User talk:F=q(E+v^B)

• Date: Friday, July 19, 2024
• Time: 12:06 (UTC/GMT)

Archives

2011 2012-

Hello!

Why is your nick is not user: F=q(E+v×B) or some other presentation without an unreadable ASCII substitute for ×? You have the possibility to rename yourself, leaving a redirect behind the user page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - replied at your talk page.-- F = q(E + v × B) 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for cleaning up the physics pages!

Xuanji (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh? - didn't expect to see this upon a quick return to WP, I’ve been busy recently so I haven’t done much on WP lately. Though thanks a million for your appreciation! And no problem! =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 10:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the Template:Physics operator you created and I think Template:Quantum optics operators should be merged into it, but I'm quite new and not sure how to go about proposing such a merge. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuanji (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it should be merged. I hadn't seen that template before, so i'll do it soon. First i'll ask for the author's opinion. Thanks very much for pointing it out. =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About proposing merges: In the case two parts of WP are very closley related and there is too much overlap, you can do the merge yourself provided you mention on the associated talk page/s, but its best to speak to the author (found in the edit history) of the page/template etc first before taking any further action. Otherwise you just do what you did then: make the proposal, and sit tight for others to reply.-- F = q(E + v × B) 17:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I know its very late to ask now 4 years on - though I only joined wikipedia several months ago. Recently I have significantly edited the wavefunction article. When looking through the (extremley negative) talk history, I found this statement written by you:

"this page has no meaning because it doesnt give the formula for the wave function. The formula for the wave function grows to several pages long for any system containing more than a few particles. The problem is that it is a recursive simultanious equation. When one reaches the entanglement point it becomes nearly impossible to solve without the aid of computers simply because of the time it would take to write it down..."

I was wondering... what is this "formula for a wavefunction as a recursive simaltaneous (system of) equation(s)?" I thought wavefunctions are solved from wave equations (ex. Schrodinger, Dirac etc), but didn't think there was "a formula". I have yet to come across this, and have looked far and wide for it. Could you write down some of it (if its so long)? Please reply on my talk page when you can. Thanks. -- F = q(E + v × B) 14:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! Nope, 4 years isn't too much of a lag for a wikiogre like me. "this page has no meaning because it doesnt give the formula for the wave function." wasn't a part of my comment, it was an unsigned previous comment- I was attempting to clarify that the integral equations given in the article were as close as you can get to writing the formula down, given that there isn't actually a "X=..." type of formula for the wavefunctions, as the commenter after me mentions. I've tweaked the formating and added an "unsigned" author sig to that line (it was apparently posted before signbot made its debut) to make it a bit clearer that mine is a separate comment. I have to agree about the negativity of the comments on the talk section of that page, by the way. It amuses me how the strangest things get people ranting. Scorpion451 rant 14:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I see what you mean, thank you! I'm sorry for mistaking the unsigned comment for yours. It makes perfect sense that there doesn't exist such a formula. I just became incredibly curious about what was said. =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 14:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for your note on my talk page. It's pretty cool to see newer Wikipedians like yourself take the initiative with improving these old templates. I think it would be OK to merge the templates together, but I wonder whether it might get too big to handle. Then again, we have Template:ProbDistributions which is highly useful. Might want to think of adding things like D'Alembert operator and Casimir operator to your new template. I'd be curious to see how your merging of the templates turns out, so please feel free to wikify as you see fit! --HappyCamper 04:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - i'll do that. It shouldn't become too large to handle, there's hardly anything on the template I created. Anyway thanks for your permission! =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 11:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good! Hopefully other Wikipedians will be able to build on it. But...Just a friendly reminder about redirecting templates, sometimes it is necessary to make edits like these since some templates work better if placed near the bottom of the page. --HappyCamper 07:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! Pleased to know you like them. I'll do what you mentioned next time. =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 21:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, F=q(E+v^B). You have new messages at Fly by Night's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Fly by Night (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, F=q(E+v^B). You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage.
Message added 12:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to be clear that the Dirac equation was motivated to solve the Klein-Gordon equation, and that every solution to DE was a solution to the KG, but not vice versa. This was further illustrated by showing the KG and DE in Feynman slash notation along side each other. These statements no longer appear, and the associated Feynman slash equations have been deleted. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you have professed being a fan of equations, I wondered if you had ever seen some of the usual physical equations expressed in geometric algebra. Rschwieb (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks, I have seen that fascinating article many times before yet still don't understand it very well (yet - will someday). I'm not at the same level as you and many other experienced editors are. =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a pure mathematician trying to learn the applications of algebra in physics. The main problem for me is that I don't have the physics/engineering background to absorb the applications very quickly. In my experience, pepole with physics/engineering background were able to quickly generate intuition for the equation without being stressed about (as I am) how it arose. When I talked with a physics friend, he got a little impatient with my foundational questions, because he couldn't answer them.

Geometric algebra seems like an ideal place for me to begin to get my head around both disciplines. There are three or four people at User:Rschwieb/GA_Discussion building a little learning community about it. Feel free to ask questions and see how well what's there helps the learning process. Rschwieb (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that’s interesting. =) I looked at the page and there are indeed experienced editors there. To be clear: its for understanding how GA fits in with physics, in addition to spinors, right? It’s a useful idea to create such a page; although I may not be much help/use on it, there are certainly questions I have to ask as you might see every now and then. -- F = q(E + v × B) 16:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly like to use the subpage whenever I have a questions about how the "standard approach" and the GA approach differ. The standard approach seems so patchwork at times that I can't see the forest for the trees. I have very little feeling for how physicists think of reletavistic dynamics and electromagnetics, and I have no idea what a spinor is. Rschwieb (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, right now I'm busy with coursework, I can't respond much untill later (hopefully). I'll use the pinch of time I have right now to comment here.-- F = q(E + v × B) 14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contribution. Diverse viewpoints are going to help (me at least) the most. I hope you don't mind if I divide it up a little and sort it into the headers above. We all are pretty busy with real life, and have to steal moments to read (I'm teaching classes, in fact.) I'm curious what classes you will be attending. Rschwieb (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, please organize as you see fit. =)

Interesting to know you're a teacher/lecturer, and a researcher - wikipedia needs people who are teachers. I'm sure you've made plenty of productive contributions to the mathematics articles! There is another extremley well respected and high-quality editor who is a physics teacher and researcher also. You should also ask him for his inderstanding of GA in EM and GR, and spinors in QM and QFT. =)

(FYI modules this year I have are: QM, Nuclear physics, Solid state physics, Linear algebra, Multivariable + Vector calculus, Linear + Non-linear ODE's, pinch of PDE's, EM + pinch of physical optics, "Eigenphysics" (Linear algebra + Physics), Lagrangian + Hamiltonian mechanics, and Statistical physics...). -- F = q(E + v × B) 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool (and very full) class schedule! I would be helpful for linear and vector algebra and calculus. I sure wish I could attend classes such as quantum, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (but I'd probably need a refresher on classical mechanics.) Rschwieb (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent interest in the AMO article. I made a suggestion on that talk page suggesting a merger, it would be good to hear your opinion. (something like this: User:IRWolfie-/Atomic,_Molecular_and_Optical_Physics, bearing in mind this is effectively an empty shell). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - replied at the talk page. Actually I didn't have that much interest, but it did need sources and still needs a lot of work. I'll help you wth souces if you like. =)-- F = q(E + v × B) 14:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you made some additions and added some references, can you switch to using the referencing style which I initially used for the article so as to keep the article consistent? Can you also add page numbers to the references you added so the text can be verified? Cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, will do. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 06:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CONTINUED BELOW

A Talk:HCPotter

I'm overwhelmed by your belated welcome, but I have noticed the giant ? that seems to beg a response. With regard to original research, I believe we know it when we see it. The Akers reference I added to the Dirac equation page is such. It presents observed measurements from experimental condition manipulation. My paper is analogous to a Wikipedia page. I use it as a reference to provide interested readers with added background for my edits.

P.S. Isn't it time to clear the Dirac equation talk page? Its memory limit seems to have been reached.(HCPotter (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

What do you mean by "giant"?

• Extra large font.(HCPotter (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Its not "extra-large": it Gill sans MT in the same size (10pt). Is it a problem to like a different font? At the time when I tried reducing the size I couldn't quite get it to work. It’s not to show off my name dominating everyone elses, irrelevant of what anyone thinks. Lets be clear - I'm NOT vain and do NOT edit for credit, and independent of this little pointer I changed the font recently and it happens to appear smaller. Happy now? Ignore that, you meant the question mark in the title heading... how embarressing... (blush) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway - you say your paper is analogous to a wikipedia article, and the Akers reference is OR? The Akers citation seems to be more like a secondary source to me, while you citing your own paper is OR, because it’s your own work - which is why DVdm deleted it. Maybe you could link it in the External links section, which allows the reader access to view the document, but this can still be considered OR.

• The citation is secondary, but the research is original.(HCPotter (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Its either a primary, secondary or tertiary source. Research is obviously OR. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are never "cleared" if you mean to erase everything on it like a black/whiteboard, only to fill it in again. They are archived on the other hand in bunches of dead (inactive/terminated) discussions, which is your point right? You have a point, I'll see that this can be done up to the section Two kinds of Dirac field.

• My point, exactly. It has been done.(HCPotter (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Is this reasonable? =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 14:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this edit summary [1] was very unreasonable on yourself. I personally found what you wrote an interesting reminder, and something worth going back to and thinking about again. But I haven't contributed to the page much recently, because there are various other projects that have been taking up almost all my spare attention recently, so I haven't had the spare focus needed to really immerse myself in the right place to get to grips with spinors. Your pictures looked fab though -- good diagrams are so important, and so often so underprovided here, and take a significant amount of effort to create, so you deserved significantly more kudos for those than you got. (Even if I still haven't quite made the leap to see what it is about spinors that would a-priori lead you to them as what you would expect to need to describe such situations... I am sure the answers are out there, and probably well known, but I haven't put in the spadework needed to really feel it connects all together for me yet). So, very many thanks for those!

I also saw you had a look at Matrix mechanics recently. Beware, I have serious reservations about that article, because I suspect it has only the most tenuous relation to what actually was the path Heisenberg went along in the 1920s. Again, it's something I have a file of photocopying on, intending to get back to, but haven't yet been able to crunch properly to do it proper justice yet.

Enough about me though. I just wanted to say thank you for your contributions, and to apologise if -- for entirely unrelated reasons -- it might have appeared that they were falling on stony ground. Jheald (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! This is exactly the sort of thing I wanted to see: it's useful for learners (like me) to stimulate thought, and useful for teachers to see if they can offer guidance or correction on what you've said. Leave it to me to weed out the useless stuff on my talk pages :) Rschwieb (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I didn't expected to read this... There really is no need for either of you to apologise because it was simply in the wrong place anyway, and as Quondum said - what help are formulae in 3d? Though I certainly appreciate your thoughts and concerns. Thank you! =)

The diagrams were also relativley rushed, they could have been done better but I hoped they would serve the purpose, so quickly posted them. Again - its very decent and thoughtful of you to applause them, so thanks and absolutely no problem, more of a pleasure. =)

However Jheald - I don't understand what your implications are about Matrix mechanics, but by all means you can revert/delete any and all of my edits if you think so: I really will not be offended if it means a better article is the result. I simply transferred content from Schrödinger equation to there due to overlap and the length of that article. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 17:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest the last time I looked at the article was February 2010, so I certainly wasn't commenting on any recent changes you may have made! But the article doesn't seem to have changed that much since then. (diff). If you like, I can look out some of the notes I made at the time, to remind me exactly what I was uncomfortable about. Jheald (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I understand better. You’re correct that Matrix mechanics hasn't improved that much since then. No offence to any editors of that article, though as I say the edit history it’s not in acceptable shape - especially for its importance. Please do show me (perhaps everyone at the talk page) your notes - they will surely help. I'll be watching pages time to time though can't be editing WP too much anymore (exams). Should also mention I'm not very familiar with matrix mechanics actually (more so with wave mechanics) - again I only transferred content and cleaned up what bits I could. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 07:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My references are directed at content, not author or journal. Page editors have the prerogative to remove offensive references, but they have the obligation to do so responsibly, not reflexively. My Dirac equation edit reads well without the reference to my work, but it reads better with the reference where the photon energy-momentum relation is shown to follow from the photon function full derivative. So, I ask that the deleted reference be restored. (HCPotter (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I personally have no problems with you citing your own source in the interest of helping others.

Although, having read it several times more, I fail to see how a reader will gain much from the source in the context of the Dirac equation, lepton pair production, and the photon energy momentum relation. Its more about physical/quantum optics in relativity. Just becasue you mentioned [2] that photons pair produce leptons (i.e. leptons and anti-leptons) within the surrounding context that the Dirac equation predicted anti-matter and applies to spin-1/2 fermions, and that leptons happen to be fermions, your paper actually has little connection to the article or even your own statement, except for relativistic treatments. Where do you even talk about lepton pair production in your citation? Its not there. Ok - so you leave that for Akers to worry about.

Furthermore, your paper is not clear how "the Dirac equation can be looked upon as extending the homogeneous photon energy-momentum --- relation" [3]. You don't even mention the Dirac equation in your paper.

• Your terminology from the start is not clear - what is "${\displaystyle \,\chi ,}$ is a Lorenz gauge function"? Will a reader know? There is no background for why you use this function for theoretical reasons or why readers should care.
• Also you write "phase function ${\displaystyle \phi _{\pm }=r\pm at}$" so I guess r is position and t is time, continuous variables, and phase is the wave phase
• but then write "wave equation ${\displaystyle \chi _{rr}-\chi _{tt}/a^{2}=0}$ where subscripts denote partial differentiation", fair enough, then "${\displaystyle \chi '=\chi _{\mu }d\mu =0}$ and summation over repeated indices ${\displaystyle \mu \in \{r,t\}}$" which is a contradiction of notation: indices are supposed to be discrete dummy variables so if you mean space (index = 1,2,3) and time components (index = 0) you can't write ${\displaystyle \mu \in \{r,t\}}$ if r and t are continuous. Also the indices for vector components appear to be mixed with subscripts for partial differentiation, which is bad presentation.
• Why use a for wave speed?? why not just c?? they are photons right? readers would be better served using the more familiar notation
• you state that there is "generalized phton 4-space", the context is confusing, the explainations look like a mash of cartesian coordinates, direction cosines, and Minkowski light cones with ${\displaystyle \phi _{\pm }}$ for the axes. The surrounding explainations are not followable, people have eneogh trouble understanding what the original Minkowski Light cone with t and x, y, z axes.
• from there on its just about optics, like reflection, refraction, diffraction, E field amplitudes, and on and on.

Little things like this add up rendering it unclear: you can't expect typical or even expert readers to follow this reference. Fine - so I'm not yet a professional physicist. Yet again: WP doesn't allow peoples own work, and given the issues above I'm not adding the referance back. You have been adding your own referances to other physics articles, so I suggest you take your reasons to the WikiProject Physics talk page. Thanks. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is ok, but not that brilliant (the hard work done by everyone else is more appreciated). I have responded to your thrashing comments here. Thank you. Maschen (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maschen - in case you continue this is the better place for it. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 07:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one point out of interest (which we didn't mention) - you implied forcefully that the equation-list articles "will definitley" be deleted (eventually). Why have you included them in the {{template:physics equations}} ? Maschen (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its becuase they exist I decided they should be included. Its simple, should they be deleted: they can be removed. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 20:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again - why? What is the point in this template when the links (to the relevant pages) and categories (many more organized links) exist in articles? You are just adding ~10^3 bytes for no reason, overlinking, and spoiling the appearance of the page by due to the repetition. They are already linked in the context "where they belong, not buried in a list of links" (remember a statement like sounding that?), so now I'm on the edge of PRODding the template. Just thought I'd let you know, so you're not negatively shocked. Maschen (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine Maschen - I said I'll not do anything to stop it, since you and maybe others find it such a heavy detriment to the reader's and editors experiance. Just remember the reasons for why it was created. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That’s another good point - it’s just extra maintenance to keep maintaining and updating. Maschen (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't though - how often does need updating? How difficult is it to update?? If you look at the markup, its just a list, very easily organized and edit. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the difficulty, it’s the extra work for nothing. Maybe this could be created as a category/subcategory in its own right? I don't know about you but its much easier to add and maintain categories to articles (in fact all you have to do is add the category to the bottom of the article, then all the articles which fall into the category are automatically alphabetized - you don't have to do a thing) than physically maintain the template. This is potentially a better alternative if you really wanted something, but there is no point since most physics equations will be under something like [[Category:Equations]] or perhaps [[Category:Theoretical physics]]... Maschen (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you like - the PROD is on you to make and provide convincing reasons. Interestingly... the really correct thing you say which I genuinly agree on is "the hard work from everyone else"... shall the template now be a waste for them?? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They can live with it... its not like it consumed days of their time, and this is what editing things is like on wikipedia - you should know that. I (say it again) am gratefull for their efforts, but its not like the world will end...Maschen (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have reached a conclusion. Just don't feel guilty after is all..... I havn't any care to argue for it anymore. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then bid it farewell. When I find out how to PROD things I'll do it, just be sure you don't thrash the talk page again when the debate for deletion occurs. Maschen (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maschen, I didn't, and deny, that I "thrashed the page". You were also responsible for arguing defensively over the equation list articles, and called the template "fucktarded", and used personal attacks (by all means I don't care about the latter). F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YOU were the one that started violently, all I did was provide my answer, and from the start you keep complaining about the "irrelevance of WP:STICK". It’s exactly what you were doing, you VIOLENTLY SHOUTED LIKE THIS at a perfectly neutral response, when the statement terminated a long time ago. Don't blame me for your mistakes. Maschen (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you forgot, you shouted more than I did (compare the number of capital letters between your posts and mine). We could keep arguing on and on and on about this forever, but let me summarize what I would in principle have to say in a word: desist. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suprised you two are arguing. I will place the template:

{{db|redundant due to categories [[Category:Equations]] and/or [[Category:Theoretical physics]] and is extra effort to maintain in comparison with the zero effort it takes to use categories.}}

in the equation list templates and complete the noble task Maschen did not. You said you do not care F = blah, right? :-)Hublolly (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F=q(E+v^B), please avoid shouting in talk page discussions, for the reasons described in the link. I know it is distressing to have your work attacked as it was on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, but shouting does not help your cause. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct. Many apologies to all the talk page, including Maschen. The debate is at least terminated, and will not happen again. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 06:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never start a section in such a way. See WP:+. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean use the "new section tab"? Normally I do this, sometimes not. I can't see why its that bad, but will not do so in the future. Thanks for telling me anyway. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 18:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is linking in the section headings right? I'll not do that either. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 20:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that he linked to WP:+ I think he was saying that you always should click the +, not that you should not. The reason being, according to the link, is that it makes the edit summary mention the new section if you click +, but if you don't then the edit summary mentions whatever random section was previously last. (This doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but it looked like you misunderstood.) Quietbritishjim (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok - thank you. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 14:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I brought up COI, I meant that it's possible that Xtr rossi is Hestenes himself, editing autobiographically. I meant the picture as circumstantial evidence supporting that, but there's nothing wrong (that I can tell) with the picture itself. This is somewhat farfetched, because it could be, of course, just a big fan of Hestenes. Rschwieb (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... lets just keep an eye on that user for now. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 06:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, F=q(E+v^B). You have new messages at Crowsnest's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nice of you to say, thanks. =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 14:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the cleanup barnstar! Always nice when someone notices my efforts :) Benwing (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get round to saying thanks for sorting that article out. A year later, after learning more physics and maths, I realize how atrociously incorrect my efforts were for that article. I'm happy you merged into it into laws of science, and those edits for that article were definitely an improvement.

You have my support for merging scientific law into laws of science, there are a number of these "laws of nature/science/physics" articles which could do with some unification (!). By all means leave physical law alone though.

Also thanks for at least being decent enough to improve the list of physics equations article in the process of merging, even though you ironically dislike that article. Don't worry too much about the length - Maxwell's equations is ~ 109kB with a lot of repetition. Best, Maschen (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks for your constructive feedback. =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you prefer the use of a non-bolded nabla symbol (∇), and the use of the bullet glyph (•) in place of the mathematical centred dot operator (⋅). In the case of the nabla, I'm not sure of standard usage, but in contexts where three dimensions and more dimensions occur in the same article (e.g. with a space–time split in STA), bolding may be used as with other vectors to distinguish their dimensionality. I do not know whether (but guess that) a trend is emerging to use bolding for 3-D in all cases. The use of the bullet in place of a centred dot to represent a dot product is probably contrary to the defined Unicode semantics and might be a minority usage, and as such I would like you to reconsider before making further dot-to-bullet changes, but don't let this stop you seeking an opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics on both. — Quondum^☏ 15:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thanks for pointing this out. There is no real reason to make nabla bold becuase its defined as a vector, but I can understand the matching with other boldface vectors. From now on I'll just leave any nabla-dots alone... =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... but don't let this discourage you from making the many related edits you make. I don't know where you get the energy and time, but WP is better for it. — Quondum^☏ 15:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice of you to say!! =) Changing a couple of glyphs is a seperate action from actual editing, so there is no discouragement. =)

I should emphasize that my numerous edits are not always better, and frequently inferior - the classical (quantum!) example is Schrödinger equation (just look at the state of the edit history), I spent days trying to rewrite it every now and then back in January (2012), yet others re-transformed it within an hour. JRSpriggs and Sbyrnes321 happen to rewrite alomst everything I change in physics articles becuse there are errors, lacking or unclear explaintions and examples etc... and lots of other editors such as yourself and RockMagnetist also fix many of my errors and other technical attributes like accuracy, categories, sectioning... By all means I'm definitley very grateful, just hope this is understood. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I have made in your sandbox seem a little futile now, unless you wish to synchronize some of them into the since updated article. Otherwise I suggest you simply delete the section from your sandbox. I did not properly address the structuring that we'd referred to. I'll be taking a break from the article for an indefinite period, due to a certain conflict of approach between me and another editor, who admittedly has made good contributions. I hope my withdrawal does not discourage you from continuing your excellent work on a valuable article. — Quondum^☏ 10:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was already in a similar situation - temporarily withdrawn due to my recent incorrect edits on tensor dual, wedge product, Levi-civita symbol etc. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 11:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some or most of your chagrin which I'm sure was due to my own crassness. I hope you followed my rationale of the inappropriateness of the wedge product in this article. I trust you noticed my query at WP:Reference_desk/Mathematics about it, and the outcome that the wedge product can apparently be defined with any scalar factor when defined in terms of the tensor product, so your (apparently standard), and my (standard in GA) versions were both apparently valid (which was a huge surprize to me), so neither is the correct one. Combine this with that the wedge product is generally not mentioned in the context of this notation, hence my removing it. — Quondum^☏ 19:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - none of it is your fault at all. Your edit summary "sorry for my part in that" and self-demotivating "crassness" is wrong...

Remember that in spite of my egoistic appearance on tensor contributions to WP, and plenty of exposure to all this in the literature, I don't actually understand the full theory properly at all; only the index notation and vague concepts that state the "generalization of scalars/vectors/matrices, multi-dimensional arrays" etc (though can do vector calculus in index notation, easy), and should not write about such concepts. It’s all out of deep interest, retarded by my own mistake of trying to learn advanced topics too quickly without the patient intermediate steps (been like this since age 16...).

The wedge product doesn't really matter. The original motivation was to expand that section on notable tensors and use it as an "application section" to show how tensor operations can be expressed in the index notation, and was going to include the transpose of two indices also. I had a niggling feeling that it would be removed as off-topic, similarly for Hodge dual and Levi-civita symbol, in the end it happened. It is off-topic.

As for your query at WP maths helpdesk, I didn't notice it before but now you mention it, I looked it up, and again don't really understand exterior algebra and abstractions therefrom... sorry. Surely there must be different ways of defining the wedge product in different formalisms. In any case thank you for doing all this for the article, I'm really grateful.

Btw - I know the other editor you had a little friction with is JRSpriggs, as can be seen from the edit history. Don't worry about it, everyone makes mistakes (though always less than me!!). =)

Also I'll keep the section in my sandbox, your suggestions of re-sectioning will be incorporated soon.

F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 20:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, and I do not wish to disparage JRSpriggs, whose breadth of knowledge in this area is far greater than mine. My problem is more that I do not right now have the energy to argue about what I'm convinced is an unwitting (and widespread) misconception; I find I occasionally disagree with accepted wisdom because I work from first principles where possible; use of terminology is often the problem but I'm not always wrong.

Far from appearing egotistical, you frequently do yourself down – IMO excessively so.

I was under the impression that pretty much any course that goes into everything covered by the notation in this article would cover such concepts as the Levi-Civita symbol (but unfortunately often only glancingly the related tensor) and the Hodge dual (at least in the treatment of the EM field), so I still think that these concepts belong in the article. I may, of course, be off-beam about what the title does cover; the course I did was named Tensor methods by G. F. R. Ellis, which essentially covered the content of this article, and did cover those concepts mentioned here.

Thank you for your kind words, as always. =) I don't know what to do though, =( I agree (with the points you give) that to some extent they should be in the article, but perhaps the article is fine without, JRSpriggs didn't imply those bits should be removed, they can be rewritten, (except for the torsion tensor, which seems it should should stay out)... F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 13:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And JRSpriggs may be correct to suggest that a formulation that is torsion-free is fully general. This would suggest that it is not a true tensor but rather an artifact of the (arbitrarily) chosen connection, in which case I'd withdraw any objection. I'm out of my depth on this one. — Quondum^☏ 13:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. The article is pretty much fine as it is now, any add-on conventions can be inserted but not much more on tensor theory itself. F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 13:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Other than catching up, I was wondering if you know anything about Python. Please also consider turning on your email contact option (or maybe use said option on my userpage). Rschwieb (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Python (but have encountered it time to time) - sorry... My email account has been activated on WikiMedia. Good to see from you though! =) F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or these edits [4][5][6], for that matter?

Of course a 90-rated IQ like you may not (you say this on your main page). I was the IP who gave you a "personally disparaging characterization" of you and your edits, then user:JRSpriggs and user:RockMagnetist sprang into your defence. I hope your'e very grateful.

Just thought to say *sorry*, but I still have problems with some of your other edits (not you personally):

• [7] (you dare call someone above you "hipocritical"??)
• [8] (I agree!)
• [9] (you are offensive to call an expert's hard work "genuinly nonsense" on the calculation of the fundamental forces: EM and the strong force, which appear to be a potential simplification in theoretical physics and could be a turning point in progress... user:TimothyRias correctly proved you wrong though...)
• [10] (complaining for what? someone else is trying hard and you are downtreading them)
• [11] [12] [13] (you can't even get it right...),
• [14] (its rude and unconstructive to call someone else's words "meaningless" who is again far above your intelligence and experiance - they have the right to comment, just like everyone else).
• [15] (Huh???)
• [16] (you disparage user:Michael C Price?) [17] (and user:Dilaton?) and [18] (and user:Incnis Mrsi over nothing?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hublolly (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I could keep going...

And just becuase I started a new account today - does not mean I do not know how wikipedia works! Do not underestimate me, I was an IP after all. *Regards*!, :-)

Hublolly (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. - you go to Bham Uni (UK) right? I think I caught you standing at the computer (a skinny pale guy, long black emo-like hair style with a stripy hoody on, cut wrist) in the main libary (lower ground area) the other day (02/07/12) editing wikipedia with your user name, but was leaving (to take out the QM book by Eugen Merzbacher - its a good one!) and did not have the time to say Hi! I promise I will not persue you on this, but was that you? just "yes or no" and we'll leave it at that!...). :-) Hublolly (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So thats who you are.... the answer to your question is YES that was me. Its also irrelevent on WP if I am some random skinny pale emo etc. Its true I also make many mistakes also (in/outside of WP), and I'm sorry for that. =( .... F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 00:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F=q(E+v^B): Get a dictionary (and a life, a tan, some body weight for that matter...). Don't think I havn't noticed yet another reversion. Stop telling others what they can and can't do and taking over articles for yourself leaving it for others to clear up the mess after (NOT just Ricci calculus). :-( Hublolly (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you have had some contacts with Hublolly. He has gone off on Maschen, who is somebody who needs some extra encouragement, not abuse. Do you know any administrators who could take this matter in hand? I don't want to start following up every derisive edit and get accused of stalking. Thanks. P0M (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick to the fingertips of Hublolly's abuse, and will see which admins may be appropriate but for now I need to revert this user's changes...

By the way - I am too appalled at what he did to Maschen – it’s true the two of us fought intensely a few times, else I enjoyed some level of collaboration with him (in particular his excellent images, independent of correctness at least the clarity and quality excelled), and I'm very sorry on his leave. =( ... F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 20:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only admin I have actually communicated with is Edokter, but I have passed by other editors Jitse Niesen, Bduke, User:NuclearWarfare, Sphilbrick, though we should ask at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (I think that’s the right place). F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from whipping up so much opposition. I apologized already. Hublolly (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to note on your comment here: [19]. In this sort of situation it is always good to keep a cool head. Even if the other person is completely at fault. It reflects better on yourself. I would suggest editing it to tone it down (you can even note that you have done so). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand - just incredibly frustrated. Sorry, will do. F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 10:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just words of support: We all know how tempting it is to react to works of a trollish nature like in recent events :) Always remember that prying out a response (especially a forceful one) is exactly the game such a person wants to play. Enough of us know you well enough that you do not need to defend yourself against this sort of thing. Thanks also for your alerting me to the discussion, and your words of support on my behalf. Keep up the good work! Rschwieb (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for their continued support. =) F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 15:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARe you calling me a troll... A TROLL ???, Rschwieb? Hublolly (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to post to my talkpage under any circumstances - given your paranoia and obsession with getting me into trouble.

Is that clear? Do not, ever, at all, in any shape, form, geometry, infiltration procedure, post to my talkpage again. If I have done something so egregious that I need talking to, someone else will do it.

Not you. Ever. As an editor or as an admin, you are permanently unwelcome at my talkpage. I will not be watching your page, and should you ever post to my talkpage again it will be construed as harassment and I will take it to ArbCom if necessary.

Never. Ever. Forever.

To eternity and beyond - when our atoms become the reminants of the destroyed solar system, to drift through the universe and from which anything can happen - be it that they form a new planetary nebula and solar systems with new life forms which devlop their own computer technologies and internets and wikipedias telling the same thing to simalar editors, or crushed and shredded by black-holes, whooshed through wormholes (should such cosmological topology exist in spacetime fabric), and collapsed into the big crunch or frozen solid in the "deep freeze" end to the universe.

Except that you will not edit my talk page. Not ever. For all time.

Understood? Sparkling clear as a wine glass? Actually - is diamond opaque in comparison to what I just said?

I trust we understand each other.

Goodbye. :-/ Hublolly (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing - namely, having a fight with yourself on WP:ANI. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

F=q(E+v^B) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Let me clarify the situation, please read throughout (sorry this is so long...), it is the truth (at least I know it is).

I know its difficult to understand, but from 05/07/2012 to now I have been away from WP for a while (left to a family's home to visit and help another families house with DIY which needed work).

During which another person (who I live with and don't get on well with) used my account for the sock puppetery, and created Hublolly's account to cause all the disruption and abuse, that person was doing the sockpuppetery and damage. Both were on this same computer and hence "recent F=q(E+v^B)" and "Hublolly" have the same IP, that's why they are "technically indistinguishable" [20].

Upon return: I did not know I had been blocked, or about the damage done (WP:ANI) (untill now).

We both have to share the computer (can't afford one each). He knows my electronic personality and writing style, and eneogh maths to cause disruption at Ricci calculus in writing up the exterior product. Given that there was consensus against including this - do you think I would deviously use another account just to tread around all the other editors and induce a fake opposition?

Its not one user with two accounts: its two users one account - user:F=q(E+v^B). I (the one writing this) am the one who started the account in september 2011. Its too difficult to convince people becuase I can't prove what I'm saying. This is a private issue between us - please do not ask for any detials.

• All the rubbish about "I saw you in the library" [21] never happened.

• Those edits ~6 months ago or these edits [22][23][24] were also by him, and extrapolated the insane rudeness towards other users everywhere.

I can’t blame you all for not being able to tell that this IS the real entitled user to this account (yes - same one from september 2011), after the done damage. =(

I’m telling you – I am innocent in this. Please understand this is something I would NEVER do to any and everyone, no matter what. Look at my past actions from the first second I logged in up to this edit 05/07/2012 (my very last edit - not the other person's) - does the gradual change in behaviour not seem so suddenly strange? Only concentrating on replying/reverting to this other editor and not editing physics or maths articles? Do you seriously think I would publically announce and waste all that time abusing others and myself, instead editing physics/maths articles?

Now that this account has lost all respect and reputation presumably all will shun the correct user (me) of this account.

• That doesn’t matter because you all do not understand how much I desire and enjoy to edit (yes - edit, not attack) Wikipedia – it was fun to help but I cannot now =(. Again - I would NOT attack people in such ways.
• All I want is to make complicated topics easier for everyone - that's my principle in WP and real life, and to uphold the rules (like every other good-faith editor)...

I will ensure privately with this other person this will not happen again. Do you trust to unblock the real user (me) of this account? I am not confident of any support to unblock because everyone now hates this account as vandalistic and abusive (hopfully you are not presuming I am lying just to get back in?)... =(

• If yes - I can prove it by dilligence (NOT profanity): I will slave over the physics and maths pages every free second I get without sleep in attempt to improve them, to make up the difference in good faith after all the shame that has been caused with this account. It’s true my edits are frequently inferior to everyone else but I never like to stop trying or learning, and want to work hard, and look forwards to working with you guys again...

• If no: then I just have to live without WP, and bid everyone a fond farewell... (I suppose it helps if there is one less editor inducing spelling mistakes, or with a "messy editing style", or for that matter "out of the way becuase of misunderstood disruption"...)

Please - I hope you understand all understand, but if not I do.

In any case, I wish all of you the very best, and always have and always would/will enjoy collaborating with you all in building the encyclopaedia...

Thank you loads for all your coorperation and actions which favour WP – blocked or unblocked.

Yours, The real F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 17:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC) since september 2011 (the person who is now typing this message to fix the mess and do whatever it takes to settle things right) - not the recent F=q(E+v^B)/Hublolly doubled account user by the other person.[reply]

P.S. I cannot reply back for a while after this (going back later).

Decline reason:

Based on this explanation, this account has been compromised. Absent a fool-proof way to confirm that you are the original owner, according to policy this account must remain blocked permanently (not indefinitely). Assuming good faith here, I'd suggest following these steps to get back to editing again:

1. Abandon this account.
2. Create a new account. Use a password that you know this other person does not know. Add an email address - ideally a new one, but failing that your existing email address. Either way make sure that the email account's password is changed to yet another new password.
3. On your userpage, leave a disclaimer that you used to edit as User:F=q(E+v^B).
4. Follow the steps at Wikipedia:Committed identity to establish a means of recovering your account. The way this works, if your account ever gets compromised again, you can email a secret phrase (which only you know) to an administrator you trust. They'll follow the same steps listed on that page, and in doing so will verify that you are who you say you are. Short of meeting with an administrator you've already met in person, this is the only means by which a compromised account can be unblocked.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, however we cannot tell who is actually using the keyboard. You could be the original owner, but as far as we know you could be someone else entirely. Because that involves copyright issues, we cannot unblock this account. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Seems plausible to me -- feel free to unblock without consulting me if you agree. F, if you're unblocked, I'd suggest checking out Wikipedia:Committed identity. I'd also suggest not leaving yourself logged in when you're not actually working. I know it's a pain, but this was a bigger pain. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems plausible to me too, but I was just about to decline the unblock request because F= states above that his last edit was on 5 July, and there have been many intervening edits since then, which means this account has been compromised. Is this a case of WP:IAR where we might make an exception to our policy of never unblocking compromised accounts? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should still wait to see if sockpuppet investigations can confirm if the story is consistent with what they can see. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That was already done yesterday; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hublolly. F= already explained that Hublolly edited from the same house, so naturally the investigation will determine that they are indistinguishable. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F=q(E+v^B). Due to a history of largely good contributions I have considered unblock. However, the decline reason by Hersfold above is compelling and creating a new account with a Wikipedia:Committed identity would be a way to go. If thats a problem leave a message here.--Salix (talk): 19:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from disinterested outsider: The force is strong with F=q(E+v^B). Sorry, I stole that, but it's true. Due to his excellent history of physics/math edits and our need for experts in this (they are very rare on WP), we should give him the benefit of the doubt on this, and his story (at least THIS time). He may need to take a new name (Dr. Lorentz F. or something) and of course new password due to this incident (AND don't let your computer remember it, either, genius-- you're going to have to type it in, each time, while looking over your shoulder). The IP needs to be softblocked so that new account creation is enabled for F=q(E+v^B) to do this, but not for anybody else on his computer. Basically, treat this machine like a high school library computer and schoolblock it, or something. But let us not lose this valued editor just because we can't figure out how to block IP edits or other new editors from his computer. This may be tricky-- perhaps he needs to communicate with an admin telling which new name he intends to use. SBHarris 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now changed the block setting so he can create a new account.--Salix (talk): 21:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you live with someone who uses your computer who is intent on abusing your account, you have to take very seriously what Sbharris above is saying. Consider installing a program like CCleaner to delete more of the browser history than you can using the options available in browsers. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for their good-faith comments and advice - makes sense to me. =) (original) F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 08:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Hublolly is not now in control of your account, then you should be willing and able to help us to identify (and possibly revert) the edits he did when he was in control of your account. To that end, please do the following:

• Set your time zone preference to +00:00 so that you are using UTC unmodified.
• Go through your contributions, Special:Contributions/F=q(E+v^B), and determine which ones were done by Hublolly rather than you.
• List the intervals (such as "23:42, 9 July 2012 to 10:48, 10 July 2012 inclusive") when he was in control below here.

Thank you. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I returned home now. Ok - let me (yes - the original user, not the other offensive sock-puppeteer) clarify several additional things everyone should know; apologies for the length, spelling mistakes, excessive amount of boldface (but that's to highlight important bits in a long response), and delay (many people must be watching this page, but I did say I'd be a while above)...

The time zone setting is already +00:00 UTC, I have checked.

Account usage

• I have been using this account - and only this account, from 07:23, 14 September 2011 to 17:18, 5 July 2012 inclusive.

• The other person has been using this account from 21:11, 5 July 2012 to 19:46, 10 July 2012 inclusive, and created and used Hublolly's account throughout this period (22:50, 5 July 2012 to 19:21, 10 July 2012). Remember that he does know how to edit WP and has looked into my contribs to see the types of pages I edit and the tasks I do.

• I used it again on 16:39, 11 July 2012 and later 17:06, 11 July 2012 to respond to the block.

Edit patterns

Has anyone noticed the unusual patterns in the edit ranges in the second point?

• The edits using the Hublolly account were clearly unacceptable.

The edits using this F=q(E+v^B) account were made as good as possible in attempt to match my previous behaviour, by:

• making all my uploaded images public domain and also added to user:F=q(E+v^B)/boxes,
• defending other users against Hublolly (see links in "removing rudeness" below)

to keep up the "good image" of this account and create a "Good hand" and "bad hand" contrast between "recent F=q(E+v^B)" and Hublolly - as much as possible so that his sockpuppetery would not be suspected. However: he also did

• very minor/few edits to physics/maths articles (notice how all except one edit are related to geometry? used in the unforgivable "A moment of clarity for you" insults: [25][26][27][28]):
  • vector field, (in addition to archiving talk:vector field)
  • Schrödinger equation,
  • redirect: Curvilinear coordinate,
  • some edits at Ricci calculus,
  • deleted a section from User:F=q(E+v^B)/sandbox,
• mostly concentrating on telling off Hublolly and reverting the useless changes over and over and over again for days
• edit warring between this account and Hublolly in these articles:
  • Ricci calculus and talk:Ricci calculus
  • Einstein field equations
  • Dirac equation
  • Principle of least action
  • Hamiltonian mechanics
  • Lagrangian mechanics
  • Generalized coordinates

which I would not waste time doing.

• Notice that the edit times between "recent F=q(E+v^B)" and Hublolly are fairly (conveniently) quick and close together? He was logging out from one account to the other alternately on this same computer: to abuse using Hublolly, to "save WP like a "superhero"" using this account.

• Notice at WP:ANI that the other person screwed up the reply (to SarekOfVulcan): by logging into this F=q(E+v^B) and writing "this is Hublolly you are talking to"?

Other editors at WP:ANI#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hublolly/Archive

I should add that I have never encountered the following users until responding to the block: Roux, Jprg1966, Qwyrxian, bonadea, Ymblanter.

Roux is a completley seperate person at another computer I have no connection with; and was unfortunately pulled into this mess, incidentally suspected for sockpuppetery (which is appalling - given that Roux didn't create Hublolly for block evasion, Hublolly was sadly created on this computer but not by me).

Removal of rudeness

Since Hublolly's account has been used for very spitefull editing (and this account to bicker and drag it on for days), all remaining rude messages on talk pages involving Hublolly should be deleted (preferably the "recent F=q(E+v^B)" comments I didn't make also), this amounts to simply deleting the sections (IMO):

• Talk:Cross product#Proposed mnemonical illustration

possibly deleting the entire sections:

• User talk: Rschwieb#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly,
• User talk:Quondum#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly
• User talk: JohnBlackburne#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly,
• User talk:LutzL#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly,
• User talk: JRSpriggs#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly,
• User talk: Sbyrnes321#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly,
• User talk:Qwyrxian#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly
• User talk: Patrick0Moran#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly,
• User talk: Jprg1966#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly,

but I'm not sure if each user would like to keep them for their records anyway - it's up to each owner of the pages.

Other bad edits have already been reverted in the stupidity spree.

Unless there is a policy against it (records/logs) - I would suggest the Hublolly account to be deleted - there is no point in it sitting there serving no purpose. After this F=q(E+v^B) account is abandoned - will it be deleted? (I would actually prefer it to for the same reason, just asking anyway)

Good-faith help and new account

I appreciate very much the good-faith help you all offer; abandoning this account and creating a new one with the cryptographic hash key does sound like the best solution, and I understand why. I'll do that soon.

Clarify the "library/co-location" lie

This diff seems to have caused much confusion/mystery between some of you (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#F=q(E+v^B) exposed as puppet master).

I'm sorry for such emphasis - but it didn't. Yes, its true that we live together, and don't like each other, and share the same computer at home. Also:

• What are the chances of simply glancing at someone at a computer and instantly "realizing" they are editing WP on this account? Why not editing on another account or not editing and just reading (and passing by this page)? I doubt it would be possible to pick up the fine text details in the corners of the screen (thereby "realizing" the user was logged into their account and editing) in the split-second of passing by and glancing... (you wouldn't look into someone's screen while walking past it - would you? you'd be looking more where you are going instead - wouldn't you?...)
• Since we don't like each other why would he say "hi!" to me??
• Why would this account suddenly respond to such a description: "YES it was me", so quickly and conveniently??

The point of this stupidiotic play-acting was to reveal myself ("skinny pale-coloured emo wearing a hoody with long black hair" - true but so what???) - something I would never do on Wikipedia because

• it adds nothing to any conversation on any talk page and couldn't possibly be relevant to the project,
• I am not vain in such ways,
• everyone's response to such a post would be: "and?? what about the WP project??" or more likely to just ignore - perfectly acceptable,

and naturally poke fun:

• "get a life" (because I haven’t much interest in anything but physics/maths, in addition to chemistry and typography),
• "get a dictionary, a tan, body weight"... (again fun-poking at "what I need" in his opinion...)

It really was embarrassing to read that; worse is that some of you are taking it quite seriously and think it's true that doesn't match my unblock reason above, no?

Again sorry for such emphasis - but it was.

About praise/thanks

By all means, some people have deleted the barnstars (for instance) given by me months ago - not the other recent person, since they think those were given by an editing crook the whole time. Feel free to strip away anything I gave as praise or thanks (by me months ago - not the other person).

No need to try to understand I wanted to award some of you for your hard work, and to say thank you for all your contributions, becuase I do appreciate your efforts.