Ponor

Hello, Ponor, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community - subscribe to The Signpost, our illustrated monthly newspaper, and have it delivered directly to your talk page.

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ponor. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ponor; I've done my best to c/e this article but I found it quite confusing because of the mathematics and the technical jargon so feel free to correct my edits if I've messed anything up. I've tagged it with {{jargon}}} and {{refimprove}}. Good luck with your planned GA nom. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey Baffle gab1978, I really appreciate your help. I had fun reading your commit comments, and I hope you'll recover from the pain I've caused you :D soon. It's hard to avoid being too technical for a general reader in these things, but then - what are the chances that someone out of the field would even be reading all this. Thanks for pointing out that some sections are missing citations, I'll see what I can do about it. I'll also try to find proper links where they're now pointing to missing pages. Once again, many thanks, you did a great job. Ponor (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

No worries; it does seem unlikely a non-expert would read such an article but we don't know; students and amateur scientists might not have the expertise and mathematics skills of a professional. Photoemission spectroscopy is an easy-to-read article without much reliance on mathematics, as are plenty of other science articles. Good luck with the article; I'm glad you enjoyed my silly edit summaries. :) Cheers. Baffle☿gab 06:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you claimed that there is no relation between graphene and PAHs. In fact there is more than just a relation. There is no rational distinction between the two concepts: a graphene flake is just a large PAH, and the PAHs of chemists are just tiny graphene fragments. The atomic structure and the bonding are exactly the same -- apart from edge effects that gradually become less important as the size of the molecule increases. The "single-double bond resonance" is not real, in either case: it is just a pedagogical/formal trick that chemists use to "explain" the bonding of aromatic structures in terms of the simplistic "covalent bond" model.
Likewise, graphene and nanotubes are very closely related concepts, with basically the same bonding and local structure, and many common properties. And it is useful to view fullerenes and glassy carbon as graphene with structural defects...
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jorge, thanks for reaching out to me. I think there's a huge difference - graphene is "infinite" (in quantum world, infinite equals grater-than-13 nm), it has a well defined momentum/wave vector quantum number, Bloch theorem is valid for graphene and not for PAHs. PAHs are molecules and have all energy levels quantised, graphene's energy levels form a band. I don't see how this "infinite PAH" analogy can help, because all our experience with PAHs is for finite, small PAHs. What electronic properties of a 5-ring PAH can extrapolated to an infinite PAH? Do PAHs have Dirac electrons (that's what makes graphene famous)? Calling graphene a PAH is also misleding, as it makes it a hydrocarbon, which graphene is not. I must say (which proves nothing) - I've never in my 14 years of dealing with graphene seen it considered a giant PAH. Not sure I understand how graphene, a 2d crystal, and glassy carbon are related either. Glassy_carbon here has no mention of graphene. Nanotubes are more similar to graphene nanoribbons, but are not graphene. I left a mention of this similarity in the intro. I thought the first section is not the place to discuss this any further. I've just started editing the article, there's still lots to do. To begin with, the article is way too long. There's a lot of advertising, meaningless sentences, paper summaries that are out of context, false or overhyped claims... So please, stay tuned, and correct me wherever you like. Ponor (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I have no intention of editing graphene anytime soon, but I would ask you to reconsider the connection to PAHs.
Chemists have synthesized PAHs much larger than the "classical" 7-ring coronene (that occurs pure as a mineral). IIRC, the record a few years ago was over 100 rings, namely a roundish graphene nanoflake some 10-15 rings across; and it showed the expected progession towars graphene properties. If you are interested in graphene, you definitely should check that out.
The continuous electronic bands of infinite graphene are the result of multiple splitting of the discrete molecular levels of PAHs, the same way that "continuous" bands of metals and semiconductors arise from the splitting of discrete atomic and molecular levels. In a 100-atom PAH the gaps between those levels should be so small that they can better be treated as a band.
While "theoretical" graphene is infinite, every physical sample will be finite, and its edges will be inevitably terminated by various chemical groups -- like those large PAHs. Some potential application of graphene, like microelectronics and composites, will require flakes that are only a few hundred rings across -- that is, well in the range of chemist's PAHs.
And I bet that infinite graphene has some properties strikingly different from those of any finite flake, no matter how large. For example, an infinite sheet can be moving parallel to itself at a fixed finite speed, and that motion would be very stable. Would the speed and direction of motion be quantized, say in a magnetic field or under monochromatic radiation? What would be the electronic properties of this "kinetic graphene"?
The same questions could be asked of theoretical (infinite) nanotubes, that can be translating and/or rotating at constant speed. And those "kinetic isomers" may be observable in fullerenes and large toroidal nanotubes...
All the best,--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jorge Stolfi. I don't mind having PAHs mentioned in the article, especially if there is a chemical way of making them... big (10 nm perhaps?), but I don't think they should be in the lead. Few reasons for that: they are not mainstream and are invisible in the graphene market (production, publications); saying graphene is the same as a large PAH may lead to the wrong impression that graphene is a hydrocarbon; a 100 atom PAH (this is only a few nm big) has some 30-40 atoms around its edges, a typical micron-sized graphene is at least 20M atoms, but only 0.02M are around the edges (2d-bulk obviously dominates in response to physical probes) - until we see how their physical properties compare, we can't say they are equal or extrapolate from PAHs to graphene; regular few-ring PAHs are more like graphene nanoribbons (no mention of PAHs in that article), but too small in both directions to attach electrodes and measure e-transport; there is no mention of graphene in Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (I'd expect some reciprocality). I was working on some other articles, but will keep them in mind when I come back to graphene again. Feel free to remind me again. Best wishes, Ponor (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ponor, I have put a request in to amend the name of the article, see ARPES's talk page for details and where you can add a comment. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Ponor: Hüfner on p. 4 states the photoelectric equation (${\displaystyle E_{k}=h\nu -\phi -E_{B}}$ ), but this differes from the Principle section in the article (${\displaystyle E_{k}=h\nu -E_{B}}$ ). Have I misunderstood something here? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Amitchell125, thanks for your question. I was unsure what to do about this myself. I even left a comment in the article for those who might want to challenge it. When photoemission is done on atoms and molecules, ${\displaystyle E_{k}=h\nu -E_{B}}$ . That's what I found in Photoemission spectroscopy and decided to keep it. Solid state physicists like to define ${\displaystyle E_{B}}$  with respect to the Fermi level (because they can read it off their spectra); but if you add that much energy to a bound electron in a solid, it won't be freed, it'll still remain bound. I believe Huefner has a long footnote about this convention. In the end it doesn't matter. The formula ${\displaystyle E_{k}=h\nu -E_{B}}$  helps avoid discussing the surface work function too early in the article, and is more general. Later on we do explain the other convention. More and more people label their axes in terms of E-E_F instead of E_B to avoid this confusion. Ponor (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, and I understand now. Perhaps a quick note at this stage in the article would help those readers who know about work function (all British 18-year-olds studying physics). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oof thank you for your diagram in the page ionization energies. Bruh I've been merely inferring the exceptions, and have you tried to count repeatedly and alternately? Tis hard work. Anyways thank you very muchhhh :>>>! Ice bear johny (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your hard work on the article, @Ice bear johny, that's how this diagram caught my attention. You'll see me making some other changes here and there. For example, when specific elements are mentioned, it'll be good to have their atomic number listed so it's easier to look them up in these diagrams. If there is something you dislike we can discuss it and I'll revert. Ponor (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I agree too. Plus you are a chemist, whereas I'm just a high school student hahaha. Really appreciated your edits tho. Thanks! Ice bear johny (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Woah I can't help but commend your painstaking edits in ionization energies! Thank you really. Ice bear johny (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, after tirelessly working for 4 days about that blasted topic, i wonder really what caused lead's sudden rise in IE. I've already stated reasons as to why that's extremely weird, but if you have suggestions, feel free to edit that part/whichever part you want to improve. Like bruh, no research has any leads whatsoever. And my parents are grinding me to move on ;-;. Thanks po! Ice bear johny (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wait, I've read an answer in quora tho, which states that lead's IE is caused by 4-hedral symmetry. I kinda believe him, as he's a hitherto physics researcher and made a book. Ice bear johny (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Anyways, imma move on first to another topic. Cheers professor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice bear johny (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ice bear johny:I don't get the "former independent physics researcher" (?!) argument; whatever that is, he's more likely talking about orbital symmetry of a single atom than about crystals. Quora is not a reliable source, nor are any other forums, so please be careful when citing them. I will, for now, leave those references, but we have to try to find better ones: books, review papers, peer-reviewed research. The first answer on Quora is actually much better: the rules are not something set in stone, they don't really explain anything because the order of filling the orbitals is inferred from ionization energies, and not the other way round. You know there's an interplay of many factors, and in these big atoms some may play bigger roles than they do in the atoms in the same group above. I think all discussion after my comment should be removed; this is not about the crystal structure.

Please also note that you're not allowed to copy or take screenshots and upload images from other sites. They will all be removed because you don't hold the license. You can only upload your own work. If you're graphics-inclined, I suggest learning to use Inkscape. Best wishes, Ponor (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes i put copyright only for the images. Forgot i copied those verbatim. Anyways imma remove po the uh lead argument because it's all rubbish and pure inanity. Thanks for the help sir! Ice bear johny (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I think I haven't reached out to you regarding your idea Text layout on desktop that is not like www of 1990s, which is a bit odd, because I've noticed that right away... Never mind, though. I'm glad you've shared that. This is a great idea and at first glance, it was well received by the Web team. 🙇 for that!

Have you read about the Desktop Improvements? Not only you can turn the new Vector on, but also (and this is actually what I'd like to ask you for) write down and share exactly what you like and what you don't. The frames of the project (to be executed in 2020-Q1&2 2021) are set now and we can't promise we'd definitely put images in the margins soon. But maybe that could be taken into consideration in the more distant future (Q3&4 2021/2022?) So... share your feedback! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:X24/styles.css, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

You aren't supposed to create subpages of sandboxes for testing purposes; these are explicitly included by the G2 speedy deletion criterion. The correct venue for experimental TemplateStyles stylesheets is Template:TemplateStyles sandbox or your userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ponor. I should have read the source more closely before reverting. If the ref does indeed mention the exodus of Italians in 1920 (which it looks like it does), this should be mentioned in the article in the first paragraph of the Yugoslav period section. I don't think the sentence should be removed entirely because it incorrectly alluded to the post-1945 period. Your thoughts? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Amanuensis Balkanicus: I've noticed someone was pushing the very same sentence in a few articles on Dalmatian towns, using different sources. It's hard to tell how reliable this no-author newspaper article is, as it is hard to tell whether the population exchange following the 1920 treaty was a major event in the history of Dubrovnik. How many Italians left, were they forced to leave? Why, what led to those events? Were Croats also leaving nearby Italian territories? There are some big gaps in the 1918-1991 section, and adding parts of the sentence I removed will just open up a new one. Unless someone comes with more complete sources that can help establish notability of the events and tell the other side of the story, this should not be re-added. Ponor (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the thanks but tbh it would be more useful if you would say something at the discussion, because right now mine appears to be the only dissenting voice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, but the other webarchive citation is dead, help add a new one thanks. Ffffrr (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Condensing osteitis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CT. 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) 06:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, You were mentioned today as a Lua coder who might be interested in working on the {{Cite Q}} template. If that is of interest User:Mike Peel and I can brief you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, go ahead and fix it up, I've fiddled with it a bit but don't really know how to improve it further offhand. I just wanted to make sure there's a link to the page element for clear traceability of text, just like there is for other transclusions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The granting criteria for edit filter helper are a little strict here, but let me know if you'd be interested — you clearly have proficiency in filter syntax   — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 10:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TheresNoTime, thanks for your offer. Sure, I wouldn't mind helping (and studying other editors' work). And of course: if it matters, I did get to practice filter editing on another Wikipedia. Best, Ponor (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I saw your post about how ORES was trained on the mediawiki. I thought you might be interested in our ongoing study, which aims to develop a tool that facilitates the curation of data that can train or evaluate existing or prospective machine learning models used in Wikipedia. If you're interested, please find more information on our recruitment page. Thanks for your consideration! Tzusheng (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ponor, You hastily closed my edits to the Fourier Transform page without any reasonable discussion (Latest revision as of 16:21, 27 September 2023 (edit) (undo). I am new to Wikipedia and don't know all the features available and I had not bee on the site for about 2 years... The edits I had put in were about the applications of the Fourier Transform with reference to scalar field theory and specifically in the context of the wave equation. It is true that there is a common author in all four references but it is important to note that these are in four different fields of applied physics and the works cited are over a relatively large span of time, as the references show. Moreover they were all published in peer-reviewed prestigious journals and I had carefully put my edits under the “Applications of Fourier Transform” not the theory section. Furthermore those papers were published before the age of internet and it is important for the readers to be aware of pre-internet literature. They do add value to the article and it is unreasonable to remove my edits because, evidently, in your mind you don't seem to like the authors! You say there are 100s of similar papers but you have not cited even one! I emphasize that the papers I cited were from the era before the internet and they deal with original work and even if now one were to find similar material, the papers I cited would predate all of them. I want to work with you to see what would be a good solution and/or compromise before resorting to dispute resolution or arbitration on this matter. One way I would yeild would be if you were find something in the literature that predates the papers cited. Thanks.

(thank). Writingking (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe add some generic sanity checks for disambiguation and set indices? Can you have it access wikidata perhaps? I see you had to revert a fair bit with the same pattern. --Joy (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Joy, I'm done with those. It was only a few municipalities where the municipality name does not match the core settlement name or some that (for various reasons) didn't go through in the first run. Instead of re-programming the whole logic I let the bot use the Croatian name, which in most cases worked. Also, there were some moves since the time I collected the data. The bot IS using hrwiki-Wd-enwiki mapping. I hope I didn't upset too many people with those last edits.

BTW, I was surprised to see so many one-sentence articles, and I don't mean only the ones the two Dutch users added recently. What's the policy here, since about 3000 are still missing? I could (probably, haven't tried yet) help those users by creating pre-filled links for article creation (infobox+some), that'd be a few lines of code for me. Ideally, they'd just add some 'meat' to the article itself. Ponor (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Generally, most settlement articles were made by a handful of editors who were just adding stubs, and it looks like they were doing it manually, even if en masse, so the coverage is spotty. They used to not even have the basic census reference :) It would be completely fine by me if you let the bot fill out the entire gazetteer tree. --Joy (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Joy Hm... now that you said it... maybe we *should* do that. I have enough material for some good stubs (example). I will need to apply for another bot job, so let's switch to Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia again. I'll ping you from there. Ponor (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Was this edit meant for the one near Vrbovsko or the one near Brod Moravice? --Joy (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Joy: all interwikis are for Smišljak, Vrbovsko. Ponor (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I moved the page, both need some attention. Categories etc. Ponor (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sinj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Krka.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kninska Krajina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Završje.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Switch by pattern has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ponor, above script doesn't show the diff button on recent changes and the watchlist on enwiki for me, is that intended or a bug? Thanks Nobody (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@1AmNobody24, I've heard from one user that it didn't work on his iPhone, though it did when I tested on one. The only other reason that I know of might be because you have "Group results by page" option turned on (little frame on the right where you choose the number of changes and days shown); currently, that's not supported because of a completely different design of the list by MediaWiki. Thanks for using (trying to use) the script, btw! Ponor (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deactivating "Group results by page" made it work on Recent Changes, for the Watchlist i additionally had to clear the cache. Thanks for the help and making such a great script! Nobody (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

User talk:Ponor/Wikidata Newsletter has hit the maximum page size so no more newsletters can be sent. You should probably clean it out. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Attention: "we've had too much of that from your side already" is a personal attack, and this message doesn't just apply to you. Then you see. LukeWiller (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LukeWiller what I meant is the warning on you talk page by someone other than me, and my recent report of your behavior at Talk:Šibenik. Also, if there's a discussion on a topic, like at Talk:Dalmatia, and you're aware of it, as you are, given your summary on today's Dalmatia edit, it's better to discuss the issue than to just declare it 'resolved', especially if you're an involved editor. You called someone a sockpuppet at Special:Diff/1262885825Split today, with no evidence whatsoever, while I can provide enough evidence for your behavior. I do apologize if I hit too hard. All I want you to realize is that edit warring and not WP:Consensus building is a bad thing. The latter starts with sources that say exactly what's in the article, only paraphrased. I'm seeing to much WP:OR. Ponor (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply