User talk:Ujm

Regarding the The Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics article - is this theory a well known one? Has its theories been peer reviewed? Is Ulrich Mohrhoff a prominent member of the scientific community? I only ask because there are no references in the article outside of those of Ulrich Mohrhoff. If the theory is a notable one then there needs to be some evidence of it, otherwise the article will inevitably run into problems of promoting original research. Remy B 12:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Remy B's concerns. Of the 8 referenced articles, one is a favorable review of the PIQM by Prof. Louis Marchildon of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, author of Quantum Mechanics: From Basic Principles to Numerical Methods and Applications (Springer, Berlin, 2002). In it Marchildon writes:

"In the interpretation he has put forth, Mohrhoff has shown us a thought provoking and original view of the way that, according to quantum mechanics, the world can be."

All of the seven cited articles by Mohrhoff were peer reviewed, otherwise they would not have been published. (Two in American Journal of Physics, two in Foundations of Physics, one in International Journal of Quantum Information, one in PRAMANA, the Journal of Physics of the Indian Academy of Science, and one (an invited contribution) in New Topics in Quantum Physics Research (Nova Science). Mohrhoff has many more peer-reviewed publications to his credit; the cited ones are only the most relevant to this Wikipedia article. William Conrad, an editor of American Vedantist, once asked the well-known Cornell physicist N. David Mermin for his opinion. On 9 Jul 2001 Conrad wrote to Mohrhoff:

"I got a lovely reply from David Mermin. He says your physics is sound and that he has been following your work for the last 4-5 years with great admiration."

Mermin had previously written a very favorable review of the first cited article, which was a response to an article by Mermin. You find the two papers listed at philosopher of physics Oliver Pooley's website (and of course in many other places). Mohrhoff's PIQM is often mentioned together with Mermin's "Ithaca interpretation of quantum mechanics". I wish Mermin, too, would contribute an article about his interpretation to Wikipedia. But this presents us with a dilemma: if somebody else writes this article, it probably won't be as competent and authoritative as if Mermin wrote it. And if Mermin writes it, it might be seen as promoting original research.

Besides, interest in the PIQM is not confined to the cognoscenti. From an interview by Pitchfork Media with American singer-songwriter Stephin Merritt:

"There are certainly original things to say. But I’m not sure that a pop song is the appropriate format to say them in. I just read online a few weeks ago, the Pondicherry Interpretation. It’s the physics… attitude of Ulrich Mohrhoff, who happens to teach in Pondicherry India. The Pondicherry Interpretation is startlingly original to me. So I said to myself, “my god, there’s a new way of thinking about the world!” The basic idea is that the time-space continuum only goes down so small. And beyond that, measuring is essentially meaningless." --Ujm 03:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Cookie cutter paradigm
I've added the "prod" template to the article Cookie cutter paradigm, 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:Cookie cutter paradigm. 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. SteveMcCluskey 00:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Local wiki viewer?
{helpme} Is there a program that I can run on my computer and that displays wiki source (input) as it shows up on wikipedia and/or wikibooks? Your help is greatly appreciated.--Ujm 03:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but your best chance is to ask at Village pump (technical).--Commander Keane 03:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Continua
Continua, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Continua satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Continua and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Continua during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hammer1980 ·talk 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Do as you please.--Ujm (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cookie cutter paradigm
I have nominated Cookie cutter paradigm, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Cookie cutter paradigm. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bm gub (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

radical alterations to the intro to quantum mechanics article
Hi,

A new editor has unilaterally made many drastic changes to the article Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics to which you have made contributions. I do not think that the changes are desirable. I do not want to start an edit war. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks. P0M (talk)

I guess I have looked at this talk page too late for useful feedback. Ujm (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ulrich Mohrhoff for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ulrich Mohrhoff 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/Ulrich Mohrhoff 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)