User talk:Jähmefyysikko/Archive 1

Archive 1

why did you delete beam entropy?

why did you delete beam entropy? 193.174.122.76 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Because the paragraphs in question are pure jargon with no useful wikilinks, and the cited sources are not notable; the paper has been cited 2 times. I fail to see this as a major development in the History of entropy, comparable to information theoretic concept of entropy, hence the UNDUE to which I referred to in my edit.

To me, this looks as if you are trying to publicize this paper. Do you have a WP:COI? --Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the qualifier for the adjective ``notable in scientific developments? A flagship IEEE conference should have a scientific merit. Many a times, it takes time for the citations to build up, therefore citation number shouldn't be the basis. Clearly, the ``thermodynamic entropy is different than the information theory ``entropy, the ``beam entropy.

If you fail to see something as a major development, that may not be the ultimate truth!! 193.174.122.76 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit in Bound states

I'm not sure if I agree with your latest edit on Bound states. The way it is stated now gives the impression that bound states can belong to the pure point spectrum as well as the continuous spectrum, or at least that the pure point spectrum is some sort of subset of the continuous spectrum. This is incorrect.

The definiton of Bound state in the continuum is given on it's wiki page as well as in the (open access) 2016 reference. What it means, informally, is that both the continous and pure point spectra can considered to be "embedded" in "the" spectrum.

I think BIC should be viewed as a construct on its own, rather than to be taken literally. The previous phrasing was less ambiguous. Roffaduft (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to edit, but please do not make another WP:EASTEREGG. It is surprising if a link (e.g. continuum) takes you somewhere that is not obvious from the blue text. Btw, a better place for this message would have been the article talk page, where others can also participate. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

When people revert your edits, you need to come to consensus before restoring it. Starting a discussion is not license to edit-war. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. From your edit summary: rv: per BOLD, *you* need to support your edits. You're repeatedly adding bullshit. The references were meticulously placed there to support the statements. The same cannot be said for your edits, which frequently misrepresent the sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice about Wikipedia conventions regarding Ukrainian place names

Whilst Kiev has been the customary English name of the city with special status, the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name Kyiv has recently become more commonly used in English. "Kiev" was the longstanding title of Wikipedia's article on the subject. However, a move discussion closed on 16 September 2020 resulted in that article being moved to the title "Kyiv", following a documented shift in usage in English-language media.

An RfC closed on 11 November 2020 discussion established the following guidance for whether to use Kyiv or Kiev in an article:

• For unambiguously current/ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred.
• For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Principality of Kiev), do not change existing content.
• For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended.
• In all cases, name changes must follow the WP:BRD cycle.

The following rule of thumb for determining what is current or historical was also established:

• From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5), Kyiv is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article.
• From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution.

Please read Wikipedia conventions regarding Ukrainian names for further information.  // Timothy :: talk  16:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)  // Timothy :: talk  16:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I am generally aware of this controversy, although previously not with all the details. However, the changes here were not on the article text, but on the citations: diff. Surely the guideline does not imply that we should modify the titles of the references? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I don't know how I missed the context (twice). Sorry for the interruption, Greetings from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers, Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Hello! This is not what we do when there is an unresolved move discussion on the talk page. Please never do anything like that again! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the move discussion is about the article title, and the article text itself can be improved during the discussion. I did reread MOS:FIRST, which states that If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, and acknowledge that to comply with that I should have left the ordinal there for the time being. However, there is also an exception to the above guideline given by MOS:FULLNAME, which recommends giving the full name in bold (which may not be the short name chosen for the title); in this case, that could be e.g. Magnus III Birgersson "Ladulås", if we include the ordinal. Whether Ladulås needs to be given in quotation marks is debatable. Regardless of the exact format of the first sentence, we should definitely include the names Magnus, Birgersson, and Ladulås, probably also 'Barnlock' in the introductory paragraph, as they all feature in most sources. Your revert removed some of that information from the lead. It would have been better to just restore the ordinal.

Perhaps we'll see after the move discussion whether we even need to include the ordinal number directly in the lede or only later in the article. Currently I don't see too many sources that call him Magnus III, and retaining it in such a prominent place seems like undue weight, especially when there is another tradition which calls him Magnus I Ladulås. (e.g. Britannica and SNL.no, both of which are written by subject-matter experts) And we currently do not have the sources to decide which numbering scheme is the "correct" one. Sources discussing this question would be useful. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no excuse for making any change at all to items where consensus currently is being sought at talk. It's called jumping the gun, diplomatically, and I trust you won't do that again, nor attempt to justify such behavior. That's what this is about here. The rest goes on the article's talk page, preferably later. I will be responding to that there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You did it again here. Please do not change lead info from well-sourced and relevant items to your own personal POV. Ever. If you continue this behavior it will have to be reported for administrative review. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate or are just casting aspersions? The move discussion was over and multiple users commented that the regnal number you are pushing as the "correct" one is not even the most common one, so what was the offense? The patronym is also not controversial. Is not accepting your POV, which you justified with WP:SYNTH, an offence? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not change lead info from well-sourced and relevant items to your own personal POV. Ever. If you continue this behavior it will have to be reported for administrative review. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 (2)

You accusation using the word "offense" at Talk:Magnus Ladulås can only be reasonably interpreted as a personal attack. That is not allowed that on English Wikipedia (as opposed to certain other Wikimedia projects). SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please calm down. I meant "offense" in the sense that what you wrote was against WP:SYNTH. It's a content dispute. Nothing personal here. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You need to acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word "offense" and also stop giving orders when you already are way out of line. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 (3)

We re-revert after discussing. There's no discussion there, only a notice by you claiming to know Polish better that anyone else. Looks like you never are going to (bother to) learn the ropes on this. It's bound to get you in serious trouble wirth administrators eventually. I don't know if I'll be sad or glad. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a policy. Please present your argument on the article talk page if you didn't already. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody inferred anything here about WP:BRD. This notice is about your behavior, not about any article content. We do not revert over and over without first trying to reach consensus on article talk pages. One or two editors alone cannot reach consensus. Learn it or eventually suffer the consequences. You were warned before, here very clearly, yet you continue to do as you please. You must stop that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hello again! You've been very busy fixing names the way you want them. But here, and with a few other redirects, haven't you created a mess? I cannot find it helpful that a redirect which once helpfully was for the disambiguation of various Swedish royal women by the same name now, confused, goes to an article about the name, not about any of them. Could you please try to be less sloppy and/or rushed, and perhaps less headstrong, when doing such work? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If you think these moves are not based on the naming policy, then challenge them.

And no, I don't think I've made a mess: the target page is quite short and contains the same list of names, so the navigation hasn't suffered. But I admit that I have yet to internalize all the intricacies of the human dab pages and similar pages, so I am open to suggestions. However, there is another issue here which I did not previously consider: The primary topic for Ingegerd of Sweden/Ingegärd of Sweden seems to be Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden so both of these names should be redirected there. Do you agree? All the results at Google Books are about her. I don't see any evidence that any of the other women would have been referred to as "Ingegerd of Sweden", so the dab page doesn't seem necessary. (Btw, This thread should have been opened on the article talk page.)

And I believe I would appear less headstrong to you in these discussions if you based your arguments on commonly accepted policies/guidelines, and not just on opinions which in WP carry zero weight.

Also, while we are discussing: Here you gave sources, but they don't seem to contain the claimed information at all. What am I to make out of that? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This, again, is about your behavior as decribed in general terms - disrupting a redirect which once helpfully was for the disambiguation of various Swedish royal women by the same name now, confused, goes to an article about the name, not about any of them. This is not about article content. Feel free to continue to ignore your behavior issue (which will only worsen it) and move most of this to article talk. There I may choose to reply if I think there's any chance of reaching someone who wants to totally trash the academic contents of a history book preface by Dr. Ulf Sundberg. Others might also try to get through to you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I've now redirected those pages to Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you think a dab page is also needed, the onus is on you to provide evidence that there are other Ingegerds of Sweden. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

A comment on the above: By ”total trashing” Serge might mean the change (diff)

• from: Making extensive use of donations from 2016 on, by the National Museum of Sweden to Wikimedia Commons, and crediting that museum for them, a new full color edition called Centuries of Selfies was published in 2020 with a preface by Ulf Sundberg.
• to: A new full color edition called Centuries of Selfies was published in 2020 with a preface by Ulf Sundberg. It is illustrated with images that the National Museum of Sweden released to Wikimedia Commons in 2016.

I find the first one quite pompous. Or do you mean something else? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I think you’re referring to the fact that I don’t agree that Demitz’ claims should be attributed to Sundberg. But why should they be? He only wrote the preface, not the rest of the book. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Sundberg is an academic historian. If you think the preface he wrote indicates that he didn't carefully review the entire contents of the book especially its full 7 A4-small-print pages of bibliography, before he would want to write it and word it as he did, that is not only so wrong, it goes to show your non-NPOV attitude. Equals trashing him and his words. Boomerangs on you. Disrespectful behavior we don't want on WP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sundberg's preface in its entirety (in case you have trashed him & the book without ever seeing it):

In the summer of 2017 I needed help in fine-tuning the English of what was to be my dissertation. On a recommendation, I then came into contact with the Swedish American Jacob Truedson Demitz, who meritoriously assisted me with the linguistic issues. Our work on my dissertation was simplified by the fact that Demitz was well versed in Swedish history. It turned out that he had penned a book about Swedish royalty, Throne of a Thousand Years (Los Angeles and Ludvika 1996), which was based on solid literary studies.

Jacob Truedson Demitz eventually recognized the possibilities created by the collections of Swedish portraiture having been made available at Wikimedia Commons. By combining parts of the text of his earlier work with parts of the treasure of illustrations now available to the public, the work presented here has been created. He also saw a connection between the portraits of royalty and the “selfies” that now have become popular with our new telephone technology. Witty, in my opinion. I can see several good points made by the work presented here. Most important perhaps is that Swedish history is presented with brevity, but in an agreeable and easily accessible way. One of the additional good points is that a host of portraits is brought forth. The portraits are published in cropped formats, which gives one a better feel for the person behind the portrait. The thought of cropping portraits tighter has entered my mind as well, but has not born fruit in any of my books. Through his comprehension of both the English and the Swedish language, Jacob Truedson Demitz has also created a book that can be useful to those who wonder about name translation and similar matters. Furthermore, Demitz has put in fine work on presenting the History of Sweden. In that context he has noted, among other things, the burial sites of different monarchs, which is interesting indeed. Even quite a bit of ornamental information gives the wording spice. He also does a good deed by going back a thousand years in time. Far too much writing on Swedish history begins with King Gustav I (1520s), which leads to quite a loss of historical perspective. It is gratifying that Demitz gives early Swedish history some of the attention it deserves. In the context, I think he reasonably handles the uncertainties there are about the earliest Swedish history. An interesting list of bibliography contributes to the value of the book. All in all, I am delighted to write a few words about this book, which I believe can be useful as well as entertaining.

Autumn of 2019, Ulf Sundberg, PhD and author.

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. Since you want to defend the merits of this book against allegations of WP:SELFPUB and are using it as a source despite your COI, I think we should have a discussion on reliable sources noticeboard. I will start the discussion later this week. Hopefully we will obtain a neutral assessment on whether the book can be considered a reliable source, or whether the references to it should be replaced by more reliable sources. Looking at the old discussions scattered around WP, that discussion seems long overdue. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no COI whatsoever re: Dr. Sundberg. Dr. Sundberg did not publish the book. You seem to be acting vindictively here because I haven't agreed with you about everything. I have not seen the book used as a reference except as might be supported by the preface by Dr. Sundberg. Preface text can and often is used as a reliable source, better so than the rest of many a book. OK, we know that you just don't like that book or anything in it, the hell with any doctor of history - you know better. If that's really what & how you want to discuss, by all means. The article on Throne of a Thousand Years was tested for deletion years ago, but that failed, pre-Sundberg even, because there were citable news articles.

I wrote to you here about a legitimate behavioral concern (bold type above) where you since have tried to correct the mess you made. That's good, and I should thank you for it. Perhaps you should stop being so angry now? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry if I come off as angry. It might be related to the terse way in which I express myself. If it helps at all, I can assure you that I am not angry. I do however prefer to discuss specific content issues, and not make the discussion too personal.

P.S. Note that I have tagged Sundberg with {{notability}} this morning. Please don't take this personally, Sundberg is fine scholar, but the sources aren't simply good enough (yet). I have opened a discussion on the article talk page to explain my concern, but to really resolve this, we simply need more sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I know nothing about the background, but I'll say that in the current discussion, SergeWoodzing is the one that comes across as rather angry and confrontative from the start, while Jähmefyysikk's replies appear to be mostly calm and cooperative. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, thanx so much for taking sides! That's always such a great help when people aren't getting along. Oh, btw, this user and I are getting along much better now. Thanks to h and me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)