User talk:Tomatoman

NowCommons: File:Ion qc electrodes.png
File:Ion qc electrodes.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ion qc electrodes.png. 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) 15:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oxford
Thanx for fixing the time zones on Oxford; I didn't look at it too closely - my main concern was putting right what Dr. Universe messed up. I tried to go back to the last version before he started messing (ie your revision as of 10:05, 2 October 2009), and add in what I believe Dr. Universe wanted. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries - it just came to my attention after your edit (to be fair I'm not sure what went on before that, so I hope I didn't inadvertently sabotage your efforts) and I figured I ought to put it in. Tomatoman (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly looks better! My efforts were concerned first with restoring the Greenwich Mean Time field lost by Dr. Universe, and then putting in the field which I believe he wanted - ie Oxonian (valid) instead of Oxonian (invalid). You did no sabotage. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well ...
You have the patience of a saint, sir! Thanks for keeping a cool head throughout - A l is o n  ❤ 01:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not doing so badly yourself...*sigh* Tomatoman (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So Alison someone who says they are embarassed by an entire nation because of what they deem to be the disagreeable actions of one member of that nation is in your opion keeping a cool head? Very neutral conclusion.--Monshuai (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Only if you don't conflate both actions, as you have done here :) One can keep a cool head regardless of your alleged embarrassment or otherwise - A l is o n  ❤ 08:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes you're right, one can keep a cool head while judging a nation of millions. The question is, why did you thank him for doing so? We all know what judging entire nations is... But not only did you thank him for it, you called him a saint!--Monshuai (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't thank him for "keep[ing] a cool head while judging a nation of millions". That's your conflation, not mine - A l is o n  ❤ 09:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Alison I'm Janelle from the B-A discussion. Not to jump in or anything, but the thing is you didn't critize tomatoman for what he said either. I am offended by that. There is no need for monshui to conflate anything, as an admin you either encourage or discourage certain types of behaviour. While warning monshuai to not interpret user comments a certain way, you have not warned tomatoman to not judge or stereotype a entire nation a certain way. Far from being neutral, it seems you've taken a side.--Janelle4elle (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Janelle. I hereby admonish you, Tomatoman, for criticizing an entire nation when you said you were almost ashamed to be Bulgarian. Shame upon you, sir, for making such a scurrilous comment!! - A l is o n  ❤ 03:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation of your text on Monshuai's page
Hi Tomatoman: I have made a request of you on Monshuai's page. Thanks for your help. Bielle (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is of course fully objective to call Atanasoff 'of Bulgarian origin'." I disagree that it would be accurate.  "Origin" indicates to me that the person came from that country, i.e., was born there and immigrated elsewhere.  "Of Bulgarian descent" might be more accurate, but it's still only a half-truth.  He wasn't fully of Bulgarian descent. Robert K S (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I wasn't thinking very carefully about the wording. Tomatoman (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyperfine structure
Hi,

I wish to clarify the following points.

''secondly, as far as I'm aware there is no such thing as the "mass effect". ''

It is mentioned in the article that the hyperfine interaction is collections of weak interactions between the nucleus and the electrons. The interaction which cause the energy of the levels to shift by some factors are primarily due to two reasons:

1) The difference in the number of nucleons in various different species of the same elements. They are as, you would know isotopes of the elements. This is the Mass effect.

2) The hyperfine interaction which results from the difference in the charge distribution between nuclei of the same element is called the Volume effect.

Having that clarified, I do want to confess that it could have been written in a better and more specific way.

As far the information in the second para is concerned, it was meant to inform the reader that while hyperfine interaction is actually a group of effects, the name is now mainly associated with the splitting of energy levels. It also mentions which particular interaction the article is referring to i.e. the magnetic dipole moment and the electric quadruple moment. Hence the lines,

"The term Hyperfine interaction, now a days, is generally referred to the interaction of the nuclear magnetic dipole moment and the electric quadruple moment of the nucleus with the externals electrons within the atoms as well as ions. . This type of hyperfine interaction causes the electronic levels to split into several levels."

The following line was just to explain the point further:

"Due to this, a single spectral line which, generally (under low resolution), appears to be a single line is actually a group of fine lines with very minute separation between them."

In atoms hyperfine structure is due to the energy of the nuclear magnetic dipole moment in the magnetic field generated by the electrons and the energy of the nuclear electric quadrupole moment in the electric field gradient due to the distribution of charge within the atom.

Electric quadruple moment is caused by the non-spherical distribution of charges within the nucleus. The result of which is an electric field gradient experienced by the electrons around the nucleus.

Also, the Magnetic dipole moment is the interaction of the outer electrons with the field of the magnetic dipole at the origin. Not the other way round!!

Lastly, I do realize now that the content could have been written in a better way but the original content could be written in a better and more informative way, which I had tried to do in my article.

No hard feelings taken!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaznihal (talk • contribs) 11:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Shahbaznihal,
 * Thank you for your feedback. I would like to address the points you make above:
 * I think what initially puzzled me about your reference to the "Mass Effect" was the fact you capitalized the term, as if to indicate it is based on some theory outside of that governing hyperfine structure. I searched online but found nothing on it, which prompted my response. Of course, you were simply referring to the effect of nucleus mass on the hyperfine structure. That said, your sentence Hyperfine structure, with energy shifts typically orders of magnitude smaller than the fine structure, results from the variations found in the nuclear properties of various species of elements (e.g. isotopes). These types of hyperfine interaction is generally referred to as the Mass Effect. is not correct. Hyperfine structure itself is not due to the fact that different isotopes have different masses, it is due to the fact they have mass at all. Variations in isotope mass, as you are trying to point out, cause a shift in the hyperfine spectral lines - but you should not have overwritten the actual definition of hyperfine structure with your statement.
 * The first sentence of the article states The term hyperfine structure refers to a collection of different effects leading to small shifts and splittings in the energy levels of atoms, molecules and ions. Anyone who is reading this article and is interested in spectroscopy would know that an energy level splitting leads to spectral splitting. There is no reason to separately describe the effect on the spectra, especially not within the lede of the article. Moreover, you replaced a perfectly good description of the causes of hyperfine structure, with the statement that it is due to the interaction of the nuclear magnetic dipole moment and the electric quadruple moment of the nucleus with the externals electrons within the atoms as well as ions, which is very difficult to understand.
 * I think you misunderstood one of the sentences: the energy of the nuclear electric quadrupole moment in the electric field gradient due to the distribution of charge within the atom refers to the interaction of (1) the nucleus' quadrupole moment with (2) the field gradient due to electron shell distribution. There is no implication that the nucleus' quadrupole moment is due to the atomic charge distribution. There is, in fact, no mention of the nuclear charge distribution, as this is a secondary contributor and does not belong to the beginning of the article.
 * You say Also, the Magnetic dipole moment is the interaction of the outer electrons with the field of the magnetic dipole at the origin. Not the other way round!! I'm not sure what you mean. Magnetic dipole moment simply refers to the fact something is producing a magnetic field due to circulating current. The "interaction" is between the magnetic field produced by the electrons and the nuclear magnetic dipole moment. This interaction is mathematically described by a dot product, which is commutative, i.e. it makes no sense to claim that it goes "one way but not the other".
 * Finally, from your comments it's clear that a couple of things do need to be clarified in the article. I'll do my best to make some suitable additions - if you have any specific ideas, I'd be glad to include them! Let me know if you have any further concerns. Thanks again for writing! Tomatoman (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Photography page
No, caused no issue on my monitor, but it is widescreen. FWIW the resize brought it into line with the above images for me. Perhaps you have your user preferences set to 175px for images? The other images above it have no specific size set. I will remove the size specification, which gives the 250px for me - see how it looks for you. --jjron (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did notice that the images above had no explicit size set but didn't think much of it. It looks fine for me now, in line with the other thumbnails. I guess wikipedia's parser sets the size depending on the user's screen resolution - looking at the actual HTML that I'm served, I've got all the widths set to 182px, presumably yours are wider. Quirky! Thanks for helping sort it out! Tomatoman (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)