User talk:Lumidek

Well I'm happy enough with it now. My problem with it in the beginning was just the fact that it simply accepted the definition... Evercat 00:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you know another Czech scientist, Peter Beckman? He wrote The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear at a time when nuclear power was as big a public controversy as global warming is now. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:13, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Loop quantum gravity: POV tag
I think tactical use of the POV marking only weakens your case. Escalating disputes here only leads in the end to page protection (not by me - I am forbidden to do this since I'm involved in editing - so this is only for your information). Charles Matthews 14:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam Loyd
Sam Loyd is spelled Sam Loyd, so it's correct that the redirect "Sam Lloyd" points there rather than the other way around. - Nunh-huh 02:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request: Talk:Big_Bang#Cons_of_energy_/_JimJast
(William M. Connolley 19:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I wonder if you'd care to look at Talk:Big_Bang where cons of energy in GR has come up. I (naively?) assumed that GR conserves energy as a given; JJ asserts that it is a commonplace that it isn't. I'm confused.

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Soros
Hello!

I noticed your new article on Soros Fund Management. Howvere, I am not sure whether


 * The reference to lies was intended as a taunt in expectation somebody would change it or
 * You really believe that it is true that Soros fund management is based on lies.

Surely you must be aware that that claim is not universally held view; it is arguably not a neutral position.

My purpose in writing this note isn't to change your belief. That edit would be fine if you were submitting something to LGF; but this isn't LGF. WP is a cooperative venture with people who may not share many beliefs in politics, economics, sociology etc.

I would hope that in writing something on WP you display some collegiality and cooperative spirit. If your are going to say a company strategy is based on lies, you should at least prove your point or qualify it.CSTAR


 * Hi CDAGGER! As far as I know, it is a generally accepted view that Soros et al. earns most of his money by speculating and manipulating with the market and with lies. There's a famous story how he played with the British pound ten years ago. If you think that the page is not correct, you may try to change it.


 * earns most of his money by speculating and manipulating with the market and with lies


 * Of course, nobody disputes Soros is a speculator. However, whether it is a generally accepted view that he is a liar is another matter. Is this a judgement on speculators that they are all liars? You have to be much more specific about a claim like that. CSTAR 17:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Lies - probably yes. Soros has doubtless told a couple of lies in his life. I am a British Citizen, whose government lost a fortune defending the pound to maintain the ERM, and I believe the biggest lie was told by the British Chancellor when he said we would not devalue our currency. Soros ably exposed that lie. I admire him for that, even if it made him richer and me poorer. --Dilaudid 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

I modified the article. Please have a look. Thanks. CSTAR 22:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jacques Chirac's photo with Saddam Hussein
Hi,

I'm not totally hostile to adding Chirac's photo with Hussein, but I'm worried about the POV aspect and the impression that it may give. The photo dates from 1976; the events we're describing date from 2002; and Chirac probably hasn't met Hussein for 15+ years now. David.Monniaux 18:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Afshar's Experiment
Hi there! I just wanted to say I enjoyed your comments over on the Double-slit experiment Talk page. I am still unsure how Afshar's results would invalidate the Many Worlds Interpretation, however, even if his results were correct. I will have to do some reading and thinking on that. Do you have a preference for any particular quantum theory yourself? Cheers! --Culix 00:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Lumidek!


 * Thanks for the response. No, unfortunately I do not speak Czech :P. Though I am thinking I may want to learn some so that I can translate some information on Richta. Do you by chance hire yourself out for translations? ;)


 * I am still trying to understand what the Consistent Histories theory means. I'm afraid it is very confusing for me. As for my 'favourite views', I am currently reading through the book "Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch, where he hypothesizes that the interference observed in the Double Slit experiment is caused by "shadow photons" from parallel universes that interact with their corresponding photon in our universe. It is a very interesting read, and I must admit that when I first read the book I was quite convinced. I am attempting to do some reading on other quantum theories, however, to see if anyone has a better explanation.


 * Wouldn't it just be very nice if someone could solve why the Double Slit experiment produces wave-like results once and for all? ;) --Culix 03:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ownership society
Hello Lumidek.

I take exception to the content of the mentioned article for the following reasons:


 * I'm not sure of the origin of the term Ownership society but let's concede that it is due to Bush. Is your definition really what the Bush team has in mind? Wouldn't it be more informative to say something like


 * The "ownership society" is a term introduced by the Bush administration (or whoever) in the Bush administration's efforts to promote various plans to privatize socialprograms? The term is intended to convey a certain idea about the structure of society that the Bush administration claims to promote.


 * Note that this is much more neutral than what you wrote. You could also do some research on what various individuals wrote about this (pro or con I don't care).


 * I particularly take exception to the tone of this article which is unnecessarilly partisan and is arguably not NPOV. To produce a more balanced article, you would need to address other related efforts (such as health care and retirement privatization in Chile for instance.

To make WP succeed you have to be aware that there is a wide range of opinion in WP. Could I ask you to please start your article stubs in a way that leaves options for other individuals with possibly divergent opinions to add to them in constructive ways?

Thanks! CSTAR 03:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would just like to say it's an excellent article. Nice to hear from you. - Jerryseinfeld 22:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Ownership society; the article may be a copyright violation.CSTAR 03:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello Lumidek!

I responded to your note on Talk:Ownership_society.

Thanks!

CSTAR 16:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree
I agree that Afshar linking to his user page here from the Afshar experiment page was a little unusual. User pages should not be linked to in this way. Samboy 15:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Afshar illustration
I made some illustrations for Afshar's experiment which will I add shortly to theAfshar experiment page. It is based on the New Scientist articles. Please have a look. If you or anybody else feels it should anything else, I will behappy to put it in (within reason).

I still need to put in illustrations for the photon detection images. I'm not quite sure yet how I'm going to do that. CSTAR 22:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes of course I am aware of those pictures, except the license may be a problem. That's why it's better to redraw them. Anyway they don't think they look too bad, mine that is :) CSTAR 22:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images
Hi. You uploaded Image:JacobBekenstein240.JPG but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Image_copyright_tags for more info. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 17:00, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hey Lubos
Chill out! Anda diviértete un poco! Com'n what does Al Gore giving a speech on the coldest day of the year or ever prove? You're a scientist! And Newton? OK so maybe he hated Hookes' guts and maybe he wanted to be sarcastic and use the word giant? But why are you going around and putting this stuff in? Go to Inman square and get yourself a nice dinner. Try Jay's. Who knows, we may end up sitting next to each other? C'est moi avec mon épouse, la chinoise :) CSTAR 03:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * PS Anyway have an enjoyable Christmas! CSTAR 03:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello!

I didn't "accuse" you of anything! If you carefully look at what I actually wrote, I didn't say the claim that Al Gore gave a speech on the coldest day of the year wasn't true! I specifically asked you "what does it prove?". My point was that the fact is an anecdote, and if you're going to put it in the article, you should say something to specifically say it is irony.

And the comment "why are you going around and putting this stuff in?" was meant specifically to engage you in a conversation about finding a better way to formulate these claims for insertion in WP articles. For instance, it is well known that Hooke and Newton had an academic rivalry, that Hooke was ugly and of small stature and that Newton intensely disliked Hooke. As a result, it has often been suggested (and I concede credibly so) that Newton's remarks about "sitting on shoulders of giants" in his letter to Hooke may have been ironic, as you point out. But the key word is "may". And even if there was an element of irony in that remark, it is also reasonable to surmise that Newton also intended to say and convey to future generations the more straightforward meaning of the text.

OK?

Enjoy your holiday! CSTAR 16:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you may have a point, CDAGGER. ;-) But I'm not sure whether you have one. Newton's remarks about the giants were directly written in a letter to Hooke whom he disliked a lot. Because Newton was not an idiot, he could certainly figure out that there can be some relation and interference between Hooke's height and the word "giant" used in Newton's letter. It's not quite clear whether he just want to insult Hooke or something more - and I am not speculating about it. But there was certainly a link, and the word "may" is a speculation. By the way, I only added the comment to 1 or 2 pages, but the same explanation already exists on many other wikipages, written by other people.


 * Gore. Oh, sorry, I read your previous comment incorrectly. I thought that you were asking me whether I could prove that it was the coldest day. Sorry, now I see that you ask "what does it prove". OK, let me answer: it proves that Al Gore does not have a terribly good intuition in politics, if he's ready to humiliate himself for free, and that he does not care about the actual observations too much - or not at all - when he talks about scientific questions. Happy Christmas, I'm gonna celebrate around. --Lumidek 18:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV
Please review NPOV. Neutralitytalk 06:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, who-hoo for you. All I can say is that you should quit trying to impose an extremist minority point of view (global warming is all made up, conspiracy theory nonsense) on articles at the expense of extablished scientific consensus. 17:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S. - By the way, do you have any actual training or expertise in the area of climate change? Or do you just pretend to be an "expert"? Neutralitytalk 17:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. Your latest message on my talk page definitely proved that you're a kook and crackpot. And as far as me being a "Nazi"&mdash;see Godwin's law. Neutralitytalk 18:20, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Time evolution
Time evolution and evolution operator should be merged perhaps? CSTAR 14:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "The evolution operator short comments should be incorporated into time evolution, and evolution operator should be redirected, right? Happy New Year"


 * Yeah something like that. Do you want to do this or should I?


 * Happy New Year CSTAR 14:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified image
Thanks for uploading the image I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 16:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:CharlesRiverIce.JPG

Also: Image:RobbertDijkgraaf1.JPG, Duk 08:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fun czar etc...
Are you sure "fun czar" deserves a separate article? Does anyone besides Harvard people use the name? Also, is Zac Corker notable enough to deserve a separate article? Looks like Harvard trivia to me. Are you planning to expand Zac Corker a bit to establish his notability/add info? I would do it myself, but I don't know much about him (and honestly I don't care).

I dislike putting articles on VfD when their authors are known users, but I suspect either one (if not both) would get trashed if I posted them for deletion. Just wanted to give you notice before doing anything that could upset you. Phils 21:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wally Gilbert - no copyright information
Thanks for uploading Image:WallyGilbert.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, mike40033 03:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Fictitious force
(William M. Connolley 12:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Hi. I have got in above my head again at Talk:Fictitious force over the interpretation of GR and the absoluteness of rotation and the Sagnac effect and stuff. You might take a look.


 * (William M. Connolley 19:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for looking. BTW, you mentioned climate model... did you mean that? Yes I edit and watch it, but you haven't (not under Lumidek). So I'm confused...


 * Hi Lumidek. I think you should take another look at the Fictitious force article. I had proposed a new article on the discussion page, hoping to attract attention of people who care about the subject. William M. Connolley said some of the things I wrote appeared wrong to him, so I offered explanation. To avoid clutter, I removed the proposal from the discussion page, awaiting developments. My guess is you read the existing article. I have now replaced the article. Cleon Teunissen 21:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Lumidek, you wrote
 * This apparent contradiction is not a real contradiction in physics: physics is about making predictions [...] --Lumidek
 * I agree with you, doing physics is about getting the numbers to fit. If something doesn't impede progress, it does not matter for doing physics. However, I'm involved in teaching phyisics, and I need to present a consistent picture. The Sagnac effect is genuine physics, the Sagnac effect doesn't contradict relativistic physics; relativistic physics predicts it.
 * External link: Reflections on Relativity, Section 2.7  The Sagnac effect.
 * On the matter of fictitious forces, newtonian dynamics and relativistic dynamics are in agreement with each other. In the teaching of physics that information needs to be conveyed. Cleon Teunissen 08:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Science
You may be interested in the consensus science article, and its associated VfD. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 09:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bell's theorem
In extensively editing this article, I may have deleted some edits you made to it, particularly in the section "Implications of violation of Bell's inequality". I have no objection to anything you wrote (your statements were true), but the tone of the section still remained anti QM. Thus, I got rid of the whole kit'n kaboodle. Please reinsert somewhere if you still think it is necessary. I am still working on the article getting rid of the anti-QM POV.CSTAR 17:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MM05
(William M. Connolley 10:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Hi. I first moved down, then removed entirly, the MM05 bit you added. Sorry, but the reason for removal was that this isn't even published yet. Rutherford, Mann et al have a piece rubbishing M&M in press (available from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10) but I haven't put that into wiki as I don't think its right to put in unpublished stuff. I don't think wiki is for breaking news, in the science area.

Votes for deletion: Hagen Kleinert
Hi! I noticed you are a scientist in the field of physics. I'd like to inform you that there is a discussion over at Votes for Deletion that might interest you. It concerns an article on Hagen Kleinert, a German colleague of yours. Apparently some people have a big problem with the fact that it seems like he started the article himself. While I can understand and respect that opinion, personally, I think that isn't that big a deal, since the article contains verifiable facts only, and to me (who know very little about the field) he seems like a really notable scholar. However, in the discussion, some people have also taken to claiming that having written 8 books and "only" 350+ articles in peer-reviewed publications is not notable, since writing is what professors are supposed to do, and that "a lot of mediocre academics have acheived this and more". Regardless of how you feel about accepting autobiographies in Wikipedia, I think your thoughts on the "notability threshold" for professors could be very valuable for both this and future VfD debates. On the other hand, if you should feel this is not a debate you want to get into, I would very much understand that. / Alarm 19:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thermodynamics of greenhouses
Hi. You're the only other physicist I'm aware of who has been posting on climate articles, so I thought I might be able to draw your attention to greenhouse effect (see the recent history) and the corresponding discussion Talk:Greenhouse effect (or in fact, 90% of the talk page which is on the same topic). In short summary, WMC seems to continually reinserting material stating that convection always provides a cooling action, and that suppression of convection produces a warming effect, which of course horribly violates the laws of thermodynamics. In reality, of course, heating requires that work be done, namely by a radiative imbalance. I would appreciate if you could take a look and give some assistance. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Section 2.2 of the Gravity article
--Cleon Teunissen 11:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) Hi Lumidek,

some time ago William M Connolley asked you to look at something in the wikipedia article on gravity and you were able to help. I have the same sort of question now. It is about section 2.2 of the current article. "How is there conservation of energy if gravity is not categorized as a force."

In the case of an electrostatic field it is possible to define a potential. Increasing the distance r between two test-charges requires a force, hence it is possible to assign a potential energy to every distance r between the two test-charges. The magnitude of the force of attraction is proportional to the first derivative of the function that describes the potential between the two test-particles as a function of their relative distance.

In the case of electrostatic attraction the force (described by Coulomb's Law) is always present, whether the two test-charges are moving towards each other or not. In the case of gravity it is less clear. Increasing the distance r between two test-masses requires a force, so in that way a function for a potential energy can be defined. On the other hand, when two test-masses are free-falling towards each other then they are in inertial motion, so there is no force.

Section 2.2 of the gravity article attempts to show that there is conservation, just not conservation of the sum of the newtonian expressions of kinetic and potential energy. Gravity alters the rate of time, so the newtonian expression for kinetic energy doesn't hold, that is clear. But it seems to me that the current section 2.2 doesn't succeed in clarifying what it intends to clarify. I wrote about these issues on William's Talk page: internal link: Repositories of potential energy --Cleon Teunissen 11:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Miloš Zeman photo
I just listed Image:Zeman zofin.jpg on Images and media for deletion because it didn't have a copyright tag. I have uploaded Image:Milos Zeman.jpg to replace it on Miloš Zeman. Let me know if you have any questions, or voice your opinion on IfD if you don't think it should be deleted. 21:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Plze&#328;ská synagoga
Hello! Where is the source of this picture? Can I upload to Japanese Wikipedia ? --Sheynhertz-Unbayg 16:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New physics stubs
Hi Lumidek,

You've been doing some great work creating new physics stub articles. To help other physics experts find them, you might consider using the more specific stub template, rather than the generic  template. Happy editing, TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Re Afshar
I would be very surprised if Afshar faked his results, that is gave an incorrect report on what he actually did and what he actually observed, either intentionally or because he used or read his instruments incorrectly. In fact as far as I can tell the criticisms levelled against him don't concern reproducibility of the results. If indeed this were true then it should be prominently noted. Regardless of whether or not someone is a crank, I have been very careful to avoid using that term becuase it is rarely helpful, and in Afshar's case, this fact would be harder to justify, since he does have a faculty appointment somewhere. I think it is better to stick to the widely known facts of the case. See Talk:Bell's theorem. This incident by the way motivated Crackpot index. Regards--CSTAR 16:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are you telling me this, since it is obviously true!


 * The whole problem is only philosophy - he incorrectly interprets the experiment


 * Of course, that's what I said, on the talk page on Afshar and interpretation etc.; specifically I said "However, I (and many others) do question his interpretation of these results." And this is what I also I tried to add to the article on Afshar experiment. Afshar incidentally has reverted me twice.
 * but if you really believe that Afshar has done something important, then you are the kind of dumb people
 * Lubos, if you bother to read what I wrote, you should immediately realize that the previous comment is pointless.


 * Regards. --CSTAR 12:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

2005 Kashmir earthquake
Thank you for your contribution at 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Please keep it up!!! Pradeepsomani  ( talk )

GR project
Hi Lumidek.

I see that you have editted (and created) some general relativity (GR) articles. Some of us have attempted to make a conscious effort at revising the GR articles by forming a project called Wikiproject GTR. Currently, we have 3 members and are looking for more. I feel that your contributions would be very much appreciated. Would you be interested in joining ? ---Mpatel (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

hi! are you, by chance, Lubos Motl?
just curious. if you are, i am suprized you haven't been involved in Bogdanov Affair. i'm sure the B brothers would have liked that since, if you are Dr. Motl, it seems from other web pages that you had been somewhat supportive of them. in any case, your input would have been welcome. best regards r b-j 12:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Rbj, thanks for your message. I've written a couple of words on the talk page of the affair. I can't spend half of my time with it right now. Let me hope they will be doing fine. Some of the ideas are interesting. All the best, Lubos --Lumidek 12:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * well, i'm pleased to meet you. i have to confess (and you probably could tell, just looking at my talk page) that it appears to me, a non-physicist and electrical engineer, that the greater physics community has utterly rejected the Bogdanov's publications.  there appears to be about 4 physicists that i can find on the web that have written a reasonably detailed refutation of the Bogdanovs' work product from a mathematical POV. if there is a kernel of real physics in what they write, someone who actually can deal with it rigorously should pick it up and develop it.  that would be good for both the Bogdanovs and the physics community.  perhaps you have the vision to behold The emperor's new clothes (and i mean that non-fecitiously) but, to the rest of us, he appears naked.  best, r b-j 13:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

WMC broke his parole can you help me?
WMC is up to his old tricks. Can you help me to get justice. William M. Connolley reverted the article of the lomborg whitout any explanation or any note in the talk pages. This constitutes a violation of his parole. How can I instigate that the appropriate action is taken.--MichaelSirks 19:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I think you started the ball rolling. If wikipedia doesn't wants to enforce their own verdicts, I think we should think again about contributing to wikipedia. --MichaelSirks 18:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement
You might try Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. (SEWilco 15:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Interesting so far. Good luck.  (SEWilco 05:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC))


 * And what about when a message was erased after replying in a way that a third party didn't notice? (SEWilco 05:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC))


 * I have continued the quest to get enforcement on WMC's parole at--MichaelSirks 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement of Charles Matthews concerning the WMC violations of his parole (title by Lumidek)

 * As an old friend of WMC - I don't like the way this is going. Escalation will not help. I appreciate that there is plenty of friction around, but, as they say, it will make more heat than light. Can we keep it cool, and try not to be tribal? Charles Matthews 18:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:GerardThooft.JPG
The description of this image is Gerard 't Hooft at Harvard University. Are you sure this image was taken at Harvard, as the cupboard in the background looks very similar to the one at Utrecht University? --R.Koot 06:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

blocking
Yes, it is possible for admins to block users and IPs. I will watch the Rajavi pages. mikka (t) 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

CfD
There is a vote going on at Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thank you. nobs 03:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Z6
No problem, and thanks for your post-thanksgiving wish, although technically we don't celebrate it. I didn't even know it was thanksgiving until someone told me yesterday...! -- Francs2000 21:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

ATLAS
Hi Lubos,

Thank you very much for your kind words. I put a lot of work into getting the ATLAS experiment article into shape, and it means a lot to hear you think it turned out well.

SCZenz 16:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Complex representation
Hello, sometime ago you added a fair bit of content to Complex representation. As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to created them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other places you learnt the information that you added to Complex representation? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 15:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Climate change dispute 2
Just making sure you are aware of Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. (SEWilco 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

WikiProject Physics
Hi, I occasionally see you make edits to various physics articles, but never see you make comments on discussions over at WikiProject Physics. If you are not aware of this project, or no one has ever invited you before, well ... consider yourself now invited. All the discussion happens on the talk page. linas 23:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that, Wikipedia needs more physicists! Karol 08:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I saw your reply on my talk page; you may also reply here, as I am "watching" this page. Let me clarify the invitation, then: its not that I urgently want you to take part in some improvement drive; rather, the talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics) is where people have general discussions about wikipedia-related physics topics. Some ask for advice or help, some discuss physics-related topics in general. Its a place where general notices may be posted about activity and wikipedia-related physics news. All I'm asking is that you add the talk page to your "watchlist", and look at it from time to time, and join any conversation you might be interested in. There are no duties or obligations. linas 03:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Second Temporal Dimension
Hi Lubos! Care to tip the scales for Second Temporal Dimension by either improving or suggesting to delete the article? --Pjacobi 17:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

CF
Thanks for your contribution at cold fusion. Its nice to have someone who knows about nuclear physics around... William M. Connolley 16:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I'd like to add my thanks to William's. They can't really claim you don't know what you're talking about, now can they? ;-) -- SCZenz 16:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Finite QFT"
May I abuse you once more for judging the mainstream-ness of research in QFT (relates to an article in the German Wikipedia, not surfaced here, yet).

The subject is the the so called "Finite QFT" of Günter Scharf (Zürich) and co-workers. See: They seem to be cited mostly be themselves (but get the occasional cite from Bert Schroer or Fredenhagen, so it would be fine with me). So what? I assume the German article claiming, that it is a superior way of doing QED is somewhat skewed? And as a serious contender for a theory of quantum gravity?
 * http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=ea+Scharf,+G
 * e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9612091

Pjacobi 17:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Where's the German article? I read the first few pages of arxiv article, and it seems legit to me; the author clearly knows field theory. Finite QFT is a holy grail; as far as I know, there's no such thing as finite QED. linas 20:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Lubos, Its always best to answer here, since I suspect that Pjacobi won't think of looking at my talk page for your reply. Anyway, I have not yet seen anything which is claiming that "QED is finite". As to whether someone invented "a better way of doing QED", I suppose that is arguable, but I haven't seen that claim being made either.  A quick skim of one of the papers didn't provoke my "allergy reaction", which is quite unlike the outrageous claims being made at Stochastic Electrodynamics, which I tried to label as "crackpot", but failed. linas 20:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've written it on his talk page, too. ;-) It's amazing how many things like that exist. Every crackpot who has ever written a paper tries to promote it into a book, Wikipedia article, and possibly a Nobel prize. I did not have allergic reactions from the finite QFT either; the stochastic QED would probably be worse. Best, Lubos --Lumidek 21:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine-tuning
Hi Lumidek. Can you look at the article fine-tuning that you created a while back? There's stuff on there about intelligent design and the anthropic principle and things. Is that right? Doesn't seem right to me, maybe someone just assumed because of the "fine-tuned" in fine-tuned universe? Someone is even suggesting merging it to fine-tuned universe. --Ben 10:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Then again, the guy who put that in there, Nurban, says he is a physicist too :P. Maybe you could make it a little clearer though if it's supposed to be there. I certainly don't understand. The merge to FTU was also suggested recently, so maybe you can help on the talk page there Talk:fine-tuned universe.--Ben 10:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

On LQG
Please review my proposal for resolving the LQG POV dispute. It is on the LQG talk page. Thankyou --Hfarmer 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

top quark condensate
I am having difficulty understanding this. Do you suppose you could clarify it a little, or perhaps expand it some? For example, I haven't ever heard of a "left-handed" quark (or antiquark in this case). Some of the rest of it makes sense. I have appreciated your expansion of other articles (especially your explanations on LQG), and I think you could probably help here if you have time. Thanks, Avriette 23:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, I've taken the liberty of rewording the article, with your clarifications. Can you verify that it is still correct? Also, when you say,


 * The equivalence is exact in the limit of the large number of colors but even for a finite number of colors, it has been shown that no new predictions can be derived from the top quark condensate.


 * Do you mean infinite number of colors? The previous fragment says that The equivalence is exact in the limit..., whereas the second seems to indicate a lack of exact limit. Thank you again, Avriette 04:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Fields Medal
The rest of us have to wait to the ICM. You have an inside source?

Charles Matthews 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I dropped by for another reason, but whuzzis? I'm curious to know too!  ---CH 23:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Composite gravity
Hi, can you please provide a citation for that article? Maybe an arXiv eprint? ---CH 23:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, CH, I am almost never writing something that is found in the same form in some article. These basic definitions are a part of common knowledge. Papers about composite gravity e.g. here . --Lumidek 03:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, my point was that in an encyclopedia, ideally some citation should be offered in every article, so I hope that in future you will try to come up with one or two citations which seem closest to whatever you are discussing. OK, nuff said.---CH 06:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientific peer review
You might be interested in WP:SPR, I think. Karol 19:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Rotation operator
Hello! I wonder if you have come across an operator which looks something like this?


 * $$\exp \left ( \sum_{ij} \hat{i}^\dagger \hat{j} - \hat{j}^\dagger \hat{i} \right )$$

--HappyCamper 00:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A Video
check it out http://www.youtube.com/v/aIPcqlMTQHs 70.48.250.138 06:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative" QG theory
Hi there Lumidek. I know you are interested in, hm, let's diplomatically call it "alternative theories" of quantum gravity. Here's a new one recently added, called the Scale Expanding Cosmos. Maybe you'd like to have a look at it... I have not been able to muster the energy to actually read the papers about it, but I've seen you take care of other theories before, like McCutcheon ;-) This one is being sneaked into articles here and there. Cheers, --RE 01:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah he takes care of theories all right. Maffia style!

This will seem terribly ignorant but I can tell from the title that "Scale Expanding Cosmos" is garbage. Take the iniiative and delete it for him where you saw it. --Hfarmer 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey etiquette
If you are posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue, make sure not to use language that may suggest bias.

Good: "Hey, Bob, could you tell me what you think about this discussion? I think your input could help"

I am using the exact copy from the survey guideline in order not to get accused/blocked for recruiting. Could you please check the discussion there, Bob?

Czech translation needed ...
For meta:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2006/En. My statement's translation into various languages relies on volunteers, and time is quite late now. If you could possibly help ...

Charles Matthews 11:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Detlev Buchholz
I've added the "prod" template to the article Detlev Buchholz, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Detlev Buchholz. If you remove the dated prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 22:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the PROD tag, as I'm not of the opinion that accomplished theoretical physicists are non-notable. Obviously expansion of the article would be helpful. -- SCZenz 23:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

hola lubos
My life and times in LQG. Hope all's well! Sdedeo (tips) 17:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Any comment on today's Nature news piece mentioning you?
I see that you admit above to being Luboš Motl. herefore it my be interestg to you that you are mntioned by today Nature in a news piece titled "Theorists snap over string pieces" (Nature, 2006, 443, 491). "Not Even Wrong was published in June and The Trouble with Physics came out in September; shortly after they appeared on the Amazon books website, string theorist Luboš Motl of Harvard University posted reviews furiously entitled “Bitter emotions and obsolete understanding of high-energy physics” and “Another postmodern diatribe against modern physics and scientific method”. As Nature went to press, the reviews had been removed. Few in the community are, at least publicly, as vitriolic as Motl."

Your comment would be interesting to me because - contrary to what you seem to believe about me (two words added later to avoid misunderstanding) - I believe string theory is a much better candidate for theory of everything than loop quantum gravity. Therefore I would like to hear your opinion on the books before I decide whether to order any of them. Regards, Friendly Neighbour 08:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, you've got it backwards. Lubos would agree strongly that string theory is the better candidate for a ToE; he negatively reviewed both Woit's and Smolin's books and would presumably still urge you not to buy either one.  You can see more of his opinions on his blog; his current top entry is one that discusses the books in question and the comment on them in Nature. I'd like to throw in personally that the conflict epitomized by these books is not really between string theory and LQG&mdash;(almost?) nobody would characterize LQG as a "better ToE candidate" than string theory&mdash;but what it is about exactly depends on who you ask. -- SCZenz 08:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * SCZenz, no, I didn't take it backward. I know that Luboš thinks anyone propagating other candidates for the theory of everything than the string theory must be a crank. He told me so (more or less) while deleting my comments here believing I am a proponent of loop quantum gravity.
 * Luboš, I've found that you know about the news piece from your blog. And I found both your reviews on the blog: "Bitter emotions and obsolete understanding of high-energy physics" and "Another postmodern diatribe against modern physics and scientific method" so I know now what you think about the books. Reading your reviews has certainly helped me decide about buying them: don't buy in the case of the book by Peter Woit, be careful in the case of the book by Lee Smolin because Smolin - right or wrong about the string theory - still seems to be an interesting physicist to me. Therefore feel free to delete also these comments by myself - if you feel like that. Friendly Neighbour 08:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

't Hooft picture at Harvard
Hi, do you know when this picture was taken? I'd like to add that information to 't Hooft's page. Thanks, AxelBoldt 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your religion?
Are you a Christian or an atheist? Or are you both. I remember seeing a review on Amazon about Fallachi's book you have written. You called yourself a "Christian atheist" just like Fallachi. LinkinPark 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:BrianGreene1atHarvard.JPG
Hi, are you the photographer of Image:BrianGreene1atHarvard.JPG? If so, could you change the tag from GFDL to GFDL-self? That way it's clear what the source of the image is. Thanks! —Angr 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:RobbertDijkgraaf1.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:RobbertDijkgraaf1.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:SmetanaStatuePilsen.jpg
Dear Lumidek. You originally uploaded this photo, but you did not specify who the author is. Is it your own image? If so, can you please add to the image description page? Thanks, Kjetil_r 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Check this out
I have written an article about a generally unknown mathematical structure, Mischner's Room, redirected to Misner Space, and I need someone to confirm its validity. Please, check it out and send me any comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orthologist (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

David Gross (Brazilian joke)
It was not a joke. I'm sorry for the reference, I didn't realize a password was needed, because I am a subscriber and I have free access to that content.

But in the biggest Brazilian newspaper, "Folha de São Paulo", 09/27/2006, we had an interview with David Gross. Check it:

Newspaper - At Wikipedia, you are described as physicist "and" string theorist. Don't people believe that one category embodies the other? Gross - That's a nonsense. In the first part of my career I was with the particle physics and the nuclear physics. After, as many others, I began working at strings. It's all the same thing.

If you insist, Lumidek, I can send you the whole page of the newspaper. Don't doubt it, because it's Brazil's most important newspaper. If you really think that line shouldn't be in the article, at least don't say it was a Brazilian joke, because it wasn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.147.91.34 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

twin paradox
I've added reference to the actual paper; maybe you'd like to put this into context? dab (𒁳) 15:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:WallyGilbert.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:WallyGilbert.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bogoliubov transformation
Hello! If you have a moment, I wonder if you could take a look at bogoliubov transformation? There is a note in the article which mentions that the transformed ground state is different from the original ground state, but what does its form look like? --HappyCamper 00:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:LubosMotlPubMini.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LubosMotlPubMini.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sylvester James Gates
Hey Lumidek. I noticed you created the article on Jim Gates and identified him as an African American physicist. Was there any reason to mention his race (maybe first to write thesis on supersymmetry, or an advocate of diversity in science)? If so I could add that in, or I'm just going to take the race reference out. Jussen 02:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hartle-Hawking state
All of the comments on this page you created are asking for a simpler explanation of it. Any chance? DewiMorgan 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Matti Pitkänen (physicist)
A template has been added to the article Matti Pitkänen (physicist), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author.  Dei z  talk 16:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cite sources
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Sidney Coleman, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Lubos, thanks so much for adding the date of Sidney Coleman's death to his article. I am confident that the sad email from Harvard will soon be confirmed by "reliable" obituaries in newspapers, so any violation of official policy that occurred here won't last long. Hard to believe that not even the Harvard Crimson has an obituary today (Tuesday, November 20.) Hope all is well with you. betsythedevine (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And here's the first published source of (I hope) many: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-hed_coleman_20nov20,0,7943823.story betsythedevine (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Sidney Coleman.JPG, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Image:Sidney Coleman.JPG appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Sidney Coleman.JPG has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Image:Sidney Coleman.JPG and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Image:Sidney Coleman.JPG with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Image:Sidney Coleman.JPG.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sidney Coleman's picture
Hi, I didn't erase the image; not being an admin I don't have that power. What I did was query its status and an admin deleted it. I notice that in the new upload the position is now clear so thank you for that. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:
Hi, thanks for the post into my archive but I don't think anybody reads that. Please use my talk page except the archive, if I don't notice the change in the watchlist it can be easily lost.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Orava10.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Orava10.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Black hole electron
Hi Lumidek: In the Black hole electron article, the electron Compton wavelength is shown to be either equal to or very close to 4 pi (3 pi hG/c) exponent 1/4. Do you see any flaw in the logic sequence leading to this specific value? -- DonJStevens (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lumidek: I have your reply. Thank you for taking a look at this.--DonJStevens (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lumidek: I would like to request your help to present the following equation so that readers will know the intended units. L1/L2 = L2/L3 Where: L1 = 2 pi (Planck length) (3/2)exp 1/2

L2 = 1/2 (electron Compton wavelength) = Le/2

L3 = photon wavelength that has energy value h/(2 pi) squared

L3 = (2 pi) squared, times light velocity, times one second

L3 = 1.183533185x10 exp 10 meters

L1 = (L2)exp 2,divided by (L3) L1 = 1.243518403x10 exp -34 meter

Planck length = (L1/2 pi) (2/3) exp 1/2 = 1.615946x10 exp -35 meters

Planck length = (hG/2 pi c cubed) exp 1/2

With the G value 6.6717456x10 exp -11, the Planck length is 1.615946x10 exp -35 and the following equations will be correct:

3Gm/c squared = (Le/4 pi) (Le/2L3) squared

electron mass = (c squared/3G) (Le/4 pi) (Le/2L3) squared

I would appreciate your help but I will understand if you would prefer not to be involved with this.--DonJStevens (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam in Arthur C. Clarke Diving School
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Arthur C. Clarke Diving School, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Arthur C. Clarke Diving School is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Arthur C. Clarke Diving School, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Consciousness causes collapse
An editor has nominated Consciousness causes collapse, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
Thanks for your message. As we speak, I have the maps ready; I just to re-size them and upload the file. Thanks again! - Thanks, Hoshie 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i'm glad you liked the imporoved image! Yes, its sad when you think what happened in the Balkans. I started to study the area during the Bosnian and Croatian wars as a way to understand why the area is so messed up. Thanks again. - Thanks, Hoshie 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Inverse Doppler effect
An editor has nominated Inverse Doppler effect, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have time...
Dear friend,

I presume you are still a busy man, but I would appreciate to discuss with you about your recent literary activity. Please let me know if you have some time for this, preferably by answering by email (I think you will understand why). Regards, Alain r (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear friend,
 * this is a short reminder of my above request. It deals about your recent book (as you probably had guessed). I would understand that you are not interested in giving any reply to this message, but at least I would appreciate that you state it explicitely, so that I do not expect anything. Regards, Alain r (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * this is a short reminder of my above request. It deals about your recent book (as you probably had guessed). I would understand that you are not interested in giving any reply to this message, but at least I would appreciate that you state it explicitely, so that I do not expect anything. Regards, Alain r (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Comenius20.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Comenius20.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

light cone gauge and light front quantization
Thanks for creating these articles, but you didn't cite any sources. Could you at least try to add one to each? Best, shoy 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks but there are too many and none of them is canonical. For example, a book by Green, Schwarz, Witten: Superstring theory - contains all definitions and descriptions of light cone gauge and similar terms. Field theory books probably do contain it, too, but I can't figure out which of them. --Lumidek (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are too many sources? Just one on each article would be fine, I'm sure. shoy 12:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to erase the stubs. I won't be adding sources because the facts written in the articles are parts of elementary particle physicists' knowledge. There are no sources in the article defining the "electron" or any other topic and I don't know why there should be sources in the definition of light cone gauge etc. --Lumidek (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:X Factor Jiri Zonyga.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:X Factor Jiri Zonyga.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sdrtirs (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:X Factor Ondrej Ruml.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:X Factor Ondrej Ruml.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sdrtirs (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:X Factor All X.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:X Factor All X.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sdrtirs (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Martina Partlova X Factor.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Martina Partlova X Factor.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sdrtirs (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Kamila Nyvltova X Factor.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kamila Nyvltova X Factor.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sdrtirs (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:David Gransky X Factor.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:David Gransky X Factor.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sdrtirs (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:X Factor Anna Ungrova.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:X Factor Anna Ungrova.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sdrtirs (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. -- Good Damon 13:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:ArthurJaffe.JPG
Image:ArthurJaffe.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Arthur Jaffe.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * File:Sidney-Coleman.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Sidney Coleman at Harvard.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Double scaling limit
Thank you for creating Double scaling limit! Happy editing, Kingturtle (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHYS
Hi, I notice that you had some interest in physics. Might I interest you in joining WikiProject Physics?Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wolfram Alpha
A tag has been placed on Wolfram Alpha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 09:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After comments from two other individuals asking me to reinstate this page, I've investigated more thoroughly and find that there may be some substance to the subject of this article that would make it one of the very rare exceptions to Wikipedia's policy about things that don't yet exist. However, my examination of the article revealed that all the citations were of the sort that doesn't really meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy.  What I've done, and I hope this will meet with your approval, is moved the deleted content to a "sandbox" page found at User:Lumidek/Sandbox, where you can work on it and add the kind of citation that will allow the article to stay around.  (Alternatively, you might want to simply hang on until May, when apparently the software will be released and thereby gain the kind of citation that will be "bullet-proof"; it will be much more difficult to keep the article mounted until that point, but it's up to you.)  I'll create the sandbox page and then see what I can do to help you with citations.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I found some very useful references on Dr. Wolfram's page, sufficient to make me think that the article will survive examination upon recreation as a new page. I have therefore added those references to the sandbox page and copied the material to the location of the deleted page.  If the new page gets deleted, you will still have the sandbox page available to work on; I'll keep an eye on this and see if anything further needs to be done.  I wanted to add that I am glad to rescue this material; this is the one case in a thousand where I have found deleted material to actually provide a useful and interesting article to Wikipedia, and I'm pleased to be able to help you restore it to utility.  If you have any further questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste: talk 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the article will now remain so I have deleted the sandbox page. If you require it again, just leave me a note. Accounting4Taste: talk 15:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Kumo and Bing
I just wanted to remind you that the appropriate course of action, instead of copying the content of Kumo (search engine) to Bing (search engine), would have been to use the built in 'move' functionality, so that the edit history of the article would be maintained. Please remember this for the future. Happy editing! 138.89.40.87 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

ECRG map
Good work on the ECRG map! Orthorhombic (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you still have it downloaded, would you be willing to update it to include Lithuania? Otherwise, once again, well done. Orthorhombic (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a Wikipedia Embassy thing. It links directly from the main page, but generates precious little traffic. I agree about the Lithuanian MEP for ultimately, the wider the caucus the better. There is a genuine, unaffected harmony between Poles, Czechs and Brits on the limits of the Euro-federalist project, and it is good that there will now be a political grouping in which mainstream parties from these countries can take the lead. Should counterbalance a few abuses. Orthorhombic (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a small point, but if it is neither here nor neither, I would suggest that your original colour scheme for this map was actually stronger. It was clearer that the 1 & 1+ ECR member countries were contiguous. Just a thought. Orthorhombic (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

EU colours
I thought the two were relatively easy to differentiate. Whatever it is, it has to be a pretty neutral colour that doesn't clash with the blue. So either the grey, or a pale yellow or green, à la the national maps. Bastin 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Satellite temperature measurements
I would welcome your input to the discussion related to the new public domain image of RSS and UAH global temperature anomaly data here: Satellite Temperature Measurements -- Update the Graphic. Thank you. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Lumidek! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Tamiaki Yoneya -
 * 2) Erick Weinberg -
 * 3) Gabriele Veneziano -
 * 4) Miloš Zahradník -

Keith Briffa
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Konstantin Novoselov


The article Konstantin Novoselov has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Fæ (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to propose that you NOT delete the new article for Novoselov, considering that he just won a 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics this morning. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/announcement.html I am sure some references will soon be available. betsythedevine (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment for LM: the nasty crusaders have repeatedly posted tons of spam over here, with links.

Fair use rationale for File:Gottwald100.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gottwald100.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tetrads in GR
Hi Lumos, could you take a look again at a comment you made some time ago at Talk:Einstein–Cartan_theory? Was there some misunderstanding about the material being covered? The article is indeed poorly written and in need of an extensive rewrite, but surely the topic itself is mainstream? --Michael C. Price talk 10:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Michael, thanks for your comment. I made the comment about the old version of the article almost exactly 3 years ago, see the version at that time: . It said "Einstein–Cartan theory in theoretical physics extends general relativity, to handle spin angular momentum correctly." at the very beginning and the whole article was written in the spirit of the claim that general relativity (without extensions) describes the spin incorrectly. As far as I can read, this is no longer claimed by the article. Einstein-Cartan theory is a historically important extension of general relativity, with some extra fields (torsion), but all the modern evidence indicates that such extra fields don't exist - and they're not needed. If you care about sociology, no research of cosmology or calculations of NASA's experiments or anything of the sort takes the "torsion field" into account because the latter doesn't exist, as far as the existing evidence - theoretical or experimental - can say. Today, it's not an important proposal to extend GR. The new article doesn't make these points too clear but at least it also no longer makes crazy claims throughout the text that general relativity (without torsion) is inconsistent with the spin, or something like that, so I wouldn't protest against the new version. Visually, it surely looks like a well-written article. However, I see some confusion in your comment that does show that the articles doesn't explain the basic points too clearly. Einstein-Cartan theory is not "just" about the tetrads. Tetrads are indeed useful - and in some formal sense necessary - to describe spin in General Relativity. However, using the tetrads formalism is not yet Einstein-Cartan theory. Einstein-Cartan theory assumes that "torsion" may be nonzero - even though it is identically zero in general relativity (which normally uses the metric). One can write GR in terms of tetrads as well - and the torsion is still zero. If that's so, one isn't doing Einstein-Cartan theory. --Lumidek (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the important clarification. Tetrads, I guess, are a formal way of expressing local Lorentz invariance and are, as you say, in no way dependent on torsion not vanishing.  The article should make that distinction clearer, or I should read it more carefully.  You say (and I don't doubt) that no experimental test has revealed torsion yet, but aren't the predictions made below the current experimental threshold? (Although I seem to recall a proposal to test for torsion that may be ongoing.) --Michael C. Price talk 10:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Michael, thanks for your reply. Once you introduce torsion, there is this critical uncertainty about what the "minimal coupling" means. The coupling that decouples the torsion altogether always has to be allowed - and it's probably the right one. There are various other fundamental problems - that it's not really clear what the theory should be to describe the real world. Even if you want to couple Einstein-Cartan theory to ordinary electromagnetism, there exists no candidate for a "minimal coupling". Moreover, the newer, more well-defined versions of the Einstein-Cartan theory, e.g. due to Stelle and West (involving non-commutativity as a justification), actually predict big enough phenomena and can be falsified. For both claims, see e.g. the 2009 paper by Gibbons et al. (the falsification is described in the comment about 1,000 seconds; Gibbons is a senior guy who wrote important papers with Hawking and others). I think it's valid to say that any concrete enough version of the theory - including couplings to known types of matter - can be falsified and has been falsified. So the concept is only surviving as a vague one, with a wishful thinking that there could still exist a viable version of it. But no such version is known - at least not a natural one. What's really missing is the motivation. In string theory, one can see that there's no torsion, perhaps except for the H-field (a 3-form) but the H-field doesn't have the usual normal properties of the Einstein-Cartan torsion field. In fact, in 4D, the H-field may be Hodge dualized to a scalar, the universal axion, and such fields are naturally massive - otherwise new long-range forces would have to exist but they don't. If they were not massive, you would really modify the GR even at long distances, and created new polarizations of gravitational waves, altered the prediction for gravitational lensing, and other things. All these things are absent according to observations as well as string theory. Moreover, the very idea about the "minimality" of the couplings has been changed in the 1970s by the insights of the renormalization group. We no longer prefer "simple" couplings because they look aesthetically and subjectively simple but because we can technically prove that these couplings - and low-derivative terms - prevail at long distances. This modern kind of reasoning leaves no natural room for torsion. So  all the motivation is just historical in character and can't be reconciled with the modern way of organizing fields and terms in field theory, and the people who defend it don't understand the last 60 years in theoretical physics. --Lumidek (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Lumos, thanks for your interesting and informative replies. Do you mind if I copy/move this thread over to Talk:Einstein–Cartan_theory ?  It would be of considerable benefit there. --Michael C. Price talk 08:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Michael, please more than free to copy anything from our discussions - whether or not I am skeptical that someone will find it worth detailed reading. ;-)--Lumidek (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that, if torsion was discovered, this would invalidate strings? Is that correct? --Michael C. Price talk 12:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's surely true, too. If any genuine torsion - and not just an axion, a scalar field that may possibly be obtained from a simplified antisymmetric version of "torsion" - were found, it would immediately falsify all vacua of the large "landscape" of vacua that string theory has offered as a description of the real world. (That's a modest statement - I don't want to strengthen it because someone could come up with some surprising new model that would legitimate torsion within string theory - something that I find unimaginable now.) But string theory is really a huge cannon to shoot an ant here. The reasons why torsion doesn't exist are understood by much more elementary layers of physics than string theory. --Lumidek (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Michael, one point I haven't made sufficiently explicit in my previous criticism is that the advocates of torsion completely fail to understand the necessity to decompose fields to irreducible representations of unbroken groups. The torsion tensor has three indices which is lots of components. Those folks seem to assume that all of them behave as "torsion" - to play a single role they are prescribed to play e.g. by the Einstein-Cartan theory. But this is virtually impossible. In physics, particles come in multiplets. If they're massive, and new bosonic particles have to be massive (or extremely weakly coupled) not to contradict GR observations at long distances, the mass is inevitably different for each irreducible representation contained in the reducible one. For a massive particle, it means that a particle of a fixed mass has spin "j" and "2j+1" polarizations - basis vectors under an SO(3) or SU(2) representations - and that's it. These particles may always be written as symmetric traceless tensors of a kind. A tensor without these complete symmetries - such as a torsion - has to be decomposed to many fields that are irreducible under SO(3), and the fate of each of these components is completely different. There exists absolutely no reason (no symmetry) why all the masses of these irreducible components should stay the same (and they surely can't stay zero for all cases) so once all the physical effects are taken into account, the torsion decouples into more elementary particles with different properties - scalars, fermions, gauge bosons, gravitino, or graviton etc. - nothing else can really exist. So the description in terms of "torsion" is just never applicable for a generic theory, and a huge amount of fine-tuning would be needed for all those field to remain acting as "one group", as torsion. Today, when we know QFT, torsion is just bad physics. See e.g. this communication of Steven Weinberg with a torsion proponent named Hehl  in Physics Today.--Lumidek (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well by your logic, GR should be dumped as well. Riemann curvature tensor has four indices, which gives lots of indices. Them GR folks seem to assume that all of them behave as "curvature" - to play a single role they are prescribed to play e.g. by GR. But this is virtually impossible. In physics, particles come as multiplets. If they're massive, and new bosonic particles have to be massive (or extremely weakly coupled) not to contradict observations at long distances, the mass is inevitably different for each irreducible representation contained in the reducible one. For a massive particle, it means that a particle of a fixed mass has spin "j" and "2j+1" polarizations - basis vectors under an SO(3) or SU(2) representations - and that's it. These particles may always be written as symmetric traceless tensors of a kind. A tensor without these complete symmetries - such as a curvature - has to be decomposed to many fields that are irreducible under SO(3), and the fate of each of these components is completely different. There exists absolutely no reason (no symmetry) why all the masses of these irreducible components should stay the same (and they surely can't stay zero for all cases) so once all the physical effects are taken into account, the curvature decouples into more elementary particles with different properties - scalars, fermions, gauge bosons, gravitino, or graviton etc. - nothing else can really exist. So the description in terms of "curvature" is just never applicable for a generic theory, and a huge amount of fine-tuning would be needed for all those field to remain acting as "one group", as curvature. Today, when we know QFT, curvature is just bad physics. So will you dump GR based on this argument? I wouldn't. 78.177.63.73 (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing I forgot to say, in the tetrad formalism we can actually show elements of GR/EC as elements of the Poincare group $$\mathbf{R}^{1,3} \rtimes O(1,3)$$, here the frame fields have one Lorentz index and are the translational gauge field, the spin connection has an antisymmetric pair of Lorentz indices and are the rotational gauge field, the torsion and curvature, the covariant exterior derivatives of the frame fields and spin connection respectively, are the field strengths of the translational and rotational groups respectively. Also, if we were to minimally couple torsion to spinors using the covariant derivative and tetrads, the effective term (an axial-axial four-fermion interaction term) for this coupling, using Einstein-Cartan equation for torsion, would be proportional to $$\hbar^2 G$$. Here are some articles about the connection of (super)strings and torsion:   Also nice blog by the way. 78.177.63.73 (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But Lubos, isn't torsion necessary in supergravity? 88.251.17.153 (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, surely not in a general supergravity. $N=1$ supergravity in $d=4$ - the realistic one - only adds a gravitino, a fermionic field, not a new bosonic field. Various extended $N>1$ supergravities contain various new bosonic fields of various spins and some of them are sometimes called torsion. However, they're still added for other reasons than some inherent need for "torsion" as understood in the old generalizations of GR. -Lumidek (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also note that torsion, the covariant exterior derivative of the frame field, is necessarily nonzero in the presence of spinor fields, in e.g. the Palatini action, the equivalent of Einstein-Hilbert action in tetrad formalism. Also, to address the issue of minimal coupling, it only suffices to replace the partial derivative with the covariant derivative, which contributes to the Lagrangian by $$|e|\overline{\Psi}e^{\mu}_a\gamma^a\left( \partial_\mu - \frac{i}{4}\omega_{ab\mu}\sigma^{ab} \right){\Psi}$$, and the coupling for torsion can be derived from that of the spin connection, using the former fact that $$\mathrm{d}e+\omega\wedge e=\mathrm T$$. Also would you mind looking up Nikodem Poplawski's work? He derives a tremendously small cosmological constant from Einstein-Cartan torsion, among other things.78.177.63.73 (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I've been wondering what is the evidence that spacetime is torsion-free that you spoke of? I think torsion can be set up in a group representation. It's the field tensor of the translation group, as Cartan showed, just like how the curvature is the field tensor of the rotation group. Did you notice how the definitions of Riemann and Yang-Mills curvatures resemble each other, if you take the gauge field for the Riemann tensor to be the spin connection? 78.177.63.73 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I have book-marked your blog and will make an effort to keep more up-to-date about matters.  But why does Weinberg ask if a principle exists that forbids torsion, if string theory more or less precludes it?
 * On different tack, do you have any good links for an introductory overview of Pati-Salam? --Michael C. Price talk 15:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Michael, because Weinberg obviously doesn't want to be constrained by the assumption that string theory is valid. From a purely stringy viewpoint, he may be a heretic haha but without a completely tight proof of string theory, his attitude is legitimate. It's really his point, and I agree with that, that he wants to consider as general a theory as possible, without making any unprovable assumptions about the field content or interactions. If this principle is applied to torsion, it becomes obvious that the torsion doesn't have to be there, and even if it is there, the masses and interactions must be allowed and they generically decompose the components of torsion into many fields with different properties that have nothing to do with the original idea of the torsion. The special "geometric picture" behind torsion as a special field is physically indefensible, that's really his point. No, I don't know what's a good intro to Pati-Salam - but I doubt that a good review of these issues would discuss the Pati-Salam models only. It's really a part of a broader package of the GUT-like theories - there's no reason to learn them completely separately. --Lumidek (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Pati-Salam, it's just that there are plenty of sources that cover SU(5) - which I think I understand - but none I can find that cover PS. I'm just trying to understand how they fit into SO(10) at the moment. --Michael C. Price talk 20:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Michael, the Pati-Salam SU(4) x SU(2) x SU(2) is trivially a subgroup of SO(10) because SO(10) has a SO(6) x SO(4) subgroup - just divide the 10-dimensional vector into 6 and 4, or consider the block-diagonal 10x10 matrices with 6x6 and 4x4 blocks. The SO(6) x SO(4) is isomorphic to the Pati-Salam group because SO(6) is (locally...) isomorphic to SU(4) and SO(4) is isomorphic to SU(2) x SU(2). To see the first isomorphism, note that the antisymmetric tensor 4x3/2x1 of SU(4) has 6 components and it is a real representation because its complex conjugate may also be obtained by Hodge-dualizing the antisymmetric tensor with 2 indices, over epsilon with 4 indices. The SO(4) can be written as SU(2) x SU(2) for a similar reason. But you may also take the tensor product of the doublets "2" of the two SU(2) factors and prove that it is a real representation because it is the tensor product of two pseudoreal reps "2". So SU(2) x SU(2) has a 4-dimensional real irrep and is compact, so it must be a subgroup of SO(4). Count the dimension of the group, 3+3=6, to see that it is isomorphic. Cheers, LM--Lumidek (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Czechoslovak Republic


The article Czechoslovak Republic has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * It seems this article does nothing beyond state the official name of Czechoslovakia during a certain period in history. As this is already covered in another article, namely the History of Czechoslovakia one, there appears to be little need for this page.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Demokratickid (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references. If no references are found and added within a ten-day grace period it may be deleted. This is to help prevent incorrect material remaining. (All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source.)

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once the article has at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag. Please do not remove this tag unless the article has at least one such source.

Find sources: GBooks · A9 · MSBooks · GScholar · MSAcademic · GNews recent · GNews old · NYT recent · NYT old

Reviewer tools: policy project (Nathan Seiberg • talk • bio • log)   Move: incubate   Header: deprod checked checking   Footer: +references +external links

Please check the history to see when this template was added.Expired+%5B%5BWP%3ABLPPROD%5D%5D%3A+nominated+for+10+days+with+no+sources+added

Notification of the article's author(s) is strongly recommended. Notification template: ==Proposed deletion of Nathan Seiberg==

The article Nathan Seiberg has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article. &#32; The nominator also raised the following concern:
 * No references and limited notability

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Debbie W. 05:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwainwr123 (talk • contribs)

Based on what I see on Google, Nathan Seiberg appears to be well-known in the physics community. I agree that the article should stay, but it needs more references. A link to his home page is insufficient, and violates Wikipedia's BLP guidelines. Please add references directly to his work and accomplishments. Thank you. Debbie W. 13:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwainwr123 (talk • contribs)

Nomination of Mysterious duality for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mysterious duality 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 Articles for deletion/Mysterious duality 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. TR 10:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Škoda timeline 1980 to date
Template:Škoda timeline 1980 to date has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Miloš Zeman
Hi Luboš. I've noticed your recent addition to the article. I know that Zeman and Fischer are considered favorites of the election, however, many people reading the article here on en-wiki don't know that and it is important to provide reliable reference backing up your claim. Please, don't forget to cite your sources. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Licensing for images
Hello. I see we have a few old images that you took for which we presumed the license. Wikimedia no longer allows presumed licenses (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:GFDL-presumed). Could you please verify that you are OK with the license and  for all the images which you uploaded but didn't tag on October 22, 2004, or earlier? If you aren't OK with those licenses, we certainly could choose another, easier one.

Specifically, I'm looking at File:Nima Arkani-Hamed at Harvard.jpg and File:Nathan Seiberg at Harvard.jpg but I know there are other ones too.

Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I took the pictures and yes, I want them to be under Creative Commons 3.0. This is true for a dozen of other physicists' pictures. --Lumidek (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

OK cool. I will mark the following images:
 * File:BrianGreene1atHarvard.JPG
 * File:LeeSmolinAtHarvard.JPG
 * File:Cumrun Vafa at Harvard.JPG
 * File:LubosMotlPubMicro.jpg
 * File:Andrew Strominger at Harvard.jpg
 * File:PilsenCityHall.JPG
 * File:DSCF0008trabant.JPG
 * File:Leonard Susskind at Stanford.jpg
 * File:Gerardus t' Hooft at Harvard.jpg
 * File:Freeman Dyson at Harvard.jpg
 * File:Shiraz Minwalla at Harvard.jpg
 * File:David Gross and his wife in Santa Barabara.jpg
 * File:Prague Castle2.JPG
 * File:Robbert Dijkgraaf at Harvard.jpg
 * File:Charles River Cambridge USA.jpg
 * File:MalaStrana-Chram.JPG
 * File:Hradcany2.jpg
 * File:SmetanaStatuePilsen.jpg
 * File:KITP Santa Barbara at night.jpg
 * File:David Gross at construction works of the KITP.jpg
 * File:Edward Witten at Harvard.jpg
 * File:Nathan Seiberg at Harvard.jpg

Thanks so much for your time (and for the photographs!) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Which version of cc did you want me to mark them as? cc-by-3.0 or cc-by-sa-3.0? Sorry for all the posts. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you for your work! I prefer cc-by-3.0 which, I understand, poses less hassle for others (as well as me, maybe). By the way, you might be close to the deciding issues for these copyright statuses on Wikipedia so if you have time, I would like to ask you a question. A friend of mine, a film producer (manager) who is also co-running the ILQ company for in-smartphone payment cards has a project to allow the copyright holders for movies to get at least some income from pirated copies of the movies. They want to include QR barcodes to posters for movies, including those shown on Wikipedia, and QR barcodes to the beginning of the movies that are to be pirated. Honest watchers of such movies may legalize their watching by going to the QR code URL and paying. The revenue is divided among the copyright holders, someone I forgot, and partly even the pirates who run the server and/or uploaded the video (which may sound strange but that's what they are doing). This project surprisingly has already some backing from official cinematographic organizations here in Czechia. They want to grow more. Do you think that Wikipedia could allow these things or even help this paradigm to spread? --Lumidek (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's an absolutely excellent idea. Heck, i would even invest in it if i had the opportunity (and money). But I'm afraid the WMF mainly works with free works, so there probably isn't much that they could do. Nonetheless, I do not work for the WMF and don't want to speak to them - you'd do best contacting them directly; see Contact us - Press. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement and the contacts! --Lumidek (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Typhoon errors
You can find a full listing of the JTWC best track files going back to 1945 on their website from this link. All winds are listed in knots (always to the nearest value of 5), the standard for tropical cyclone measurements. Within the article, the previous highest are listed according to Dr. Jeff Masters who utilized these files himself in reference #24. Haiyan's peak intensity according to the JTWC was 170 knots, which converts to 315 km/h or 195 mph (when rounded to the nearest 5). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no figure 170 on that page and no information from the year 2013, for that matter. Don't you agree? It seems like you must live in a completely different Universe. Everything you say seems to be demonstrably wrong. --Lumidek (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The personal attacking aside, 2013 is not listed there as of yet because the data remains operational. It will be added this Spring 2014 once the agency finalizes their data. The 170 knots comes from their operational advisories, where are cited throughout the article. If you're looking for the specific citation, it's #23 on the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing open about any of these questions, all your claims are just wrong. The figure 170 wasn't in knots. It was 170 mph, see, which translates to 148 mph and 275 kph, just like the Philippines page says. It's a typhoon that arrives there every 2-3 years. The pressure information makes this point completely obvious. --Lumidek (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I see where the problem is. You're relying on a source that is misinterpreting data and comparing two incompatible scales. They're referring to either the JMA or PAGASA which use 10-minute sustained winds, which yields a lower value than the 1-minute sustained winds used by the JTWC. The Saffir-Simpson scale is designed to be used only with 1-minute sustained winds, not 10-minute. It's always best to refer to the agencies themselves than what a second-hand media source says. If you look at the article, we use both the JMA and JTWC to represent tropical cyclone intensities in the Western Pacific, with a preference to the JMA since they're the official warning agency. All mentions of potential records using the JTWC are denoted as "unofficial" because of this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not using any confusing conventions. All the correct figures represent exactly what you think is represented by your wrong figures. According to any criterion, when the right figures are chosen, Haiyan was safely outside the Top Ten. The figure 170 mph was from JTWC itself. Just someone who read the data misread it as 170 knots, just like you did, and that's where all this nonsense about the strongest cyclone was born. --Lumidek (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not misreading the advisories at all. Look for yourself "THE CURRENT INTENSITY HAS BEEN INCREASED TO 170 KNOTS BASED ON THE 8.0/8.0 DVORAK ESTIMATES FROM PGTW, KNES, AND RJTD." - There's no way that can be misinterpreted. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that text file very well. It was a mistake which is why it was taken down by JTWC and you have to use "webcitation" to claim it still exists. But it doesn't. It was an error that was corrected. People like you however refuse to correct errors. --Lumidek (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We have the "webcitation" as a means of preserving the advisories since the JTWC uses the same domain name to write later advisories. They don't archive them so we have to do it ourselves. There is no evidence of them redacting their peak intensity estimate as to my knowledge. If you have something from them that contradicts this, please share it with me by all means. I would be more than happy to change the article if they announced a change. However, unless it's directly from the JTWC in a place where I can see it with my own eye, as in not just your word, then I will not accept it. I need the data myself to be able to use it. Personal speculations are considered original research and are not allowed on Wikipedia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if one thought it's OK to preserve this self-evident mistake for as long a time as possible, the statements on the Haiyan Wikipedia page are still demonstrably wrong, in contradiction with many other claims on the Wikipedia cyclone pages. For example, the 1-minute sustained winds of Haiyan, even if they were 315 km/h as the page now (incorrectly) claims, are still smaller than those of Typhoon Ida 1958 which also made a landfall - 325 km/h - and many other typhoons I can enumerate. So it's a lie upon a lie upon a lie. It's obvious that one can find many speedier typhoons because by the most sensible measure, the minimal central pressure, Haiyan was an average large hurricane. But some people just prefer to look for excuses to preserves incorrect information for as long a time as possible. --Lumidek (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ida made landfall with winds of 195 km/h, which is stated in the article, whereas Haiyan made landfall with winds of 315 km/h. Check your facts appropriately before claiming such things. You can list as many pages as you want, but none will have a higher landfalling wind speed listed than Haiyan, because none exist. We wouldn't claim it as such if it were not a fact. At no point, however, do we claim that Haiyan is the strongest storm in terms of pressure. We're referring to this record by winds, which is notable in its own right. Haiyan was definitely not an average cyclone. It presented an exceptionally large and deep ring of convection around its eye that went beyond our capability to estimate with the Dvorak technique, something that has never happened before. You seem to be firmly under the assumption of "I'm right and you're wrong no matter what facts you throw at me" and frankly, I'm getting tired of saying the same thing over and over. Unless you provide me with FACTS, not speculation, I'm done with this debate. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no official source, not even a typo-riddled deleted source, that would claim that 315 km/h was the speed when the cyclone landed. The deleted JTWC text file reported some speed (with a typo in the units) before it landed. You're just making all these things up. --Lumidek (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, YOU are the one making things up. You have given me nothing but your own speculations this entire time which leads me to believe that there is nothing further to your argument. Unless you immediately provide me with evidence supporting your claim coming directly from the JTWC, I will give you no further answers. I am tired of wasting my time. I have better things to do than argue with someone who cannot accept facts even when the evidence is in their face. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The only language that may be used to talk to obsessed dishonest fanatics like you is the language of the guns. --Lumidek (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Debbie Schlussel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Debbie Schlussel 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 Articles for deletion/Debbie Schlussel & 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. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi Lumidek! I found on a photo of yours(?) Commons. Could you please check if you released the image with a GFDL license? We have a lot of trouble with old transfer from en-wiki, there's often half the information missing. Could you let me know on my Commons talk page here? Thanks a bunch for your time! -- Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 02:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I took the photo of Frank. At that time, it didn't force me to write the copyrights status. May I classify it as Creative Commons 3.0? Or anything free enough that works. Thanks, LM --Lumidek (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Comenius20.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Comenius20.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a pity if it were deleted because I am sure that no one would object from the copyright viewpoint and it's sad that the data about the past are being lost from the public awareness in this way but I can't fight the windmills. --Lumidek (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Exact science


The article Exact science has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Entirely Unsourced, Tagged since 2007, Stub, Either a one paragraph personal observation/definition of term.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, if some "important" editors of Wikipedia think that there shouldn't be a definition of an "exact science" in their encyclopedia, it is their right, much like it is the right of the other people to conclude that these editors are uneducated morons. --Lumidek (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Non rigorous results
Hello I wonder if you would like to comment at Talk:Edward Witten/Archive1. Solomon7968 02:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I know something on it but I hope that there are users around who know more about it than I do and follow this part of his work carefully. Lumidek (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have seen your assessment of the Millennium Prize Problems and your this reply but so far as I can tell there is no satisfactory answer on the Internet at least why the mass gap problem is so fundamental to QFT. As an expert on related topics (as per your Wikipedia page) I would still like to hear your reply (hope this doesn't come across as rude). Solomon7968 06:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not rude at all but I really don't know how to contribute to that discussion. Witten has gotten a Fields medal and he may interact with mathematicians very well but he is still primarily a physicist so many argumentations he makes are only rigorous from the physicists' viewpoint. The mass gap may be basically proven at some level of physics, to the extent that we feel certain it's true, but there's no rigorous mathematical proof on the market. Witten has other results on different topics of the same rigor status. Lumidek (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. The five results Dan Freed and Karen Uhlenbeck mentions are (apart from the aforementioned mass gap problem): cluster decomposition, spontaneous symmetry breaking, asymptotic freedom, and gluino condensation. The mass gap problem is linked from the List of unsolved problems in physics page but the rest four aren't. What I am looking for is reliable sources (by Wikipedia standards) that these results are rigorous by physics standards but not by mathematics standards. This sort of info (with sources) could be useful to potential physics graduate students. Are there such sources? And do you have in mind any other results (rigorous by physics standards but not by mathematics standards) NOT mentioned here? Solomon7968 09:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dollar voting


The article Dollar voting has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Makes no sense at all. Article started off as somethimng else, now the intro suggests it is something akin to public budgets, the next section swutches over to consumers. No sources."

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 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 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. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vlastimil Dlab


The article Vlastimil Dlab has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Kb.au (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

PROD notice
Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I proposed a file you uploaded for deletion per WP:PROD. The file is File:Klaus-harvard-2005-small.jpg which I think is a picture of Václav Klaus (let me know if I'm mistaken). I'm sure the file was highly useful at the time you uploaded it over a decade ago, but now it's not being used and Commons has over a hundred higher res photos of the guy. You know the drill: if you'd like to contest the deletion, just remove the tag. If you have questions or concerns I'm happy to talk about it. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:European Conservatives and Reformists Group - map.svg


The file File:European Conservatives and Reformists Group - map.svg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned map."

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Read
WP:BLP. And, refrain from edit-warring. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't written anything about any living people for a very long time. The two names I mentioned are dead people because they have been officially declared suicide bombers by the local authorities. --Lumidek (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nude weather reports


A tag has been placed on Nude weather reports requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. SunCrow (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nude weather reports


The article Nude weather reports has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "article subject lacks notability"

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 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 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. SunCrow (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jan Marsalek


The article Jan Marsalek has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Threshold effect for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Threshold effect 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 Articles for deletion/Threshold effect until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Left-wing fascism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Left-wing fascism 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 Articles for deletion/Left-wing fascism& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  14:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of special relativity and speed of light
It's in my sandbox and as a professional, you may have something so say. I wanted to summarize the great job that User:D.H and others have done about the history of SR; I hope it's complementary to the timeline of gravitational physics and relativity and to timeline of luminiferous aether. I've already contacted about it some historians of Physics like Norton, Janssen, Stachel, Brown, Renn, Gutfreund and Wróblewski; and I'm still confused about some pieces of the story like Kaufmann's experiments, Wigner rotation and Thomas precession. Feel free to elaborate. --Tarnoob (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Arvind Rajaraman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arvind Rajaraman 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 Articles for deletion/Arvind Rajaraman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.  scope_creep Talk  23:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:NationalMuseumPragueMotl.JPG


The file File:NationalMuseumPragueMotl.JPG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused, low quality, replaceable with files at c:Category:National Museum in Prague (main building)."

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 13:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Drogerie moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Drogerie. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Model building (particle physics)
Hello, Lumidek. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Model building (particle physics), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Drogerie
Hello, Lumidek. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Drogerie, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Drogerie


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

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)