User talk:Zarniwoot

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123   (talk)  03:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

What the hell? I have seen penguin flying with my own eyes! How dare you call that a joke? I've sailed the seas my whole life and I've seen dozens of hundreds of penguins flying. Put that back! --Cuzandor 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have answered on your talk page. Zarniwoot 21:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll let this one pass, but only because my granddaughter told me they weren't flying penguins but sea parrots. --Cuzandor 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

19:03       23 April I have came in order defend my buddy Cuzandor. Hi how are you doing Cuzandor, how's the kids. Good? Everyone knows penguins flyies, don't you watch the Discovery Channel? -Anynimous, you know who I am Cuzandor
 * You're the one who told me they were penguins. I don't belive you anymore! --Cuzandor 22:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The certainty principle
Hi, Zarniwoot! I watch the strange "Certainty war" for quite a long time, and I cannot approve both sides. I asked Hryun to stop for some time and explained to him that it would be much better to get an active supporter of the CP (you) than to defeat an opponent (you). After studying some of your edits I think that you must be competent enough in physics to understand the certainty principle. That will just take less your time than you already spent in the war. What do you think? (Reply here.) Rcq 12:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Rcq!
 * Thank you for your message. And thanks for you effort to stop this "war" or "vandalism". I am not so much worried about my own editing time on this, as it takes under a second to revert the edits, but more concerned about all the other editors who put a real effort into improving things, just to see their work being reverted back and forword. It's just disrespectful.
 * I may be competent enough to understand the certainty principle, but I am afraid it will not make any real difference. It's not that I have anything against the C.P. In fact, I really hope it will break out and become something really big, as that would give me one h... of a story to tell. You may ask: Why wouldn't it make any difference on wikipedia? If I lived 80 years ago and had the chance to speak to Bohr and Heisenberg, I might have been able to follow their logic and reasoning. But I would not have been able to determine if this would in fact be the next big thing. After all, that took the combined physics societ years to decide. Even more importantly: If I evaluated the C.P. and found it to be spot on, what could guarantee to the readers of wikipedia that I was competent? That I didn't just include it because I "felt like it"? Nothing really! That's why wikipedia so strongly insist that its content is a secondary source of information, with the resulting implications, like verifiability and "no original research" and so on.. Of course, the reader could go to the original article and judge for himself, but to require that would really defy the purpose of an encyclopedia. My advice would be to wait. Wikipedia is a work in prograss and it's not 10% done. Physics takes time to evolve outside a narrow group of academics (as you of course know). If D A Arbatsky gets the physics world (or a significant part of it) to accept and value his work, it will all come to wikipedia by itself. What difference does 5 years make in that respect? Can we mention any physicist that would wait a shorter period of time to have his/her work generally accepted? Zarniwoot 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Zarniwoot! Rcq 15:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "it will all come to wikipedia by itself". Wrong! History is made by people. Nothing good happens "itself"! You take your own responsibility. Today you, personally, fight against the progress of humankind. "What difference does 5 years make in that respect?" You, personally, try to retard development of some part of physics for 5 years! Think about that.
 * I truely believe that, if you do not have your own opinion, whether the CP is good or bad, you must leave the battle.
 * If you feel that you are competent in physics, I ask you to study the CP yourself. Your opinion is important.
 * Do not care too much about sockpuppets here. The CP is somethig already known to very many people. Let us take Slicky, for example. As you can see, the first version of the article was really created by him. And look at what he wrote in 2004 (when there was no CP) on his user page. Do you still suspect him to be a sockpuppet? As far as I know, he is absolutely independent side.
 * In his second paper Arbatsky mentions real people, who helped him. Let us take A. Kleyn, for example. He is a notable American specialist in general relativity. Has personal site. Wrote many good papers on GR. Approved the CP. You can contact him, if you do not believe.
 * As regards, "general acceptance". As you know, official WP policy says that "Wikipedia is not democracy". For example, in the uncertainty principle we state, that "it is often confused with observer effect". Obviously, we recognize, that an expert point of view is more important for WP than common superstitions. Today people, who do not know the CP, cannot be considered experts.
 * As regards citations. Does anybody cite the paper of Heisenberg, when mentions the UP? In fact, almost never. Situation with the CP is the same: this is a must know for all physicists.
 * As regards the "war". I know Hryun. He is highly computer-proficient guy. He told me, that it would be interesting to him to write a program to automatically attack WP. Even if he will not defeat you in such a battle, what would happen with WP? Who competes here: ideas or computer programs? That is completely wrong way to solve the problem!


 * Why do you think CP belongs in Wikipedia? Zarniwoot 21:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Like you, I cannot predict whether the CP will become so well-known in the popular culture as the UP. Probably, not. But, as a physicist, I repeat again: the CP is a must know for all physicists. That is enough, I think. (2) I want to add about citations... In the uncertainty principle you can see a reference to the paper of Mandelshtam and Tamm. Ask Google, what he thinks about it. Surprized? And this is a really classical paper!.. Rcq 21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you document this claim? (BTW, I don't think I have mentioned popular culture?) Zarniwoot 23:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Which claim? (2) Though nobody talks plainly about popular culture here, I really suspect that this is the main reason, why opposition is so strong. Rcq 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That "the CP is a must know for all physicists". Who's opinion is it? (Popular culture has nothing to do with it. I'm sorry if I have been unclear on this). Zarniwoot 12:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? It is a reasonable question. Go to the uncertainty principle article. See the link to the article in SEP. Who wrote it? One of the authors, J. Uffink, is a notable Holland specialist in QM, and possibly a unique specialist in the history of the UP. He has his own site. Go there and download his paper "The rate of evolution of a quantum state". There he calls the paper of Mandelshtam and Tamm "classic but apparently little-read". Do you know, why this is so? The explanation is on Arbatsky site "...The disadvantage of such an approach is that the cosine in the inequality (9) appears as a result of some analytical trick while integrating of estimate function. Geometrical nature of the result remains hidden... Another, more serious, disadvantage is that Mandelshtam and Tamm studied time evolution of a quantum system, described by the Schrödinger equation. Abstract group-theory approach (realized, in particular, for the purposes of relativistic canonical quantization) was not known yet." Go also to the link in the uncertainty principle to the popular article of J. Baez, a notable American mathematical physicist, well-known popularizer. In that article he re-tells some later-modified version of Mandelshtam and Tamm reasoning (without knowledge of the origin) and call it "something cool about time". As you can see, people completely agree, that that result is very important. And today we have the certainty principle, the result that generalizes both the UP and the Mandelshtamm-Tamm relation. It joins them together by uniformal approach based on Fubini-Study metric and abstract group theory methods, it simplifies them (yes, this approach is easier to understand than reasoning of Mandelshtam and Tamm) and makes applicable for all systems, not only non-relativstic, not only to those having semiclassical limit. And, as I said above, it is not opinion only of the author. I gave you the reference to A. Kleyn. You can start your checking from him. Rcq 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all interesting! However, given that you want to have a CP article, do you find it unreasonable to ask you for the answer? Who has the opinion that all physicist must know about CP? Zarniwoot 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, that was opinion of Slicky, specialist in QM and molecular biology. You can ask other people about this exact formulation (though, it is funny). But why would not that person to be Zarniwoot, first of all? ;-) Rcq 23:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, Rcq asked me to look at the paper more carefully, and I did. It performs some fairly trivial manipulations, and does make an interesting geometrical statement. However, its not a "general principle" and it does not supercede the uncertainty principle. It does not belong on WP. And finally, its got nothing to do with quantum mechanics; the derivations generalize to the use of the "exp" map to transport vectors on any smooth manifold. Arbatsky's failure is to confuse this with quantum mechanics. linas 14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've placed a technical exposition of Arbatsky's ideas at User:Linas/Arbatsky's principle unmaksed, "for the record". linas 22:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Zarniwoot! After what Linas wrote here, it looks like you ignore me. Am I right? Why? I still want to know your opinion. Rcq 21:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Vacation. My opinion is that notability is more important then correctness for this. Zarniwoot 22:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

crank edits to QED
Thanks for the quick revert to the crank links to magnetic photon. When you see one of these, can you look at the user contributions and check the other edits? In this case, this use made three other identical crank edits, inserting the same references, all pointing to magnetic photon (which I suspect is a work of fiction but don't have the energy to deal with.). linas 04:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will usually do this. I will try to be more thorough, thanks. Zarniwoot 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Physics Article WIP proposal
Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC) -passed on by --Michael C. Price talk 22:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

GIMP
Does that solve the problem? Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thank you for cleaning that up -- when I look at that article, all I can see is the advertisement for Photoshop which is there and I am simply confused, disappointed and well -- somewhat curious the way you might be when driving your car past an accident on the road, that sick and sad and morbid kind of curious that makes it so I cannot seem to look elsewhere. -- carol 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Inktool!
See above comment! I had no idea that the article called pathtool inktool! It becomes evident that the authors of the article are perhaps more familiar with Photoshop.

There are days in which I am full of crap, but today I seem to be full of simile. I am female, so the POV is female. While reviewing that article, it was like watching the plumber work, perhaps -- where all I can see is that crack that is exposed right above the waistline, so much so that I did not notice that the plumber was wearing a skirt and that his slip was also showing.

This is to thank you for having the stamina and a strength of good character enough so that you could look past the crack; I couldn't do this.... -- carol 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)