User talk:Stephen William Wynn

Recent edits to Martin Wheatley
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! bender235 (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Financial Conduct Authority
Hi, Stephen. I have concerns about your additions to Financial Conduct Authority, and have reverted the article back to what it looked like on 7 July 2016. I'm sorry, but I hope you understand. Opinions can only be added to Wikipedia in conformance with the due weight policy, and if they have been expressed by a reliable secondary source. We can't editorialise, or draw our own conclusions from primary sources. And that's what you do when you say things like "So the strategic objective of the FCA should be to protect consumers from unfair practices of providers", or "So now 'the protection of consumers' has become optional", and a good deal more. The section in green below is for example extremely argumentative from beginning to end:

Various people such as Bully-Banks say that the FCA is captured by the industry. This must have been the intention when it was set up, because Martin Wheatley was appointed CEO after his responsibility for the minibond scandal in Hong Kong. The Financial Services Authority was also set up so that it was captured by the industry. The Treasury is deliberately setting up regulators so they are controlled by the industry, whilst saying they are independent. With the result that the industry is put in charge of regulating its own conduct, and what "works well" is "fair" and "balanced" is decided by the industry - such as the Redress Scheme for interest rate swaps mis-selling. SMEs say it is working badly, is unfair, unbalanced and wrong. The FCA says it is right. So the difference right and wrong is also being decided by the industry.

That text starts from a statement made by the activist website Bully-Banks, and draws conclusions from it with a reference to a Blogspot blog, which is about as far as you can get from a reliable third-party source. (Quite apart from being, a little surprisingly, in Chinese. Non-English sources are acceptable, but only if there's no English source of equal quality.)

I'm sorry if my revert has meant also removing some well-sourced neutral information that you have added. I'm far from a specialist in the subject (which you appear to be) and it's beyond me to sort out any good information in your edits from the dominant editorialising and original research. Please feel free to put back the first, but not the second. And please first study the policies Neutral point of view and, especially, No original research. Regards, Bishonen &#124; talk 13:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC).

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Relativistic notation
Hi. I have seen a few edits and some talk page activity that indicates that you should read up on relativistic notation, because you don't understand it. Due to this, you draw incorrect conclusions that you incorporate into the articles. In the meanwhile, I urge you to self-revert your edits in the articles (that have not already been reverted). This applies to all your edits this year. For the notation, you could see e. g. pages 2–4 here.YohanN7 (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the page on the Lorenz gauge condition does not understand relativistic notation, because their definition is wrong. As I explain in Talk.

Relativistic notation II
This is the second time I have to revert your changes to Lorenz_gauge_condition. Please note that Wikipedia allows no original research, cf. No_original_research, so unless you can cite appropriate sources that support your assertion that the Lorenz gauge condition is wrong, there is no encylopedic reason to edit your (wrong) understanding into this article. 2A01:5C0:16:791:28D3:1701:49FC:C163 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Relativistic notation III
A four-vector space has a signature, either (-+++) or (+---). This produces a minus sign or signs, which you have left out. This is additional to, or instead of, the Einstein summation convention. We no longer have a straight sum. We sometimes have a minus. I derive the Lorenz gauge condition at:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/341326/the-definition-of-the-lorenz-gauge-c

I gave a reference:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sZ1-G4hQgIIC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=%22lorentz+divergence%22&source=bl&ots=an9RN8T5t3&sig=TGpqKb5gYOT4PmcPgveZgHKEUlc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4hImczuXUAhUOYlAKHfBuCQ8Q6AEINzAE#v=onepage&q=%22lorentz%20divergence%22&f=false

This refers to the Lorentz divergence. As it explains, the definition of the Lorenz gauge condition is that the Lorentz divergence is zero.

I have further discussion under Lorentz invariance in Talk on the main Article page.

October 2017
Your recent editing history at Lorenz gauge condition shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take this issue to the article talk page and establish a consensus--Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned at WT:PHYS
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Si`gning your comments with four tildes
As you may know, you are supposed to sign your comments using four tildes "~". You said that you could not find it on your keyboard. On my keyboard (which maybe different or not in this respect), the tilde is located in the upper left corner just under the escape key. It is the shifted version of the backwards apostrophe which is just to the left of the digit "1". I hope that this helps. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

`¬¬¬¬ Stephen William Wynn (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that it did not work for you. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sign of electric potential relative to magnetic potential
As I said (in other words, perhaps less clearly) at the physics project talk page, the four-vector magnetic potential is
 * $$ A_0 = - \phi $$ and $$ ( A_1, A_2 , A_3 ) = \mathbf{A} $$.

And yet you keep insisting that the time component is $$ + \phi $$. Why? JRSpriggs (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You are using lower indices/subscripts for A. I thought we had agreed to use upper indices. Secondly where does your $$-\phi$$ come from? Looking at electromagnetic four-potential there is a $$+\phi$$:
 * $$A^\alpha = \left( \phi / c, \mathbf{A} \right)\,\!$$ || $$A^\alpha = (\phi, \mathbf{A})$$ Stephen William Wynn (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I wanted to talk to you here, away from the physics project talk page, because I did not want to get into an argument with the other people in the project. My opinions are definite and distinct from theirs. I think that there are errors (or confusing statements) in many of our articles and their sources.
 * I did not agree that the potential four-vector should be contravariant. On the contrary, it must be covariant. The three-vector $$\mathbf{A}$$ is defined by
 * $$\mathbf{B} = \nabla \times \mathbf{A} $$.
 * Look at the x component for example
 * $$B_1 = F_{2 3} = \frac{\partial A_3}{\partial x^2} - \frac{\partial A_2}{\partial x^3}$$.
 * The first term on the right side is covariant in the index 2, so the second term must also be covariant in the index 2. Similarly the second term is covariant in the index 3, so the first term must be covariant in the index 3. Thus the components of the three-vector $$\mathbf{A}$$ must be covariant. (Notice that B_1 is actually F_23 and thus covariant in both 2 and 3, but neither covariant nor contravariant in index 1.)
 * Following this pattern, we get
 * $$E_1 = F_{1 0} = \frac{\partial A_0}{\partial x^1} - \frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x^0}$$.
 * Comparing this with
 * $$\mathbf{E} = -\nabla\phi - \frac{ \partial \mathbf{A} }{ \partial t }$$,
 * $$E_1 = - \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x^1} - \frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x^0}$$,
 * we see that $$- \phi = A_0$$. So our article electromagnetic four-potential is simply wrong. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC) (corrected JRSpriggs (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC))

I am thinking about your post. In the meantime I would like to remark that on the physics talk page TR is adamant that A is contravariant. But then $$-\frac{\partial\mathbf{A}}{\partial t}$$ is contravariant. But  $$-\nabla\phi $$ is covariant. So we are adding a covariant vector to a contravariant vector, which does not seem to make sense.


 * $$\mathbf{E} = -\nabla\phi - \frac{ \partial \mathbf{A} }{ \partial t }$$

Stephen William Wynn (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You are correct. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I just created a page with the conventions which I personally use for electromagnetism. Please see User:JRSpriggs/EM in GR. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The definition of E should be skew-symmetric following the electromagnetic tensor. But


 * $$\mathbf{E} = -\nabla\phi - \frac{ \partial \mathbf{A} }{ \partial t }$$

is not.


 * $$\mathbf{E} = -\nabla\phi + \frac{ \partial \mathbf{A} }{ \partial t }$$

is. Therefore we have to redefine E. I showed on physicsstackexchange at:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342533/why-is-vece-defined-as-nabla-phi-partial-veca-partial-t

that this comes from making the four-potential covariant, and there are various further consequences. Starting with the Lorenz gauge condition on Wikipedia is wrong.

In your post why are you using upper indices for x? We should surely try to steer clear of upper indices since it implies contravariance. I don't think it is possible to change the sign of $$\phi$$ because it is used in the basic definition of E.

You say: "Following this pattern, we get
 * $$E_1 = F_{1 0} = \frac{\partial A_0}{\partial x^1} - \frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x^0}$$.::$$\mathbf{E} = -\nabla\phi - \frac{ \partial \mathbf{A} }{ \partial t }$$"

Comparing this with

But I am saying
 * $$\mathbf{E} = -\nabla\phi - \frac{ \partial \mathbf{A} }{ \partial t }$$

is wrong, should be:
 * $$\mathbf{E} = -\nabla\phi + \frac{ \partial \mathbf{A} }{ \partial t }$$

We seem to have both noticed the same anomaly, the definition of E is incompatible with the electromagnetic tensor. It seems you are correcting it by changing the sign of $$\phi$$ and I am instead changing the sign of A.

In electromagnetic tensor E and B are defined in terms of A using lower indices for A, starting with:


 * $$F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu.$$

This implies that we are not the only people who consider A to be covariant. TR says: "The vector formulation of Maxwell's equations uses exclusively contravariant vectors." Perhaps he is joking. Stephen William Wynn (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No, you are jumping to conclusions again.
 * E is not a tensor, it is just a fragment of the tensor F&mu;&nu; . It makes no sense to speak of whether E is skew-symmetric or not. F&mu;&nu; IS skew-symmetric, but that has no bearing on the question of whether &phi; is &minus;A0 or +A0. There is no incompatibility of the "definition of E" with "the electromagnetic tensor".
 * Strictly speaking, x&alpha; is not a vector in curved space. However, dx&alpha; IS a contravariant vector, so the raised index is appropriate (since we have to have an index somewhere).
 * I do not know what TR's reasoning is, but his conclusion is wrong on that point. Maxwell's equations are not exclusively in contravariant vectors. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You say:

"$$E_1 = F_{1 0} = \frac{\partial A_0}{\partial x^1} - \frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x^0}$$.
 * Comparing this with
 * $$\mathbf{E} = -\nabla\phi - \frac{ \partial \mathbf{A} }{ \partial t }$$,
 * $$E_1 = - \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x^1} - \frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x^0}$$,
 * we see that $$- \phi = A_0$$"

But $$E_1=F_{0 1}$$

Since it says on Wikipedia under electromagnetic tensor


 * $$E_i = c F_{0i},$$

so putting $$\mu = 0$$:$$ \nu = 1$$ in


 * $$F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu.$$

$$E_1 = F_{0 1} = \frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x^0 } - \frac{\partial A_0}{\partial x^1}$$

We can see we need to leave $$\phi$$ unchanged and change the sign of A. Stephen William Wynn (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I give up. You are beyond my ability to help you. Goodbye. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry you are saying goodbye. I have erased part of my post. Stephen William Wynn (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)