User talk:CSTAR

• User talk:CSTAR/archive1
• User talk:CSTAR/archive2
• User talk:CSTAR/archive3

You reversed my edit at non-standard analysis with the justification that the content of the section is contained in the last sentence of the previous paragraph. The sentence you are referring to mentions vaguely that there is no argument about the mathematical validity of non-standard analysis. I don't think this is sufficiently precise. Namely, even a system containing additional axioms could also be mathematically valid, so long as nobody has found an internal contradiction in such a system. The specific point that non-standard analysis is "conservative" in the sense that it does not go beyond ZFC deserves to be mentioned explicitly. If you disagree please raise the issue at WP math rather than using deletions. For the time being I will revert my edits. Katzmik (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my comments at the talk page of non-standard analysis. Katzmik (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute regarding the proof of the intermediate value theorem, please comment. Katzmik (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my comment at talk:transfer principle. Katzmik (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC) and again Katzmik (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment at talk:transfer principle. I added a couple of paragraphs to the lead at transfer principle. Please give it a professional edit. I still feel that the thrust of this material goes contrary to the remarks in the first section, as I tried to explain at the talk page. Katzmik (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You made the following comment at talk:transfer principle:

Reply to comment of User talk:Katzmik) posted 14:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC). Sorry to take so long to respond. You are correct that quantification over sets is required, but this doesn't make it a higher order theory. For example, there are no type distinctions between sets of integers and integers. In ZFC all variables range over the entire set-theoretic universe. If one had a weaker no-standarad analysis, with limits on the range of quantification, the resulting theory would be less interesting. In fact, you can make the transcendental extension 'R[t] into an ordered field in which the indeterminate t is infinite and 1/t is a non-zero infinitesimal. But this is pretty much useless for a development of calculus. I don't know if I've addressed any of your concerns.--CSTAR (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have thought about your comment for a while and I do not understand it fully, surely this is due to my lack of training in logic. At any rate, I am not sure what you mean when you say "there are no type distinctions between sets of integers and integers"; why aren't there? Also, I understand the assertion "In ZFC all variables range over the entire set-theoretic universe" but I am not sure I understand what you are driving at when you say this. Certainly in NAS one needs to interpret statements as referring to internal sets only; I see this not as a weakness of the theory but rather the main tool in the realisation of Robinson's goal. When you say "you can make the transcendental extension 'R[t] into an ordered field in which the indeterminate t is infinite and 1/t is a non-zero infinitesimal. But this is pretty much useless for a development of calculus", are you referring to the absence of a transfer principle in such a naive approach to NAS? Katzmik (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Abstract nonsense, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract nonsense. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Topology Expert (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up till now I have restricted my dealings with this subject on Wikipedia to small edits, although I certainly have quite a bit of experience on this matter, having worked professionally on it for over 30 years by now (see my web site to which a link is provided at User:WMdeMuynck). However, as you can see there, my views on this subject are not shared by everyone, to say the least. Because there is a Wikipedia policy not to engage in scientific controversies I have up till now not tried to deal with this subject on Wikidepia. I am still updating my own web site, and it does not seem fruitful to me to duplicate this in Wikipedia since my web site is open to everyone interested.WMdeMuynck (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I certainly didn't want to suggest you insert your views into the article. Basically I am unhappy with the introductory paragraph which is supposed to explain what an interpretation of quantum mechanics is. I am aware of your interest in this area and I thought that you could thinks of a suitable formulation based on some independent source. This should be less controversial than adopting one or another interpretation as the "right one".--CSTAR (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first problem is that in physical discourse the notion of `interpretation' is different from the one used in philosophical discourse. In physics most of the time by an `interpretation' is meant a `mapping from the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics' into reality. In philosophy, if I remember well, the mapping is often thought to be from reality into the theoretical terms of the theory (like the term `electron'). I restrict myself to the physical notion.

Disregarding the instrumentalist interpretation (because it is too vague and, moreover, is confusing) I distinguish two possibilities: either the mapping is into the reality of microscopic objects, or it is into the macroscopic reality of phenomena (the first is the interpretation which has become fashionable after logical positivism has become obsolete, the last one might be in agreement with logical positivism although the situation is actually more involved). I refer to these interpretations as realist and empiricst, respectively.

In the empiricist interpretation a measurement result refers to a property of the macroscopic measuring instrument (a pointer position), rather than to a property of the microscopic object. Bohr and Heisenberg (the Copenhagen interpretation) did not entertain an empiricist interpretation (notwithstanding Heisenberg's empiricist utterings), since they assumed a (measurement) phenomenon to be a property of the microscopic object (e.g. a particle `being within the confines of the detector' when position is measured). What is essential to the Copenhagen interpretation, is that the measurement is a fundamental issue, the measurement arrangement playing an essential role (this is often seen as a weakness, but I consider it its strenght).

The Copenhagen interpretation can best be viewed upon as a contextualistic-realist interpretation, as opposed to Einstein's objectivistic-realist one.

There is still another dichotomy, viz. in the interpretation the wave function may refer to an individual object (the Copenhagen interpretation) or to an ensemble (Einstein). Although the first one is most popular both among physicists as well as philosophers, I think nowadays we have experimental evidence that the wave function does not describe an individual object but an ensemble. The emiricist interpretation allows only an `ensemble' version, the realist interpretations allow both versions.

Personally I prefer the empiricist interpretation because i) it is in agreement with what physicists do experimentally, ii) since it is the weaker interpretation (although stronger than the instrumentalist one) it can evade all paradoxes of the realist interpretations (although a realist ensemble interpretation also solves most of these, but not all!), iii) it gives rise to a generalization of standard quantum mechanics which is necessary to encompass all experiments which nowadays are performed in the quantum domain.

My problem is that I do not see how this can be cast in a brief and simple formulation that is illuminating rather than confusing.

Reply:

Re:In philosophy, if I remember well, the mapping is often thought to be from reality into the theoretical terms of the theory (like the term `electron'). I restrict myself to the physical notion.

I am surprised to hear you say this. Philosophers are generally pretty clear on interpretation as semantics, e.g., a mapping from linguistic structures to some kind of semantic domain. My question here is, what is the semantic domain for quantum mechanics.--CSTAR (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what you think.WMdeMuynck (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have missed your question. Unfortunately, your talk page was not on my watch list. It is impossible to generalize on this issue because different philosophers do it differently. The problem is: "what is the semantic domain?" and "what is a linguistic structure?" If by `semantic domain' is meant `a part of physical reality' and by `linguistic structure' the `mathematical formalism of a theory' then you have the notion of `interpretation' as is usual in physical discourse. But often in philosophical literature the mathematical formalism is treated as nonexistent. Instead there are terms like `electron', wave, measurement, etc. which terms are elements of an `ontology'. An interpretation of the word `electron' (referring to an object of that name) is then something like an implementation of that term into the language of a theory (the `linguistic structure'). In classical mechanics an electron is quite different from what it is in quantum mechanics, thus entailing quite different interpretations of the ontological notion of an electron. Incidentally, note that in the socalled `semantic approach' the word `semantic' is used because, due to the theory-ladenness of observation statements, reference to theory is necessary (next to reference to observation) in order to characterize the meaning of a theoretical term.WMdeMuynck (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please comment at the talk page of limit of a function if you get a chance. Katzmik (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can contribute much to that dispute. My own view is that there is a lot to be said for duplication: I see no reason to avoid separate articles on limit of sequence, limit of a function, limit of a net, limit of a filter etc.. so long as the reader is clearly told of the surrounding landscape, that is generalizations, specializations and distinctions.--CSTAR (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth making a comment to that effect. There is quite a lively discussion going on, incidentally. Katzmik (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A couple of ignoramuses (that is, even more ignorant of non-standard analysis than I am) are giving me a hard time at uniform continuity, please comment. Katzmik (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah-ha! C*-algebra Godspeed John Glenn! Will 23:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would it be possible to comment at the AfD? Katzmik (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Please expand the economics section of Influence of non-standard analysis if you get a chance. Katzmik (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at the talk pages of Criticism of non-standard analysis and of non-standard analysis concerning the conclusion of AfD. Katzmik (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to notify you that there is a votation on the talk page of the previously mentioned article (US Invasion of Panama). 201.218.86.201 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In 2004 you added some content to Nonstandard analysis about Alain Connes. The article describes Connes as a "noted critic of NSA", with the quote and editorializing justifications given as evidence. However, in print on his blog, Connes makes it clear that he is not a critic of NSA: in fact he says that as a student he fell in love with it. The point of his remark in the quoted paper is to give prototypes of unexpected ways of understanding the integral. Connes' theory of spectral triples is not an attempt to rewrite calculus; it is not an alternative to Robinson's infinitesimals as the article suggests. Rather it is a way of understanding the abstract notion of what a noncommutative manifold should be. As Skandalis told me, Connes' latest course of lectures at the College de France was devoted to showing that an unbounded spectral triple with a commutative algebra corresponds exactly to a Riemannian spin manifold with a Dirac operator. The Dixmier trace appears much later in the theory as a way of rewriting Hochschild cocycles. In mathematics it was introduced as a tool by Connes to give a uniform explanation of the pseudodifferential residue of Guillemin and Wodjicki. What is written in the article is quite misleading - in no way would Robinson's methods have been applicable to the sort of index theorems that Connes has spent the last 30 years proving. I think the section on Connes' critique cannot remain in its original form. The comparison with Robinson is completely misleading. Connes' theory is about Dirac operators on spin manifolds and their noncommutative generalisations (eg to foliations or discrete groups) - it is not an alternative approach to high school calculus. I wonder whether it might be possible to modify this content so that it no longer is a BLP violation and so that it is in addition accurate about Connes' own theory, if that theory needs to be mentioned at all. In many parts of Connes' theory the Dixmier trace is not needed, e.g. for usual Toeplitz operators on the circle; however, already for the two-torus, commutators arise that are in the noncommutative L^1+ε space for every ε > 0 and to which the Dixmier trace can be applied. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm certainly eager not to misrepresent anybody's views. If you believe my edits innacurately portrayed Connes' thinking, please feel free to remove whatever it is that I wrote. I'm sure if any Wikipedia editor subsequently claims to have a more accurate and verifiable account of Connes' views than either of us, that editor will modify the article accordingly. That give and take usually works pretty well. --CSTAR (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's extremely helpful. The main point is not to quote Connes out of context. With the benefit of interviews and his own writing that have appeared since 2004, it has become clear that his statements about nonstandard analysis have always been about his personal development and experience. He has explained why he initially was working in this subject and why he discovered "there was a catch". I have already started giving a more balanced account at one place where this material occurs. I'm not sure why you wrote that the Dixmier trace plays a central role in the subject: I don't have time at the moment to rewrite the noncommutative geometry article as I'm quite busy preparing an RL article of my own on operator algebras, but part of the problem lies in the exposition there (what there is of it). Most of the theory of Fredholm modules and spectral triples does not rely on the Dixmier trace; the role of an infinitesimal is played by a commutator, which lies in a certain Schatten class or more sophisticated trace ideal, etc. The Dixmier trace was introduced at a much later stage - Connes did use it as a central tool in his explanation of the standard model. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I provided some context on the talk page of Criticism of non-standard analysis. Please comment. Katzmik (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CSTAR: I did find your comment to be amusing (I will now have to struggle not to address that person in this way). On the other hand, the issue of the interpretation of WP:OUTING remains. Would you care to comment on it? Happy holidays...Plclark (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to be a stretch to regard your action as an instance of outing. I'm not too familiar with the Wikipedia legalities, but in my view outing is publicly asserting a link between the properties of a wikipedia editor with properties of some other non-wikipedia person. If indeed it was a case of asserting the identity of two online identities on wikipedia (e.g identifying sockpuppets), why do it at all, unless there is some mischief being caused by one or the other sockpuppet?

In any case the whole thing seems way out of proportion. I would just forget it. --CSTAR (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CSTAR's replies for what it is worth. The flowery accusations of outing were a stretch, but I think trying to make someone act like an upright, honest, or even reasonable person should only be done gently. Basically, you have to wait until integrity blossoms, and no amount of exhortation will speed up the process. On the other hand, your new section has made it much easier to add material to an article that desperately needed weeding. I'm not sure how this silly situation a-rose, but I think it is not worth staying upset about. If someone wants to keep on garden a secret, then it is polite to let them know if it is public knowledge, but if they persist, we might as well play along. Mum's the word, I always say. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that resurrected it a year ago too, and the misfortune of that episode is on my mind. I think it will be OK this time, because there is no reason for any part of that unique episode to repeat.Likebox (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have looked into this individual's contributions more closely (Worldcat, Web of Science) and he indeed passes the bar without any doubt. Perhaps some of this should be mentioned in the articvle, because all that the article says is that he authored a book and a blog, neither of which automatically makes one notable. In any case, my notability tag was an error: I should have performed this check before placing the tag. I apologize. However, I also gingerly suggest that in your future edit summaries, you keep WP:CIVIL in mind, unless you are someone who never ever makes a mistake. --Crusio (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A notability tag does not necessarily mean that a subject is not notable, it calls upon editors to edit the article to establish notability unequivocally. The current article does not even come close. --Crusio (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Please note that my comment was about the tag.--CSTAR (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:IMG binding.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:QMBlochSphere.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been some recent edits there. Take a look and let me know what you think. Mattnad (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind undeleting the edits to your talk page from before November 2005? How about the old archives? User talk pages are generally not deleted on Wikipedia these days, and current policy says that if you if you come back after vanishing, your user talk page should be undeleted. Thanks, Graham87 06:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--CSTAR (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Graham87 03:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been expanding Kuiper's theorem on the contractibility of the group of invertible operators on Hilbert space. I'm aware of two kinds of generalisation: some results from around 1970, extending this to some Banach spaces; and results on the unitary group of a C^*-algebra, like what is mentioned here as a characterisation of the contractible case by K-theory. I thought you might know something about the latter. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Path-integral-mwi.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CSTAR! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 12 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Andrzej Trybulec - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen you in quite a while. Hope things are well with you. Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm fine, though on the English Wikipedia, absent mostly. Maybe at some point I might become active on the Spanish Wikipedia.--CSTAR (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Supply-demand-humungous.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Supply-demand-humongous-labelled.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Supply-demand.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:EPR-quantum.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:QMBlochSphere.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hadamard-gate.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:B-CPMPortfolio.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Verde-amarelo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WilliamH (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:IMG NDeus.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Conditional-gate.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Controlled-gate.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 04:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Convex-function-graph.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 04:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IMG NDeus.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Many-worlds-bloch.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as {{own}}, amending the {{information}} added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{Media by uploader}} or {{Presumed self}} tag(s) if present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

IF you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created here.

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as {{own}}, amending the {{information}} added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{Media by uploader}} or {{Presumed self}} tag(s) if present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I know you are a retired user and you may have no time to answer others' questions and I even don't know here is the appropriate place to ask you but I want to ask a little question if you don't mind.

I just wanted to know where did you get your information to write Time evolution article? I saw the References section but I didn't noticed the content you written into the article. If you write it by your own knowledge I eagerly want to have this knowledge too. Real talk. What are the source textbooks I can read to get this amount of information about the concept of "Time evolution"? Can you give me a list? I need to know about Time evolution so much.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely, Kurtis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtis Peterson (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis Peterson (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EPR-explained.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Splittings.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This illustration for Many-worlds interpretation was replaced by File:Splittings-1.png, which has been located on Commons for 10 years. This image is not in use and is unlikely to be used in the future.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 22:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Hiking-somewhere-warm.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned, personal image. likely encyclopedic, especially without context to determine future use. Was uploaded for use on the uploader's User page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 17:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Uncontrolled-gate.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Unconditional-gate.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Triangular-serpinski.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Root-system-A2.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Inner product angle.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:B-CPMPortfolio.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:PortfolioFrontier.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Calculus-secant-limit-graphic.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Calculus-tangent-graphic.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a familiar name editing again. Happy New Year! — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Specified complexity, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specified complexity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]