User talk:Jähmefyysikko/Archive 1

Archive 1

why did you delete beam entropy?

why did you delete beam entropy? 193.174.122.76 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Because the paragraphs in question are pure jargon with no useful wikilinks, and the cited sources are not notable; the paper has been cited 2 times. I fail to see this as a major development in the History of entropy, comparable to information theoretic concept of entropy, hence the UNDUE to which I referred to in my edit.

To me, this looks as if you are trying to publicize this paper. Do you have a WP:COI? --Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the qualifier for the adjective ``notable in scientific developments? A flagship IEEE conference should have a scientific merit. Many a times, it takes time for the citations to build up, therefore citation number shouldn't be the basis. Clearly, the ``thermodynamic entropy is different than the information theory ``entropy, the ``beam entropy.

If you fail to see something as a major development, that may not be the ultimate truth!! 193.174.122.76 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit in Bound states

I'm not sure if I agree with your latest edit on Bound states. The way it is stated now gives the impression that bound states can belong to the pure point spectrum as well as the continuous spectrum, or at least that the pure point spectrum is some sort of subset of the continuous spectrum. This is incorrect.

The definiton of Bound state in the continuum is given on it's wiki page as well as in the (open access) 2016 reference. What it means, informally, is that both the continous and pure point spectra can considered to be "embedded" in "the" spectrum.

I think BIC should be viewed as a construct on its own, rather than to be taken literally. The previous phrasing was less ambiguous. Roffaduft (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to edit, but please do not make another WP:EASTEREGG. It is surprising if a link (e.g. continuum) takes you somewhere that is not obvious from the blue text. Btw, a better place for this message would have been the article talk page, where others can also participate. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

When people revert your edits, you need to come to consensus before restoring it. Starting a discussion is not license to edit-war. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. From your edit summary: rv: per BOLD, *you* need to support your edits. You're repeatedly adding bullshit. The references were meticulously placed there to support the statements. The same cannot be said for your edits, which frequently misrepresent the sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice about Wikipedia conventions regarding Ukrainian place names

Whilst Kiev has been the customary English name of the city with special status, the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name Kyiv has recently become more commonly used in English. "Kiev" was the longstanding title of Wikipedia's article on the subject. However, a move discussion closed on 16 September 2020 resulted in that article being moved to the title "Kyiv", following a documented shift in usage in English-language media.

An RfC closed on 11 November 2020 discussion established the following guidance for whether to use Kyiv or Kiev in an article:

• For unambiguously current/ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred.
• For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Principality of Kiev), do not change existing content.
• For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended.
• In all cases, name changes must follow the WP:BRD cycle.

The following rule of thumb for determining what is current or historical was also established:

• From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5), Kyiv is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article.
• From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution.

Please read Wikipedia conventions regarding Ukrainian names for further information.  // Timothy :: talk  16:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)  // Timothy :: talk  16:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I am generally aware of this controversy, although previously not with all the details. However, the changes here were not on the article text, but on the citations: diff. Surely the guideline does not imply that we should modify the titles of the references? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I don't know how I missed the context (twice). Sorry for the interruption, Greetings from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers, Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Hello! This is not what we do when there is an unresolved move discussion on the talk page. Please never do anything like that again! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the move discussion is about the article title, and the article text itself can be improved during the discussion. I did reread MOS:FIRST, which states that If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, and acknowledge that to comply with that I should have left the ordinal there for the time being. However, there is also an exception to the above guideline given by MOS:FULLNAME, which recommends giving the full name in bold (which may not be the short name chosen for the title); in this case, that could be e.g. Magnus III Birgersson "Ladulås", if we include the ordinal. Whether Ladulås needs to be given in quotation marks is debatable. Regardless of the exact format of the first sentence, we should definitely include the names Magnus, Birgersson, and Ladulås, probably also 'Barnlock' in the introductory paragraph, as they all feature in most sources. Your revert removed some of that information from the lead. It would have been better to just restore the ordinal.

Perhaps we'll see after the move discussion whether we even need to include the ordinal number directly in the lede or only later in the article. Currently I don't see too many sources that call him Magnus III, and retaining it in such a prominent place seems like undue weight, especially when there is another tradition which calls him Magnus I Ladulås. (e.g. Britannica and SNL.no, both of which are written by subject-matter experts) And we currently do not have the sources to decide which numbering scheme is the "correct" one. Sources discussing this question would be useful. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no excuse for making any change at all to items where consensus currently is being sought at talk. It's called jumping the gun, diplomatically, and I trust you won't do that again, nor attempt to justify such behavior. That's what this is about here. The rest goes on the article's talk page, preferably later. I will be responding to that there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You did it again here. Please do not change lead info from well-sourced and relevant items to your own personal POV. Ever. If you continue this behavior it will have to be reported for administrative review. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate or are just casting aspersions? The move discussion was over and multiple users commented that the regnal number you are pushing as the "correct" one is not even the most common one, so what was the offense? The patronym is also not controversial. Is not accepting your POV, which you justified with WP:SYNTH, an offence? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not change lead info from well-sourced and relevant items to your own personal POV. Ever. If you continue this behavior it will have to be reported for administrative review. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 (2)

You accusation using the word "offense" at Talk:Magnus Ladulås can only be reasonably interpreted as a personal attack. That is not allowed that on English Wikipedia (as opposed to certain other Wikimedia projects). SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please calm down. I meant "offense" in the sense that what you wrote was against WP:SYNTH. It's a content dispute. Nothing personal here. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You need to acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word "offense" and also stop giving orders when you already are way out of line. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 (3)

We re-revert after discussing. There's no discussion there, only a notice by you claiming to know Polish better that anyone else. Looks like you never are going to (bother to) learn the ropes on this. It's bound to get you in serious trouble wirth administrators eventually. I don't know if I'll be sad or glad. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a policy. Please present your argument on the article talk page if you didn't already. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody inferred anything here about WP:BRD. This notice is about your behavior, not about any article content. We do not revert over and over without first trying to reach consensus on article talk pages. One or two editors alone cannot reach consensus. Learn it or eventually suffer the consequences. You were warned before, here very clearly, yet you continue to do as you please. You must stop that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)