User talk:EfimovSP

Hello. Your edits and interest in Metamaterials is much appreciated. I noticed in a couple of your recent edits you wrote that Victor Veselago was nominated for a Nobel Prize in 2011. I am unable to find any sources that say this. Can you provide sources that say he was nominated for a 2011 Nobel Prize? Unfortunately if no sources are available, then these statements will probably have to be removed from the Wikipedia articles. You can reply here and I will see it. Thanks in advance. Also, thanks again for your edits and interest. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC).

Dear Editors,

I thank You for control and help. A few publications in Russian one can find on website Yandex. I give the most reliable origin. He was professor of Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT). On website of MIPT in Yandex: ^[1] is laid out the obituary of Prof. Veselago (in Russian). I translate here last sentence.- " Presidium of RAS awarded him Prize named after the Academician V. A. Fock. In 2009, Veselago was awarded the medal named after C. F. K. Mees. In 2010, the Optical Society elected him as a fellow of it. In 2010, he was nominated for Nobel Prize.

As a PhD myself, I would like to add that two acting Nobel laureates worked in Russia at the time. Therefore, the information is reliable. Sir John Pendry is probably was nominated as well at the time.

I am interested to work with Editors further.

All the best EfimovSP (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, EfimovSP. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Black body, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

I appreciate Yours attention and totally agree with Yours recommendations. My personal profile on sight "https://www.mathnet.ru/eng/person24359" -Efimov Sergei. I worked as assistant professor- department of mathematics . Now retired.

I tried to tell readers results published 42 ys ago. I don't touch any word of author. I added a short section. I don't want to argue as professional physicist. You as an editor can act appropriately. Any author don't like corrections. Thank You for polite message. I hope for Yours help. If Editors will take decision to remove added section it is Yours right.

At this case, I would like to add following reference in a few words. Author published remarkable review where laid out concepts of beginning of 20-th century. He overlooked papers of famous scientists: Macdonald, Voigt, Sommerfeld,Kottler. Besides, Russian Physics took lead in 80-s years in applied electrodynamics. Papers of Schestopalov, Zakhariev and Lemanskii, Ufimtsev, Veselago, Efimov gave an impulse for future metamaterials area. Profiles of all one can find in WIKI and russian ВИКИ. The autor article is quite good as an introduction in the area. Addition and development is needed at any rate.

I would like to add that Fig., where hole in absorbing sphere is drawn, is concept of 19-th century what author ought to say about. If the goal of article is to explain concept for advanced schoolboys then it is certainly achieved.

EfimovSP (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Author

This list (which may have dates, numbers, etc.) may be better in a sortable table format.

For editors Dear editor, I am professor of theoretical physics and hope you are PhD as well. My russian students are very dissapointed to know that the article "Fock symmetry..." is removed (redirected). I don't want to edit and critize the article "Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector". It is of high quality and good written. Nevertheless, author did not read Fock's original paper. It is a reason why the basic content in section "Fock symmetry" doesn't concern to the subject totally and why the separate article is written. I will allow myself to point out following grounds for the new article: Fock theory is done for the momentum space where Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is nonexistent. Why :author does consider it there? The Schrodinger equation in momentum space is integral one, Fock theory is applied to integral equation that is not discussed in the section, Fock's symmetry is mathematical result for momentum space turned into 3-D sphere. Physical interpretation is valid in physical coordinate space only. So,following words from the section are inaccurate-"Vladimir Fock showed that the quantum mechanical bound Kepler problem is equivalent to the problem of a free particle confined to a three-dimensional unit-sphere in four dimensional space". Here,reader is deceived. No free particle in physical space here in the problem. Fock doesn't give such interpretation. Kindly try to calm my students and restore my article "Fock symmetry in theory of hydrogen". I would appreciateYours help to compose perfect English as far as I was not graduated from Cambridge as probably You are. Sincerely Yours EfimovSP (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Fock's sphere in theory of hydrogen atom (January 14) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Mattdaviesfsic were: This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fock's sphere in theory of hydrogen atom and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted. If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Hello, EfimovSP! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Concern regarding Draft:Fock's sphere in theory of hydrogen atom Hello, EfimovSP. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fock's sphere in theory of hydrogen atom, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace. If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)