User talk:Lethe/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hydnjo (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 14 August 2005 (→‎Homework: Direct question to User talk: Hydnjo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some tips:

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 03:52, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Gauge integral?

Is Gauge integral the same thing as Henstock-Kurzweil integral? -- Walt Pohl 20:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. so it is. i will make a redirect.

Angela's newbie answers

Is there a way to count all your contributions, and see how many there are?

You can go to the contributions page, and then add limit=1000 to the URL (for example to see more than 50 of them at once. Then paste this into a text editor and number them. There isn't any automatic way to do this within Wikipedia, though I believe some people have written scripts which help. If the manual way is not enough, try asking Pcb21 as I seem to remember he had such a script. You have 327 by the way.

Is it possible to view pages from other parts of wikipedia all on my en.wikipedia watchlist? It would be really convenient to be able to watch certain de.wikipedia pages alongside my en.wikipedia watchlist

Not yet unfortunately. There are definitely plans to have a single sign-on across languages which might make this possible, but currently you need to maintain a separate account and watchlist on each wiki.

If someone has uploaded a picture to de.wikipedia, is it possible to make include the picture in a en.wikipedia article? or do i have to download the picture from de.w to my computer, and then upload from my computer to en.w, and then include it in the en.wikipedia page?

Again, it's not possible yet. The proposal at m:Wikimedia Commons does address this point, and if enough people are interested in coding this, it should become possible over the next year. Currently, you do need to download a copy locally and re-upload that to the other Wikipedia.

What's the process for getting a page deleted?

It depends what the page is. Wikipedia:Deletion policy has the full details, but a quick summary is

Hope that helps. Angela. 13:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Speedy request

It is done. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:49, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

5000 people test

Re: comment on my talk
The "5000 people test" (alternatively, the "1000 people test") is a rule of thumb for deciding whether or not information belongs on the wiki. If you think there aren't 5000 people who would care to know, don't write it. I think that this is a manifestly good idea, but I haven't seen it on any "official" Wikipolicy pages, and I don't know where I got it from. How did you come across it, and why was it associated with my name? --Smack 22:05, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Differential geometry and topology

I do not think the definition of vector field should be in Differential geometry and topology, there is a ref. to vector field (which is not written well but it is better to improve this insead of giving def in Differential geometry and topology). (Those who read Differential geometry and topology probably will need just idea of vector field (and it is given) and they might go to vector field to get the correct def.) I do not insist on my change, that is not at all crutial, but still think that my edit is bit better. (I'm teaching a bit and I know that many students can work with vector field easely, but words secton of tangent bundle scare them) Tosha 12:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also will not insist on the changes, but i do think you should in general try a bit harder to repurpose words before deleting them. Or at least move them to the talk page and give an explanation of why they are inappropriate. I added stuff about vector fields to that article because someone in the Lie algebra talk page seemed to need an explanation of some notions of vectors and Lie brackets. I guess I didn't put it in vector fields because that article seemed hopelessly elementary, but perhaps you are right, it would have looked better there. It needs to go somewhere, and I think it is counterproductive to delete the words. The explanation that needs to be somewhere would now have to be started over. So what I ask is that you say something in the talk page before you start deleting sentences in the interests of brevity and pedagogy. If you do delete a sentence that happens to be one that I wrote the day before, and give no explanation, then i will revert your edit. I hope that doesn't seem like I am being unreasonable? - Lethe 15:32, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

It appears to be a real area of research (which is why I have not sent Dogonadze article to vfd) but a very obscure one. All the other of 5-8 discoveries mentioned in the "history" section of Quantum mechanics are of Nobel-prize caliber (I would even say they stand out even among Nobel-prize winners). Quantum electrochemistry is very far from that level. And we are dealing with one of authors here and he has been inserting similar texts into other physics pages as well (and possibly created a page on himself as well, although he claims that that page was created by someone else). The whole episode looks like a promotion attempt. Andris 08:19, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Talk page link

From any page in Wikipedia, click on Preferences in the top right hand corner and under the User data heading is a box where you can alter your nickname (it says Your nickname (for signatures):). In there you need to do a bit of jiggery pokery, that looks a bit like this:

Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe|Talk

You can alter it to whatever your preferences are and can even add extra characters, use colour or bold or italics to your heart's content, as several people who use wikipedia often do. Have fun, and let me know how you get on. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

test1 -- Slim 16:56, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
test2 -- Lethe | Talk 16:59, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Graham ☺ | Talk Lethe | Talk to my page! | to my talk!

Hi, I noticed your edits to this article, and I agree that Reddi's version was unbalanced (not atypical for him, unfortunately). I did a literature search for all of the papers that cite Shankland's 1955 analysis, and I couldn't find any mainstream publications that question it. I've rewritten the article accordingly, including some quotes from Shankland and Einstein on the subject; see what you think. (Be sure to look at the history in case Reddi follows his usual pattern and reverts.) —Steven G. Johnson 21:08, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

My version is balanced. Much like Alfven's problem with his research, mainstream publications do not include works that truely question Shankland (but that doesn't change facts). My usual pattern of revert? No ... just reinclusion of opposing views. JDR

Edit attribution

Hi Lethe. Edits from have now been reattributed to you. Regards Kate Turner | Talk 04:57, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Same for Regards Kate Turner | Talk 10:36, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Edits to Scotland

The edits to the Scotland article weren't vandalism. If you had read the "Nation or Country" section in its talk page you would have understood what was going on. I'm not going to revert your changes but if similar changes happen, just leave them. Either version is acceptable to me, although to be frank I prefer the country one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:00, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Hindi spelling


Regarding translation of French in Hindi, it's not फ़्रांसीसी or फ़्राँसीसी, it should be फ़्राँसीसी or फ़्रांसीसी.

Punjabi is पंजाबी.

In my dictionaries (English-Hindi, by J.W. Raker & R. Shukla, Star Publications, New Delhi, Outline of Hindi Grammar, R.S. McGregor, Oxford U.P., and Teach Yourself Hindi, by R. Snell and S. Weightmann, Hodder & Stoughton), English is अँग्रेज़ी 3 times and अंग्रेज़ी once.

Writing Hindi when WP doesn't support Unicode is not fun. :( Yann 08:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:Ornefnaskra Isl 1081618531960.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ornefnaskra Isl 1081618531960.gif. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks so much, Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:27, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)


"*Some have argued ... In the event, the decision to surrender was made before ..."
"i can't understand this phrasing. maybe it's a typo?"
No, just a way of saying that whatever other ways things might have worked out, the way they did happen was ----. I thought it was a common, clear phrasing, but if not I'm not wedded to it. "In any event" doesn't seem quite right somehow; maybe "As it happened"?
—wwoods 02
15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CHT self-promotion?

I do see what you mean but it can't be helped. See more on my own user page. My work is the best available reference. Caroline Thompson 10:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It can be helped; stop doing it. -Lethe | Talk

Dear Lethe

Have you tried the alternative to my paper? The only other useful reference on the detection loophole is Philip Pearle's 1970 paper (Pearle, P: “Hidden-Variable Example Based upon Data Rejection”, Physical Review D, 2, 1418-25 (1970)). This paper says essentially the same thing as mine but is accessible only to mathematicians! It has no diagrams, and the only reason I was able to understand it was that I had already worked out a similar geometrical model for myself. Caroline Thompson 17:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that you are using wikipedia to promote your own work, and you need to stop doing it. -Lethe | Talk

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

I've added another FAQ question which will hopefully answer some of your questions. I can't speak to why the FSF doesn't like the CC licenses, but I would imagine it has to do with the non-free portions of the GFDL that are not in "true-free" licenses like the CC-by-sa license. See the FAQ question. Many people, including Jimbo Wales, acknowledge the problems with the non-free portions of the GFDL and he has been working with the FSF to change the GFDL to make it more CC-by-sa'ish. Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 21:32, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Please have a look at some of the recent exchanges in the tal kpage there. Unfortunately most of my time working on that article has been dealing with CT. Thanks.CSTAR 01:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC).

I wrote a pretty strong reply to CT -- maybe I went a little overboard, but please comment. Thanks! CSTAR 20:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Realism, loopholes etc.

I have absolutely no objection to putting in references to loopholes (in fact, if you look at what I wrote, I have done so). But the problem is that CT seems intent on suppressing any statement which goes against her positions or subtly rephrasing them so as to make QM look suspect. Have you ever read her webpage? I did so the other day. It makes fascinating reading. She is a firm believer in naive (not to say cranky) physics.

If she really wanted to, and had the will to stop trying to convince scientists they are wrong, she could convert her interest into a serious research programme as follows: First provide a naive model for some subset of physics and investigate the processes by which "mainstream" scientists, often based on partial evidence or even flawe reasoning, might reject these models. This is a much rational form of the so-called "strong programme"

As far as my response to her today, I just got fed up with her ever more irrelevant objections to my contributions. In particular, her comment about the case of the probabilistic case of Bell's theorem for random variables having 0 as a possible value, not being also trivial really showed me she really doesn't know what she is talking about or at best talks impulsively without thinking. Of course, she later denied having ever said that it was not trivial, but I believe her denial was just her attempt to save face.CSTAR 04:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for the help with Adjoint endomorphism. linas 14:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Big Leagues

I guess CT finally made it [1].CSTAR 02:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Enough Votes

I think there are enough votes for the deletion of the List of English words of Latin origin. How long will it take before they delete it. Decius 07:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

comment to Tony

Sorry Lethe, don't know what happen there. Must have been some kind of edit conflict, I can't see how I would have deleted it otherwise? —Christiaan 23:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way

How do you work out how many edits you've done? —Christiaan 23:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My method is rather brute force. I go to my contributions, list by 1000, offset to the nearest thousand, view the page source, and change the unordered list to an ordered list (change <ul> and </ul> to <ol> and </ol>) Lethe | Talk 00:35, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
There's a little page that'll count for you here. I think it's a rather dangerous idea, personally, but that doesn't stop me from checking it. --Laura Scudder | Talk 18:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help! Xe's putting the dictionaries back in. Uncle G 19:00, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)


Of course there are lots of LaTeX picture environments and they're getting better. Though it's far from perfect, I really like xfig.

I don't have access to the book you mentioned at the moment.

Make sure you you've got a recent version of Xfig:

% xfig -v Xfig 3.2 patchlevel 3d (Protocol 3.2)

I'm kind of limited by the accuracy of my hand/eye coordination moving the mouse. Are there precise commands for things like: parallel/perpendicular lines or graphing functions or plotting points with coordinates?

Use grid mode; you will be prompted if you want vertical or horizontal displacement.

you can also zoom in.

You can put any latex math symbols in the text areas (for instance $\frac{a}{b}$) using the "special flag" and exporting to "combined/PS LaTex both parts". This produces two text files one of which you include in your LaTeX source.

Of course it expands correctly any macros defined in the source. CSTAR 00:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did this work? CSTAR 15:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to Argentina for a few weeks, so I won't have time to look at much. However, xfig should export 2 files


The file you input is fuba.pstex_t


You might have to edit pstex_t

CSTAR 21:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pronoun on willys!

I tagged that article for speedy deletion. It was deleted by Ahoerstemeier. Goplat 20:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, I deleted it, as it was a leftover from one of the User:Willy on wheels page move vandalism. Probably you have Pronoun on your watchlist, that's why that other page was added when the article was temporarily at the vandalized place. You can savely remove that article from your watchlist now. andy 20:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just restored the line you removed. If you don't understand please ask on the talk page instead of removing what turns out to be valid information and asking in the edit summary. In the case of lumber a 2 by 4 is not 2 inches by 4 inches, it is about 1 3/4 by 3 1/2. See Dimensional lumber. Rmhermen 13:24, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)


Well, Hi, yes, its good to talk. You said

I feel like I came down hard on some of your edits once or twice,...

well, if you did, I certainly failed to take notice, and have no memory of such. FWIW, I know that I do sometimes introduce errors during edits; sometimes I catch these within minutes, sometimes within hours, sometimes, within days, sometimes ...never. Sometimes, some of these errors are major conceptual bloopers... No doubt, you'll see future edits from me that look questionable; call them out; I know I'm fallible and won't take it badly.

BTW, do you publish on I've been casually working on a few papers, and wanted to post them there, but do not have any connections into an active community. linas 2 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)


I posted a request for discussion of the four templates we discussed at Talk:Transcendental number to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, together with some of your arguments. Hope this will generate some discussion. I wonder if you can follow it too. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 03:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


Lethe, what did you mean? Simply put, because antiderivatives and integrals are not the same thing. I think they deserve separate articles, although certainly a discussion of how they are related belongs in each article (which there currently is). Remember that it is only by the deep result of the Fundamental theorem of calculus that the seemingly otherwise unrelated concepts of integration and antidifferentiation end up being connected. and for certain classes of functions, this connection can't be made, because some functions have integrals, but not antiderivatives (within the appropriate domain). So the connection given by the Fundamental Theorem is deep and important, but it does not mean that the two ideas are exactly equivalent. -Lethe | Talk 01:04, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) A function which has an integral always has an antiderivative - the same antiderivative which comes out of the Fundamental Theorem. Not all of these antiderivatives are expressible, but they all exist, because the derivative of the formula of the theorem is the function.

But of course you're right that an integral and antiderivative are altogether different. Like I said in Integral, an integral may imply a means for computing it, but to say that an integral is the same as the means for computing it is to "glide through"...--VKokielov 22:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

compact disambiguation

Hi Lethe. If the only issue you had with my edit on compact was the omission of compact car, i will re-revert it, including the link of course. If there were other issues, please let me know. greetings, --Lenthe 22:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


You have correctly understood an analogy, duly marked as not wholly serious, about a policy we have both read. So? Septentrionalis 21:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Stress-energy tensor again

Hi, Lethe, remember your proposal to merge energy-momentum density into this article? I wasn't even wikiborn back in Jan 2005, but I seem to have independently come to same glaringly obvious conclusion (just put back merger template). Why didn't the merger take place last time?---CH (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


Question to Hydnjo: did I commit a faux pas by doing what's probably someone's homework?

No. Not at all. I was just calling attention to the obvious. Sometimes I think that folks are getting a free ride from us which does us no harm, on the contrary, shows our willingness to help out. For me personally, I judge each question individually. If I think that I'm showing someone how to fish rather than giving them a handout, then I will answer accordingly. Just use your own judgement. I didn't mean to suggest that you were doing anything wrong and my sincere apology for coming across otherwise. Please continue to be as helpful as you see fit. I feel badly and I apologize if my comments intimidated you in any way.  :-) hydnjo talk 01:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
And also, I know how wonderful you must feel if you can contribute to someone's understanding of Mathematics. ;-) hydnjo talk 02:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)