This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The construction "In light of current knowledge (quarks weren't discovered at time)" doesn't make sense. Current is the present tense, but you then go on to allude to the past ("at the time"). My re-wording wasn't changing the meaning, it was just more grammatically sound. Do you know what I'm saying? — Anonymous Dissident Talk 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It makes sense. "In light of current knowledge (quarks were not yet theorized), the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange quarks decay into up quarks." means that the explanation is modern and relies on concepts that weren't there in the time of the proposal of the Cabbibo angle. The parenthetical statement is and "on the side" explanation that does not affect the sentence. See "In light of current knowledge, the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange darks decay into up quarks." It's all present tense ("is related" is a passive voice construction, not a past-tense construction. A past tense constuction would be "was related").
Your construction however, changes the meaning and the accuracy of the sentence. "In light of the knowledge at the time (quarks were not yet theorized), the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange quarks decay into up quarks." means that you are explaining this through the eyes of someone from 1963, when quarks were not yet theorized. But this is not what you are doing, because you are relying on an explanation of the Cabibbo angle based on quarks, which could not have been possible.
Hence "In light of current knowledge". Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
hello. This is just to let you know that another user has filed a complaint about you here. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
§hep Talk 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I could be mistaken about this; I've made it clear from the outset that I have an amateur not professional interest in particle physics. It just seems to me that the section really is not particularly related to quarks, but more related to hadrons. Giving context about quantum numbers is for the articles to which we link from quark. What's your opinion (to re-iterate, I could be way off mark)? — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Isaac Newton in popular culture, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DFS454 ( talk) 09:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Isaac Newton in popular culture, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton in popular culture. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DFS454 ( talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:
[[Category:Wikipedia tools]] [[Category:Parent2]]
Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 05:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Headbomb, thanks. I'm happy to run an article about the new automated alerts system. You have a good start, but it will need to be edited to conform more to a sober-toned journalistic style to be appropriate for the Signpost. It should read like a report about the system rather than an advertisement for it. It would also be good to note how many WikiProjects are using it and how many are not yet using it.-- ragesoss ( talk) 06:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You reverted an edit I made a while ago to Template:Style. I explained my edit in the talk page but you have not done the same for your reversion. My change was to improve the usability of the page: having "numbers" under "d" in a list did not seem very helpful for such a basic topic. I will reinstate the link unless you'd like to persuade me otherwise? Bazza ( talk) 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Headbomb, T-bird can remove what he pleases from his own talk page, whatever anyone else may think about it. Please let him do so, thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not following you at all, so I'm confused as well. As far as I'm aware the order of events was Tbird said Fnag was the sockmaster, this is innacurate, so I clarified and called him on his BS. Tbird, as usual, invoked his persecution complex. Anything we say is archived as persecution, or results in him filing a WP:WQA (which is how you first became aware of Tbird). Tbird is not removing irrelevant/incivil stuff, he is censoring what he doesn't like. Upon seing this, he'll probably defend himself that saying Greg is doing the same, but I don't give a rat's ass about that, I am not Greg. And it's Tbird who deleted my comments, not you, so I really don't get what you're talking about when you said you re-removed my comments. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to clean-up the plutonium article after the flurry of edits and vandalism from it being the TFA. :) -- mav ( talk) 09:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is just an advance notice, as the WikiProjects will be spammed shortly, but you might well like to put yourself down for Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is such a good idea... – xeno ( talk) 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the good old palindromic song. I have heard sections of it, but not the whole thing. Interesting. A random heads up, but a much appreciated one. By the way, the palindrome on my page has about seventeen thousand words. How did you stalk me down? ...Ω... ..¿TooT?.. ..¡StatS!.. 01:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've reverted your move of User:ArticleAlertbot/Alerts header to ArticleAlertbotSubscription/Alerts header. It doesn't belong in article space. I think there's some other prefix you forgot but I couldn't figure it out. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The construction "In light of current knowledge (quarks weren't discovered at time)" doesn't make sense. Current is the present tense, but you then go on to allude to the past ("at the time"). My re-wording wasn't changing the meaning, it was just more grammatically sound. Do you know what I'm saying? — Anonymous Dissident Talk 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It makes sense. "In light of current knowledge (quarks were not yet theorized), the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange quarks decay into up quarks." means that the explanation is modern and relies on concepts that weren't there in the time of the proposal of the Cabbibo angle. The parenthetical statement is and "on the side" explanation that does not affect the sentence. See "In light of current knowledge, the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange darks decay into up quarks." It's all present tense ("is related" is a passive voice construction, not a past-tense construction. A past tense constuction would be "was related").
Your construction however, changes the meaning and the accuracy of the sentence. "In light of the knowledge at the time (quarks were not yet theorized), the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange quarks decay into up quarks." means that you are explaining this through the eyes of someone from 1963, when quarks were not yet theorized. But this is not what you are doing, because you are relying on an explanation of the Cabibbo angle based on quarks, which could not have been possible.
Hence "In light of current knowledge". Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
hello. This is just to let you know that another user has filed a complaint about you here. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
§hep Talk 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I could be mistaken about this; I've made it clear from the outset that I have an amateur not professional interest in particle physics. It just seems to me that the section really is not particularly related to quarks, but more related to hadrons. Giving context about quantum numbers is for the articles to which we link from quark. What's your opinion (to re-iterate, I could be way off mark)? — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Isaac Newton in popular culture, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DFS454 ( talk) 09:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Isaac Newton in popular culture, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton in popular culture. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DFS454 ( talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:
[[Category:Wikipedia tools]] [[Category:Parent2]]
Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 05:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Headbomb, thanks. I'm happy to run an article about the new automated alerts system. You have a good start, but it will need to be edited to conform more to a sober-toned journalistic style to be appropriate for the Signpost. It should read like a report about the system rather than an advertisement for it. It would also be good to note how many WikiProjects are using it and how many are not yet using it.-- ragesoss ( talk) 06:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You reverted an edit I made a while ago to Template:Style. I explained my edit in the talk page but you have not done the same for your reversion. My change was to improve the usability of the page: having "numbers" under "d" in a list did not seem very helpful for such a basic topic. I will reinstate the link unless you'd like to persuade me otherwise? Bazza ( talk) 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Headbomb, T-bird can remove what he pleases from his own talk page, whatever anyone else may think about it. Please let him do so, thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not following you at all, so I'm confused as well. As far as I'm aware the order of events was Tbird said Fnag was the sockmaster, this is innacurate, so I clarified and called him on his BS. Tbird, as usual, invoked his persecution complex. Anything we say is archived as persecution, or results in him filing a WP:WQA (which is how you first became aware of Tbird). Tbird is not removing irrelevant/incivil stuff, he is censoring what he doesn't like. Upon seing this, he'll probably defend himself that saying Greg is doing the same, but I don't give a rat's ass about that, I am not Greg. And it's Tbird who deleted my comments, not you, so I really don't get what you're talking about when you said you re-removed my comments. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to clean-up the plutonium article after the flurry of edits and vandalism from it being the TFA. :) -- mav ( talk) 09:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is just an advance notice, as the WikiProjects will be spammed shortly, but you might well like to put yourself down for Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is such a good idea... – xeno ( talk) 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the good old palindromic song. I have heard sections of it, but not the whole thing. Interesting. A random heads up, but a much appreciated one. By the way, the palindrome on my page has about seventeen thousand words. How did you stalk me down? ...Ω... ..¿TooT?.. ..¡StatS!.. 01:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've reverted your move of User:ArticleAlertbot/Alerts header to ArticleAlertbotSubscription/Alerts header. It doesn't belong in article space. I think there's some other prefix you forgot but I couldn't figure it out. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)