User talk:DoctorTerrella

Welcome!

Hello, DoctorTerrella, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Geophysics. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! RockMagnetist (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorTerrella, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DoctorTerrella! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real life?

FYI: unsupported claims of real-life competency (etc.) are usually ignored. (Hey, anyone can claim!) If you want credit for such you generally need to reveal who you are. Alternately, there is a method by which WP editors can be vouched for by other editors, based on face-to-face meetings. Ask if you have questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related question: Do you (claim to) have a PhD in geophysics, DoctorTerrella? I infer this from your user page and name. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, back off. Go read our policy on usernames and on userpages. This is disgusting ganging-up, just because your pet article is at long last coming under scrutiny. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark shows a disgusting disregard of WP:Assume good faith. I have suggested how DoctorTerrella could make a more credible claim of real-life competency (if he choses to do so), and Elvey is asking a straight-forward question.

DoctorTerrella: you are, of course, free to delete this entire section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are here to bully and you are doing it in a way that you think will avoid such a charge. If you really meant what you said, you would have also stressed the possible repercussions, outing etc resulting from any disclosure. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AGF is lacking, as is respect for NPA. I don't see your comment as hostile However, deleting my comment is not welcome. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 07:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my eyes, anyway, DoctorTerrella is an experienced editor, so any such stressing would likely be superfluous. I think asking a straight-forward question is preferable to heading over to WP:RFC/NAME. You are free to disagree, but do so agreeably. Irrespective of whether it's true, to say JJ is here to bully isn't afoul of WP:NPA? --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 07:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, please excuse my language: Elvey, fuck off. If you have decent reason to suspect socking then take it to SPI; if you think Doc is merely someone who has also edited as an IP then drop it because there is nothing wrong with that. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started off as an IP editor, now I'm a registered editor. It feels different. I'm able to contribute to semi-protected articles now. Thank you, DoctorTerrella (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy of the commons

I have a similar conflict like with my edits at herschel at the Tragedy of the commons article and would appreciate your comment there. Seems German scholars are not accepted, even if they get published in English. Herschel would have provided some ironic remarks on that I presume. Serten (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laplace transform

In answer to your question in this edit summary, the paragraph in question goes on to give examples of what is meant here by "good":

"Typical function spaces in which this is true include the spaces of bounded continuous functions, the space L^∞(0,∞), or more generally tempered functions (that is, functions of at worst polynomial growth) on (0,∞). The Laplace transform is also defined and injective for suitable spaces of tempered distributions."

There is no easy characterization of function spaces for which this holds, though. (Source: I am a mathematical analyst.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection, the statement in the article is only about one-to-oneness of the transform (not surjectivity—I have just now added a note about this). Two integrable functions have the same Laplace transform if and only if they differ on a set of Lebesgue measure zero. This doesn't cover all of the "good cases" mentioned in the article, but I think should work for most casual readers. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Church and Parthenon

You're using the wrong file name ... try this and it should work:

File:Parthenon (1871) Frederic Edwin Church.jpg|thumb|Parthenon (1871) Frederic Edwin Church

Put double brackets at either end. - Xenxax (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops ... you don't need the double brackets if it's within a "gallery" ... also take out the |thumb ... and it should work. - Xenxax (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involving yourself

Don't want to comment further at knowledgekid's talk page, but is it really necessary for you to insert yourself? This hardly seems reason enough. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any bullying going on at the earthquake prediction page at the moment, Doc? Or is it just here? - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not much there, I've invited input from other geophysics types, but so far not much response. Might be best to let that page rest until, eventually, it receives input from editors who haven't had so much invested there. DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there an earthquake project? Or is that sort-of over-run by one person, as the article talk page was? Still, there is no deadline etc, so your suggestion makes sense. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is or has been. There are certainly some very good editors working on specific earthquakes. I've perceived that some editors kind of shy away from pages that have lots of surrounding argument and ownership. Hence my feeling that a rest is good. By the way, I was recently in India (my 4th visit to that complex country). I have many romantic memories there, and, for me, this visit was a personal escape of sorts, or at least a change of pace. India can elicit many emotions, some contradictory, and it can, even, elicit those contradictory emotions simultaneously. There is nowhere else quite like India! DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is certainly a place of contradictions. Is there any mileage in the earthquake forecasting thing as a separate article? It was a redlink the last time I looked and the claim was that it differed from earthquake prediction. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, earthquake forecasting cannot be easily separated from the deterministic prediction of specific earthquakes. I know others might disagree with me on that, but many scientists mix the two terms. And, indeed, to try to make a tidy distinction can take the discussion into a difficult maze of terminology and arguments over definitions. Scientists often indulge in such arguments, but it isn't always very helpful. I think the earthquake prediction page could benefit from the introduction of forecasting material. If, then, the page evolved in such a way as to require separation into two pages, one for prediction, one for forecasting, then fine. But the page isn't there at the moment and there is not, presently, a separate page for earthquake forecasting.

OK, thanks. I can't say that I'm entirely surprised about the potential complexity. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brit

I saw your earlier comment but I still don't get it now you repeat the thing. I'm not aware of anyone who takes any sort of offence at "Brit", which is just shortform for British. I could understand some people taking offence at being labelled with the latter, of coursem and that would then have a knock-on effect. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just repeating what is my understanding, but, yes, I can avoid the issue. DoctorTerrella (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to avoid it. I'm simply querying why you think it is so. I mean, for example, Scots and Welsh people rightly get upset when they are referred to as "English" because of the quite common fallacy that England = Britain, but that is a different issue. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and my understanding (that is all I can report) is that "Brit" is usually an Americanism, one that is sometimes interpreted by the British as lazy speech, and, so, somewhat disrespectful. Anyway, I've learned to avoid it just because I don't want to be perceived as disrespectful. My mentioning this on the GGTF page was, possibly, distracting from the larger issues, and there I'm gradually becoming quiet and terse. For me, at least, the less I say, the better.

I see, and fair enough. FWIW, I am a Brit and I use the term a lot here. Outside of Wikipedia, it is very rare that I have to use either form. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Space weather, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Graham. 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) 12:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake Prediction

Hi DoctorTerrella:

I apologize for the delay in my response. Since you requested assistance with Earthquake Prediction on my Talk Page, I see a few editors have added some citations and done some editing. I'll give the page some attention over the next day or two. Please let me know if there are certain sections that you feel need particular attention.

Regards-thx Josophie (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]