User talk:Boris Tsirelson/archive 1

I am! Do you care?

Welcome, Boris! And yes, we do care. :-) Thanks for your contributions so far. I'll try to get the math tags enabled properly as soon as possible.—Thomas Larsen 10:17, 24 November 2010

[see history for rest of conversation about LiquidThreads]

Contents 1 User rights 2 Ugly LaTeX 3 Draft version 4 Photo Johannes Diderik van der Waals 5 Robot 6 Article deletion 7 New physics articles 8 Lie algebra

[edit] User rights

Hello Boris! I've given you the "administrator" and "reviewer" bits; feel free to use them, or not, at your discretion. Thanks for your work on the site.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (CST)

Nice. The problem is, we have no one to be administered... :-( I wonder, what was the cause of the stream of new users some days ago? Did you advertise Tendrl somewhere that days? And, in spite of all differences between Tendrl and CZ, one important and puzzling phenomenon is common to both: people register and then disappear. It seems, the cause is not the drawbacks of CZ. Then, what is the cause? Boris Tsirelson 00:37, 1 December 2010 (CST)

I mentioned Tendrl on Citizendium's forums and on RationalWiki, and I believe David Gerard mentioned it in a post on a Wikimedia mailing list. Generally, people tend to register almost as a way of expressing their interest in a project, and then they disappear until the project shows its viability; I think that's the case here. In any case, I don't want to advertise the project too much right now—once we've got core pages written, and a strong base of "seed" articles, interested people will be far more willing to join and contribute. At this stage (and I've made it clear in quite a few places), Tendrl is very much in the development stage; initial policies and procedures are still being worked out, and we haven't even decided completely on a name yet! (Currently I'm leaning towards Knowino, by the way.) So please do feel free to edit project pages (the ones in the Tendrl: namespace).—Thomas Larsen (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2010 (CST)

(By the way, can you do me a favour? Do you see a "user rights management" link at the top of a user's "contributions" page?—for example, Special:Contributions/Thomas Larsen. If you do, can you click on it, and tell me what user groups you're able to add and remove? Thanks.)—Thomas Larsen (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2010 (CST)

I did, and here is what I see:

Member of: Bureaucrats, Reviewers and Administrators
Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users

Groups you cannot change	Groups you can change
     bot                            v  reviewer
  v  administrator
  v  bureaucrat

Boris Tsirelson 02:55, 1 December 2010 (CST)

Ah, thanks; it's as I expected. I'll probably add the ability to change "bot" status, too. Let me know if you've got any questions!—Thomas Larsen (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2010 (CST)

...You are an optimist! But, as far as I remember, your idea was, to solve management problems only after they appear. And now you want me to edit project pages when the set of active contributors is empty (except for the two admins :-) ). Should our thin bureaucratism repell users? or attract? By the way, our counters show that we also have no visitors (viewers). Boris Tsirelson 04:20, 1 December 2010 (CST)

Yes, I'm a self-confessed optimist... with a dash of pessimism thrown in for good measure. :-) I'm not suggesting that we set up bureaucratic structures right now—it's way too early for that. An overly-rigid system too early on has caused Citizendium to suffer. But pages like Tendrl:About do need to be expanded, and I'd like to know what you'd like this site to become. So please do feel free to edit wherever you feel inclined; I'm not going to be micromanaging this place. :-)

What counters do you mean, out of interest? Special:Statistics is the only one I can think of, and it shows that we are getting views. We're probably too young and obscure to have been picked up by external sites (like Alexa) yet.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (CST)

Yes, Special:Statistics. According to my observation, it was growing several days when a bunch of new users were here. But afterwards it stopped.

I imagine a bold experiment. We can remove all these nice CZ articles, create instead a number of very bad stubs, and invite another ten new users by some new advertisement. Then maybe these new users will edit actively, upgrading the very bad articles to so-so articles. The question is, whether this is what we want to get. Boris Tsirelson 05:04, 1 December 2010 (CST)

"what you'd like this site to become?" — Just the good half of CZ, without its bad half, and multiplied by 100. But I have no idea how to achieve this. Boris Tsirelson 05:07, 1 December 2010 (CST)

It's an interesting idea, and I like it. I'm about to head away for the night, but I'll think about it overnight and get back to you. Cheers!—Thomas Larsen (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] Ugly LaTeX

Hallo Boris, nice to see you here. First thing I noticed is that the TeX fonts are so ugly (look like the old am fonts on a matrix printer). Can something be done about it? --Paul Wormer 10:18, 1 December 2010 (CST)

Second question: I imported Van der Waals equation, what happened to the margins? --Paul Wormer 10:37, 1 December 2010 (CST)

Hi Paul, I am thrice glad to see you here! Once - since I would be glad to see you on CZ (as you know...). Second time - since I was sad to see EMPTY set of active users here (except for two admins, Thomas Larsen and myself); some users seem to exist, but got inactive, just like on CZ). Third time - just because of the combined effect: you are here (which is more than the sum of "you are there" and "someone is here").

The question about TeX fonts should go to Larsen, not to me. But I did not note any problem; I can read formulas as usual; maybe you are more sensitive to that... But inline formulas seem to be better here (closer in the font size to the text) than on CZ, aren't they?

To the margin, yes, I already know the cause. This system hates "newline"s within display formulas. We (Larsen and me) were forced to manually make the source text of each display to be formally a single line (even if it is wrapped on the screen). I did a part of the dull work on "your" page, but some remains to you...

Boris Tsirelson 11:19, 1 December 2010 (CST)

No, they do not remain to you; Thomas did it. Boris Tsirelson 23:52, 1 December 2010 (CST)

Yes, I see, formulas here have worse resolution than on CZ. I did not note it, since everything is so new here, and changing quickly (thanks to Larsen: he is the ONLY sysadmin here, unlike CZ). When I came, there was no TeX at all! And no pictures at all! Thus for me the progress is impressive... Boris Tsirelson 11:27, 1 December 2010 (CST)

I agree the TeX fonts are pretty ugly! Because this wiki is currently hosted in my personal space on a larger website (BasicProgramming.org), space is comparatively limited and I don't have direct shell access to the servers. Hence, I'm not able to install TeX locally, and, if I could, it would probably take up too much space. So Tendrl currently renders TeX code using a public third-party CGI script, which doesn't do quite as well as you might be accustomed to—but it's better than nothing, at any rate.

File uploads are also disabled for the time being due to server space constraints. However, you can use any image from Wikimedia Commons as if it were stored locally.

Of course, these are just compromise solutions until dedicated server space is found. I hope that clarifies a bit,—Thomas Larsen (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] Draft version

Boris, I see that you imported Augustin-Louis Cauchy twice (the approved and draft version). Why did you do that? --Paul Wormer 05:46, 5 December 2010 (CST)

Yes, I forgot it. I did it for a technical reason. You see, I now import groups of articles rather than individual articles, and my technology is not yet free of problems (I work further). We should decide which version is better and delete the other; but if draft is better, we should manually copy it into the main article and then delete the draft. Boris Tsirelson 06:43, 5 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] Photo Johannes Diderik van der Waals

Boris I imported Johannes Diderik van der Waals from CZ (mainly my work). I have no idea how to get his photo imported as you did for Cauchy. Can you please explain this to me?--Paul Wormer 08:21, 5 December 2010 (CST)

I did not! Two days ago I was very surprised to see more images than I imported. It appeared that these images are already both in CZ and in WC (Wikimedia Commons, not water closet), under identical names. And Tendrl seeks two bases: Tendrl (local) and WC (remote). In particular, see Cauchy in WC; it is there since 2009. But this surprise happens not every time. Thus I (being a Wikipedian, as well as you) got an account in WC and put several images thereto. But this takes time; I am unable to do it quickly for all articles that I import. Boris Tsirelson 08:32, 5 December 2010 (CST)

Thank you, I fixed it. --Paul Wormer 08:50, 5 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] Robot

Boris, I see that your robot is doing good work. Is it not better that I stop copying from CZ by hand? The robot and I could get into each other's way.--Paul Wormer 07:23, 6 December 2010 (CST)

Right, you need not copy large clusters. However, if something is especially good, and you want to display here specific CZ authors on the talk page (as I did for "Life" and some others), then you are welcome to do so. Surely I try to care not to overwrite existing pages by the robot; but even if it will happen, no problems: we just revert it to an older state. By the way, if you copy from CZ, do not forget attribution (see how it is done by the robot). And finally: the robot, as usual, leaves something to correct manually. Some templates, many pictures. You are welcome to help... --Boris Tsirelson 07:31, 6 December 2010 (CST)

Also, my robot makes only a primitive attribution to CZ; sometimes you may want to make a detailed one on the talk page. --Boris Tsirelson 07:44, 6 December 2010 (CST)

Boris I can, and will, go through your Robot list, but

• How do I know which articles have already been copied?

It may happen if it is not only Chemistry but also Physics. Just check. Or do not check; I'll check myself; this is much easier than look at them and decide.

• How do you use the list? Will you copy it from my talk page as input to your robot?

Yes, of course, this is what I intend to do.

--Paul Wormer 02:34, 7 December 2010 (CST)

Good luck. --Boris Tsirelson 06:56, 7 December 2010 (CST)

[unindent]I looked at the list of chemistry articles. Many are short, but with an essential figure that is stored at CZ. For the time being I skip those articles, because I don't know what to do with the figure. I plussed quite a few, so you can go.--Paul Wormer 08:10, 7 December 2010 (CST)

Nice; I'll do soon. Boris Tsirelson 08:19, 7 December 2010 (CST)

I did. It worked! (With the usual drawbacks; but much better than nothing.) --Boris Tsirelson 09:23, 7 December 2010 (CST)

Oops, acetaminophen is lost; my error; I'll add it to another Chemistry cluster. --Boris Tsirelson 09:39, 7 December 2010 (CST)

Now, naturally, I wonder whether you want to continue this way. And if you do, you have a choice: Chem-B (that is, chemistry, starting with "B")? Or maybe Phys-B? Or Bio-A? Or Eng-A? --Boris Tsirelson 09:34, 7 December 2010 (CST)

I choose Phys-B.--Paul Wormer 02:54, 8 December 2010 (CST)

I plussed Phys-B., so your bot can go. --Paul Wormer 07:04, 8 December 2010 (CST)

Nice; I'll do. --Boris Tsirelson 07:13, 8 December 2010 (CST)

I did. regretfully, Boiling point is imported twice; we should compare and decide the better version (strangely, they differ). Also, "Boron/Properties" failed; it is some special CZ design that I do not understand. --Boris Tsirelson 08:14, 8 December 2010 (CST)

Ah, I see: "Boiling point" is approved on CZ; it is the difference between draft and approved. --Boris Tsirelson 08:17, 8 December 2010 (CST)

It seems to me that the draft version is better or the same as the approved version, by definition. Somebody may have entered an improvement into the draft that is not present in the approved version.--Paul Wormer 08:21, 8 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] Article deletion

Hallo Boris, RationalWiki is critical about the CZ article Atomic hypothesis. It is just a beginning and never finished. When I put a plus to it, I did not notice that, so Tendrl has it too. I looked at at it and don't feel inspired to work on it, so we better delete it. Can I do that? --Paul Wormer 00:28, 9 December 2010 (CST)

In principle, others could work on it. However, on this early stage we are bold to decide what do we take from CZ, and may be bold to reconsider our decision. Thus, I delete it. --Boris Tsirelson 02:28, 9 December 2010 (CST)

Please delete Atom (science)/Catalogs and Atom (science)/Video.--Paul Wormer 04:39, 9 December 2010 (CST)

Done.

Could you implement Template:Chem infobox, see Amphetamine? --Paul Wormer 04:47, 9 December 2010 (CST)

I did, but image does not work for now. --Boris Tsirelson 05:33, 9 December 2010 (CST)

"RationalWiki is critical about the "Atomic hypothesis" — I wonder, where do you see it there? --Boris Tsirelson 05:37, 9 December 2010 (CST)

[1] --Paul Wormer 06:26, 9 December 2010 (CST)

Yes, I see, thanks. --Boris Tsirelson 09:48, 9 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] New physics articles

Please put some new physics articles (C and D) ready, thank you.--Paul Wormer 03:08, 9 December 2010 (CST)

Phys-C is unexpectedly long, thus I think, Phys-D can wait. --Boris Tsirelson 03:56, 9 December 2010 (CST)

I checked Phys-C, please go ahead. (Do you know how many article there are now?)--Paul Wormer 04:23, 9 December 2010 (CST)

I'll do, but some hours later. --Boris Tsirelson 05:34, 9 December 2010 (CST)

"How many"? What do you mean? All Tendrl articles? Only physics? Or on CZ? --Boris Tsirelson 05:36, 9 December 2010 (CST)

All Tendrl articles. --Paul Wormer 06:27, 9 December 2010 (CST)

According to Tendrl:About#Comparison, 194. --Boris Tsirelson 07:28, 9 December 2010 (CST)

Paul, I observe that you like to import very short articles. For example, Carnot engine. That is itself OK since I see on CZ that it is your article. But then please remove attribution to CZ, doing instead as I did for example on Talk:Entanglement (physics) (again...). --Boris Tsirelson 08:37, 9 December 2010 (CST)

I don't have all that many short articles, this one happens to be kind of a redirect to Carnot cycle (which is very long). Giving credit to myself has no high priority to me, is it important?--Paul Wormer 08:43, 9 December 2010 (CST)

Also Cold probe (NMR), Compton scattering, Conservation of momentum, Coulomb (unit), ... If you do not bother about your authorship this is OK; but I do not like to give to CZ more credit than needed. In fact, the formulation used by me is just the same as CZ uses w.r.t. WP (and for the same reason). --Boris Tsirelson 08:48, 9 December 2010 (CST)

About "Catalysis": there was a technical error with it; thus for now it is deleted; I'll return to it some day. --Boris Tsirelson 08:53, 9 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] Lie algebra

Boris, I address you as mathematician. A long time ago I wrote for CZ an article about spherical harmonic functions. A couple of days ago somebody added to this article a section on Lie algebras that is IMHO out of place. I wrote this comment (section WP-type degradation). The author did not retract his work, and, moreover, Gareth Leng complemented him shortly after on his "clear and elegant mathematical work". I decided to write for Knowino a piece along the lines that I feel are more to the point. It is a physicist-type of approach. I'm aware of much more powerful mathematical techniques, but they are beyond my mathematical capabilities. Could you have a look at this CZ article and the article here and give your mathematician's opinion? Thank you.--Paul Wormer 11:02, 27 December 2010 (EST)

First, I am not a physicist, and I know how deep are cultural/mental differences between mathematics and physics.

Second, generally I like both your text and the text of John Brews (in spite of the fact that I would write it a third way :-) ).

Third, I am astonished to see that you call a professor (of electrical engineering) "somebody", and even "who did not read (or understand) the rest of the article". Even if true, it looks too rude and abrasive for my eye. But I doubt that it is true.

Fourth, it may happen that Expert A believes that Expert B is a fool. However, a wiki is not an appropriate place for saying (or hinting) so. This is a straight way to antagonization of experts (and therefore death of the project), — just the thing we hope to avoid on Knowino (if fail to avoid on CZ). Do not scare me.

Fifth, the question of what to include to an article, and to which extent, and on which level of explanation, is inherently controversial (unlike the question, whether a given statement is true or false); and the opinion of Gareth Leng is another manifestation of this controversy. If you do not tolerate another's opinions on such controversial questions, then you should rather write to the arXiv, scientific journals etc.

Sixth, I do understand your first feeling when you see "your" article suddenly changed. Moreover, I do think that experts should not use wiki just as on wikipedia; it is better to first propose a change on a talk page and observe the response. But anyway, I do not want you to really leave wikis for arXiv or whatever (you know that I really do not want!); and this is exactly the reason why I ask you not to be hot-tempered. Otherwise you'll not survive on a wiki.

With genuine respect and best wishes, --Boris Tsirelson 12:50, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Back to mathematics, I have a question. And by the way, did you see this question? --Boris Tsirelson 14:44, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Thank you for your wise words. I was indeed somewhat (too) annoyed, although I still believe that the exact same text cannot be used in such widely different subjects as magnetization and spherical harmonics. At the very least he (I don't like to mention names because Google is listening) should have adapted his notation to the context; because he didn't do that I have the strong impression that he didn't read the context and IMHO that's a mortal sin.

With regard to zero point energy: I have only a vague notion. As soon as there is an EM field, virtual particles and antiparticles can be formed in second order of perturbation theory (the field being the perturbation). Those virtual particles, that have an undetermined life time Δt, borrow undetermined energy ΔE from the field, Heisenberg: Δt ΔE ≈ h/(2π). As far as I understand it (and that's not far) this is the zero point energy. It seems to me that with zero field (not even blackbody radiation, hence at zero K) virtual particle creation does not occur and the energy of the vacuum is zero. Anyway, I myself would not write about it with my present state of knowledge.

--Paul Wormer 01:35, 28 December 2010 (EST)