User talk:Karol Langner/Archive 3

Typos

In the following template, energy is spelled "enrgy":

Polytropic versus Polytropic process

Karol,

It really does seem silly to have an entry for Polytropic and an entry for Polytropic process. I don't know which entry came first but the two do seem redundant. But perhaps I am wrong - there are , after all, entries for Isothermal process and other thermodynamic processes. Thoughts? Petwil 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Kolakowski.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kolakowski.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Westport Country Playhouse / Lawrence Langner

I happened upon your comment on Talk:Westport Country Playhouse, and I couldn't help but wonder if you were related to Lawrence Langner. Are you?

Lawrence Langner is the founder of the Westport Country Playhouse. Given your last name and the nature of your message on the page, I figured you were his daughter-in-law or some such. --Cryptic C62 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. You're male. Hee. Anywho, I seem to be souping up Westport Country Playhouse single-handedly, so if you'd like to join me in my quest, I'd certainly appreciate it. --Cryptic C62 15:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q-curvature

In a recent edit, you recategorized Q-curvature from Category:Physics to Category:Topology, and in doing so, you removed the {{copyvio}} message from the page. Was that intentional? --Rob Kennedy 21:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delet this text

Walter Ritz pointed out seven problems with Maxwell-Lorentz electromagnetic field equations, which are based on the concept of a solid deformable ether.

(1) Electric and magnetic forces really express relations about space and time and should be replaced with non-instantaneous elementary actions (his emission theory).

(2) Advanced potentials don't exist (and their erroneous use led to the Rayleigh-Jeans ultraviolet catastrophe).

(3) Localization of energy in the ether is vague.

(4) It is impossible to reduce gravity to the same notions.

(5) The unacceptable inequality of action and reaction is brought about by the concept of absolute motion with respect to the ether.

(6) Apparent relativistic mass increase is amenable to a different interpretation.

(7) The use of absolute coordinates, if independent of all motions of matter, requires throwing away the time honored use of Galilean relativity and our notions of rigid ponderable bodies.--Biggy P 16:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Motion Trio

Hi Karol. They might be notable, but the article didn't say why. I've moved its contents to User:Karol Langner/Motion Trio so you can work on it and upload it to article space when you're ready. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 14:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, an article does need to declare notability, otherwise it can be deleted under speedy criteria A7. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 12:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Acoustics, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Breit-Pauli page

Your page on the Breit-Pauli operator is really great. It should go into some list of ideal wikipedia pages. Mathchem271828 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bra-Ket

Hello again Karol Langner or maybe Dr. Langner. I noticed that the Bra-ket page has some errors. Some of the errors sound good enough to be plausible but I think are erroneous. I think that page needs a re-write. Maybe if you have a minute you'll take a look too? Mathchem271828 17:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move debate opinions needed

Hi, user DIV (a chemical engineer), i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, and myself (a chemical engineer) have been debating over the name of the Gibbs free energy article for seven months now. DIV is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting all the related articles in Wikipedia on this view. According to my opinion, as well as others, e.g. 2002 encyclopedia Britannica, 2006 encyclopedia Encarta, 2004 Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2005 Barnes & Noble’s The Essential Dictionary of Science, the 2004 McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Eric Weissteins World of Physics: Gibbs Free Energy, etc., Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy are the most common usages. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental physics concept

I had several discussions with colleagues on just what constitutes a fundamental physics concept. What we decided was that a fundamental physics concept was one that any physicist would need to be familiar with before embarking on a specialized experimental or theoretical track. By "familiar" we meant being able to solve problems at the end of the chapter on that topic. I am not sure, by this criterion, that "Fundamental physics concepts" should have been removed as a category from the Hartree-Fock page, but maybe I am wrong.Complexica 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voltage divider

I was thinking of moving Voltage divider rule to Voltage divider, and then I noticed that you had moved the page in the other direction. I was thinking of adding information about the use of voltage dividers, and with that it makes more sense to have the page be "Voltage Divider". Do you have any objection to me moving it back in the other direction?Flying fish 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Complex systems

Thank you for your creation of Category:Complex systems in the past. There is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SklogWiki

Dear Karol,

I understand the arguments for why the SklogWiki entry was deleted. However, deleting links to www.sklogwiki.org on the statistical mechanics and the thermodynamics pages I feel is just a bit overzealous. That is, of course, unless you feel that SklogWiki does not have and will not be of any use to the statistical mechanics community.

Carl. --09:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: SklogWiki

The problem is, there are probably dozens of such pages on the internet. If sklogwiki is not more developed than those,, why should it stand out? Karol 10:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Karol,

Actually, part of the motivation for creating SklogWiki was the fact that there does not seem to be "dozens of such pages on the internet". For example, see the list of physics wikis on www.wikiindex.org, or perform a Google search. However, please correct me if I am wrong.

All the best --Carl McBride 10:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: SklogWiki

You wrote: I can't help noticing that you ("Spud Gun") are almost certainly the creator and sole contributor to SklogWiki (Carl McBride, I presume) - which makes you biased. As much as I value the initiative (and your scientific work), there is a conflist of interest here, and promotion of SklogWiki on Wikipedia by you will be seen by most experienced editors as spam.

Fair enough, point taken. I am indeed, it sadly seems, the sole contributor to SklogWiki. It is turning out to be very difficult to stir up interest amongst scientists to partake in wiki initiatives (apart from yourself, of course!). For an interesting article on this see Scientists shun Web 2.0. If you are the self same Karol Langner from the Molecular Modelling and Quantum Chemistry group, I have added a link to your group on the Researchers and research groups page of SklogWiki. If you would like to contribute to SklogWiki you are more than welcome!

All the best --Carl McBride 13:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

template:mainlist

Hi, I was wondering why you started the template. A reponse on my talk page would be greatly appricated.100110100 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if it was an original idea if yours (was it?). Oh, I don't know if you know, but chinese last names are monosylabic, and also the last name comes first, reading left to right. Being monosylabic means one character. So just some food for thought.100110100 22:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 05:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candlestick Chart

You seem to be a contributor to the candlestick chart section. I wrote the following in the discussion area: I'm putting the following link Candlestick Chart formations: Engulfing, Dojis, Star formations up to scrutiny of others. Investigate the bottom links to the bullish/bearish engulfing pattern, dojis, dark cloud cover, morning/evening star links as well. The charts are helpful and the psychology is discussed as well as intra-day charts for some sections describing what is happening while the candlestick patterns are formed. Very educational, very applicable. See what you think. [[User:ThomasMark|ThomasMark] May 27

Dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ChrisLamb 17:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TraneingIn.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TraneingIn.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TraneingIn.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TraneingIn.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TraneingIn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TraneingIn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems the image is used in an article, namely Traneing In. I don't know, however, if the message was a bug from the bug or if the image was delinked for a while. Karol 11:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]