justification but that I'm unlikely to be able to fit any justification in under the word limit. I was hoping there'd be something specific I could cite to provide some explanation without having to use extra words. Thanks for your help anyway though. — Tjlr2 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

19th Lucasian[edit]

Dear Pra1998

By all means wait for official confirmation from Cambridge University before reinstating the updates of Ripero, but this may take a while. The procedure is first an old-fashioned paper notice on a specific noticeboard outside the Senate House, followed by an announcement in the Reporter online some time later. So unless you regularly walk past that noticeboard, you would need to keep an eye on:

https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2014-15/weekly/

The University does not normally announce new appointments on its newsfeed/website.

Alternatively, you may want to take a look at

http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~mec/

and make a judgement as to whether this is a 'reliable source' for Wikipedia purposes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.252.63 (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the sources. The point is that Wikipedia needs reliable sources and waiting for the official communication, that is missing yet, is the right approach. On the other side, Professor Cates is a well suited candidate and it is not a surprise that he will be the 19th Lucasian Professor.--Pra1998 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A scanned pdf of the announcement notice signed by the Vice Chancellor, as posted outside the Senate house, can be obtained by emailing Prof. Cates at his Edinburgh address. The announcement is also due to appear in the 18 March issue of the Reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.73.154 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess this is a message from Professor Cates (looking at the IP address). My best compliments for the prestigious chair well deserved. The information is now back in place.--Pra1998 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

scalar field theory is but the tip of the iceberg...[edit]

Thanks for your concern in scalar field theory. The attacks started on Aug 13, out of the blue, and are mostly raging elsewhere. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am aware of your excellent work on Wikipedia and I regret to see things like these taking effect. Let me know if I could help in some way to get rid of this fool.--Pra1998 (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! But beware of getting too involved yourself, it might turn you into a "target" for the vandal (happened to me).

The best way to get involved (barring not getting involved at all) is probably to keep things on "our turf", not because we'd be wrong anywhere else, but because it is easier and few people (including vandals) will get seriously hurt. Presence at talk pages and the physics talk page would be highly appreciated. YohanN7 (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

In hindsight, this is the only advice, WP:GOAD, we all needed at the time... Indeed, watchful presence is the crucial thing. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I share your view and I am happy you were able to get rid of this unpleasant situation.--Pra1998 (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ununseptium[edit]

Hi! I'd love to ask for your attention on the ununseptium article; it's currently a FAC, but few people have actually reviewed the article. The WP:Physics subpage lists you as a user who might be potentially interested in an article on a superheavy element (as with all superheavies, it is more physics and less chemistry than a regular WP:Elements article), as a one-time activity or otherwise, and your attention would be highly appreciated, as the previous FAC has gained too little attention to even stand a chance to make it to the FA status; hope you can take part. Thanks--R8R (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fortifying wikiquanta[edit]

Hi, I seek volunteers for this. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Boris, this is really an appreciable aim. That articles are indeed rudimentary at best and just full of citations. Not so useful indeed. I cannot promise anything for sure but as I have some time I will approach some of these unsatisfactory articles. My current view about quantum optics, since the time were I was a contributor, is that is completely oriented to quantum computation. A respectable goal indeed but there are a lot of open questions yet that experiments like those by Serge Haroche could help to clarify, mostly for many-body systems. On the other side, all this mania about interpretations does not heat me up at all. My view is that this is just wasting precious time and resources. I hope to be helpful to your program.--Pra1998 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I understand your feeling about interpretations. But this time the theory was attacked, not interpretation! It was claimed that most predictions for entangled states are not really predictions, but rather an abuse of the quantum theory. This is provably wrong, as we both know. But we are here on Wikipedia in order to (try to) spread our understanding, aren't we? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
In order to "centralize" the discussion I've copied this to my talk page; hope you do not object. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Pra1998. 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)

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Pra1998. 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)