Loom91

"J.W. Gibbs suggested in 1873 that equilibrium is attained when the Gibbs energy of the system is at its minimum value (assuming the reaction is carried out under constant pressure). What this means is, the time derivative of the Gibbs energy vanishes, signalling a stationary point. This derivative is usually called, for certain historical and technical reasons, the Gibbs energy change <ref>Physical Chemistry by Atkins, De Paula</ref>."

This quotation is out of context and exemplifies a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter. Gibbs made no reference to time; indeed it is well known that thermodynamics has nothing to say regarding kinetics and vice versa. Furthermore, I have searched Atkins' Physical Chemistry (Atkins and de Paula, 8th edition) and cannot find any reference to "time derivative" or "stationary point" in the chapter on equilibrium.

You are mistaken when you say expertise is not important. In a technical subject such as this it is important that editors fully understand the material they are editing. Petergans 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to let you know your RfA didn't succeed. I suggest you read and take to heart the opinions expressed by the participant. Many current admins did not succeed on their first tries. -- Cecropia 17:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 14:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I came to this article as part of a link maintenance effort and have 3 comments that I left at Talk:Joy Basu:

1. I replaced the external link to bayleaf.co.nr with one to bayleaf.50webs.com. It's the same material, just a different URL. We're replacing links to co.nr with other links; for more details, see meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#700 URL redirection links to clean up.
2. Even though this article survived an AfD, it still fails to meet the very specific requirements of the "Criteria for notability of people" section of WP:BIO, so I tagged it for notability. Perhaps someone can find a reference to meet the requirements.
3. I was surprised to see that there appeared to be no similar article on the Bengali Wikipedia (bn.wikipedia.org); if bn.wikipedia editors have not authored an article, might that mean they don't think the subject is notable? Or maybe they just need a similar article.

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 17:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I still believe you are wrong to make this move (apart from the technical method issue of course); however I will not press the point further. Since we last spoke I have come across number of such novels that have been written up as with their Engslish titles. Regards :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Copied from User Talk:KieferSkunk) Could you advice me on what went wrong? After spending a long time here, I thought that I had learned the art of avoiding such large scale flare-ups. I also had the impression that the community was satisfied my ability of dispute resolution, since most of the objections at my RfA were because of not having enough edits yet and asking me to reapply later. In this case however, apparently editors other than KSmrq were not satisfied (to put it very mildly) with my handling of affairs. Throughout the fiasco, I had attempted to maintain civility, continue discussion strictly focused on content and to cite sources to backup my stand. What then went wrong and how can I prevent this from happening in the future? I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion. My watchlist is getting rather cluttered, so I will be grateful if you reply at my talk page. Loom91 21:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Loom91. Here's my response, broken into several (hopefully helpful) points:

• From the history, it appears that several editors, probably most notably KSmrq, disagreed with the contents of your more recent edits. As KSmrq pointed out, you appeared to persist in a number of those edits, and this caused a revert war. However, I don't see a long-standing history of controversial edits in this article, as KSmrq appears to have asserted. So it's difficult to parse out what the root cause of the problem is.
• I don't have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to make any sort of judgement on whose edits were right and whose were questionable. But the pattern here seems to be that several editors have formed their own consensus on the content, and your content differs enough from theirs that they feel it's harming the article. I think you've taken good steps to try to discuss the content there, and I have advised KSmrq against his rather dismissive comments in response. But it appears that other editors in that debate have provided logical, reasoned responses to your proposals, so I'd suggest continuing in discussion there.
• Remember: No original research! In situations like these, citing official, reliable references (primary sources, ideally) is the best way to sway others to your side of the argument. You can reason and provide logical arguments until you're blue in the face, figuratively speaking, but a single citation from a primary source will always be much more effective.
  • Of course, this applies mainly to matters of fact - when dealing with matters of style, consult the Manual of Style, as well as the Article Guidelines for the appropriate WikiProject (in Integral's case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics should have a guidelines section to follow), and cite from these projects when necessary.

I hope this helps. Lemme know if you have any more questions - I'll keep an eye on your User Talk for a while. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Loom91, I haven't been directly involved in this issue, but I've been watching it and read the talk page at Integral. (I have some background in mathematical logic, so it was interesting to re-visit the topic as an aside while reviewing the disputes.)

Regarding your questions about what went wrong, and whether to pursue or just let it lie, to stop diverting the discussion from the content,... I think you have already answered your own question. Unless the problem escalates from the other side, letting it lie and focusing on the article content will certainly bring you a better result.

The first thing to remember when you see an insulting comment is don't take it personally or let it get to you. Remember, editors know you by your actions. No matter what someone says about you, if it's not true, it won't carry any weight. It's also good to go the extra mile with politeness and respect. Over time, when editors see that's how you approach your communications, if anyone insults you, it will be obvious who is disruptive and who is collaborative.

Don't type a reply that will return to bite you later. Take a short break before you reply. I find it can help to write a reply in a text document instead of on Wikipedia, then wait a while and re-read it before posting in case I want to make changes. Especially be careful with edit summaries because those can never be re-edited or retracted later and stay in the history forever.

Think of it like Aikido - instead of punching back or blocking a punch, redirect the energy into something productive.

Focus on the article and not the editors. If someone insults you or accuses you of disruptive editing or anything else, you don't need to ignore it, but keep your response measured and peaceful. Point it out and ask him to stop, politely and with respect. Make it short, and then get back to discussing the topic. Here's an example:

Thank you for explaining why you reverted my edit. Please omit the insults from your comments and focus on discussing the article.

In regards to the intro section, (etc... include content-focused comments here...)

In making edits, keep in mind that reverting often stirs up anger because they erase the person's work. Editing their words may be more challenging if you don't agree with their approach, but if you can figure out a way to make that work, it shows respect for what the person wrote; collaborating rather than erasing. Use clear (and non-personal) edit summaries that are not too short - use as many words as it takes to explain your changes, that can fit in the summary box. If an edit has been contested previously, discuss before changing it again.

Regarding the dispute on the actual content, it will be difficult for you to make progress with your ideas if you stand alone and multiple editors don't accept your approach. Ultimately, conensus will make that determination. If you think the others are wrong but they are not open to discussing your view, you might need to attract more editors to create a new consensus, perhaps by inviting others from related topics, or from the mathematics Wikiprojects.

I recommend reviewing WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:CIVIL. I re-read those pages sometimes even though I already know them well, and find something of value each time.

You probably already know most of what I mentioned, but I hope some of it is helpful. Good luck. --Parzival418 _Hello 23:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Loom: In response to your most recent comment in my Talk Page: I suggested that you go back to RfC and ask editors there to come back and revisit the issue. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I replied again on my own Talk page, but at this point I'm going to officially bow out of the discussion. It doesn't seem I can do anything more to facilitate discussion here. But I will say this: It appears that you're up against multiple editors, including several who are no longer actively editing that article due to the recent disputes. KSmrq seems to be the most outspoken against you personally, but other editors are also reverting your edits and calling them into question. It appears that you're going against current consensus (I asked the other editors to clarify what the consensus is), and without going through RfC or mediation, I doubt there's more you can do to sway consensus your direction at this time. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help, but this is beyond the scope of what I can help with now. Good luck. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the article and removed the unsourced material. If you are actually the son of Joy Basu, editing this article except to remove vandalism is likely a violation of the conflict of interest policy that prohibits articles being edited by people with close relationships to the subject. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just should point out. This is a misstatement of the COI policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.101.220 (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note that content without specific support in the references has been removed (I don't fully agree with this, but I am not going to edit war over it). If you can find references for other contort, it can be added back in. Given the COI issues, i suggest that you consider adding any such content and supporting citations to the talk page. Note that there is no need for references to be available online: {{Cite news}} can be used to cite news articles not online, as can the more general {{citation}}. DES ^(talk) 00:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Copied from User:DESiegel)

CBM insists that I can't mention Joy Basu's play unless I give a source. While this is technically within policy, I do not understand the point. There is nothing remotely negative about claiming someone wrote a play that has been performed by a mainstream theater group, and it would be extremely difficult to get sources (I will have to go to physical newspaper archives and hunt for reviews). Why does he insist upon contesting such a non-controversial assertion? This is not covered by BLP. Loom91 08:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You could ask me about it, rather than asking someone else to interpret my actions. Are you saying that no reference at all exists for the play, not even a published manuscript or published review? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can't say why CBM has taken this position, as he says, you would do best to ask him. I agree that this is not required by BLP, although a strict interpretation of WP:V does support his actions. I take it from your statements above that published sources exist, but are not online, and would be some trouble to find citations for? I advise you, if you think the info is worth having in the article, that -- when you have a chance -- you go to those archives and find the date and other info for any published review, and then use {{cite news}} to cite it. Or if you have, say a program from a performance, use {{citation}} to cite that as a source. DES ^(talk) 14:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can Ccite a program, or any other published work, using {{citation}} Specifically, you would, after the sentance mentioning that the play had been perfomred, put something like the following:

 <ref>{{Citation| | last =<Last name of suthor of the program, ommit if none listed>  | first = <Firstname of suthor of the program, ommit if none listed>  | date = <date program was published>  | year = <year program was published if exact date not known>  | title = <Title of program. Use "Program for PLAY NAME" if no separate title> | publisher = <Organization or entity that published the program. probsably the theater group>}} </ref> 

I would advise you to fiond and add a citation to a newspaper review when you have time. DES ^(talk) 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you set up those templates, you may be interested in the general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to general relativity, where a trampoline article is up for featured status. Carcharoth 12:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Loom91. I have had a look at K&K and as far as I can see they do not make the argument that you attribute to them in your recent edit to Newton's laws of motion. I see them explaining carefully how to avoid common mistakes in using Newton II for rockets etc, but I can't find a place where they claim that Newton's laws apply only to fixed mass particles. If I have missed this please give chapter & verse. They do explicitly state that the momentum version of the law is the most fundamental one. You also reverted to text which suggests that the only valid case where mass should be taken as variable is in relativity theory. I think this is wrong again, and for sure the discussion of SR at Newton's laws is wrong, as it applies only if the force is parallel to the velocity. One option would be to give a full explanation on that page, but it would interrupt the development of the classical theory of Newton's laws. The relativistic case is fully discussed at special relativity and also at force, so I don't see why Newton's laws could not just say "For motions near the speed of light, Newton's second law is modified according to the special theory of relativity." What do you think? PaddyLeahy 11:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are a specially nasty and uncooperative individual. I am leaving Wikipedia, there is no pleasure when it is haunted by people such as you. Geometer 14:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The October 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Loom91 -

I have been wondering about the source of the statement in Introduction to special relativity that Minkowski spacetime is curved, or to be more specific, that is has a hyperbolic geometry. I found it in this diff, and you are the culprit.

It is is said that "a little knowledge is dangerous". You are correct that the change of sign creates a non-Euclidean geometry. However, if you had read that article which is still cited in that section more carefully, you would find that Minkowski spacetime is considered to be "pseudo-Euclidean" geometry. It truly lacks curvature.

There is also the matter of the statements in that the metric for a "coordinate system" in a 2D Euclidean space is ds² = dx² + dy². This only applies to Cartesian coordinate systems, and I have edited the article accordingly. I do not know if you are the source of that mistake and if not I apologize, but with that said please let me continue. You need to be aware that an infinite number of coordinate systems can be overlaid on any manifold (such as a Euclidean space), and each one has its own metric. For example, in polar coordinates, the metric becomes ds² = dr² + r² dθ². It is still the same space, but the relationship between coordinate intervals and an increment of distance has changed.

Let's just say that if you and Geometer want to discuss Minkowski spacetime, then the least that you can do is to discuss it correctly!

If you are like others in cyberspace, the "91" in your ID is your birth year. That would mean that you are only 16 years old. This is not to say that you cannot understand this stuff, but you are still putting the pieces together and lack a sense of perspective that comes with time. That sense of perspective is why Timb66 and myself (ems57fcva) do not like the current use of Minkowski spacetime in the article being discussed, even though we are well aware of it and its significance, and (at least in my case) have also had our understanding of SR improved by being introduced to it. --EMS | Talk 15:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

hi just wanted to stop bye and comment on ur contribution on the sarod article. Its true many would agree Allauddin Khan was the greatest teacher, many wont!! so to say allauddin khan is universally the greatest is inappropriate. you have to remember that in music, especially in Indian classical music NOTHING is objective! On a personal level I belive Allauddin Khan was definately the greatest, but many have contradicted me. I personally have learned from his son ALi Akbar khan. also to add that amjad ali and ali akbar khan are the most well known........................well maybe Amjad ali khan, definately not Ali akbar khan. during my travels in India with my sarod in the Indian trains, people would ask me are u studying from amjad ali khan???? I'd respond by saying no from Buddhadev das gupta and now ALi Akbar KHan, out of all the people no one would know who ali akbar khan is, or for that matter buddhadev das gupta or rajiv taranath. So with the intent to keep wikipedia as objective as posible i did remove the statement regarding ali akbar khan, allauddin khan and amjad. Please donot take this personally. I furthur want to expand the article, focusing on the instrument itself and not the players. I'm sure you may have contributions in that light. thanks Liam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.253.65 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The December 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 11:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if there were some prior and existing consensus for the moves? I'm just a bit confused, since the moves seem to contradict the naming conventions for films. I'd be grateful if you could get me up to date, though. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The naming convention says "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers". Ray's movies are most commonly known by their original titles (spelled in the Roman alphabet), even among English speakers. Loom91 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --11:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Chandrabindoo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The April 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The June 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveBot (owner) 02:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article introduction to systolic geometry was recently edited by you. I reverted your edit for reasons detailed at the discussion page of the article. Katzmik (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wanted to mention that I don't really understand your stated impression of this introductory article. Certainly the isoperimetric inequality was already known to the ancient Greeks (probably also to the ancient Hindus). It appears that your comment that "not a word" of the article could be understood, is somewhat exaggerated. If you let me know which part of it you find confusing I can try to help. Thanks for your interest in the page, at any rate. Katzmik (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Reply

By digging through the revision history of that page, I found out that it was you that added than block. But is is a verbatim quote? If so, the phrase "in An Introduction to Mechanics by Kleppner and Kolenkow and other modern texts" is confusing. We should write "in several modern texts", and then add a cite at the end of the quotation (e. g. with the {{quote}} template). If it isn't a quote, on the other hand, it shouldn't be indented. --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 10:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Chandrabindoo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- role^player 14:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply