User talk:Maschen/Archive 3

Unacceptable behavior
Maschen, you have recently used personal attacks, for example the phrase "bastard lunatic", in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. This is unacceptable behavior. Please read the linked section and the rest of the talk page guidelines. There is no excuse for such language and it is distressing for the rest of us who are reading the talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine, but the argument is dead. As F=q(E+v^B) said, apologies + it'll not occur again. Maschen (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

SVG for [[file:Basis.gif]] PLEASE!!!
Please... pretty please you would not mind to re-draw in SVG form? =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 20:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, what do we have here? Fine, will do. Maschen (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please come here!! Whatever users Rschwieb and Quondum tell you, please listen! They will be recommendations for the image so don't upload it yet! F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. Maschen (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fast followup question
A answer you gave earlier seemed to point only to the rotation of Earth as ruining surface dwellers' chances of being inertial. If a surface dweller was on an Earthlike planet which (if possible) were not rotating with respect to the universe, then would the surface dweller be an inertial object? Thanks! Rschwieb (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A request
I sincerely appreciate your help with articles, and the very nice diagrams that you have provided for articles that I have myself been working on. I am now disturbed about the Uncertainty Principle article because its intended audience should be the average well-informed reader (and not somebody who learned about it in first-year physics and has been made to get really acquainted with all the details in an upper-division course. I said some rather impolitic things, and somebody else has suggested that we use a diagram similar to the one that appears in http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html#c2 because I mentioned that article as one of a few that do a better job than the current Wikipedia article. I don't think we can just steal the diagram, but there is no copyright on ideas (especially when they didn't belong to the article writer to begin with). Can you see some way to graphically explain the same idea, or maybe even do that article one better somehow?

Thanks.P0M (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant the diagram that comes right after the words: '"position" of the electron is completely uncertain.'

Maybe a way could be devised that would show the highly localized waveform being "grown" out of the superpositioning of many waveforms?P0M (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page, sorry... Maschen (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you've been discussing here. I added some more suggestions at Talk:Uncertainty_principle. The function u(x,t) from wave packet would be very helpful there and here. The new figure you made seems to follow P0M's suggestion. I was concerned that it looked really busy, though. Maybe you could build the packet in the form of a movie, one plane wave at a time? It's not obvious how the packet emerges as a sum of the individual plane waves when they're all in a mess on the same plot. Teply (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You wrote here while I was replying there... Maschen (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Teply beat me to it. A movie was what I had in mind, too. Maybe there could be four boxes that meet at the center to form a "+". In frame one of the movie a sine wave appears in the upper left. In frame two it moves to the upper right, and then immediately falls to the bottom right. In frame three a second sine wave appears in the upper left. In frame four it moves to the upper right and then falls immediately. Then in the bottom right there is a new wave form consisting of the addition of waves one and two. Then you do a few more...
 * Do you ever visualize things very nicely in a dream and wish that when you awake you could just push "save" and a little CD-ROM would pop out of your mouth? :-)
 * Thanks for your help.P0M (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think I should have waited until I was sure you are finished with final exams before mentioning anything about new images. P0M (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is hard to find slots of time, as it takes me a long duration just to create something simple, while everyone else can create fantastic images in zero time. Although PLEASE do not feel guilty! - given that you did not know in the first place it's NOT your fault at all. =)


 * Also - any future discussion on the uncertainty principle should be kept at the talk page (you knew that, but just to make sure). Thanks - both of you. Maschen (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Unhappy to see you go
I hope you will not stay away for a long time.

My own experience with Wikipedia has been that some of my fellow contributors have sought to dominate others. I hope that you have not suffered from people whose egos have control of them. (I have not followed your edits other than when we have been working on the same pages.) My only successful strategy for dealing with people who insist on their own stuff is to get the facts, get the citations, and at the same time keep my own ego from getting in the way and defeating me. By a long and circuitous route I learned of a method. I mutter to myself, "Ego, ego, ego..." and just keep doing it as I watch my ego melt away. Weird, but it works. Best Wishes! P0M (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Unhappy, too, to see you left Wikipedia after your were edits were criticized, which actually happened in an entirely inappropriate manner. Now-blocked User:Hublolly spread abusive edits all over Wikipedia, first anonymously as IP, then sockpuppeting from F=q(E+v^B)'s account (apparently hijacking the account from the same computer) during the time span of 5 July 2012 21:11 to 10 July 2012 19:46. So, this is just to say: if you felt that your edits were aggressively criticized and reverted, you were perfectly right, and it was the person doing that who was wrong, not you. Hope you're okay, and take it easy, --Chris Howard (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe you two misunderstood? I was talking about my entire history of previously useless contributions, not just the more recent attacks by this "Hublolly". I havn't been on WP for months, so looked around recently to see what happened, it’s strange... but I have no concern for this past incident.


 * Thanks both of you for your understanding encouragement, it’s very good of you. I changed my mind because of that, so thanks again. Maschen (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote my words long before the Hublolly incident. I haven't followed all of your contributions, but I never found any of the contributions I did see to be "useless." P0M (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Calculus book
I had three calculus teachers my first year at university, when I was still a physics major. The first one did problems on the board as fast as her hand could move, asked, "Does everyone understand?" The engineering students in the first row would nod their heads, and she would go on to the next problem. The third one was the head of the math department, and that trimester was not much better than the first trimester. In between there was somebody who, I think, was finishing up his Ph.D. dissertation. He was from S. America somewhere and had a definite accent. However, his teaching was marvelous. He taught us how to think about math. He almost never did problems. At the end of the week, about ten minutes before the end of class, he would give us a problem to work on. It would look so difficult that I would anticipate spending the weekend on it. Then he would relent and show us how to do the problem in our heads.

I greatly regret that this teacher returned to S. America and that he never wrote an elementary calculus textbook.

Do you have or know about the textbook that he could have written? The textbooks that I have seen appear to have been written to prove to other calculus teachers that they know how to write for the appreciation of teachers and editors.

In other words, what is the best calculus textbook available for someone whose math foundation was laid by amateurs? (My high school math teachers did it all by rote.)

Thanks. P0M (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! Hmm, maybe
 * Teach yourself: Calculus, Paul Abbot,
 * Calculus, M. Spivak,
 * Calculus, A complete course, R. Adams, or
 * Calculus, Schaum's outlines, F. Ayres, E. Mendelson,
 * all in the older editions? Sorry if these are not the correct books but they're the only ones I can think of... Maschen (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. P0M (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. Are these what you were actually looking for? Maschen (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll have to track them down and have a look. By the way, one of the early gestalt psychologists has a great book entitled Productive Thinking. His name is Max Wertheimer. You might enjoy it. P0M (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will look into this later. Maschen (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

template positioning
I remember putting it there so that it would use the same horizontal space as the table of contents, therefore economizing the space used. The change you made in 'module' though seems OK. In fact, the "bunching up" of the lead caused by putting the template higher is probably a good thing because the lead is short. My previous ideas to conserve space are now coming into contact with what I am learning about using whitespace. Anyhow, I just wanted to share my thoughts, and that edit seems OK! Rschwieb (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries. Maschen (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi
Probably you, too, should take your very good advice and disengage with Incnis Mrsi -- at the moment, s/he is engaging in a whole lot of unpleasant ranting, but seems not to be causing any damage (well, except to civility, but engaging on that point doesn't seem to help in general). I suggest waiting a day or two and keeping an eye on things. Hopefully the absurdly unpleasant attitude will fade. --JBL (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes that's true. I was planning on staying out of it after this last post, but then became carried away as soon as he latched onto Anita5192 at talk:square number and talk:square (algebra). Apologies. I haven’t the interest anyway anymore. Maschen (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Polynomial greatest common divisor
Sorry for the edit conflicts and thank you for the clean up. I'll not edit again the article today; Thus you can continue the clean up. D.Lazard (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks for your hard work. Maschen (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Eqn of motion
Thanks for the kind words. It is a little odd that our paths haven't crossed before, given the amount of overlap in subject matter, although I tend to take long breaks from editing Wikipedia. Looking through your user page I do recognize some of the diagrams. I'll take a look at equations of motion and probably clean up the formatting a little; I don't usually have the stamina for major rewrites or diagrams. I suspect you already have a lot of diagram-making on your plate, but some day you might enjoy going through dipole antenna, where there a lot of images that need svg conversion (and colorization/relabeling, etc). I'm slowly going through the text of the article (which you of course are welcome to do as well). Zueignung (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, dipole antenna needs work, there are a couple of images that have been translated to SVG although the rest haven’t. as you say they mainly need conversion, so it's not as desperate as creating new ones for now. I'd be happy for suggestions from yourself or any editor of that article when I get there...


 * About equations of motion, I added a section on the geodesic equation and deviation, since the latter describes the motion of masses in curved spacetime, else most of my work is done for that article. Maschen (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Dispute resolution noticeboard|Talk:Pendulum]]". Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  19:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Best. Maschen (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Dimanalysis


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. JetBlast (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Give me a chance!! I just started it now and it will be a real template to remove monotonous typing of dimensions!! Maschen (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
JetBlast (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
JetBlast (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dirac equation and 4-th order PDE
Dear Maschen,

You deleted the paragraph, and I have restored it (without editor's signature). I gave the explanation at the Talk of the article (Dirac equation).

Thank you Akhmeteli (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, replied. Maschen (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What decade are you in? Everyone is in 2010s!? Exploding colours!!!
You Your pic pictures are like the 1960s-1990s!! WHY?? Why!? They're blinding with e very colour(ful) of every (like) rainbows!!!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.225.176 (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I find this comment distinctly unconstructive. WP is not a fashion forum, and mostly your choice of colours is pleasing and serves to illustrate the point well; obviously you can't expect to please everyone all of the time. — Quondum 16:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, for one with an IP address in the middle of England, his grammar and punctuation are an affront to blind most people literate in English... That is only an observation on top of the invalidity of the complaint... Rschwieb (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Take it easy dudes!..... I'm sorry I never meant to cause any offense or complain, the diagrams do look good and if they are for physics/maths then ace! (I'm no expert in these subjects). Just stumbled on one, then another, and they were explosivley in bright colours!! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.225.82 (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I calmed down the previous tone of mine. Why does this "sinebot" keep addiong messages? 147.188.225.82 (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC) ..sorry, I'll stop now just corrected grammer/spelling. 147.188.225.82 (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

...Ok... To the IP: I'm not actually offended and apologize if the colours disturb you, I just like to use strong colours or black/white. Thanks anyway Rschwieb and Quondum. Maschen (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation of "n-vector"
Your recent edit at Tensor highlights a shortcoming of the article Multivector. A multivector is a linear combination of k-vectors for any combination of different k, and a k-vector is a linear combination of k-blades (the last two not being synonymous). In tensor language, a k-vector is a tensor of type (k,0) that is fully antisymmetric, whereas a k-blade can be expressed as the fully antisymmetric part of the tensor product of k individual vectors (or equivalently, a k-vector of rank 1); not quite the same thing. — Quondum 21:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My bad... Thanks for fixing it up... Maschen (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really a "bad", perhaps just me pushing an agenda. The term multivector does appear to be used in some contexts (e.g. tensors) to mean homogeneous multivector as you used it, probably mainly for tensors, where formal sums of tensors of different orders are usually not considered (but see Tensor algebra). I find this variation of use of terminology across subdisciplines confusing and expect it to confuse others.  Trying to homogenize it across articles is not easy.  I feel however, that an encyclopedia should either try for consistency of terminology across disciplines, or highlight the specific meaning.  — Quondum 11:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

ISO and SI in physics notation
Thanks for the notification. I added a comment. I had no idea this would be such a problem. Frankly, I noticed that there seemed to inconsistency in many of the articles on classical mechanics--within and between the articles. So I started applying the ISO 31 standard. The standard, however, is a little vague on how to distiguish scalars from vectors or tensors. Dger (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, and I apologize for any of my previous hostility towards you. Best, Maschen (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Tweak to diagrams at GA
Would it be possible to put a prime on the reflected vector names in the two diagrams under Geometric algebra? Specifically "c′ =" for the differences of the parallel and orthogonal parts. A more minor point: could you also use non-bold italic vector names for consistency with the article and general usage in GA? — Quondum 08:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem - will do later (can't right now). Thanks, Maschen (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Done - though I'll hold off de-bolding and re-italicizing the other images until further modifications are suggested, so that all changes can be done in one go. Maschen (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops, too many primes now. There should only be one prime in total per diagram. Otherwise with the the signs as they are, it does not make sense. It should be: c′ = c⊥m − cundefined, and c′ = cundefined − c⊥n. — Quondum 20:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the primes should be on the reflected vectors, apologies for that... Maschen (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, all fixed now. — Quondum 09:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi
I saw your message link on my talk page, which related to my questions about math textbooks, etc. I hope you can find Max Wertheimer's book somewhere. He was one of the early gestalt psychologists. His son, Michael, was teaching physics at the University of Colorado when I started my teaching career. I've been busy trying to get a book together on the ways that humans can regain autonomy that has been lost to ill-considered conditioning done to them in infancy and childhood. That job means trying to translate the Zhuang Zi (occasionally to get away from mistranslations in others' work, but more generally so as to have a reasonably good translation that does not involve me in copyright issues. What I have to say about the text is mostly intended to show how that old Chinese philosopher had some good ideas about preconceptions, misconceptions, prejudices, etc., and how to root them out if they are locked into a tight matrix of supporting beliefs. So I haven't been doing much with math, unfortunately. I'm not sure whether I've responded sufficiently. Let me know if you have questions. P0M (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Umm, that was a long time ago... Apologies, I haven’t come around to finding those psychology books. I'm not sure what exactly you're asking me or saying here though!? Maschen (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnetic dipole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta function (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Relativity diagrams
Hello Maschen. I like the diagrams you have drawn for Lorentz transformation and Orthogonality and rotation. The posting at orthogonality has been edited to make your diagram more relevant, since perpendicularity was the only type of orthogonality that had been defined. I'm writing to see if this program of diagrams to explain relativity might include an assist at conjugate diameters. The image there only says what the conjugate diameters of the hyperbolas are in the caption. How much better it would be with illustrated conjugate diameters like axes x' and t' in your Lorentz transformation diagrams.Rgdboer (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words and constructive feedback. For the hyperbolic conjugate diameters, do you mean axes like below (these are in Lorentz transformation):


 * That is, to draw the axes and the space more fully? I'd be happy to make any changes. Maschen (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these diagrams have space and time axes that form conjugate diameters of the conjugate hyperbolas illustrated. But the black arrow, purple parallelogram, and orange rectangle are distractions for the purposes of the conjugate diameters article, otherwise it is better than the current diagram showing only conjugate hyperbolas and axes of symmetry.Rgdboer (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I should have mentioned that the parallelograms etc are not to be included for the orthogonality diagrams. I'll get round to extending the images soon. Maschen (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Done...
 * Orthogonality and rotation.svg (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)]]

Wonderful Maschen. The right side will serve perfectly for conjugate diameters. Another need is in squeeze mapping where two hyperbolic sectors of equal area could make a useful illustration. A sector is standard position of area less than half, and another squeezed by 3/2 should do.Rgdboer (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Should be easy - I'll get to it... Maschen (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied at Talk:Squeeze mapping, let's keep the discussion there. Maschen (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your fine diagrams have been posted in Conjugate diameters and Squeeze mapping. May I ask for just one more graphic, the commutative diagram found in Split-complex number ? A standard rectangle is used where the corners and sides need interpretation in text. How much better would be a diagram with correct labels. The vertical maps are the transformation labeled S. The action of the hyperbolic versor can be written as · e^{br}. The upper corners, the split-complex number plane, could be D as it is also called "double numbers". Perhaps the squeeze mapping could be &sigma;. Thank you very much for the displays.Rgdboer (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure - let's take this to the talk page. Maschen (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your relativity diagrams have made such a positive difference to the articles. A further need at hyperbolic triangle has come to mind. This article supports the foundations of hyperbolic functions that are used so much in special relativity. The article has a description of a hyperbolic triangle with base on y = x, but the diagram is just the old hyperbolic sector used elsewhere. This diagram appears in many sources but not yet in our project. It is important to show the analogy with sine and cosine as projections from the unit circle to the axes. The required diagram needs a perpendicular projection from a point on y = 1/x to the diagonal y = x. Then the cosh and sinh of the hyperbolic angle correspond to root 2 times the length of triangle base and "altitude", respectively.Rgdboer (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll get to it soon, can't right now. Best, Maschen (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Taken to the talk page. Maschen (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting now to hyperbolic angle itself, if you look the image is just the old hyperbolic sector with irrelevant labels. The article develops both area and projective properties that define the parameter of hyperbolic angle. Your work has clarified other articles that use the concept, and the basic article is poorly served. Could you provide an informative illustration that might help a student clicking on to the article for the first look ?Rgdboer (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Should be easy - I'll just tweak the diagram just drawn! Maschen (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Taken to talk:hyperbolic angle. Maschen (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

How generous of you! Thanks! Merry Christmas! ^_^ M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 11:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Contact
Hi Maschen: I was wondering if you would be willing to email me through wiki mail, or else activate your own wiki mail option. From time to time it is convenient to have a direct line of contact. See you around! Rschwieb (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem! Done. Maschen (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Partial closure?
Maschen, did you mean to close just one part of the physics discussion? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought you meant all of it... M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 19:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I did, but you just closed response 3. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok - now they're all over the thermodynamics discussion. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 19:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! RockMagnetist (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Valentine Bargmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantum theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dirac equation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)