User talk:Jähmefyysikko/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

why did you delete beam entropy?

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

Because the paragraphs in question are pure jargon with no useful wikilinks, and the cited sources are not notable; the paper has been cited 2 times. I fail to see this as a major development in the History of entropy, comparable to information theoretic concept of entropy, hence the UNDUE to which I referred to in my edit.
To me, this looks as if you are trying to publicize this paper. Do you have a WP:COI? --Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
What is the qualifier for the adjective ``notable in scientific developments? A flagship IEEE conference should have a scientific merit. Many a times, it takes time for the citations to build up, therefore citation number shouldn't be the basis. Clearly, the ``thermodynamic entropy is different than the information theory ``entropy, the ``beam entropy.
If you fail to see something as a major development, that may not be the ultimate truth!! 193.174.122.76 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit in Bound states

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

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

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

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

Warning

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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

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