User talk:MaxwellMolecule

Carpets

Nylon is the most popular fiber type in the residential carpet industry today. According the United States of America Environmental Protection Agency, based on industry data, The EPA estimated that the recycling of carpet fiber, backing and padding was 310,000 tons in 2018, which was 9.2 percent of carpet generation. A slightly larger proportion (17.8 percent) was combusted for energy recovery, while the majority of rugs and carpets were landfilled (73 percent). However, regardless of industry data some of the worlds largest carpet and rug companies continue to insist “cradle to cradle” is the industries pathway forward. Returning the carpet industry to natural fibers (pre-1934) or other materials that are compostable in natural environments, would significantly reduce the environmental impact cause by carpet and rugs enter landfill.

So how do you receive money from Oil, Plastic, or Carpet? How many miles of carpet have you made? I've made plenty.

A Help request

Hello, I wondered whether you can share the method you use creating "File:Three body problem figure-8 orbit animation.gif". I am a theoretical physics student (senior) and I am working on gravitational NBody problem. Right now, I run simulations for variety of 3 body systems. I liked your graphical output. Would you mind if I pick your brain? I believe you can reach me via my e-mail from my user page. Kind regards, XÆ (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello -- I am happy to help. I do not see your e-mail on your user page though? (At least on English-language Wikipedia, your user page does not exist.)

The gif was created in Maple. It's actually straightforward to do with the tools they provide. If you have access to a copy of Maple, I'm happy to send you my code. I also suspect that Mathematica has similar capabilities, although I haven't checked and don't know much of Mathematica anyway. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MaxwellMolecule. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Use of \det

Please: It is not correct to write \text{det}\,A. One writes \det A. Thus:

${\begin{aligned}&2\det A\\&2\det(A)\end{aligned}}$

The space to the left and right of ${\textstyle \det }$ depends on the context, so that you see more space to the right of ${\textstyle \det }$ in the first line above than in the second, and the software takes care of that so that it doesn't need to be added manually. Similarly with \max, \log, \exp, \cos, etc. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! MaxwellMolecule (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Thermodynamics: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.  vwilding  ^talk 22:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Temperature dependence of viscosity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dipole moment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Tools for reverting

Thanks for reverting this series of edits at Wave. I'm just dropping a note that there are easier ways to undo such edits: for example, from the article's history you could go to the last good revision, and when you edit that and save it, you'll effectively revert all subsequent edits. This can be even easier with the WP:POPUPS tool (hover your mouse over the revision ID in the history and you'll see a "revert" button in the menu), or if you apply for the WP:ROLLBACK user right (it makes sense if you regularly find yourself reverting vandalism like that). – Uanfala (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I think it is indeed time for me to invest in better tools, since I do end up reverting vandalism fairly regularly. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Hi Max, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. May you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope you are having a wonderful holiday as well. I'm looking forward to another productive year on Wikipedia. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your revert!

Hello MaxwellMolecule, Thank you for your revert on Carbon nanotube. In the future I would highly recommend leaving a warning on the user's talk page so continued vandalism can be easily punished for, as the person you reverted continued to vandalize the page. Enabling Twinkle is a huge help, and the template you should use is {{subst:uw-vandalism1}, but with an extra squiggly bracket at the end, follow by four tilde's (~) to add a signature. Also make sure the warning is under a section on the talk page, not the user page, and the section is labeled with the month and the year. It is not required, and any help reverting clear vandalism is always appreciated, however the extra step to add a warning would be appreciated tenfold. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! If you have any questions about this please do reply. Evan99m (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Evan99m:

thanks for the tips! I have placed the vandalism template on talk pages before, but I've also neglected to do so at times due to the extra effort involved. I will look into using Twinkle. I have also seen people use Huggle; would that be worth trying too? It's been on my to-do list to start using more editing tools. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert on Bohr radius

Hello MaxwellMolecule, I just saw your revert of my deletions on Bohr radius. First of all, thank you for checking my revision! =) I agree, that the Bohr radius has units of length. Yet, the unit info box is elsewhere only used in articles on physical units (e.g. kilometre). So I assume, 'Unit of' signifies, 'is a unit of' and not 'has units of'. I checked other phyiscal constants pages. They don't use this info box, but often have have other boxes (see speed of light or vacuum permittivity). If you agree, I would exchange the info box for the Bohr radius with a similar custom box. The point of it all is, that students often mistake physical constants for units of measurement and I have the impression that the Bohr radius article has some ambiguity. Thanks for your time! Libavius (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Libavius:

Hi! I saw your message but didn't have a chance to reply until now. Yes, I think you have a good point! Somehow I misread your edit summary as "the Bohr radius has no unit" lol. I think a custom box is a good idea to avoid the ambiguity you mention. Feel free to make that change yourself, or I can later when I have time. Best, MaxwellMolecule (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@MaxwellMolecule:

It took me some time, but I just replaced the unit info box with a custom box. Best, Libavius (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Libavius:

No worries; it looks great. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Conservation of mass" article

Why do my edition has been deleted? My edition used clearer words than original.

Hi, maybe you meant "where there was no matter before" instead of "where there was no that matter before"? The first one sounds fine, but the second doesn't make grammatical sense. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the point of this text is that matter is not created and not destroyed. I think, I agree on the current version ("where there was none before"). So now I think that the original will be the best.

Fine by me -- I thought the original was best too. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"Conservation of mass" article

I know that these words have the same meaning. But I think that my words has clearer look.

I disagree (nothing personal of course). MaxwellMolecule (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Cat Barnstar
	Your contributions to Cat were good so I am giving you this barnstar. Cupper52 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Libavius:

Thank you! My first barnstar, I believe! MaxwellMolecule (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC) (designer of the Cat barnstar)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow! signal

Hello MaxwellMolecule, You may wish to know, that for the second time, ExoEditor has again referred the dispute over their changes to the Wow! signal pages - despite being rejected a few days ago. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You undid my edit on enriched uranium

My revision was not redundant I want to to undo it and put my Edit back up. The info I added was Accurate and true Typic lMythix (talk). 17:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Another barnstar

		The Bio-star
		Thank you for your excellent contributions to Run-and-tumble motion — Epipelagic (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Seattle Pacific University Logo (2018).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Seattle Pacific University Logo (2018).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Elasticity tensor

Hi MaxwellMolecule. You new article Elasticity tensor has the short form reference "Cowin 1989", but no such work is defined in the article. Did you mean "Cowin 1993"? If not could you add the missing cite or let me know at work this is? Also if you haven't already it could be useful to turn on the associated error messages, details can be found at the top of Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. The bibliography gave a corrigendum (published 1993) to the original article (published 1989). I have updated the bibliography to reflect the original article. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Advice on Adding Original Code

Hi MaxwellMolecule, I noticed that my recent edit to the sparse matrix article was reverted with the comment "This needs a source." I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, and I'm hoping to get some advice on how to proceed. The code I added is my own work, and my only reference was the article itself. I assume Wikipedia prefers verifiable sources, but since the code is original, I'm unsure what kind of source would be appropriate. I'm eager to contribute quality code to Wikipedia, as I believe in free and accessible knowledge. However, I'm not a professional programmer and maybe not the most reliable source (as far as the world know that is). I'm excited to be able to contribute with my own work to Wikipedia, as I often find articles with no code where it would be beneficial. I would appreciate any advice on how to navigate this situation, what sources do I need with original content, and whether contributions like mine are welcome on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for your time and guidance! Best, Fastg_jm Fastg jm (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fastg jm: Hi, thanks for your message! Yes, content in Wikipedia articles must be directly supported by reliable sources -- see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR for more detailed information. Sometimes this is frustrating because there is definitely useful and factually correct content that doesn't meet this requirement simply because it's not published in a reliable source. However, there are other platforms that can publicize your work without needing a source. GitHub is a great example that I would recommend for any coding project.

Note that because it is self-published, a GitHub repository wouldn't count as a reliable source for your code. However, it is common to add GitHub repos to the end of articles as external links, which are subject to somewhat looser restrictions than references. So, you could add a link to your GitHub repo that way. I don't believe there are any specific policies against doing so (though a newly created repo may be subject to some scrutiny).

Hope this helps! If you have any other questions about contributing to Wikipedia, feel free to leave me another message here.

MaxwellMolecule (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, it means a lot to me! It's such a shame that I can't directly put my code in a Wikipedia article, specially when I've seen so many not so good code in here, but I do understand and partially agree with the reasons. This is a deal breaker for me, wich is a shame because I was so excited to contribute to Wikipedia this way, but I'll try to find another one. Again, thank you for your response and clarification, and of course for making Wikipedia a better place. Fastg jm (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)