User talk:Amble/2

Re:Decimal mark

Thanks for letting me know, your message is very much appreciated. I studied in Europe and my subjects studied in UK didn't cover the topic. Will keep it in mind for the next edit/articles.--Sal73x (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Constructive critics are always welcome and often an eye opening. For things like this if not pointed out by someone else (with good will) we would carry on making mistakes. As said before, much appreciated!--Sal73x (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Let's have coffee sometime and laugh about rudely inappropriate edit summaries. ;) ʝunglejill 23:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thanks. Edit summaries are sometimes more useful for what they say about the editor than what they say about the edit! But using them at all is usually a good sign. --Amble (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda, BAO, etc.

Hi. Before I delete your deletions and you delete mine, please let's have a discussion there. Kozmokonstans (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark matter

Thank you for your efforts at Talk:Dark matter. As you've withdrawn from the discussion, I've attempted to archive the thread (the anon has been adding subsections since February, and it's always been about as productive as the current discussion). Hopefully the anon will wait a few months before pushing it again. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks. I see there's a similarly unproductive discussion at the talk page for Gulf War Syndrome. --Amble (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of previous IPs were flagged as potential socks of User:Dualus (SPI, archived SPIs). If you feel there's sufficient evidence to build a case for this one, go ahead; the patrolling admins didn't think so the last time I tried (a named account was pushing the material that time). You've had more exposure to the IP than I have, though, so you're in a better position to notice similarities. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Person templates

Thank you for notifying me! I've already left a comment.--SGCM (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Warburton

You're right, he's not the footballer; however, he was I think notable as a mountaineer, and not only for his work as second in command of the South Georgia Survey expedition in 1957; he later, in 1959, led an expedition to Batura Sar, main peak of the Batura Muztagh, the then-highest unclimbed mountain in the world, some say that his team summitted before they were lost during storms and avalanches on the peak (all of which may explain why Warburton Peak was named for him). He's interesting, at least, and I think he's notable. I thought I would let you know that I'm working on an article about him, in the event that you are continuing to work around this area.Steveozone (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark motor

Many thanks - a lighter subject than some of your work.  :) Chienlit (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your section heading. Nicely done, sir. ;-) --Amble (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited South Georgia Survey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cape Disappointment and George Sutton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a helpful bot. Fixed and fixed. --Amble (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for South Georgia Survey

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isospin

Alright first thanks a million for taking your time to explain certain things. Little things like that do quite a lot to help me figure out some of the stuff.

However, I want to confirm some other things with you. I reviewed a ton of decays involving photons and it seems that the only time it would make sense to assign I = 1 to the photon is 1) if you insist that the EM interaction conserves isospin and 2) in decays involving the transition from an I = 1 to I = 0 state. Am I correct here, or is there more to it? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it was interesting to go back and try again to understand something that I studied once upon a time. It's funny how half-forgotten subjects often seem easier and clearer when you come back to them. As for your questions:
1) Yes, saying I=0,1 for the photon is a way of treating EM decays as though they conserve isospin.
2) Decays from I=0 to I=1 or vice-versa are certainly the easiest examples to see. However, there are other possibilities. For a straightforward example, there are delta baryons with I=3/2. There may also be more subtle implications. For example, in a decay from I=1 to I=1, the photon could have either I=0 or I=1. These two possibilities would give different Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and different constraints on overall symmetry. --Amble (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I guess I still have a hard time thinking of photons as carriers of isospin. To me, something like Δ → N + γ was just violation of isospin, and it's an EM process, so there's no problem. It seems so unnatural to force conversation of isospin in EM processes by means of a photon with a process-dependant value of isospin. But at least I can see why the PDG does it like that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could supervise and assist the spi

Thank you very much!!! Basedircrory (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hasty page moves and edits by User:Sawol. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmology

Can you answer me here and here, please? Kozmokonstans (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I respect your 3000 edits in wiki. So I try to agree with you as much as I can. I think for the scientific part of our discussion must stay on the article talk page. However, the discussion about wiki should put into my talk page. Can you agree with this? Kozmokonstans (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. My 3000 edits are nothing special; I don't edit much these days, and there are plenty of people around who have many more edits than that. I'm just some random person on the Internet. But I would suggest that the discussion of Wikipedia sourcing policies are actually the thing that's most directly relevant to the article talk. --Amble (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept this. So, please answer there to my second approach. Kozmokonstans (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather stick with the article talk page, if that's OK with you. That way, others can join the discussion. --Amble (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive I wrote the same. Can you see the blue link? I am waiting for your answer over there. Kozmokonstans (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you changed "here" to "there" I think we're talking about the same page. :-) --Amble (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. However, the link was there (or here in your page ;-) Kozmokonstans (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no problem -- we agree. --Amble (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fursov

The editor who was enamoured of Fursov when he thought he backed his position, now seems to think he ought reword the edit to get it a tad closer to his original position - that LaRouche is not even known at all by many, and I am beginning to doubt this entire "bit" has any significance in itself <g>. Might you take a gander at the articles? Lyndon LaRouche and Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. --Amble (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better stop thanking me

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

or I'll just go around hatting things randomly for the praise.  :) μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]