User talk:Dukwon/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Dukwon! Thank you for your contributions. I am Pincrete and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

The 'Black British' edit was well spotted IMO, 'men' and 'women' is more natural, and there was no need for the more 'biological' terms.Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Theory of infinitely extended particles
The subject article was PRODed by yourself - it has been restored as a contested PROD. You may wish to consider WP:AfD in the light of this result. Ron h jones (Talk) 22:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

interaction vertex
ok that's one solution, just deleting 'interaction' .. my 'itch' here is that wikipedia's mechanisms (links.. anchors.. whatever) can explain context. These days it has a great 'hovercard' feature where as you glide the cursor around the page you get popups with the first few lines of the link.

Beyond this, think of the value of wikipedia to the world, not just for humans to read but as a resource for AI (e.g. training data). The more labels the text has, the more valuable it is.

Whats the point of fretting about 'overlinking' when software can be adapted to prioritize.

I found this article, Interaction point, which is a redirect of Vertex (physics) - but I discovered that might not be literally the same thing as interaction vertex in those contexts (even though one might guess that it is..). Is it the vertex in the feynman diagram, or a geometric 'vertex' - point in space ?

Look at this - Vertex. It doesn't mention "vertex (feynman diagram)". So is it synonymous, or is that a meaning of vertex we should add to this page? EDIT: I just added this Vertex, is that correct, or misleading, or what.

Fmadd (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I should stress that Feynman diagrams are tools used to construct integrals, and nothing more. The word "vertex" in the context of a Feynman diagram has the same meaning as vertex (geometry): a point where lines meet. Lines in Feynman diagrams represent propagators and fields (on that note, should Feynman diagram have a link to line (geometry)...?). Vertices in Feynman diagrams represent particular integration coordinates, multiplied by some coupling stuff as defined by the Feynman rules. Note that the integral is over all of spacetime, so the choice of coordinate represented by the vertex is arbitrary.
 * An interaction point is a point in spacetime where an interaction between particles occurs. It is a vertex for the trajectories of particles (i.e. the point where they meet and interact). In a detector, interaction points can be found by reconstructing vertices of charged tracks.
 * Naturally, these are related concepts, but I think it's important that they don't get conflated.
 * Dukwon (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

r.e. Universal conductance fluctuations / scattering event
Thanks for clarifying that this instance of 'scattering event' doesn't actually link to what I think it did. instead of deleting 'scattering event', could we not clarify this in wikipedia, e.g. by turning 'scattering event' itself into a disambiguation (or a little article explaining, and saying 'not to be confused with.)? This will stop other users making a similar mistake. Surely every piece of information we encode here can be used in a constructive way.

If I made this mistake, others may also Fmadd (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You seem to be applying the logic that every phrase should be a disambiguation page. I think it's perfectly acceptable to expect readers to be able to combine concepts together in their heads. It's pretty much a prerequisite of language use. In this case, it is sufficient to wikilink "scattering" and not "scattering event". "Event" is a regular English word. It word may have a special meaning in some cases (like in particle physics), but 90% of the time it doesn't need to be wikilinked. I am firmly against scattering event being a disambiguation page, since the scattering page already covers what "scattering" means in physics.
 * By the way, why do you feel the need to take it upon yourself to wikilink (and create redirects for) terms which you yourself don't understand? There's a high likelihood that you get the target wrong, and all that does is create work for others. Often the relevant concepts are already wikilinked anyway. If a section is too technical, it would be much more helpful to tag as or  or raise it on the talk page. Dukwon (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * surely the advantage of computers, over written text, is the ease with which clarification can be given??? Also, how about translating the articles for the 6+billion non english speakers out there; isn't that point to be much easier with markup (such as these links) which can give more context Fmadd (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Event" is a regular English word. yes, which has many different connotations in many different contexts. So here we are, with this tool at our disposal to disambiguate, to help. The purpose of this is not for you to show how much cleverer you are, it is to communicate to the widest audience (to get increased collaboration), surely? Part of the beauty of wikipedia is being able to surf, when you *dont* know what you're looking for (or you dont even know what interests you .. you want to find something that might interest you, on the edges of what you do know).  Fmadd (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikilinks are already widely used, and they are used well. Use WP:PIPETRICK to point the reader to the correct concept instead of creating extra redirect pages or disambiguation pages. If you feel that something needs explaining, and you aren't able to clarify yourself, flag it as being too technical (see MOS:JARGON). Creating redirect pages for a multi-concept phrase assume that all instances of a phrase mean the same thing. By doing this with scattering event, you ended up pointing readers of a biology and astrophysics articles to a particle physics stub. Creating disambiguation pages for multi-concept phrases is redundant when there are already disambiguation pages for the concepts separately (e.g. scatter and event). Dukwon (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "By the way, why do you feel the need to take it upon yourself to wikilink (and create redirects for) terms which you yourself don't understand" ... going through this process is a great way to discover something new. I enjoy going on this random walk through many different topics. Fmadd (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But you end up misleading others. Dukwon (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "You seem to be applying the logic that every phrase should be a disambiguation page." ... Yes. That would be perfect. At that point, wikipedia is an free AI database for the world. It will come alive. You'll be able to ask it questions in natural language (in any language). If the context is really 'obvious' - you should be able to encode it. Instead of fighting me, why not get behind constructive suggestions to extend the platform. Imagine we had a means of formally encoding the context of phrases such that they can be disambiguated by machine. This could be some simple template in the disambuguation page.  Fmadd (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are making hundreds of disruptive, misleading and confusing edits for the sake of a grandiose vision? A personal programming project? Whatever it is, in the mean time, you are creating lots of manual work for others to deal with. Dukwon (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

navbox
Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,

you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KPU0/sandbox Plutonium 16:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 (talk • contribs)

Worcestershire Project.
Hello Dukwon,

I noticed that you placed your message in regards of Redditch article on the talk page of the Worcestershire Project. I think, that the article is excellently organized, and if you will need the image of Redditch City Coat of Arms, I’ll be happy to help: I couldn’t find it among similar symbols at Wikimedia Commons, so I can place my own work there and you will be able to use it in your very good article. Probably you also noticed on the WP:WORCS’ page my invitation to discuss a Barnstar, designed specially for this Project, but unfortunately, it’s largely inactive at the moment, and it will be highly appreciated, if you will find a couple of minutes to have a look at Worcestershire Barnstar and give your support, if you will like it.

Thank you. Regards Chris Chris Oxford (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris, I would indeed appreciate help with obtaining an image of the coat of arms of Redditch (not to be confused with Reddish, in Greater Manchester). There are some images and, but I suspect there are non-trivial copyright issues about them. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 10:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Good evening Dukwon,

First of all - great thanks for your support! Concerning the image of Redditch City Coat of Arms: that’s exactly what I meant — there is no such thing as a free of copyright image of this emblem (or any others) on the Internet. To find such option is possible only on Wikimedia, but I noticed, that the mentioned above image has never been uploaded to Commons. So I’m going to make the versions of Redditch City COA & The Borough Crest designs, which will be consonant with the originals, but at the same time, they will not be a copies, but a versions of the original designs, thus I will have the right to upload these images to Wikimedia Commons as my own works free of copyright, and you will be able to use them. I’ll let you know when the job will be done, I think - in 2 days time, and then I’ll send you the message with links to these images on Wikimedia Commons, and it will be the right (not Greater Manchester’s) ones. And one more thing, if it is not too much to ask: can you, please, write the word 'support' in bold before your text, as it’s done on following discussions: Women in Red Project Barnstar and Bravery Barnstar, which are located slightly above the WORCS Barnstar, so that other Editors could follow this example.

Will keep in touch.

Regards Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dukwon, Thank you very much for correction.

Now about Redditch City Coat of Arms & The Borough Crest — a little bit different from each other images. So, I tried my best:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Borough_Crest.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redditch_City_Coat_of_Arms.jpg

There are certain limitations and compelled sacrifices (but quite reasonable) in quality of the image, when you are trying to maintain balance between keeping the outlines of the original as it was and as it must be, and introducing new details, that are intended to distinguish the version from the original. It is possible to say that the symbols are fully recognizable, because I added only the minimum of changes that allows to call it a version, not a copy. It could be very good to know what do you think about the result.

Regards, Chris OxfordChris Oxford (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, sorry for all these misprints - it was too late and after too busy days, so I hope, that you will just smile.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think taking existing images and applying some sort of edge-finding filter counts as 'own work'. This is probably really dodgy copyright-wise. For what it's worth, I linked to two examples of the same coat of arms. No worries though, it's not exactly vital that this be a page. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dukwon,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you: the copyrights are a very important area in any field of activity. I respect it and that is why I am very well aware of all its nuances. In cases relating to the ancient symbols, the shape, colour and outlines of which were historically repeatable from century to century, it is impossible to dramatically change the design without destroying the traditionally accepted and recognized images of these symbols; it is possible only to modify small details without disturbing the overall visual perception, if the task is not to create a new symbol, but keep a pattern of traditional one. To be in this case on the right side of the copyright law, you have a perfect tool: photo camera. If you made a photo of any of historical symbols, such as flag, emblem, coat of arm, by you own camera, you can declare this photo (but only the photo!) as your own work, if you modified it a bit or not. If the camera belongs to another person, this person can challenge your copyrights to this image. The same in the case of photographing of the objects, mentioned above, with the help of a special "photo-tool" and the subsequent modification of the picture inside your own computer program — exactly what I did. But here you absolutely right — I did not mention that the words “my own work” only refer to the photo and light modifications, not to design, existing for centuries already. I thank you very much for this hint and I’ll correct this lapse as soon as possible.

All the best.

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Higgs boson
That's not what eponymous means? 217.28.8.38 (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The passage read "During the 1970s these theories rapidly became the eponymous standard model." The word eponymous means it's named after someone. The Higgs boson, for example, is eponymous, but the Standard Model is not. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The word is frequently used in the context of being named after a person, but it does not imply that it is a person, at all. 217.28.8.38 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See eponym. 217.28.8.38 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Still, the Standard Model isn't named after anyone or anything. The name just describes what it is: the standard model of particle physics. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you are up to speed on the word, eponymous. The sentence in question has the purpose of expressing that the Standard Model was named for the fact that it was model that was the standard. Your change does not have that meaning. Should you decide that you don't want to clarify the matter, I will resolve the issue myself. 217.28.8.38 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh get over yourself. My understanding of the word eponymous has not changed. You pounced on a minor technicality. I reiterate that the Standard Model has no eponym. To use eponymous in that sentence does not convey what you want it to convey. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seeking support for proposed Wikiproject Quantum Mechanics
Hi, thanks for all your contributions! I'm reaching out to members of the community who might be interested in a Wikiproject dedicated to QM. The goal is to create articles which can be read and understood by laypersons but that also thoroughly present the technical details of the subject. As it stands now, too many QM articles feature ledes filled with jargon and lack introduction or overview sections.

I hope you'll support the proposal and contribute as a member when the time comes.

Thanks

Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Your recent editing history at Lorenz gauge condition shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take this issue to the article talk page and establish a consensus. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Follow up to a WP:AIV report you made last year
See this report on the talk page of an IP who you previously reported for vandalism, back in 2017. Let me know if you come across this person again. You previously noted they were using the range 112.210.*.* to add misinformation to articles. The matter was discussed further at ANI in February 2018, and most of the IP's edits have now been rolled back. Thanks for your report, EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the text of from your 2017 AIV report, which I'm reproducing here just for ease of reference:

EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions on Books
Hi Dukwon, We’ve noticed that you edited articles related to Books. Thank you for your great contributions. Keep it up! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Flatté distribution


Hello, Dukwon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Flatté distribution".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)