User talk:Charlie Faust

Hi Charlie Faust, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Roger Ebert—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was a little heavy on quotes, is all. If you like it, terrific. (I like it myself, it just seems a bit quote heavy.) Charlie Faust (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you made many changes to Bach's biography, and I don't have the time right now to look in detail. Thank you for your attention, but I noticed some things: (in German) you don't study at a Gymnasium, but only at a university. The whole bassoon player anecdote seems out of place, but if kept he is certainly not a singer. Who called whom three B's when seems also only marginally related to Bach's music. Please check such things. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the Gymnasium, or the Geyersbach incident (the bassoonist). Those were both there before me. I don't see why the bassoon incident is out place; as I said, it was there before me, and is mentioned by John Eliot Gardiner in Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven.

I think it's worth noting that the three B's were Bach, Beethoven and Berliozz (later Brahms). Times change, but Bach remains a lasting influence. Charlie Faust (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. The idea to improve Bach is noble, but details are the way.

• You are right, you didn't add Gymnasium, but you added "studied", and I told you that you don't "study" at a German Gymnasium, only at a university. I find it a bit problematic that your edit summaries take a while to be digested, - can you please shorten them, in this case perhaps just "active voice"?
• I love Gardiner's book, but just because he brings something doesn't say that we must repeat it.
• We will have to disagree about the 3B. What does it add about the understanding of Bach's music?

I brought several Bach compositions to featured article and found that tough enough,

BWV 227, among others - the latter the hardest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I admit I'm not an expert on German primary education, so I'll defer to you on that one. Feel free to fix it.

The Geyersbach incident seems out place? I'm not sure it does. We don't really know much about the life of Johann Sebastian Bach, but that incident is documented.

The 3 B's might not add to our understanding of Bach's music, but it does add to our understanding of Bach's legacy. By the nineteenth century, his stock had risen so that he was considered one of the three major composers in Western music (along with Beethoven and Berlioz. Later in the century, Brahms replaced Berlioz.) The 3 B's is still a phrase I hear used. It belongs in Legacy because it shows how his stock had risen by the nineteenth century. Even after Brahms replaced Berlioz, Bach remained as one of the 3 B's, a position he's held ever since. Times change, but Bach's influence remains. Charlie Faust (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2024 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Charlie Faust, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, hope you're having a great holiday season. Charlie Faust (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from

Hi. When you move content within an article, please do it in one edit. If that is too difficult, please paste into the new location first, then remove the duplicate in the second edit. I disagreed with one of your edits on History of quantum mechanics but when I reverted it I discovered that what you described as a delete was actually a paste and a delete. I think I have sorted it, please check. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. I will do a better job of summarizing my edits. Thank you for restoring Planck's equation, $E=hv.$ That's one of the most important equations in physics.

Under "Spin quantization", wouldn't the place to start be Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit's discovery of spin? Pauli's exclusion principle is mentioned but not defined. Shouldn't it be? Pauli's principle won him the Nobel.^[1] Still more signifcant, it, explains the structure of atoms by explaining why electrons don't just fall into the lowest energy state. Actually, Pauli isn't mentioned in the section, as far as I can tell. He should be.

Re: Dirac, I see that there's no longer a template saying the lead is too long. That's good. There was stuff in there about Dirac's influence on string theory. Great thinkers, as Graham Farmelo notes, are posthumously productive, but string theory didn't really take off until after Dirac died, so associating him with string theory is a bit of a stretch. If you haven't read Farmelo's

The Strangest Man: The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom, I recommend it. Charlie Faust (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

But yes, thank you for the feedback. I will try to quantize my edits, and do a better job of explaining them.

I added Wolfgang Pauli under "Spin quantization", along with a more detailed explanation of the Exclusion Principle.

Should "de Broglie's matter wave hypothesis" be before "Spin quantization"? de Broglie's paper was in 1924, Pauli's principle in 1925, as was Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit's experiment. Charlie Faust (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edit summaries, may I suggest focusing on the purpose of your change rather than its content? The wikipedia diff page gives the content of the change clearly, but of course it does not give the motivation. Unless the change is controversial, shorter is better ;-)

I have read Farmelo, thanks. As for the other issues I would be happy to continue discussions on those talk pages. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted; the content change is clear, the motivation not always so.

Reading James Gleick's Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman. It's a good one. Charlie Faust (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree on the Feynman bio. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a WP page for it; I think I'll make one.

If you're looking for things to work on (and you may not be!), the pages for Louis de Broglie and Wolfgang Pauli need work. The former needs primary sources; I added one to his New York Times obit. Those usually tell you what you need to know, and things you didn't know you needed to know. As for the latter, he didn't get a NYT obituary! Shame on them, I guess. Charlie Faust (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the draft got deleted, but I made another one. Charlie Faust (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article is live. Please take a look. Charlie Faust (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cinder painter (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've seen worse, and I'll restore, but there are some problems

You can't italicise the title with wiki mark-up, I'll fix that.

The quotation in the lead is inappropriate, it's for a summary of the key points

There shouldn't be any references to the book itself in the "Contents" section, it's like the "Plot" section of fiction.

Despite your comments, the reviews seem a bit cherry-picked, why haven't you included an aggregating site like Goodreads? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because Goodreads does not have reviews by professional reviewers and is not a scientific publication. The New York Review of Books has reviews by professional reviewers, and Science is a scientific publication. Charlie Faust (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews seem cherry-picked? News to me. To wit: Walter Moore, in The New York Times, criticized Gleick for eschewing equations, concluding: "No written words can convey the depths of Richard Feynman."^[2] And "Lightman criticized Gleick for not explaining Feynman's science more clearly."^[3] Those are criticisms, and fair ones. Try to find some negative reviews! I did, and couldn't.

And no, Goodreads would not be an appropriate place to find reviews of a scientific biography, as it is not peer-reviewed and most people posting on there are not scientists. Lightman, Dyson, Moore and Anderson are (the last is a Nobel laureate). Charlie Faust (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]