This user may have left Wikipedia. Wwheaton has not edited Wikipedia since 16 August 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
——————————————— Wwheaton ———————————————
|
Greetings. Wwheaton is Wm. A. Wheaton, of whom more can be learned at http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/index.html. I have also edited a few times as user 71.92.70.146 or user 66.215.4.91, when I was logged out accidentally. Thanks to all who have helped and commented, and to the Wikipedia community at large! Wwheaton ( talk) 06:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I've noticed the edits you've made to Bevatron and I must say, good show! If you have anyquestions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. And welcome to wiki! -- Falcorian (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate it. I must say I really Love Wiki, but the dangers of spreading bad information, and meaningless conflict, are a bit daunting too. So I appreciate the hand-holding, and may well turn to you for advice in the future. Wwheaton 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Mass Driver 1, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. In fact, please do not add {{ helpme}} to talk pages; it is designed to be used by you when you need help. In fact, it is designed to be used if you have any questions, not to attract attention. - Go od sh op ed 02:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Saw your post on Alex's talk page and decided to butt in. WP:VANDALISM is the page explaining vandalism and how to deal with it in detail.
The easiest way to deal with vandalism is to use the "history" tab at the top of the page, which shows you a chronological (newest first) list of edits to that page. "Cur" and "Last" on the left-hand column will produce a report showing the difference between the page as of that edit and the current page, or the page as of the prior edit, respectively. You can also manually select two revisions with the radio button and hit "compare selected".
Once you have a diff, you can use the "Undo" feature to, well, undo the edits. Or, from "history" you can click on the date of the edit, which allows you to bring up the "edit this page" as of that version, so you can restore the page to the last pre-vandalism edition. Just be careful not to nuke legitimate edits made since the vandal struck.
Finally, when a user vandalizes a page, try adding a user warning template to their talk page, such as Template:uw-vand1. If they already have a bunch of templates from before, or they are doing something really awful like moving 20 pages at once to "pagename ON WHEELS!", then add them to the administrators' vandalism noticeboard which will result in them being blocked in short order.
Hope that helps. < eleland/ talk edits> 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merry christmas, thanks for the question regarding RTGs and Pu-238. The first thing to understand about Pu-238 is that it is far more active per gram than Pu-239, this can cause it to behave in a very different way. The self damage due to radiation which occurs in PuO2 pellets is much faster with Pu-238 pellets than with Pu-239 pellets. As a result a pellet of Pu-238 will be more likely to fall apart at an early time than a Pu-239 pellet. I would expect that all Pu RTGs would use PuO2 as the chemical form for the Pu. While Pu metal would be more dense it is very reactive towards air/water, and Pu corrosion is very complex.
Now the good news, the RTGs made using Pu are oftein made in such a way that the Pu fuel is packaged in such a way that it is likely that the package will tolerate the heat of re-enetry. Also Pu(IV) is very insoluble in pH 7 water, but be aware that collidal PuO2 could be very mobile under some conditions, also insoluble Pu in the air is more harmful to the lungs than soluble Pu while in the case of oral Pu the reverse is true. It is also important to bear in mind that the fuel and the package only have to contain the Pu for about 900 years, after this time 99.9% will have decayed away. I am not able to say with authority if a RTG which has reentered will be safe or not. You would need to do more literature research, anyway "what is safe" ?
By the way you got my colour code in the Trinityglassactivity bar chart almost perfectly right, the green bars are for activation products, the red for a fission product and the blue for natural radioisotopes. Cadmium ( talk) 15:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:UAA is for reporting usernames that violate our username policy. To report users who are repeatedly vandalizing, please go to WP:AIV. However, before reporting there, vandals must have a full set of warnings. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Lara ❤ Love 17:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Talk:Solar power satellite, my apologies for deleting a lot of stuff. I clicked on a "diff" or an old version button in the history page, and stupidly edited what I saw and saved, discarding subsequent stuff including more of my own comments. I was just not paying attention to what I was doing, I did not intend malice. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- WillWare ( talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. Groupthink ( talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is where they actually first created the interpretations article. Dreadstar † 08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Since there was no further comment on the Draft version, I asked that the page be unprotected and moved the draft into place. Let me know what you think! I'm still working on the HAL segment, your assistance with that would be most welcome! Dreadstar † 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the Wikipedian core values that have been vociferously discussed on the Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey talk page, another one of WP's doctrine's is "don't bite the newbies". In other words, be welcoming and patient with newer users who have good intentions. Well, I bit you, and I apologize for that. Your heart is definitely in the right place, and I'm eager to see if you can in fact write a well-sourced article that establishes the topic's independent notability. If you can, then I will be that article's staunchest defender. Best of luck. Groupthink ( talk) 16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
|
No need to wait for me. I look forward to seeing your developments. Have fun. The Transhumanist 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that the draft has been put into the mainspace: Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Groupthink has disputed the sources and content, so your input would be welcome in that discussion. Preliminary details on the dispute are in the section above. Dreadstar † 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your edits at GRO J1655-40. At first I was scratching my head wondering why this was on my watch list. Then I realised that I created the talk page. There might be something useful in there as it came from an old submission AfC. Perhaps you could take a look when you have time. Cheers. MSGJ ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the combustion instabilities like screeching don't usually cause damage by mechanical means (although they could do in principle, particularly at very low frequencies, but screeching is much higher frequency).
No, the main problem is that they thin the boundary layer down, and that means the heat flow (which is normally stupidly high anyway) goes up massively. The wall then usually suffers from catastrophic burn through.- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
However, there is no disputing the smallest "observability" of our universe as given by the size of a photon (i.e. the planck length). This limit is well known to exist and is accepted by quantum mechanics. I agree, that there could be something smaller than the photon, but it would be fundamentally unobservable to us even if there was.
If you would be so kind as to read the gravastar article, I explain much of my reasoning behind the need fix to the black holes theory. Please tell me what you think. Much of the info is directly from published research, however the interpretation of it is my own work. Does it sound plausible?-- MaizeAndBlue86 ( talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey has been unprotected, so improvements and additions can resume! Dreadstar † 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I luv you, seriosly that message you sent me, I have limited expertice, your just an astronomer and a physicist, aka what I want to be and What most of my questions are in. How exactely do photons superimpose themselves into quanta. Just dum the math down a little and I'll figure it out. Thanks! 11341134a ( talk) 19:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Which one do you like better? I had to do these from scratch to avoid any copyright complications.
Dreadstar † 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hullo, Bob -- I'm a physicist, working in high-energy astronomy for long, and lately in IR on Spitzer space telescope in Pasadena. I have enjoyed and appreciated your labors lately on Cygnus X-1, which is an old friend of us gamma guys. I am fairly new to Wikipedia (& maybe a slow learner to boot...), so looking to meet the more experienced professionals working the turf. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice work on the Cygnus X-1 article. It will take a long time to review it (and the references) as carefully as they deserve. We are still working with the earth-occultation BATSE data, and now have the full nine-year stretch of the CGRO data for it. We seemed to see a ~1 MeV flare in [HEAO 3] data in 1979, and our BATSE occulation project at JPL was above all motivated by the desire to try and find other similar instances. Best, Bill
Wwheaton (
talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Bill, would you mind reading something of mine at talk:Planck time. I'm interested to hear what you think.-- MaizeAndBlue86 ( talk) 17:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote of confidence, but then why do I still feel so ignorant? My view on the question you raise is that the theory of everything is string theory, and it tells you how matter interacts fundamentally, while Godel's theorem is about computations and tells you that you can't predict computer program behavior arbitrarily far into the future. I wrote a blurb along those lines on Theory of everything a while ago, but it got erased. There is no contradiction between knowing all the rules of nature and not being able to predict how a computing system will behave, because computing systems can always surprise you by learning your methods of predicion and defying them. The distinction is between physical laws, which are like the instruction set of the computer, and computer programs which are combinations of those instructions into complex programs. You can know the instruction set but you can't know the eventual behavior of every program. Hope that helps. Likebox ( talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the comments I made on the black hole page. I had just failed an extremely hard Biology test and was looking for a vent. I have replaced those comments with less inflamitory ones. Dont worry I wont be failing any bio tests any time soon. I beg your apologies, 11341134a ( talk) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi - friendly question for to answer if you would please :). I've seen your edits around Wikipedia and have just looked at your pages at Caltech. I must say it is nice to be able to ask your opinion on something. Your work with Gamma Rays is awesome. I am an "armchair" astronomer...
So, I saw the that you made {then undid}. My question revolves around that.
What is your take on including these sorts of (non-inline) types of references in Wikipedia. You know, the "generic" ones. Just curious.
E_dog95' Hi ' 00:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
please note that references in talk pages are supposed to be written thus: [1] — Cesar Tort 02:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Bill - Thanks for restoring the article. As it turns out Onsly has been making working in some articles. I had let him know about using the edit summary on March 16th (8 days ago) because of a similar situation.
What he had done is reduce the amount of content in the Automated Transfer Vehicle about the Jules Verne ATV. User GW Simulations split the article on March 9th.
So to you it looked like a questionable edit. I encountered nearly the same thing previously. It's all about the edit summary. If he'd left a note, this wouldn't have happened. I restored his edit as it looks like that was a good thing to do. I looked & it doesn't look like GW Simulations reduced the original ATV article at all since the creation of the Jules Verne article. I left Onsly another note on his talk page regarding the use of the edit summary & how it's necessary being that this is a very large collaborative project.
Thanks Bill & good to have you on board. Cheers! E_dog95' Hi ' 08:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I left the raw text of my version on the talk page. BTW, I have been trained (? ApJ style, I think) to hyphenate "X-ray" when it is used as an adjective, but not as a noun. No idea how this fits with external conventions. -- Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I've responded at the place. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean the one at the top of the talk page? If so, that one stays to show that the article went through an earlier AfD. If there's another delete tag, let me know - I can't seem to see one.
If the source is in relation to the subject of the article (interpetations of 2001), then it wouldn't be OR. If you want to give me the links, I'll take a look and see...say, have you seen this site?
Oh, yes! Dial F! I remember that story very well...read it ages ago..great stuff....as with all of Clarke's ideas; and yes, he does seem to have a penchant for either killing us off or evolving us out of existence..;) Dreadstar † 05:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Is that even the case for a link to a section?! Doesn't seem reasonable. (There is even a subsection for sounding rockets, but I wasn't sure how to link to that.) Live & learn.... Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine - I'll defer to your judgement on that. SparrowsWing (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The surface of a sphere most certainly has a center of mass. If the surface is uniform (you don't say this)throughout, the center of mass of the surface will be approximately, if not exactly, in the common center of the sphere - somewhat in the manner of the doughnut's center of mass being in the hole of the doughnut.
Never mind all the professed good intent - if you really meant well you'd remove that 'unscientific' shall we say, comment from the end of my theory.
Show me something with no center. If you were any kind of scientist, that should take you about five seconds.
Pete Lamont, Author:- The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 ( talk) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. It looks like you introduced the word "strong" into the lead of the Cygnus X-1 article. Unfortunately this conflicts with Wikipedia:MoS#Unnecessary_vagueness, so I would appreciate it if you could either use more precise language or revert to the way it was. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 15:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message and commentary. I only hope that interested people like you will acquire a few neodymium magnets and try to assemble up to what would be 10Ne20 and see what the models tell you. The magnets continue to collect (very forcefully) but the logic of the series expansion numbers is simpler to understand with the checkerboard logic protocol. My modified Nuclide chart doesn't provide much data for the 8th level construction details except to note that every element has 2 categories of nuclides and that in each element the even neutron number category is more stable (with some irregularities. So if you'll make that test, maybe I can change your conception of the 2He4 nucleus. And Thanks.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)PS 66 is just a young squirt why I'm old enough to be a fervent Isaac Asimov reader.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
RE Pauling I hope he said that Alpha particles constitute the core of the nucleus around which additional deuterons and excess neutrons are accumulated. Thus 6 Carbon consists of 2 alpha plus 2 deuteron particles and if you use the magnets to try to make 4Be9 you'll find that the magnets wont bond 2 other magnets side by side but only 2 other magnets that are end bonded to each other. The implication being that 4Be8 consists in one alpha particle end bonded to another. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as storytelling capability in science matters I like Clarke and Michener, but I think you underestimate the capability of Asimov to supply scientific (and mathematical) information to readers. And I thought that's what Wikipedia was all about, particularly since they're against original thinking. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
How about you and your cohorts there at Caltech building and checking out the indications of stability of the models relative to the available nuclear data and saying "Gee this points out where additional study and data checking might improve our concepts about this subject matter." And then you could blame for having an original idea. Would that be legal? It only took about 5 years to build the models and my curiosity as to the correlation between their symmetry indications and and the nuclear data stability indications still exists. Regards WFPM WFPM ( talk) 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
PS And I do have a copyrighted article and a copyright on the "structural models", but I'm afraid I cant prove or contribute anything mathematical because I'm only an Engineer. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UT)
That's all right. I once drove over 1000 miles (round trip) to show a person my models to see what he thought and he said that it couldn't be right because it's supposedly impossible for nucleons to come in contact with each other. But I still think the models point out things like that there ought to be stable EE isotopes more massive than OE83Bi209 because I can build models of them and I cant find any theory that they cant exist. And I get agravated when I read that not only there isn't any but also that there cant be any. So thanks and lots of luck and keep it up on Wikipedia. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 00:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
==Big Bang Theory== I just wanted to mention to you that now we maybe have permission to discuss alternate theories as to how the universe got started besides that it was created out of nothing. Do you think it worthwhile to pursue that? I've got ideas. Regards WFPM WFPM ( talk) 14:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)PS I appreciate your info re ISS time lag factor had no idea it was so small.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 14:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) == Oh yes and about this idea that the space continuum expansion factor is added to the c velocity factor in deterimining the size of the universe: Are you up on that? .WFPM WFPM ( talk) 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Responding to --
For
talk:WikiProject Astronomy I have signed on to watch the following:
with the thought that I will keep track of "interested editors", who make substantive non-minor changes to their articles, and solicit them to be watchers if any get too frisky. My hope is that this will be a very boring task. Wwheaton ( talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for doing that! I really appreciate it, please feel free (and by that I mean I want you to :P) to update/correct any info. As you correctly guessed I don't have any expert knowledge at all (20 year old literature undergrad) but I've always been fascinated with astronomy to the point that I built my own reflector. Anyway, the content from the instrument section came from HEASARC and was basically copy/pasted since their content is PD. I had realized that the information they have had some problems, and in a few cases when writing the lead and filling in the infobox I found information there that was contradicted by the Russian sources (written in English) I used. When that happened I always gave precedence to the Russian papers. Unfortunately though, I was forced to rely to a great extent on HEASARC because there simply aren’t many English sources about Granat available online (I live in brazil, and the grand total of books about soviet satellites in the libraries I have access to is probably 0..). I was particularly frustrated at not being able to use the IKI website in Russian which appears to be full of useful information, and is certainly a lot more reliable. So yes, if you can go over the article in more detail or know another astronomer who could, I would be most grateful! Acer ( talk) 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It's my fault, I didn't make that clear, I guess. When I said 'The Center', I definitely meant the Center of Mass. So the question is - does the Cosmos have a Center of Mass, like everything else?
It sure used to have a Center of Mass. According to the Big Bang Theory, the Cosmos was once a Singularity. But didn't this Singularity, representing the Cosmos, didn't it have a Center of Mass?
Or imagine a short time after the Big Bang, with everything in the Universe flying away from everything else.. didn't it have a Center of Mass then?
A Center, from which everything was leaving. By suggesting the Cosmos has a Center of Mass, just like everything else, I do not feel I am stepping outside of the bounds of Science. I rather think my suggestion has some merit, and should be allowed as a 'possibility', at least.
It's my fault too that I came across, to you, as 'hostile', it was certainly not my intent. I know exactly what it was that 'irked' me. I laid out my Cosmology to you, and you responded by questioning me on the Surface of a Sphere.
And I still maintain the surface of a Shere, or any part of the surface, assuming that surface is a real, three dimensional object, has a Center of Mass. If, of course, the 'Surface' is a mere 2 dimensional illustration, that would make finding its C of M difficult.
I am also maintaining that the Cosmos still has a Center of Mass, that it came with one and that it didn't lose it. And that we are in a Big Crunch situation, and that a Singularity has evolved there, at the Center (of Mass) of the Cosmos, since the beginning of Time.
I would very much appreciate a mention of my Theory - which follows naturally from all the known laws of Science - depends on them, really, in Wiki, somewhere. I believe Science needs to know. Please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 ( talk) 15:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input and now I know about Teleology and must be a metaphysicist. But being an Engineer, I cant think of any compelling reason to worry about why water was designed to run downhill. And as for the Big Bang theory I'd rather think the water was uphill in the first place. And as for dark matter/energy, how about a little more research and verification re the stability of the neutron in free space? Regards WFPM WFPM ( talk) 11:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont have anything against neutrons in the sun or n+p capture gammas. What I need in the Central Whirlpool scenario concept is a way for accumulating atomic structures to get rid of excess angular momentum, And I think that might be done by changing some of the neutrons into protons that have something (an electron whip tail?) That can get rid of the radiation particles that you call gamma rays. And we could call the research "The negatively charged universe?" and think about Newton's first rule of Philosophy. And my apologies to Hans Bethe and Regards, WFPM WFPM ( talk) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,me again. In response to your message to me, it does seem to me that the Cosmos certainly started out as a finite body - a singularity, according to accepted understanding - if I'm not mistaken. It still must have been finite shortly after the Big Bang, I'm inclined to believe.
My first question, therefore, would be - at what time did the Cosmos 'go infinite', or did it? How does one 'go infinite', anyhow? Is it a sudden thing, or does it occur only slowly.
I prefer to think the Cosmos is finite, with a Center of Mass like every other finite thing. I am not interested in 'winning' any 'arguments', but I always appreciate any opportunity to explain my side.
My second and last question to you is, 'Do you think there is room for my theory, that there is indeed, a Black Hole at the Center of the Universe, in Wiki - anywhere?
Maybe, I thought, it could serve as an example of 'Fringe Science' - a Theory, that while it conforms to the Laws of Physics, actually depends on them, could never hope to compete with the established 'Heavyweights', The Big Bang, for example - the mirror image of which - this is. 72.39.252.217 ( talk) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it's me again. Thank you for your last reply. It does seem to me that the Cosmos started out 'finite', according to accepted Theory, when it was just a singularity. I think it was still finite some time after the Big Bang. I think it's still finite.
I'm not interested in 'winning' any 'arguments', but I always appreciate an opportunity to present my side.
Is there any place for my Theory? I thought, maybe in 'Fringe Science', it could be briefly presented as a Theory which, tho' it conforms with Gravity and all the other Laws of Physics, could never hope to compete with the established 'Heavies', the Big Bang, or 'String Theory', for example.
If, however, there is no room for 'The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe', in Wiki, please tell me so that we can move on. 72.39.252.217 ( talk) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In light of what you have told me, I'll have to take that as a 'no' to my theory, 'The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe.'
I think it's sad, that in an encyclopedia that claims to hold 'the sum' of the world's knowledge, that this particular piece of 'knowledge', should be repressed.
However, I must stand by your decision - sorry for having wasted your time so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 ( talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought so, but so far I am unconvinced. Watching, however, and it's good to know I am not the only one aware of this! -- Rodhull andemu 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message! It is nice to know that I am not the only one who is like that!! If I may ask, which denomination do you attend? My family has been Presbyterian since before my ancestors settled Ireland from Scotland in the 17th century. Despite my own ambivalence on the topic, I find centuries of familial tradition to be a powerful allure. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 02:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the late reply, but I've replied on my talk page. Khu kri 10:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your comment on my talk page. The video you showed to me was extremely interesting. As you noticed, i am very interested in physics and astronomy to which you have a very impressive background. :] If you're interested in any topic in particular, i'd love to take a look. I appologize for not responding quickly. I'm on wikipedia nearly every day but i'm not logged on as often. Best, John Taftgod ( talk) 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
User:DavidYork71 is not going to go away, so I have semi-protected the article for a week. That only leaves his new accounts, which can be blocked on sight. He will run out of steam before we do. -- Rodhull andemu 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have yet to meet any scientist, involved in the LHC or otherwise, with the slightest concern about the LHC causing disasters. A few people seem glad that the LSAG is doing its very conservative report, just so we can be sure, but most see it entirely as an exercise in explaining to the public why there's no cause for concern. Admittedly, we don't always do public relations as well as I wish we did, but I think the report is a step in the right direction.
If you're interested in quantum field theory, I highly recommend this textbook, which gets across many of the key concepts at the upper-division undergraduate level. -- SCZenz ( talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.
On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.
If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you copied the "legal challenge" section to the "Safety of the LHC" article. I suggest that the section either be removed from the "Safety of the LHC" article, or that the "Legal challenge" section in the "LHC" article be merged with the "Operational safety" section. Either way is fine with me. Thanks. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 13:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Saw your edit on the that page. I guess I need to site the "Massive X-ray binaries". Sorry about that. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 17:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
you were right i was busy w/ end of year stuff, i havent been on wiki in so long! I am now doing research on microfinance for a Model United Nations Conference, I am helping to wright the briefing paper. its tuff! I am also busy learning about Casmir's force and how vacums work. If casmir's force works here with virtual particle popping in and out of existence wud particles here pop into existance in another dimention that the virtual particles are supposedly found in and make up casmirs force ther?! Have a great summer --Josh 00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw you on the interstellar travel discussion page. You wrote about HEAO-3 too. I worked on that in Ed Stone's lab. Were you there too? DonPMitchell ( talk) 05:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bill, Just found this which I thought you might personally find this interesting, outside of our shenanigans on the LHC articles. It's a 2 hour interview with nobel laureates, including Carlo Rubbia, David Gross, Hooft, Veltman, George Smoot and a few others and their thoughts on the LHC. There are also some discussions about the LHC safety and Wagner. cheers Khu kri 09:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi bill hope ur back 'll be ok. Thanks for the book recommendation ill start on that after i finish a book on einstiens most important theories. I love the concerto too. I got in an AP History class this year! 1st test on summer reading average D but I got a C! On hte scale thats an A - A+. Sorry i havent exactly kept in touch end of school was hectic. I worked over the summer too so not much time spent on computer. Tell me more about the place u work at as a teacher, Caltech is it, I might go there fr college. My best regards Josh 00:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I am a sophomore in High School Bill. I would love to apply to Caltech for thier astronomy program! I want to go to Yale but that might not happen. So yeah im syched about the idea.... How bout u Bill how r u doin these days???????? Josh 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11341134a ( talk • contribs)
This [2] is much better. Thank you, sir! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've seen that you're listed as an active participant in WikiProject physics, and particle physics is listed among your areas of interest. The article Quark is currently a featured article candidate. Could you please review it and express your comments at the nomination page and/or the talk page of the article? Thanks in advance, A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 16:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
For mentioning the talk mistake. It was hardly something important, and I'm sure anything that got deleted was an accident. It is now restored to the talk page. Eebster the Great ( talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I dont know if you had an answer to your question at Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Minkowski_diagram. As I had a copy of Rindler's book to hand I looked it up. Robinhw ( talk) 16:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I am really appalled that you do not comment on Verbal's vandalism of the discussion on the Safety of the Large Hadron Colllider. Don't you realize that he is censoring content? He has already destroyed my other contributions and blocked me from edits ... do you seriously think I'm the only one?? It is irrelevant whether you agree with my point of view or not, this person is wading through Wikipedia and deleting or destroying other people's work simply because he doesn't approve! DasV ( talk) 09:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Faustnh ( talk) 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bill, thank you for your notification. Yes, I completely agree with you on the question that archival procedure of Life Talk page should be given a better treatment. I will express my opinion there.
By the way, in my last check of Wikipedia I've made a change to the article I wrote. I've made some additions I've been intended to write since some time ago, and I would like you checked it out.
Thank you and best regards.
Hello Wwheaton. I just noticed the contributions you have done in Wikipedia and I realize you are in a different league than user Mitra. In the past I have had to fend off religious zealots (offended to their very soul), creationists, Intelligent Design dudes, just plain vandals and miscelaneous comming out of the wood works. I see you are looking at life from a serious physics perspective and you have the background to do so. I applaud that and look forward to learning some tricks from you; I am a cell & molecular biologist. Surely you have noticed during your ample scientific writing experience in Wikipedia of the need to quote previously published papers. Although your kernel information ratios concept is interesting, I do not believe it has been published, and I can not honestly say it is a mainstream biology concept that can be used to support the presented definition of life. Sincerely looking forward to constructive dialogue, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wwheaton, FYI - I'm in fact in a different league. Consider me just a foolish kiddo. I've not bothered to check the talk page archive before writing that 'definition' [and when I did I've disliked 'pink unicorns' right away]. Nor have I tried to do any research in the subject in the past ten years. The idea is not original and have been present in the literature for quite a while. Really, I think, I took the idea from Harry Potter. That Rowling person is talking about the information transfer throughout the whole series. To the point of being boring in fact. -- Mitra ( talk) 07:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Wwheaton. Thank you for being logical in your arguments and for listening mine as well. I think that biologists are to high up in the food chain to define life :) And forget that chemistry and in its term physics drives all that funky cellular machienary. I doubt they even know the notion of the thought experiment. ;) -- Mitra ( talk) 08:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wwheaton, I know that at first it seems ridiculous and unfair that independent scientific thinking is not allowed, and it is even discouraged in Wikipedia. However, restricting the material to previously published papers (peer reviewed), helps ensure the veracity and reliability of the information presented. Remember it is an open encyclopedia and anyone has access to the edit button, whether they understand the subject or not. If all editors had a degree in science/technology/etc. it would not be such a big handicap as this population -in general- takes time to understand the Wiki rules and investigate the topic prior to editing; but reality shows that not all editors have the understanding or the intelectual honesty expected; for example, during the past I have had to delete statements claiming that fire and certain computer softwares can be considered to be alive. In this context I had a first impresion that your information theory was heading toward some kind of electronic memory and artificial life. Anyway, I apologize for my rudeness, and as a researcher, I appaud your curiosity.
Regarding the information kernel ratios, at an everyday practical level the links between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not close. When attempting to detect life, physicists and chemists are apt to be more interested in changes in entropy as a system spontaneously evolves away from its initial conditions, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. So I think that your proposed system may be an additional perspective to assist in the description of life, not to define it.
I strongly suspect that one reason biologists have not produced an oficial-looking sentence that defines life, is that we don't want to be boxed in to a pre-established concept of the many ways life manifests, or could manifest. Creating a one sentence definition, whether narrow or wide, would be either too vague or limiting. If you look around in competent literature, it is more likely that you will find descriptions or characteristics of known life, as very few will adventure to actually produce a definition. Although my cell & molecular background is on heath care (humans), I spend time reading on characteristics of life because I am very interested in the subject of astrobiology, and I keep a close eye on what they are looking for as a sign of past or present life. There are several suggestions for things to look for, and mostly they all come down to questioning the physicochemical data for an anomaly. Although thermodynamic entropy seems to be the prime "red flag" at the moment, signs of metabolism like 12-C, 13-C, 14-C incorporation ratios in gases and biomolecules, are high on the list. The good news is that none of these asume that the processes are being carried on inside a cell.
As you know, as the scientific fields expand, people become very specialized. I have not read anything about biological information ratios but I will keep an eye open and will get back to you if I do. Take care. With much respect and friendship, - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
( -- Faustnh ( talk) 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC) ) Hi Bill, you will probably know, but in case you don't, you could take a look at Knol service. It's not perfect, but it's a resource to consider. Best regards.
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC. Thank you. Colds7ream ( talk) 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to WikiProject Space Colonization! I noticed you were making improvements to the ISS article. What areas of space colonization are you interested in? Wronkiew ( talk) 08:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I would take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting or Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion asap. Dr. Blofeld, Waacstats, Grutness, et al can probably advise or help. Cheers, Pegship ( talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks ok to me, what were your concerns? No porn stars in it now so far as I could see. dougweller ( talk) 07:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Wwheaton. Thanks for mentioning that on my talk page. To answer some of your questions, I believe that there are somewhere between 13,000 and 15,000 asteroid articles on Wikipedia at the moment. I am uncertain of the exact number as I only created about a tenth of those asteroid articles. Most were created by User:ClueBot II before I came along and filled in some holes. Others have been created by different individuals over times. As for why I missed so many articles, that is because I used many different pages to get links for the asteroids. I initially used pages such as List of named minor planets (A-C), then went on to Meanings of minor planet names and later used List of asteroids. Sorry about any redlinks that I missed. I could go and create them, but I haven't done any asteroid article created for nearly a year partially due to the (apparently mistaken) belief that I had gotten all the named asteroids as well as the whole notability controversy on the astronomical objects wikiproject. I like the look of your table and think it is a good idea. One question that I have is if you intend to create the table to supplement the articles or to delete or merge the articles to the table. I would suggest keeping the articles and then having a table with minimal information to keep it neat with more specific information on the articles on the asteroids themselves. If you would like, I can go ahead and create the articles of the asteroid redlinks or if you would rather have me wait until the question of asteroid notability is solved, I understand that as well. Once again, thank you for contacting me regarding these new developments. Captain panda 04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I almost blocked you per our policy of 'no celebrity names' - but hey, it is your name, so okay.
You're doing some damn good stuff; keep at it. DS ( talk) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wweaton, I was checking on a vandalism on article Omid and suddenly read your message to an IP user and I was overwhelmed. It is great to know people like you. By the way, I noticed that you are interested in Physics and space. There is a funny article about space that would like to send you if you are interested. I will email it to you. Have a great week. Kind regards Parvazbato59 ( talk) 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the interesting input on the Soddy articles. Your new finding was another good information link to have http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12zencey.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion
If you have not seen this very short video you may find it interesting. M. King Hubbert who I am sure you know of, made use of Soddy's work. Soddy did not take things a step further as Hubbert and friends did, but his work pointed in somewhat the same direction... Hubbert on peak oil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY&feature=channel_page - Regards skip sievert ( talk) 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Didn't edit the Mass Driver page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.155.66 ( talk) 21:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have just read your help me mesage on Mass Driver 1 page. I am not an expert wikipedian and I do not really know how to help, but I want you to know that I sympathise with you and I have a few general suggestions:
1. List the things that you think ought to be on the page, from your point of view. That has to be reconciled with what ought to be on the page from the point of view of us users. Our view should be paramount as wiki should be there to answer our questions, but then again, we do not neccesarily know what there is to be known, whereas you do.
2. List some sources of information that others could use. Even if they are obscure books, so long as you give proper references, it is up to us to look into them and decide what we want.
3. You are absolutely right that you should not write the page yourself, but provided you make it clear who you are, you are reasonably OK putting a few notes down and I support this.
4. I will jot down a list of things that I mgiht expect to see on this page too, to inspire others. Thanks for being there anyway. IceDragon64 ( talk) 21:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I seem to be edging towards an edit war with an IP User:79.166.105.190 editor over that Georgios Giolvas edit you also reverted. Am I proceeding correctly? Any advice? Thanks. Wwheaton ( talk) 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bill Wheaton. I see that you are a physicist and astronomer. You got my attention with your wikipedia page on particle accelerators. It was very well written. Accelerators are a recent interest of mine, as is particle physics as a whole. I was wondering if you could read a wikipedia entry that I have been working on and maybe make some constructive critisms. Here is the title of the article, and, I hope, the internal link for it: The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?. The article is about the book with that title. You might be familiar with it.
The intention of this project has turned out to be twofold. One is to give a summary of the chapters focusing through the lens of making this book and article interesting to the general reader. The second intention is to impart an understanding of particle physics based on this book. It is written by Leon Lederman who is a Nobel Prize in Physics laureate for his work with neutrinos. Obviously this has not been his only accomplishment. He has been right there on the leading edge of particle physics.
I see also that you are a participant of WikiProject Physics. Perhaps you could get some of your fellow members in WikiProject physics to look it over as well. It would be much appreciated.
Also I must add that it is not quite complete - but it is almost finished. However, now might be a good time for some feedback - I guess any feedback from physicist community on the article's talk page would be welcome. Thanks in advance. Hope to hear from you.
Ti-30X ( talk) 02:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually it is probably three quarters done, not eally almost finished. I want to add more to Chapter 4 and Chapter 9. Ti-30X ( talk) 11:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wwheaton. You might not have realized this, but your this edit to Template:Welcomeh was undesirable for the template's true function. I've reverted the edit now. Please be careful in your future edits. Thanks. Leave Sleaves 17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Ww
I helps a bit...
Can you maybe introduce me to someone who spesializes in Electrical engineering (Power)?
Regards CJ-- Kroucacj ( talk) 00:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to know if you had wanted to comment on my talk page when you had left a message, you said you would keep it watchlisted (I added a bit too) The snare ( talk) 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I have been making sections on various characters from Malawi history and adding to them as I find out more -- a fascinating subject, for me, anyway, as I grew up in Nyasaland. There is surprisingly little material on Henry Chip, still less on Catherine. The best general source is Colin Baker, who has published a lot on the period -- a whole series of books which you can no doubt find referred to on the web. Among them is one on Henry Chip -- the "Missing Years". I was recently in Rhodes House, Oxford, doing some historical research, but all they have is one letter from Henry to his supporters.
There is actually a guy at Cal Tech in Pasadena who once wrote quite a lot on the subject -- Edwin Munger, who knew Chip's nemesis, Dr Banda. I e-mailed him a while ago asking to see some private papers apparently in his possession (I am nearby, in LA), but he didn't reply.
Sorry I can't really help on Catherine. I'm not aware of anything other than passing references to her existence, with no detail. Let me know, though, if I can help with anything else in the general subject area -- I have a reasonably good collection of assorted books and documents.
Oliver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivercorlett ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that you keep it as a subpage of your account, without categories, until it meets WP:N. Otherwise it is likely to be deleted again. Given the topic, you should be able to get two references from technical journals or news sources. I'll also add that the number of Google hits does not establish notability. Check out {{ cite journal}} or {{ cite new}} for including the formatted references. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
See what I meant about the original research: [3]. Since there is no source, the info cannot be verified by others and very likely contains mistakes. Do we really need this? Offliner ( talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on dividing the article: it looks much better now.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 16:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The last few days have been very busy on the this article: perhaps you could have a look.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 03:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
From your user page it says you are a physicts and a astronomer. Then just tell me that does supermassive black hole have a lower density? I have read on the article such thing. Please answer it on my talk page. -- Extra999 ( talk) 13:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I have now understood. Thanks. -- Extra999 ( talk) 09:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Will, Hope you are doing good? Thought you might like this. Take care Khu kri 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I got the year of birth from the Discover magazine blog, but I'm happy to wait for a more detailed reference. -- Canley ( talk) 00:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have created a portal named star and I need help from you for making it good. -- Extra999 ( talk) 20:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Then can you suggest a helful user and is good in astronomy. -- Extra999 ( talk) 05:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I have posted. Thanks !!! -- Extra999 ( talk) 05:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
In reference to your recent edit to Forbidden Planet, please consider that WP:FICT guidelines ( WP:FILMPLOT) advise 400-700 words for a plot summary, and in that article we are now at 729 words (per a real quick wc) for the plot summary. — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 05:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream ( talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wwheaton, I saw your latest edits and I really appreciate your effort to put the debate on a productive track. Unfortunately this week I am quite busy with other stuff so I cannot guarantee a quick reaction. Cheers Ptrslv72 ( talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Wwheaton! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Paulkint ( talk · contribs) is active at Interstellar travel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again. I reverted one attempted change a few days ago due to it removing references and muddying the example. I'm holding off on examining his most recent change. Would you be willing to take a look? I want to avoid doing anything that could come across as edit-warring or article-ownership, so a second opinion would be handy. The difficulty is that as near as I can tell, he's a single-purpose account relentlessly pushing one viewpoint on that article. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Your removal is clearly based on personal animosity since my contribution was only made clearer the magnitude of the energy and you do not dispute the accuracy of my edit. Yes I have had one viewpoint: to correct much of the falacious or false information in the "Interstellar Travel" article. Obviously that it not going to be permitted. User: paulkint —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Hi Wwheaton, could you please keep an eye on the "Safety of the LHC" article? It's being modified by one "Oldnoah", but it's time to go to bed for me... Cheers Ptrslv72 ( talk) 01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi William, could you please moderate Ptrslv72, whose intentions might be good, but who is somewhat ignorant of physics. I've just posted a response to his response in the User Talk page of Oldnoah. Thanks! As I recall, we had a few interesting chats a while back, too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldnoah ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I will do the best I can to keep the discussion friendly and helpful, but am not enough of an expert myself to do much more than speak soothing nothings. As I said a month ago, I believe the probability P of disaster cannot reasonably be claimed to be truly (exactly) 0.0, though I think it is very very small, <10 -12 , I guess. I also think only bona fide experts are qualified to estimate the limits on the range of P, given that it must satisfy 0.0 < P < 1.0. It seems crucial to me (and a bigger issue than just the LHC, ultimately, as such problems will inevitably come up again and again in other fields of scientific research, with the danger of disasters on one hand, and the danger of halting scientific progress on the other) that we learn to accept such difficult realities, and then deal with (a) trying to understand what P could reasonably be, and (b) what value is acceptable in a broad analysis of likely costs and benefits to society as a whole.
Ptrslv72 ( talk) may be "somewhat ignorant" of physics, but we all are, and he clearly knows much more of the current state of the subject than I. (My theoretical particle physics education more or less peaked around 1967, when I took my PhD qualifying exams at UCSD; I worked on some experiments at BNL/AGS & LBL after that, but got out of the field in 1969, just before the big breakthroughs.) I think you Oldnoah ( talk), probably know at least as much as I do, and I appreciated our interactions a year or two ago, that helped me to get up to speed a little on the subject. As I say I cannot do much during the next fortnight; I hope I will be more available after that. All the best, Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Bill, for your input. I also agree that P > 0, and P < 1 with our current state of knowledge. However, I am unable to calculate a probability. I suspect you have a 'gut feeling' that you believe it is as small as you report. I don't do that, because a 'gut feeling' is exactly that, a feeling not based on reasoned calculation. I don't know how to do a calculation, and I don't know of anyone who reliably does. Ergo, I would agree that one should therefore simply split the difference. I'm not the only one who uses that method as the 'best guess'. That is because, I suppose, that if we do Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC, that is something that does not happen in nature except possibly in the deep reaches of intergalactic space when an occasional Pb cosmic ray runs head-on into another Pb cosmic ray at COM equivalent energies to the LHC. Since we don't have prior factual evidence from nature to rely upon, we instead have to rely upon guesswork. I find it interesting that Ptrslv72 seems to be taking a hostile tone, yet he was ignorant of the recent LHC data?! One would think that if he is going to be a 'guardian of the gate' he would at least have already been apprised of the recent CMS data (which I inserted into the article because it is quite interesting, I believe, as being the FIRST data from 'new physics' of the machine.) ~Oldnoah
Oldnoah, how ironic that, of all people, you should call somebody else "ignorant of physics". Of course I know the CMS article (check the timestamps, I mentioned it on the talk page of the Safety article well before you did it on your own talk page). The point is, I am also able to read plain English, so I know that the CMS article has nothing to do with strangelet production at the LHC. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I will be away for a week, with little or no computer access. I expect to return March 5. Wwheaton ( talk) 16:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
While I certainly agree that professionals and academics in the field of physics don't like the term "atom smasher", it is still a widely used term. See Talk:Particle accelerator#Terminology for more sources; hundreds of others could be provided. It may not be the preferred scientific term, but it is still used. This is a general encyclopedia, not a textbook or technical manual, so the terminology we use is not restricted to what the academic world would prefer. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I've had a brainstorm since I last talked with you about an atomic fusion device consisting of a Boiler containing Lithium fuel and a helium heat transfer medium, and equipped with a number of your atom smashing (accelerator) devices to fuse the lithium to fast helium particles. We could shape it like a Chianti bottle and put a hydrogen fuel cell recovery system in at the top and then we would be in business. We would, of course, give credit for the discovery to Cockcroft and Walton, but there ought to be enough room in the technology for a patent or two. So what do you think? You can be the Scientist and I'll be the Engineer. WFPM ( talk) 18:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes! And we can put a pebble bed heating system under the Chianti bottle and use Berkeley's and even Cal Tech's garbage as a heating fuel source. That would probable sell the idea. WFPM ( talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You might also note that in the Nuclear model article someone has introduced a category of model that he named the Linus Pauling Close-Packed Spheron model. And since you mentioned that to me one time I thought you might want to contribute something to that. WFPM ( talk) 22:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
As usual, you're technically way over my head. But I'm pretty sure that Cockcroft and Walton didn't have have a too complicated supply of 3Li when they made the discovery. But as an practical matter, you may be right. And I'm not talking about a completely Nuclear Fusion facility, just a souped up lithium containing boiler, that would at least have enough nuclear fusion activity to merit trying to study and try to improve the technology as a beginning. Do you know what happens if 3Li is put into the thermal neutron flux section of a LWR? I know it's pretty transparent but isn't there some amount of reaction? And no fast neutrons! That would definitely be a plus. WFPM ( talk) 14:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Also, in my boiler I could argue that the target atom was confined within the liquid and yet would still be practically stationary with respect to the velocity of the approaching proton. All I have to do is to get it out of the accelerator to a nearby location to the liquid 3Li surface, and I consider that to be an Engineering problem. WFPM ( talk) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you're interested in Telescopes, you might want to join the discussion in Talk:Photon about the existence of a pilot wave that tells the photon where to go. I'm trying to use an image of the Whirlpool galaxy to argue in favor of direct propagation of photons as a means of explaining the incredible details of the image and I'm sure you could contribute to that. WFPM ( talk) 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm just thinking OE3Li7 + p to EE4Be8 to 2 x EE2He4 + Energy. I threw in the question of (OO3Li6 + OE3Li7) + n because in that case the OE3Li7 would eventually get to OO3Li8 and eventually change to EE4Be8 and would thus allow energy extraction from a LWR. And I keep thinking about it as an Engineering project where I want to extract fusion energy from 3Li. And in the boiler Li the waste kinetic energy would help heat the fuel, so I should have a net gain if any of it got fused. It sounds to me that they're having the same problem as I did when I was trying to design a pile type Ni-Cd battery for Laser Power applications, namely lack of efficiency. I'm trying to be be sneeky, and let my Energy Process take a free ride on a more conventional system. WFPM ( talk) 04:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The Whirlpool image is not only beautiful but informative. The details of the image argue for "line of sight" propagation, and show the transparency of the medium. And what we're watching is what I call a phase 2 + 3 process of accumulation of matter (2:Nucleons into Atoms)and (3:matter into a black hole). Now all we need to know is (1:how the nucleons were created in the first place), and of course Why????. But I can see some guy telling me "No your not watching the end of the process but rather the beginning, and you would understand it better if you were on the other side of the energy passageway keyhole." And could I dispute with him on that? How about the Andromeda galaxy? Is it contracting or expanding? WFPM ( talk) 01:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem I thought that Crockcroft and Walton had discovered and overcome. I could still utilize any vaporization waste energy. But like you say it would have to work and have some efficiency. And they got credit for doing it. Cest la Vie. WFPM ( talk) 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
:Another question about interplanetory communications. The fundamental question is whether it is electromagnetic particles or a modulated wave type of transmission. Of course I think it must be particles, since I cant see how you could send the structure of the wave that you want to modulate. And what type of antenna? I studied the Yagi and the Parabolic in the navy. Maybe a link? and Thanks. WFPM ( talk) 15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes but waves in the ocean have a medium of conveyance. And I just got arguing about that in gravity waves which I called waves of a nonexistent medium. So I'll stick with particles and am promoting a "Planck particle", which allows a photon to be a radiation's frequency number stream of planck particles which are crowded into a wavelength's distance of the stream. I got a preliminary estimate of the mass of the particle at 1.32e-47 grams but that could stand scrutiny, But at least I don't have to worry about the matter of the wave medium, and still have a line of sight capability of transmission. Is that what they're using from Mars. WFPM ( talk) 18:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like your talking about Marconi antenna tranasmissions, But then you have electrons going at the bottom and a a theoretical wave radiating laterally off in all the horizontal directions, and the electrons have the problem of getting rid of energy at the top, where it has to decellerate. Why cant that be materialized into the emission of a stream of planck particles, likewise in all directions. WFPM ( talk) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
But you know about the methods of intelligence conveyance within a transmission, which is not my forte. Is it dot-dash or FM or what? And the center fed half wave antennas can also be tied into the concept and I'd have to dream up a sophisticated explanation of the wave guide properties of the Yagi. But like in the Spitzer data transmission problem, how do you cram all that information into the transmission package. WFPM ( talk) 12:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Me too on QED, except that I believe that an electron "is where it is" like I said in Talk:Atomic theory.
I think I can live with that, because I'm down into a small enough particle and spacial distance such that I can do practically anything with a particle stream that you can do with a wave, plus I don't have to worry about the medium of the carrier. If you want Phase modulation, I'll just subdivide the spacial distance further and control the distance between a particle or between groups of particles. And that's the only way that I can imagine for the light image details like in the Whirlpool Galaxy to get from there to here without loss of detail. Because after all, I don't think it has a sophisticated technique of detail communication, but rather is just doin' what comes naturally. WFPM ( talk) 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC) I had to study Fourier analysis as part of my EE curriculum. So maybe there's a use for it after all. WFPM ( talk) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Reading the article on Feynman I am reminded that my Calculus professor at the time was doing his doctoral thesis about the vibration of a drumhead. And note where he says that it"s mostly about particles in space plus a bunch of details. WFPM 15:16, 7 May 2010
I've got it and read some along with his Alamo lore. And I would agree about the similarities of light to electrons, except that we've got the Fourier and polarity factors with the photon, and the skin effect and standing wave factors with the electron, and Feynman's verbal generalizations about those similarities makes me want to get up and interrupt the class discussion. And I like the old IBM generalization about the computer's explanation being a battery and ground situation and then marching on toward a lot of interesting details, while at the same time keeping you with a feet on the ground conceptual position. And I understood most of that. But Feynman's discussion about summing the multiplicity of light paths without having a concept of a basic light particle like the planck particle makes me wonder if I'm not ahead of him rather than behind him. And I don't like events that occur during a zero time interval, because as Asimov pointed out all events are actions within a scenery situation during a maybe small, but not zero or negative time interval, and the permutation of the possibilities related to that lead up to large numbers, and he was writing about the Skewes number. So I'm trying IBM's method and floundering around hoping for the best. And I thank you for listening. WFPM ( talk) 14:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I keep thinking about the merging of two particle streams, and how we could get frequency doubling. and don't believe in one photon at a time, since in the receiving process were merely tapping the stream. And of course with only one slit you've got the Huyhgen's distribution factor related to light's turning around corners, about which I don't know all the details. But I still don't have to worry about the wave carrier medium, which they leave out of the discussion. It's kind of like talking about ghosts even if you don't believe in ghosts. WFPM ( talk) 16:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, how are you? Just to remind you about the star portal. I have completed it. I also present you:
This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge. |
-- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 12:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I made my guestbook. Please sign there. -- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 09:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The Extra 999's Guestbook Barnstar | ||
This user has signed Extra 999's guestbook, and deserves this star. If you have not signed yet, be sure to sign. extra999 ( talk) |
Thought this discussion might be of interest to you. Aalox ( talk) 11:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Awesome Wikipedian
Wwheaton has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as
Wwheaton's day! Keep up this work, |
Good thoughts, dear. But are you going to end up your career. -- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 05:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, better. I will help improve your userpages and all, if you want. Just give me a green light. -- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 05:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Howz this?? Should I prepare a guestbook for you?? -- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 10:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Please add __TOC__ at the top of this page after the sidebar. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 10:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Gee, I recognised you here -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 05:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Sending of message failed. The message could not be sent using SMTP server smtp.gmail.com for an unknown reason. Please verify that your SMTP server settings are correct and try again, or contact your network administrator. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 03:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you come now? -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 08:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction - I was in a hurry. I try to keep up on the news about her, especially concerning the scheduled parliamentary elections this year.-- JanDeFietser ( talk) 14:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your post to Talk:Gamma_spectroscopy. I'm a physics grad student and stumbled across the talk page while writing-up lab instructions for a nuclear spectroscopy experiment for my department's undergrad advanced lab class. I was thinking about making a few minor edits, but I agree with you that the topic could use a bigger reworking and I liked the breakdown you suggested between the two nearly parallel articles on the topic. I've never done any large editing for wiki, but I think that this summer might be a good time to get into it since I might have a bit of extra time. I think I could write up some of the new topics you suggested, but I'd ask for your guidance/critiques since I'm knew to editing and I'm also learning about the topic for the first time myself. Catfisherguy 08:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfisherguy ( talk • contribs)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Chzz ► 06:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wwheaton. Just so you know, I've removed your IP Block Exemption as it appears it is no longer necessary; the block that was previously affecting your account has since expired. Should you still have difficulty editing, please let me know or post an unblock request as before. Happy editing! Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 17:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Sorry if I have this wrong, My intereactions on Wiki havent been people to people.
Im still new at this. Thanks for your feedback. My interest has been to increase the information on Malawi on Wiki. Particualry content on women that often are in danger of being 'left out' of history albeit playing vital and significant roles!
I am relatively new to adding contributions on Wiki so Im learning as I go along... as a result, I dont have any idea about the permissions for the photos, but they would be a great addition. If I found out anything Ill let you know...Thanks.
~ Tinga —Preceding unsigned comment added by MsTingaK ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
Steigman1976 was very useful, as you can see. Thank you. Do you have any others? Uncle G ( talk) 22:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Space Colonization. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, we would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space Colonization at 16:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:
If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC).
The Downlink | ||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 0, December 2010 | |||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC).
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Extra999 ( talk) at 04:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
The Downlink | |||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 1, January 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
The Downlink | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 2, February 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
How would you feel about writing a few paragraphs or a section on the Overlords and their planetary system, based on chapter 12 of Childhood's End? It would be interesting to mention its distance from Earth, time dilation and space flight (stardrive) and other aspects that would inform the reader about the Overlords and their technology, homeworld, etc. Aside from the novel as a primary source, there does appear to be at least one secondary source that talks about the physics of Childhood's End. [4] Unfortunately, I don't have access to it. Viriditas ( talk) 10:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I looked at it (I thought it in much better shape than when I last peeked in) and did a few revisions. See what you think, make suggestions or change it yourself of course. There were some complaints a year or two ago that the plot summary was too long. It is shorter now, but I have no idea what is the right length. I am wondering if the peripheral biographical info on ACC should be moved over into his article, and correspondingly shortened here, though that was interesting to me. The ACC article has been a battleground in the past, I'm not sure what is there now.... Wwheaton ( talk) 03:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi; I saw your note on the WP:Spaceflight's talk page, and noticed that you posted the same thing on four different talk pages? While I appreciate you're trying to get as many people as possible involved, I think it's better to have a single coherent discussion.. so maybe choose a location, and tell others "Please contribute to the discussion .." and provide a link.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out this issue. Yes, it's generally a problem, and this is why Wikipedia should only be relying on really good sources who are known for fact-checking (hence the guideline WP:RS). And good work on taking the initiative and contacting Dessler! His reply pretty much wraps up the issue. It looks like Lir was the subject of this request for arbitration in 2004, so in a sense he is a "known" problem. He doesn't appear to have been very active after 2004.
As for your wider concerns, I think there's a lot of people who have had exactly the same ideas. That's what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ( WP:V and WP:RS in particular) are attempting to address. If you are concerned about a particular issue or questionable statement, then bringing it up on the relevant talk page, or WikiProject, is probably the best move, and other editors may be able to help. On the other hand, if you feel the policies and guidelines aren't sufficient in some way, then bringing issues up on the policy talk page is probably the way to go.
Happy editing, Mlm42 ( talk) 04:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The Downlink | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 3, March 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC).
Thanks! I plan to check the new updates out as soon as I get out of school for today. Unite believers, always hoping for a miraculous revival of Constellation and NASA's return to the moon and Mars. And about space exploration being outdated, I assume that it is due to the vastness of the article! Will get back to you soon, Rsteilberg ( talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Rocketry at 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC).
Yep, we are agreed. (Tho I do like the idea of Earth as a gigantic park. ;p ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bill. You might be interested to know that
after your rant for the incompleteness of the lists (e.g. the one in the 1970s), I finally get the time to do something on them, 11 months after your comment! For now, ALL 356 Delta launches are now in the relevant lists. I am planning to complete the lists in this order:
1. All remaining Thor-Agena flights (I believe several dozens are still missing)
2. All 31 (or so) Thor-Burner flights
3. All post-1965 suborbital Thor test flights (quite a few are still missing)
4. All 30-something Japanese Delta flights (the N-I / N-II / H-I series)
Thank you for your attention!
Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Strong (relative detectability) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong (relative detectability) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for pointing this out to us by leaving a message both here and on the talk page of the article. I vaguely noticed this problem a little while ago, and I should have fixed it immediately. I had no idea that the article was about to be nominated for DYK or I would have gone ahead and made the fix immediately. Thanks so much again. Invertzoo ( talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
In the future, when you find a dead link, please mark it as such with the {{
dead link}} template instead of just commenting out the reference, as you did
here. If it's hidden, no one can fix it! Even better, check if there is an archived copy at
http://archive.org, and then you can use the {{
Wayback}} template or the |archiveurl
and |archivedate
parameters in a citation template. Also, if you suspect the page has just been moved and you're reluctant to use an archival copy, you can search for an exact string from the archived copy -- sometimes you can find where it's been moved that way. I've fixed that one. You did the edit 2 years ago, so if you were just a new editor then and now you know all this stuff, never mind! =)
Wingman4l7 (
talk) 03:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 02:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timur#Who was .22Kurgan.22 .3F. Peaceray ( talk) 05:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 02:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited D-type asteroid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phobos ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I have done a substantial rewrite of the Geiger-Marsden experiment article and would like to have it assessed. I submitted it for peer review but nobody took notice. Nobody ever takes notice. I am resorting to directly contacting Wikipedians with a background in physics. If you have the time, would you care to review this article, and tell me if it is worthy of being featured on the Main Page? Kurzon ( talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your edit summary at Milton Rosen but, per Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people, unverifiable material on the pages of living (or possibly living) people must be removed. Has notice of his death been published somewhere in a third-party, reliable source (I couldn't find one with my own searching but maybe you would know where to look)? Alternatively, if you can forward the family's confirmation of his death to the Volunteer Response Team (I can help you with that if necessary), they can verify the information and add it to the biography. Canadian Paul 00:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of suspected murder suicide incidents involving commercial aircraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musi River. 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) 09:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Wwheaton. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled " Plum Brook Reactor".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot ( talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Particles can't possibly hit the earth at anywhere near the speeds that the LHC creates because the red shift alone means they will have slowed down way below .99999991 c before they get here. The claim that "this happens all the time in the upper atmosphere" is totally false. Jeff Carr ( talk) 19:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Wwheaton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,
you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: /info/en/?search=User:KPU0/sandbox Plutonium 16:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 ( talk • contribs)
I realize this is from a long time ago, but would you mind commenting on Talk:Synchrotron_radiation#Bremsstrahlung_again? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Hello, Wwheaton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Wwheaton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello.
[5] is a bad edit. [Save] pushed twice by mistake?
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 17:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This user may have left Wikipedia. Wwheaton has not edited Wikipedia since 16 August 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
——————————————— Wwheaton ———————————————
|
Greetings. Wwheaton is Wm. A. Wheaton, of whom more can be learned at http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/index.html. I have also edited a few times as user 71.92.70.146 or user 66.215.4.91, when I was logged out accidentally. Thanks to all who have helped and commented, and to the Wikipedia community at large! Wwheaton ( talk) 06:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I've noticed the edits you've made to Bevatron and I must say, good show! If you have anyquestions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. And welcome to wiki! -- Falcorian (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate it. I must say I really Love Wiki, but the dangers of spreading bad information, and meaningless conflict, are a bit daunting too. So I appreciate the hand-holding, and may well turn to you for advice in the future. Wwheaton 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Mass Driver 1, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. In fact, please do not add {{ helpme}} to talk pages; it is designed to be used by you when you need help. In fact, it is designed to be used if you have any questions, not to attract attention. - Go od sh op ed 02:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Saw your post on Alex's talk page and decided to butt in. WP:VANDALISM is the page explaining vandalism and how to deal with it in detail.
The easiest way to deal with vandalism is to use the "history" tab at the top of the page, which shows you a chronological (newest first) list of edits to that page. "Cur" and "Last" on the left-hand column will produce a report showing the difference between the page as of that edit and the current page, or the page as of the prior edit, respectively. You can also manually select two revisions with the radio button and hit "compare selected".
Once you have a diff, you can use the "Undo" feature to, well, undo the edits. Or, from "history" you can click on the date of the edit, which allows you to bring up the "edit this page" as of that version, so you can restore the page to the last pre-vandalism edition. Just be careful not to nuke legitimate edits made since the vandal struck.
Finally, when a user vandalizes a page, try adding a user warning template to their talk page, such as Template:uw-vand1. If they already have a bunch of templates from before, or they are doing something really awful like moving 20 pages at once to "pagename ON WHEELS!", then add them to the administrators' vandalism noticeboard which will result in them being blocked in short order.
Hope that helps. < eleland/ talk edits> 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merry christmas, thanks for the question regarding RTGs and Pu-238. The first thing to understand about Pu-238 is that it is far more active per gram than Pu-239, this can cause it to behave in a very different way. The self damage due to radiation which occurs in PuO2 pellets is much faster with Pu-238 pellets than with Pu-239 pellets. As a result a pellet of Pu-238 will be more likely to fall apart at an early time than a Pu-239 pellet. I would expect that all Pu RTGs would use PuO2 as the chemical form for the Pu. While Pu metal would be more dense it is very reactive towards air/water, and Pu corrosion is very complex.
Now the good news, the RTGs made using Pu are oftein made in such a way that the Pu fuel is packaged in such a way that it is likely that the package will tolerate the heat of re-enetry. Also Pu(IV) is very insoluble in pH 7 water, but be aware that collidal PuO2 could be very mobile under some conditions, also insoluble Pu in the air is more harmful to the lungs than soluble Pu while in the case of oral Pu the reverse is true. It is also important to bear in mind that the fuel and the package only have to contain the Pu for about 900 years, after this time 99.9% will have decayed away. I am not able to say with authority if a RTG which has reentered will be safe or not. You would need to do more literature research, anyway "what is safe" ?
By the way you got my colour code in the Trinityglassactivity bar chart almost perfectly right, the green bars are for activation products, the red for a fission product and the blue for natural radioisotopes. Cadmium ( talk) 15:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:UAA is for reporting usernames that violate our username policy. To report users who are repeatedly vandalizing, please go to WP:AIV. However, before reporting there, vandals must have a full set of warnings. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Lara ❤ Love 17:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Talk:Solar power satellite, my apologies for deleting a lot of stuff. I clicked on a "diff" or an old version button in the history page, and stupidly edited what I saw and saved, discarding subsequent stuff including more of my own comments. I was just not paying attention to what I was doing, I did not intend malice. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- WillWare ( talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. Groupthink ( talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is where they actually first created the interpretations article. Dreadstar † 08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Since there was no further comment on the Draft version, I asked that the page be unprotected and moved the draft into place. Let me know what you think! I'm still working on the HAL segment, your assistance with that would be most welcome! Dreadstar † 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the Wikipedian core values that have been vociferously discussed on the Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey talk page, another one of WP's doctrine's is "don't bite the newbies". In other words, be welcoming and patient with newer users who have good intentions. Well, I bit you, and I apologize for that. Your heart is definitely in the right place, and I'm eager to see if you can in fact write a well-sourced article that establishes the topic's independent notability. If you can, then I will be that article's staunchest defender. Best of luck. Groupthink ( talk) 16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
|
No need to wait for me. I look forward to seeing your developments. Have fun. The Transhumanist 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that the draft has been put into the mainspace: Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Groupthink has disputed the sources and content, so your input would be welcome in that discussion. Preliminary details on the dispute are in the section above. Dreadstar † 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your edits at GRO J1655-40. At first I was scratching my head wondering why this was on my watch list. Then I realised that I created the talk page. There might be something useful in there as it came from an old submission AfC. Perhaps you could take a look when you have time. Cheers. MSGJ ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the combustion instabilities like screeching don't usually cause damage by mechanical means (although they could do in principle, particularly at very low frequencies, but screeching is much higher frequency).
No, the main problem is that they thin the boundary layer down, and that means the heat flow (which is normally stupidly high anyway) goes up massively. The wall then usually suffers from catastrophic burn through.- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
However, there is no disputing the smallest "observability" of our universe as given by the size of a photon (i.e. the planck length). This limit is well known to exist and is accepted by quantum mechanics. I agree, that there could be something smaller than the photon, but it would be fundamentally unobservable to us even if there was.
If you would be so kind as to read the gravastar article, I explain much of my reasoning behind the need fix to the black holes theory. Please tell me what you think. Much of the info is directly from published research, however the interpretation of it is my own work. Does it sound plausible?-- MaizeAndBlue86 ( talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey has been unprotected, so improvements and additions can resume! Dreadstar † 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I luv you, seriosly that message you sent me, I have limited expertice, your just an astronomer and a physicist, aka what I want to be and What most of my questions are in. How exactely do photons superimpose themselves into quanta. Just dum the math down a little and I'll figure it out. Thanks! 11341134a ( talk) 19:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Which one do you like better? I had to do these from scratch to avoid any copyright complications.
Dreadstar † 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hullo, Bob -- I'm a physicist, working in high-energy astronomy for long, and lately in IR on Spitzer space telescope in Pasadena. I have enjoyed and appreciated your labors lately on Cygnus X-1, which is an old friend of us gamma guys. I am fairly new to Wikipedia (& maybe a slow learner to boot...), so looking to meet the more experienced professionals working the turf. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice work on the Cygnus X-1 article. It will take a long time to review it (and the references) as carefully as they deserve. We are still working with the earth-occultation BATSE data, and now have the full nine-year stretch of the CGRO data for it. We seemed to see a ~1 MeV flare in [HEAO 3] data in 1979, and our BATSE occulation project at JPL was above all motivated by the desire to try and find other similar instances. Best, Bill
Wwheaton (
talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Bill, would you mind reading something of mine at talk:Planck time. I'm interested to hear what you think.-- MaizeAndBlue86 ( talk) 17:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote of confidence, but then why do I still feel so ignorant? My view on the question you raise is that the theory of everything is string theory, and it tells you how matter interacts fundamentally, while Godel's theorem is about computations and tells you that you can't predict computer program behavior arbitrarily far into the future. I wrote a blurb along those lines on Theory of everything a while ago, but it got erased. There is no contradiction between knowing all the rules of nature and not being able to predict how a computing system will behave, because computing systems can always surprise you by learning your methods of predicion and defying them. The distinction is between physical laws, which are like the instruction set of the computer, and computer programs which are combinations of those instructions into complex programs. You can know the instruction set but you can't know the eventual behavior of every program. Hope that helps. Likebox ( talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the comments I made on the black hole page. I had just failed an extremely hard Biology test and was looking for a vent. I have replaced those comments with less inflamitory ones. Dont worry I wont be failing any bio tests any time soon. I beg your apologies, 11341134a ( talk) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi - friendly question for to answer if you would please :). I've seen your edits around Wikipedia and have just looked at your pages at Caltech. I must say it is nice to be able to ask your opinion on something. Your work with Gamma Rays is awesome. I am an "armchair" astronomer...
So, I saw the that you made {then undid}. My question revolves around that.
What is your take on including these sorts of (non-inline) types of references in Wikipedia. You know, the "generic" ones. Just curious.
E_dog95' Hi ' 00:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
please note that references in talk pages are supposed to be written thus: [1] — Cesar Tort 02:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Bill - Thanks for restoring the article. As it turns out Onsly has been making working in some articles. I had let him know about using the edit summary on March 16th (8 days ago) because of a similar situation.
What he had done is reduce the amount of content in the Automated Transfer Vehicle about the Jules Verne ATV. User GW Simulations split the article on March 9th.
So to you it looked like a questionable edit. I encountered nearly the same thing previously. It's all about the edit summary. If he'd left a note, this wouldn't have happened. I restored his edit as it looks like that was a good thing to do. I looked & it doesn't look like GW Simulations reduced the original ATV article at all since the creation of the Jules Verne article. I left Onsly another note on his talk page regarding the use of the edit summary & how it's necessary being that this is a very large collaborative project.
Thanks Bill & good to have you on board. Cheers! E_dog95' Hi ' 08:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I left the raw text of my version on the talk page. BTW, I have been trained (? ApJ style, I think) to hyphenate "X-ray" when it is used as an adjective, but not as a noun. No idea how this fits with external conventions. -- Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I've responded at the place. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean the one at the top of the talk page? If so, that one stays to show that the article went through an earlier AfD. If there's another delete tag, let me know - I can't seem to see one.
If the source is in relation to the subject of the article (interpetations of 2001), then it wouldn't be OR. If you want to give me the links, I'll take a look and see...say, have you seen this site?
Oh, yes! Dial F! I remember that story very well...read it ages ago..great stuff....as with all of Clarke's ideas; and yes, he does seem to have a penchant for either killing us off or evolving us out of existence..;) Dreadstar † 05:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Is that even the case for a link to a section?! Doesn't seem reasonable. (There is even a subsection for sounding rockets, but I wasn't sure how to link to that.) Live & learn.... Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine - I'll defer to your judgement on that. SparrowsWing (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The surface of a sphere most certainly has a center of mass. If the surface is uniform (you don't say this)throughout, the center of mass of the surface will be approximately, if not exactly, in the common center of the sphere - somewhat in the manner of the doughnut's center of mass being in the hole of the doughnut.
Never mind all the professed good intent - if you really meant well you'd remove that 'unscientific' shall we say, comment from the end of my theory.
Show me something with no center. If you were any kind of scientist, that should take you about five seconds.
Pete Lamont, Author:- The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 ( talk) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. It looks like you introduced the word "strong" into the lead of the Cygnus X-1 article. Unfortunately this conflicts with Wikipedia:MoS#Unnecessary_vagueness, so I would appreciate it if you could either use more precise language or revert to the way it was. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 15:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message and commentary. I only hope that interested people like you will acquire a few neodymium magnets and try to assemble up to what would be 10Ne20 and see what the models tell you. The magnets continue to collect (very forcefully) but the logic of the series expansion numbers is simpler to understand with the checkerboard logic protocol. My modified Nuclide chart doesn't provide much data for the 8th level construction details except to note that every element has 2 categories of nuclides and that in each element the even neutron number category is more stable (with some irregularities. So if you'll make that test, maybe I can change your conception of the 2He4 nucleus. And Thanks.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)PS 66 is just a young squirt why I'm old enough to be a fervent Isaac Asimov reader.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
RE Pauling I hope he said that Alpha particles constitute the core of the nucleus around which additional deuterons and excess neutrons are accumulated. Thus 6 Carbon consists of 2 alpha plus 2 deuteron particles and if you use the magnets to try to make 4Be9 you'll find that the magnets wont bond 2 other magnets side by side but only 2 other magnets that are end bonded to each other. The implication being that 4Be8 consists in one alpha particle end bonded to another. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as storytelling capability in science matters I like Clarke and Michener, but I think you underestimate the capability of Asimov to supply scientific (and mathematical) information to readers. And I thought that's what Wikipedia was all about, particularly since they're against original thinking. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
How about you and your cohorts there at Caltech building and checking out the indications of stability of the models relative to the available nuclear data and saying "Gee this points out where additional study and data checking might improve our concepts about this subject matter." And then you could blame for having an original idea. Would that be legal? It only took about 5 years to build the models and my curiosity as to the correlation between their symmetry indications and and the nuclear data stability indications still exists. Regards WFPM WFPM ( talk) 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
PS And I do have a copyrighted article and a copyright on the "structural models", but I'm afraid I cant prove or contribute anything mathematical because I'm only an Engineer. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UT)
That's all right. I once drove over 1000 miles (round trip) to show a person my models to see what he thought and he said that it couldn't be right because it's supposedly impossible for nucleons to come in contact with each other. But I still think the models point out things like that there ought to be stable EE isotopes more massive than OE83Bi209 because I can build models of them and I cant find any theory that they cant exist. And I get agravated when I read that not only there isn't any but also that there cant be any. So thanks and lots of luck and keep it up on Wikipedia. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 00:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
==Big Bang Theory== I just wanted to mention to you that now we maybe have permission to discuss alternate theories as to how the universe got started besides that it was created out of nothing. Do you think it worthwhile to pursue that? I've got ideas. Regards WFPM WFPM ( talk) 14:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)PS I appreciate your info re ISS time lag factor had no idea it was so small.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 14:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) == Oh yes and about this idea that the space continuum expansion factor is added to the c velocity factor in deterimining the size of the universe: Are you up on that? .WFPM WFPM ( talk) 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Responding to --
For
talk:WikiProject Astronomy I have signed on to watch the following:
with the thought that I will keep track of "interested editors", who make substantive non-minor changes to their articles, and solicit them to be watchers if any get too frisky. My hope is that this will be a very boring task. Wwheaton ( talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for doing that! I really appreciate it, please feel free (and by that I mean I want you to :P) to update/correct any info. As you correctly guessed I don't have any expert knowledge at all (20 year old literature undergrad) but I've always been fascinated with astronomy to the point that I built my own reflector. Anyway, the content from the instrument section came from HEASARC and was basically copy/pasted since their content is PD. I had realized that the information they have had some problems, and in a few cases when writing the lead and filling in the infobox I found information there that was contradicted by the Russian sources (written in English) I used. When that happened I always gave precedence to the Russian papers. Unfortunately though, I was forced to rely to a great extent on HEASARC because there simply aren’t many English sources about Granat available online (I live in brazil, and the grand total of books about soviet satellites in the libraries I have access to is probably 0..). I was particularly frustrated at not being able to use the IKI website in Russian which appears to be full of useful information, and is certainly a lot more reliable. So yes, if you can go over the article in more detail or know another astronomer who could, I would be most grateful! Acer ( talk) 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It's my fault, I didn't make that clear, I guess. When I said 'The Center', I definitely meant the Center of Mass. So the question is - does the Cosmos have a Center of Mass, like everything else?
It sure used to have a Center of Mass. According to the Big Bang Theory, the Cosmos was once a Singularity. But didn't this Singularity, representing the Cosmos, didn't it have a Center of Mass?
Or imagine a short time after the Big Bang, with everything in the Universe flying away from everything else.. didn't it have a Center of Mass then?
A Center, from which everything was leaving. By suggesting the Cosmos has a Center of Mass, just like everything else, I do not feel I am stepping outside of the bounds of Science. I rather think my suggestion has some merit, and should be allowed as a 'possibility', at least.
It's my fault too that I came across, to you, as 'hostile', it was certainly not my intent. I know exactly what it was that 'irked' me. I laid out my Cosmology to you, and you responded by questioning me on the Surface of a Sphere.
And I still maintain the surface of a Shere, or any part of the surface, assuming that surface is a real, three dimensional object, has a Center of Mass. If, of course, the 'Surface' is a mere 2 dimensional illustration, that would make finding its C of M difficult.
I am also maintaining that the Cosmos still has a Center of Mass, that it came with one and that it didn't lose it. And that we are in a Big Crunch situation, and that a Singularity has evolved there, at the Center (of Mass) of the Cosmos, since the beginning of Time.
I would very much appreciate a mention of my Theory - which follows naturally from all the known laws of Science - depends on them, really, in Wiki, somewhere. I believe Science needs to know. Please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 ( talk) 15:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input and now I know about Teleology and must be a metaphysicist. But being an Engineer, I cant think of any compelling reason to worry about why water was designed to run downhill. And as for the Big Bang theory I'd rather think the water was uphill in the first place. And as for dark matter/energy, how about a little more research and verification re the stability of the neutron in free space? Regards WFPM WFPM ( talk) 11:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont have anything against neutrons in the sun or n+p capture gammas. What I need in the Central Whirlpool scenario concept is a way for accumulating atomic structures to get rid of excess angular momentum, And I think that might be done by changing some of the neutrons into protons that have something (an electron whip tail?) That can get rid of the radiation particles that you call gamma rays. And we could call the research "The negatively charged universe?" and think about Newton's first rule of Philosophy. And my apologies to Hans Bethe and Regards, WFPM WFPM ( talk) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,me again. In response to your message to me, it does seem to me that the Cosmos certainly started out as a finite body - a singularity, according to accepted understanding - if I'm not mistaken. It still must have been finite shortly after the Big Bang, I'm inclined to believe.
My first question, therefore, would be - at what time did the Cosmos 'go infinite', or did it? How does one 'go infinite', anyhow? Is it a sudden thing, or does it occur only slowly.
I prefer to think the Cosmos is finite, with a Center of Mass like every other finite thing. I am not interested in 'winning' any 'arguments', but I always appreciate any opportunity to explain my side.
My second and last question to you is, 'Do you think there is room for my theory, that there is indeed, a Black Hole at the Center of the Universe, in Wiki - anywhere?
Maybe, I thought, it could serve as an example of 'Fringe Science' - a Theory, that while it conforms to the Laws of Physics, actually depends on them, could never hope to compete with the established 'Heavyweights', The Big Bang, for example - the mirror image of which - this is. 72.39.252.217 ( talk) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it's me again. Thank you for your last reply. It does seem to me that the Cosmos started out 'finite', according to accepted Theory, when it was just a singularity. I think it was still finite some time after the Big Bang. I think it's still finite.
I'm not interested in 'winning' any 'arguments', but I always appreciate an opportunity to present my side.
Is there any place for my Theory? I thought, maybe in 'Fringe Science', it could be briefly presented as a Theory which, tho' it conforms with Gravity and all the other Laws of Physics, could never hope to compete with the established 'Heavies', the Big Bang, or 'String Theory', for example.
If, however, there is no room for 'The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe', in Wiki, please tell me so that we can move on. 72.39.252.217 ( talk) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In light of what you have told me, I'll have to take that as a 'no' to my theory, 'The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe.'
I think it's sad, that in an encyclopedia that claims to hold 'the sum' of the world's knowledge, that this particular piece of 'knowledge', should be repressed.
However, I must stand by your decision - sorry for having wasted your time so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 ( talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought so, but so far I am unconvinced. Watching, however, and it's good to know I am not the only one aware of this! -- Rodhull andemu 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message! It is nice to know that I am not the only one who is like that!! If I may ask, which denomination do you attend? My family has been Presbyterian since before my ancestors settled Ireland from Scotland in the 17th century. Despite my own ambivalence on the topic, I find centuries of familial tradition to be a powerful allure. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 02:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the late reply, but I've replied on my talk page. Khu kri 10:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your comment on my talk page. The video you showed to me was extremely interesting. As you noticed, i am very interested in physics and astronomy to which you have a very impressive background. :] If you're interested in any topic in particular, i'd love to take a look. I appologize for not responding quickly. I'm on wikipedia nearly every day but i'm not logged on as often. Best, John Taftgod ( talk) 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
User:DavidYork71 is not going to go away, so I have semi-protected the article for a week. That only leaves his new accounts, which can be blocked on sight. He will run out of steam before we do. -- Rodhull andemu 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have yet to meet any scientist, involved in the LHC or otherwise, with the slightest concern about the LHC causing disasters. A few people seem glad that the LSAG is doing its very conservative report, just so we can be sure, but most see it entirely as an exercise in explaining to the public why there's no cause for concern. Admittedly, we don't always do public relations as well as I wish we did, but I think the report is a step in the right direction.
If you're interested in quantum field theory, I highly recommend this textbook, which gets across many of the key concepts at the upper-division undergraduate level. -- SCZenz ( talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.
On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.
If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you copied the "legal challenge" section to the "Safety of the LHC" article. I suggest that the section either be removed from the "Safety of the LHC" article, or that the "Legal challenge" section in the "LHC" article be merged with the "Operational safety" section. Either way is fine with me. Thanks. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 13:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Saw your edit on the that page. I guess I need to site the "Massive X-ray binaries". Sorry about that. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 17:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
you were right i was busy w/ end of year stuff, i havent been on wiki in so long! I am now doing research on microfinance for a Model United Nations Conference, I am helping to wright the briefing paper. its tuff! I am also busy learning about Casmir's force and how vacums work. If casmir's force works here with virtual particle popping in and out of existence wud particles here pop into existance in another dimention that the virtual particles are supposedly found in and make up casmirs force ther?! Have a great summer --Josh 00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw you on the interstellar travel discussion page. You wrote about HEAO-3 too. I worked on that in Ed Stone's lab. Were you there too? DonPMitchell ( talk) 05:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bill, Just found this which I thought you might personally find this interesting, outside of our shenanigans on the LHC articles. It's a 2 hour interview with nobel laureates, including Carlo Rubbia, David Gross, Hooft, Veltman, George Smoot and a few others and their thoughts on the LHC. There are also some discussions about the LHC safety and Wagner. cheers Khu kri 09:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi bill hope ur back 'll be ok. Thanks for the book recommendation ill start on that after i finish a book on einstiens most important theories. I love the concerto too. I got in an AP History class this year! 1st test on summer reading average D but I got a C! On hte scale thats an A - A+. Sorry i havent exactly kept in touch end of school was hectic. I worked over the summer too so not much time spent on computer. Tell me more about the place u work at as a teacher, Caltech is it, I might go there fr college. My best regards Josh 00:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I am a sophomore in High School Bill. I would love to apply to Caltech for thier astronomy program! I want to go to Yale but that might not happen. So yeah im syched about the idea.... How bout u Bill how r u doin these days???????? Josh 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11341134a ( talk • contribs)
This [2] is much better. Thank you, sir! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've seen that you're listed as an active participant in WikiProject physics, and particle physics is listed among your areas of interest. The article Quark is currently a featured article candidate. Could you please review it and express your comments at the nomination page and/or the talk page of the article? Thanks in advance, A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 16:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
For mentioning the talk mistake. It was hardly something important, and I'm sure anything that got deleted was an accident. It is now restored to the talk page. Eebster the Great ( talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I dont know if you had an answer to your question at Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Minkowski_diagram. As I had a copy of Rindler's book to hand I looked it up. Robinhw ( talk) 16:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I am really appalled that you do not comment on Verbal's vandalism of the discussion on the Safety of the Large Hadron Colllider. Don't you realize that he is censoring content? He has already destroyed my other contributions and blocked me from edits ... do you seriously think I'm the only one?? It is irrelevant whether you agree with my point of view or not, this person is wading through Wikipedia and deleting or destroying other people's work simply because he doesn't approve! DasV ( talk) 09:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Faustnh ( talk) 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bill, thank you for your notification. Yes, I completely agree with you on the question that archival procedure of Life Talk page should be given a better treatment. I will express my opinion there.
By the way, in my last check of Wikipedia I've made a change to the article I wrote. I've made some additions I've been intended to write since some time ago, and I would like you checked it out.
Thank you and best regards.
Hello Wwheaton. I just noticed the contributions you have done in Wikipedia and I realize you are in a different league than user Mitra. In the past I have had to fend off religious zealots (offended to their very soul), creationists, Intelligent Design dudes, just plain vandals and miscelaneous comming out of the wood works. I see you are looking at life from a serious physics perspective and you have the background to do so. I applaud that and look forward to learning some tricks from you; I am a cell & molecular biologist. Surely you have noticed during your ample scientific writing experience in Wikipedia of the need to quote previously published papers. Although your kernel information ratios concept is interesting, I do not believe it has been published, and I can not honestly say it is a mainstream biology concept that can be used to support the presented definition of life. Sincerely looking forward to constructive dialogue, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wwheaton, FYI - I'm in fact in a different league. Consider me just a foolish kiddo. I've not bothered to check the talk page archive before writing that 'definition' [and when I did I've disliked 'pink unicorns' right away]. Nor have I tried to do any research in the subject in the past ten years. The idea is not original and have been present in the literature for quite a while. Really, I think, I took the idea from Harry Potter. That Rowling person is talking about the information transfer throughout the whole series. To the point of being boring in fact. -- Mitra ( talk) 07:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Wwheaton. Thank you for being logical in your arguments and for listening mine as well. I think that biologists are to high up in the food chain to define life :) And forget that chemistry and in its term physics drives all that funky cellular machienary. I doubt they even know the notion of the thought experiment. ;) -- Mitra ( talk) 08:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wwheaton, I know that at first it seems ridiculous and unfair that independent scientific thinking is not allowed, and it is even discouraged in Wikipedia. However, restricting the material to previously published papers (peer reviewed), helps ensure the veracity and reliability of the information presented. Remember it is an open encyclopedia and anyone has access to the edit button, whether they understand the subject or not. If all editors had a degree in science/technology/etc. it would not be such a big handicap as this population -in general- takes time to understand the Wiki rules and investigate the topic prior to editing; but reality shows that not all editors have the understanding or the intelectual honesty expected; for example, during the past I have had to delete statements claiming that fire and certain computer softwares can be considered to be alive. In this context I had a first impresion that your information theory was heading toward some kind of electronic memory and artificial life. Anyway, I apologize for my rudeness, and as a researcher, I appaud your curiosity.
Regarding the information kernel ratios, at an everyday practical level the links between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not close. When attempting to detect life, physicists and chemists are apt to be more interested in changes in entropy as a system spontaneously evolves away from its initial conditions, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. So I think that your proposed system may be an additional perspective to assist in the description of life, not to define it.
I strongly suspect that one reason biologists have not produced an oficial-looking sentence that defines life, is that we don't want to be boxed in to a pre-established concept of the many ways life manifests, or could manifest. Creating a one sentence definition, whether narrow or wide, would be either too vague or limiting. If you look around in competent literature, it is more likely that you will find descriptions or characteristics of known life, as very few will adventure to actually produce a definition. Although my cell & molecular background is on heath care (humans), I spend time reading on characteristics of life because I am very interested in the subject of astrobiology, and I keep a close eye on what they are looking for as a sign of past or present life. There are several suggestions for things to look for, and mostly they all come down to questioning the physicochemical data for an anomaly. Although thermodynamic entropy seems to be the prime "red flag" at the moment, signs of metabolism like 12-C, 13-C, 14-C incorporation ratios in gases and biomolecules, are high on the list. The good news is that none of these asume that the processes are being carried on inside a cell.
As you know, as the scientific fields expand, people become very specialized. I have not read anything about biological information ratios but I will keep an eye open and will get back to you if I do. Take care. With much respect and friendship, - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
( -- Faustnh ( talk) 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC) ) Hi Bill, you will probably know, but in case you don't, you could take a look at Knol service. It's not perfect, but it's a resource to consider. Best regards.
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC. Thank you. Colds7ream ( talk) 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to WikiProject Space Colonization! I noticed you were making improvements to the ISS article. What areas of space colonization are you interested in? Wronkiew ( talk) 08:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I would take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting or Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion asap. Dr. Blofeld, Waacstats, Grutness, et al can probably advise or help. Cheers, Pegship ( talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks ok to me, what were your concerns? No porn stars in it now so far as I could see. dougweller ( talk) 07:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Wwheaton. Thanks for mentioning that on my talk page. To answer some of your questions, I believe that there are somewhere between 13,000 and 15,000 asteroid articles on Wikipedia at the moment. I am uncertain of the exact number as I only created about a tenth of those asteroid articles. Most were created by User:ClueBot II before I came along and filled in some holes. Others have been created by different individuals over times. As for why I missed so many articles, that is because I used many different pages to get links for the asteroids. I initially used pages such as List of named minor planets (A-C), then went on to Meanings of minor planet names and later used List of asteroids. Sorry about any redlinks that I missed. I could go and create them, but I haven't done any asteroid article created for nearly a year partially due to the (apparently mistaken) belief that I had gotten all the named asteroids as well as the whole notability controversy on the astronomical objects wikiproject. I like the look of your table and think it is a good idea. One question that I have is if you intend to create the table to supplement the articles or to delete or merge the articles to the table. I would suggest keeping the articles and then having a table with minimal information to keep it neat with more specific information on the articles on the asteroids themselves. If you would like, I can go ahead and create the articles of the asteroid redlinks or if you would rather have me wait until the question of asteroid notability is solved, I understand that as well. Once again, thank you for contacting me regarding these new developments. Captain panda 04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I almost blocked you per our policy of 'no celebrity names' - but hey, it is your name, so okay.
You're doing some damn good stuff; keep at it. DS ( talk) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wweaton, I was checking on a vandalism on article Omid and suddenly read your message to an IP user and I was overwhelmed. It is great to know people like you. By the way, I noticed that you are interested in Physics and space. There is a funny article about space that would like to send you if you are interested. I will email it to you. Have a great week. Kind regards Parvazbato59 ( talk) 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the interesting input on the Soddy articles. Your new finding was another good information link to have http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12zencey.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion
If you have not seen this very short video you may find it interesting. M. King Hubbert who I am sure you know of, made use of Soddy's work. Soddy did not take things a step further as Hubbert and friends did, but his work pointed in somewhat the same direction... Hubbert on peak oil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY&feature=channel_page - Regards skip sievert ( talk) 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Didn't edit the Mass Driver page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.155.66 ( talk) 21:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have just read your help me mesage on Mass Driver 1 page. I am not an expert wikipedian and I do not really know how to help, but I want you to know that I sympathise with you and I have a few general suggestions:
1. List the things that you think ought to be on the page, from your point of view. That has to be reconciled with what ought to be on the page from the point of view of us users. Our view should be paramount as wiki should be there to answer our questions, but then again, we do not neccesarily know what there is to be known, whereas you do.
2. List some sources of information that others could use. Even if they are obscure books, so long as you give proper references, it is up to us to look into them and decide what we want.
3. You are absolutely right that you should not write the page yourself, but provided you make it clear who you are, you are reasonably OK putting a few notes down and I support this.
4. I will jot down a list of things that I mgiht expect to see on this page too, to inspire others. Thanks for being there anyway. IceDragon64 ( talk) 21:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I seem to be edging towards an edit war with an IP User:79.166.105.190 editor over that Georgios Giolvas edit you also reverted. Am I proceeding correctly? Any advice? Thanks. Wwheaton ( talk) 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bill Wheaton. I see that you are a physicist and astronomer. You got my attention with your wikipedia page on particle accelerators. It was very well written. Accelerators are a recent interest of mine, as is particle physics as a whole. I was wondering if you could read a wikipedia entry that I have been working on and maybe make some constructive critisms. Here is the title of the article, and, I hope, the internal link for it: The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?. The article is about the book with that title. You might be familiar with it.
The intention of this project has turned out to be twofold. One is to give a summary of the chapters focusing through the lens of making this book and article interesting to the general reader. The second intention is to impart an understanding of particle physics based on this book. It is written by Leon Lederman who is a Nobel Prize in Physics laureate for his work with neutrinos. Obviously this has not been his only accomplishment. He has been right there on the leading edge of particle physics.
I see also that you are a participant of WikiProject Physics. Perhaps you could get some of your fellow members in WikiProject physics to look it over as well. It would be much appreciated.
Also I must add that it is not quite complete - but it is almost finished. However, now might be a good time for some feedback - I guess any feedback from physicist community on the article's talk page would be welcome. Thanks in advance. Hope to hear from you.
Ti-30X ( talk) 02:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually it is probably three quarters done, not eally almost finished. I want to add more to Chapter 4 and Chapter 9. Ti-30X ( talk) 11:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wwheaton. You might not have realized this, but your this edit to Template:Welcomeh was undesirable for the template's true function. I've reverted the edit now. Please be careful in your future edits. Thanks. Leave Sleaves 17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Ww
I helps a bit...
Can you maybe introduce me to someone who spesializes in Electrical engineering (Power)?
Regards CJ-- Kroucacj ( talk) 00:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to know if you had wanted to comment on my talk page when you had left a message, you said you would keep it watchlisted (I added a bit too) The snare ( talk) 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I have been making sections on various characters from Malawi history and adding to them as I find out more -- a fascinating subject, for me, anyway, as I grew up in Nyasaland. There is surprisingly little material on Henry Chip, still less on Catherine. The best general source is Colin Baker, who has published a lot on the period -- a whole series of books which you can no doubt find referred to on the web. Among them is one on Henry Chip -- the "Missing Years". I was recently in Rhodes House, Oxford, doing some historical research, but all they have is one letter from Henry to his supporters.
There is actually a guy at Cal Tech in Pasadena who once wrote quite a lot on the subject -- Edwin Munger, who knew Chip's nemesis, Dr Banda. I e-mailed him a while ago asking to see some private papers apparently in his possession (I am nearby, in LA), but he didn't reply.
Sorry I can't really help on Catherine. I'm not aware of anything other than passing references to her existence, with no detail. Let me know, though, if I can help with anything else in the general subject area -- I have a reasonably good collection of assorted books and documents.
Oliver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivercorlett ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that you keep it as a subpage of your account, without categories, until it meets WP:N. Otherwise it is likely to be deleted again. Given the topic, you should be able to get two references from technical journals or news sources. I'll also add that the number of Google hits does not establish notability. Check out {{ cite journal}} or {{ cite new}} for including the formatted references. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
See what I meant about the original research: [3]. Since there is no source, the info cannot be verified by others and very likely contains mistakes. Do we really need this? Offliner ( talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on dividing the article: it looks much better now.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 16:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The last few days have been very busy on the this article: perhaps you could have a look.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 03:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
From your user page it says you are a physicts and a astronomer. Then just tell me that does supermassive black hole have a lower density? I have read on the article such thing. Please answer it on my talk page. -- Extra999 ( talk) 13:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I have now understood. Thanks. -- Extra999 ( talk) 09:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Will, Hope you are doing good? Thought you might like this. Take care Khu kri 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I got the year of birth from the Discover magazine blog, but I'm happy to wait for a more detailed reference. -- Canley ( talk) 00:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have created a portal named star and I need help from you for making it good. -- Extra999 ( talk) 20:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Then can you suggest a helful user and is good in astronomy. -- Extra999 ( talk) 05:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I have posted. Thanks !!! -- Extra999 ( talk) 05:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
In reference to your recent edit to Forbidden Planet, please consider that WP:FICT guidelines ( WP:FILMPLOT) advise 400-700 words for a plot summary, and in that article we are now at 729 words (per a real quick wc) for the plot summary. — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 05:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream ( talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wwheaton, I saw your latest edits and I really appreciate your effort to put the debate on a productive track. Unfortunately this week I am quite busy with other stuff so I cannot guarantee a quick reaction. Cheers Ptrslv72 ( talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Wwheaton! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Paulkint ( talk · contribs) is active at Interstellar travel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again. I reverted one attempted change a few days ago due to it removing references and muddying the example. I'm holding off on examining his most recent change. Would you be willing to take a look? I want to avoid doing anything that could come across as edit-warring or article-ownership, so a second opinion would be handy. The difficulty is that as near as I can tell, he's a single-purpose account relentlessly pushing one viewpoint on that article. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Your removal is clearly based on personal animosity since my contribution was only made clearer the magnitude of the energy and you do not dispute the accuracy of my edit. Yes I have had one viewpoint: to correct much of the falacious or false information in the "Interstellar Travel" article. Obviously that it not going to be permitted. User: paulkint —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Hi Wwheaton, could you please keep an eye on the "Safety of the LHC" article? It's being modified by one "Oldnoah", but it's time to go to bed for me... Cheers Ptrslv72 ( talk) 01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi William, could you please moderate Ptrslv72, whose intentions might be good, but who is somewhat ignorant of physics. I've just posted a response to his response in the User Talk page of Oldnoah. Thanks! As I recall, we had a few interesting chats a while back, too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldnoah ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I will do the best I can to keep the discussion friendly and helpful, but am not enough of an expert myself to do much more than speak soothing nothings. As I said a month ago, I believe the probability P of disaster cannot reasonably be claimed to be truly (exactly) 0.0, though I think it is very very small, <10 -12 , I guess. I also think only bona fide experts are qualified to estimate the limits on the range of P, given that it must satisfy 0.0 < P < 1.0. It seems crucial to me (and a bigger issue than just the LHC, ultimately, as such problems will inevitably come up again and again in other fields of scientific research, with the danger of disasters on one hand, and the danger of halting scientific progress on the other) that we learn to accept such difficult realities, and then deal with (a) trying to understand what P could reasonably be, and (b) what value is acceptable in a broad analysis of likely costs and benefits to society as a whole.
Ptrslv72 ( talk) may be "somewhat ignorant" of physics, but we all are, and he clearly knows much more of the current state of the subject than I. (My theoretical particle physics education more or less peaked around 1967, when I took my PhD qualifying exams at UCSD; I worked on some experiments at BNL/AGS & LBL after that, but got out of the field in 1969, just before the big breakthroughs.) I think you Oldnoah ( talk), probably know at least as much as I do, and I appreciated our interactions a year or two ago, that helped me to get up to speed a little on the subject. As I say I cannot do much during the next fortnight; I hope I will be more available after that. All the best, Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Bill, for your input. I also agree that P > 0, and P < 1 with our current state of knowledge. However, I am unable to calculate a probability. I suspect you have a 'gut feeling' that you believe it is as small as you report. I don't do that, because a 'gut feeling' is exactly that, a feeling not based on reasoned calculation. I don't know how to do a calculation, and I don't know of anyone who reliably does. Ergo, I would agree that one should therefore simply split the difference. I'm not the only one who uses that method as the 'best guess'. That is because, I suppose, that if we do Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC, that is something that does not happen in nature except possibly in the deep reaches of intergalactic space when an occasional Pb cosmic ray runs head-on into another Pb cosmic ray at COM equivalent energies to the LHC. Since we don't have prior factual evidence from nature to rely upon, we instead have to rely upon guesswork. I find it interesting that Ptrslv72 seems to be taking a hostile tone, yet he was ignorant of the recent LHC data?! One would think that if he is going to be a 'guardian of the gate' he would at least have already been apprised of the recent CMS data (which I inserted into the article because it is quite interesting, I believe, as being the FIRST data from 'new physics' of the machine.) ~Oldnoah
Oldnoah, how ironic that, of all people, you should call somebody else "ignorant of physics". Of course I know the CMS article (check the timestamps, I mentioned it on the talk page of the Safety article well before you did it on your own talk page). The point is, I am also able to read plain English, so I know that the CMS article has nothing to do with strangelet production at the LHC. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I will be away for a week, with little or no computer access. I expect to return March 5. Wwheaton ( talk) 16:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
While I certainly agree that professionals and academics in the field of physics don't like the term "atom smasher", it is still a widely used term. See Talk:Particle accelerator#Terminology for more sources; hundreds of others could be provided. It may not be the preferred scientific term, but it is still used. This is a general encyclopedia, not a textbook or technical manual, so the terminology we use is not restricted to what the academic world would prefer. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I've had a brainstorm since I last talked with you about an atomic fusion device consisting of a Boiler containing Lithium fuel and a helium heat transfer medium, and equipped with a number of your atom smashing (accelerator) devices to fuse the lithium to fast helium particles. We could shape it like a Chianti bottle and put a hydrogen fuel cell recovery system in at the top and then we would be in business. We would, of course, give credit for the discovery to Cockcroft and Walton, but there ought to be enough room in the technology for a patent or two. So what do you think? You can be the Scientist and I'll be the Engineer. WFPM ( talk) 18:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes! And we can put a pebble bed heating system under the Chianti bottle and use Berkeley's and even Cal Tech's garbage as a heating fuel source. That would probable sell the idea. WFPM ( talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You might also note that in the Nuclear model article someone has introduced a category of model that he named the Linus Pauling Close-Packed Spheron model. And since you mentioned that to me one time I thought you might want to contribute something to that. WFPM ( talk) 22:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
As usual, you're technically way over my head. But I'm pretty sure that Cockcroft and Walton didn't have have a too complicated supply of 3Li when they made the discovery. But as an practical matter, you may be right. And I'm not talking about a completely Nuclear Fusion facility, just a souped up lithium containing boiler, that would at least have enough nuclear fusion activity to merit trying to study and try to improve the technology as a beginning. Do you know what happens if 3Li is put into the thermal neutron flux section of a LWR? I know it's pretty transparent but isn't there some amount of reaction? And no fast neutrons! That would definitely be a plus. WFPM ( talk) 14:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Also, in my boiler I could argue that the target atom was confined within the liquid and yet would still be practically stationary with respect to the velocity of the approaching proton. All I have to do is to get it out of the accelerator to a nearby location to the liquid 3Li surface, and I consider that to be an Engineering problem. WFPM ( talk) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you're interested in Telescopes, you might want to join the discussion in Talk:Photon about the existence of a pilot wave that tells the photon where to go. I'm trying to use an image of the Whirlpool galaxy to argue in favor of direct propagation of photons as a means of explaining the incredible details of the image and I'm sure you could contribute to that. WFPM ( talk) 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm just thinking OE3Li7 + p to EE4Be8 to 2 x EE2He4 + Energy. I threw in the question of (OO3Li6 + OE3Li7) + n because in that case the OE3Li7 would eventually get to OO3Li8 and eventually change to EE4Be8 and would thus allow energy extraction from a LWR. And I keep thinking about it as an Engineering project where I want to extract fusion energy from 3Li. And in the boiler Li the waste kinetic energy would help heat the fuel, so I should have a net gain if any of it got fused. It sounds to me that they're having the same problem as I did when I was trying to design a pile type Ni-Cd battery for Laser Power applications, namely lack of efficiency. I'm trying to be be sneeky, and let my Energy Process take a free ride on a more conventional system. WFPM ( talk) 04:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The Whirlpool image is not only beautiful but informative. The details of the image argue for "line of sight" propagation, and show the transparency of the medium. And what we're watching is what I call a phase 2 + 3 process of accumulation of matter (2:Nucleons into Atoms)and (3:matter into a black hole). Now all we need to know is (1:how the nucleons were created in the first place), and of course Why????. But I can see some guy telling me "No your not watching the end of the process but rather the beginning, and you would understand it better if you were on the other side of the energy passageway keyhole." And could I dispute with him on that? How about the Andromeda galaxy? Is it contracting or expanding? WFPM ( talk) 01:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem I thought that Crockcroft and Walton had discovered and overcome. I could still utilize any vaporization waste energy. But like you say it would have to work and have some efficiency. And they got credit for doing it. Cest la Vie. WFPM ( talk) 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
:Another question about interplanetory communications. The fundamental question is whether it is electromagnetic particles or a modulated wave type of transmission. Of course I think it must be particles, since I cant see how you could send the structure of the wave that you want to modulate. And what type of antenna? I studied the Yagi and the Parabolic in the navy. Maybe a link? and Thanks. WFPM ( talk) 15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes but waves in the ocean have a medium of conveyance. And I just got arguing about that in gravity waves which I called waves of a nonexistent medium. So I'll stick with particles and am promoting a "Planck particle", which allows a photon to be a radiation's frequency number stream of planck particles which are crowded into a wavelength's distance of the stream. I got a preliminary estimate of the mass of the particle at 1.32e-47 grams but that could stand scrutiny, But at least I don't have to worry about the matter of the wave medium, and still have a line of sight capability of transmission. Is that what they're using from Mars. WFPM ( talk) 18:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like your talking about Marconi antenna tranasmissions, But then you have electrons going at the bottom and a a theoretical wave radiating laterally off in all the horizontal directions, and the electrons have the problem of getting rid of energy at the top, where it has to decellerate. Why cant that be materialized into the emission of a stream of planck particles, likewise in all directions. WFPM ( talk) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
But you know about the methods of intelligence conveyance within a transmission, which is not my forte. Is it dot-dash or FM or what? And the center fed half wave antennas can also be tied into the concept and I'd have to dream up a sophisticated explanation of the wave guide properties of the Yagi. But like in the Spitzer data transmission problem, how do you cram all that information into the transmission package. WFPM ( talk) 12:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Me too on QED, except that I believe that an electron "is where it is" like I said in Talk:Atomic theory.
I think I can live with that, because I'm down into a small enough particle and spacial distance such that I can do practically anything with a particle stream that you can do with a wave, plus I don't have to worry about the medium of the carrier. If you want Phase modulation, I'll just subdivide the spacial distance further and control the distance between a particle or between groups of particles. And that's the only way that I can imagine for the light image details like in the Whirlpool Galaxy to get from there to here without loss of detail. Because after all, I don't think it has a sophisticated technique of detail communication, but rather is just doin' what comes naturally. WFPM ( talk) 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC) I had to study Fourier analysis as part of my EE curriculum. So maybe there's a use for it after all. WFPM ( talk) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Reading the article on Feynman I am reminded that my Calculus professor at the time was doing his doctoral thesis about the vibration of a drumhead. And note where he says that it"s mostly about particles in space plus a bunch of details. WFPM 15:16, 7 May 2010
I've got it and read some along with his Alamo lore. And I would agree about the similarities of light to electrons, except that we've got the Fourier and polarity factors with the photon, and the skin effect and standing wave factors with the electron, and Feynman's verbal generalizations about those similarities makes me want to get up and interrupt the class discussion. And I like the old IBM generalization about the computer's explanation being a battery and ground situation and then marching on toward a lot of interesting details, while at the same time keeping you with a feet on the ground conceptual position. And I understood most of that. But Feynman's discussion about summing the multiplicity of light paths without having a concept of a basic light particle like the planck particle makes me wonder if I'm not ahead of him rather than behind him. And I don't like events that occur during a zero time interval, because as Asimov pointed out all events are actions within a scenery situation during a maybe small, but not zero or negative time interval, and the permutation of the possibilities related to that lead up to large numbers, and he was writing about the Skewes number. So I'm trying IBM's method and floundering around hoping for the best. And I thank you for listening. WFPM ( talk) 14:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I keep thinking about the merging of two particle streams, and how we could get frequency doubling. and don't believe in one photon at a time, since in the receiving process were merely tapping the stream. And of course with only one slit you've got the Huyhgen's distribution factor related to light's turning around corners, about which I don't know all the details. But I still don't have to worry about the wave carrier medium, which they leave out of the discussion. It's kind of like talking about ghosts even if you don't believe in ghosts. WFPM ( talk) 16:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, how are you? Just to remind you about the star portal. I have completed it. I also present you:
This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge. |
-- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 12:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I made my guestbook. Please sign there. -- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 09:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The Extra 999's Guestbook Barnstar | ||
This user has signed Extra 999's guestbook, and deserves this star. If you have not signed yet, be sure to sign. extra999 ( talk) |
Thought this discussion might be of interest to you. Aalox ( talk) 11:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Awesome Wikipedian
Wwheaton has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as
Wwheaton's day! Keep up this work, |
Good thoughts, dear. But are you going to end up your career. -- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 05:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, better. I will help improve your userpages and all, if you want. Just give me a green light. -- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 05:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Howz this?? Should I prepare a guestbook for you?? -- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 10:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Please add __TOC__ at the top of this page after the sidebar. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 10:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Gee, I recognised you here -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 05:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Sending of message failed. The message could not be sent using SMTP server smtp.gmail.com for an unknown reason. Please verify that your SMTP server settings are correct and try again, or contact your network administrator. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 03:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you come now? -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 08:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction - I was in a hurry. I try to keep up on the news about her, especially concerning the scheduled parliamentary elections this year.-- JanDeFietser ( talk) 14:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your post to Talk:Gamma_spectroscopy. I'm a physics grad student and stumbled across the talk page while writing-up lab instructions for a nuclear spectroscopy experiment for my department's undergrad advanced lab class. I was thinking about making a few minor edits, but I agree with you that the topic could use a bigger reworking and I liked the breakdown you suggested between the two nearly parallel articles on the topic. I've never done any large editing for wiki, but I think that this summer might be a good time to get into it since I might have a bit of extra time. I think I could write up some of the new topics you suggested, but I'd ask for your guidance/critiques since I'm knew to editing and I'm also learning about the topic for the first time myself. Catfisherguy 08:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfisherguy ( talk • contribs)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Chzz ► 06:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wwheaton. Just so you know, I've removed your IP Block Exemption as it appears it is no longer necessary; the block that was previously affecting your account has since expired. Should you still have difficulty editing, please let me know or post an unblock request as before. Happy editing! Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 17:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Sorry if I have this wrong, My intereactions on Wiki havent been people to people.
Im still new at this. Thanks for your feedback. My interest has been to increase the information on Malawi on Wiki. Particualry content on women that often are in danger of being 'left out' of history albeit playing vital and significant roles!
I am relatively new to adding contributions on Wiki so Im learning as I go along... as a result, I dont have any idea about the permissions for the photos, but they would be a great addition. If I found out anything Ill let you know...Thanks.
~ Tinga —Preceding unsigned comment added by MsTingaK ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
Steigman1976 was very useful, as you can see. Thank you. Do you have any others? Uncle G ( talk) 22:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Space Colonization. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, we would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space Colonization at 16:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:
If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC).
The Downlink | ||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 0, December 2010 | |||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC).
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Extra999 ( talk) at 04:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
The Downlink | |||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 1, January 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
The Downlink | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 2, February 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
How would you feel about writing a few paragraphs or a section on the Overlords and their planetary system, based on chapter 12 of Childhood's End? It would be interesting to mention its distance from Earth, time dilation and space flight (stardrive) and other aspects that would inform the reader about the Overlords and their technology, homeworld, etc. Aside from the novel as a primary source, there does appear to be at least one secondary source that talks about the physics of Childhood's End. [4] Unfortunately, I don't have access to it. Viriditas ( talk) 10:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I looked at it (I thought it in much better shape than when I last peeked in) and did a few revisions. See what you think, make suggestions or change it yourself of course. There were some complaints a year or two ago that the plot summary was too long. It is shorter now, but I have no idea what is the right length. I am wondering if the peripheral biographical info on ACC should be moved over into his article, and correspondingly shortened here, though that was interesting to me. The ACC article has been a battleground in the past, I'm not sure what is there now.... Wwheaton ( talk) 03:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi; I saw your note on the WP:Spaceflight's talk page, and noticed that you posted the same thing on four different talk pages? While I appreciate you're trying to get as many people as possible involved, I think it's better to have a single coherent discussion.. so maybe choose a location, and tell others "Please contribute to the discussion .." and provide a link.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out this issue. Yes, it's generally a problem, and this is why Wikipedia should only be relying on really good sources who are known for fact-checking (hence the guideline WP:RS). And good work on taking the initiative and contacting Dessler! His reply pretty much wraps up the issue. It looks like Lir was the subject of this request for arbitration in 2004, so in a sense he is a "known" problem. He doesn't appear to have been very active after 2004.
As for your wider concerns, I think there's a lot of people who have had exactly the same ideas. That's what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ( WP:V and WP:RS in particular) are attempting to address. If you are concerned about a particular issue or questionable statement, then bringing it up on the relevant talk page, or WikiProject, is probably the best move, and other editors may be able to help. On the other hand, if you feel the policies and guidelines aren't sufficient in some way, then bringing issues up on the policy talk page is probably the way to go.
Happy editing, Mlm42 ( talk) 04:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The Downlink | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 3, March 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC).
Thanks! I plan to check the new updates out as soon as I get out of school for today. Unite believers, always hoping for a miraculous revival of Constellation and NASA's return to the moon and Mars. And about space exploration being outdated, I assume that it is due to the vastness of the article! Will get back to you soon, Rsteilberg ( talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Rocketry at 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC).
Yep, we are agreed. (Tho I do like the idea of Earth as a gigantic park. ;p ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bill. You might be interested to know that
after your rant for the incompleteness of the lists (e.g. the one in the 1970s), I finally get the time to do something on them, 11 months after your comment! For now, ALL 356 Delta launches are now in the relevant lists. I am planning to complete the lists in this order:
1. All remaining Thor-Agena flights (I believe several dozens are still missing)
2. All 31 (or so) Thor-Burner flights
3. All post-1965 suborbital Thor test flights (quite a few are still missing)
4. All 30-something Japanese Delta flights (the N-I / N-II / H-I series)
Thank you for your attention!
Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Strong (relative detectability) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong (relative detectability) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for pointing this out to us by leaving a message both here and on the talk page of the article. I vaguely noticed this problem a little while ago, and I should have fixed it immediately. I had no idea that the article was about to be nominated for DYK or I would have gone ahead and made the fix immediately. Thanks so much again. Invertzoo ( talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
In the future, when you find a dead link, please mark it as such with the {{
dead link}} template instead of just commenting out the reference, as you did
here. If it's hidden, no one can fix it! Even better, check if there is an archived copy at
http://archive.org, and then you can use the {{
Wayback}} template or the |archiveurl
and |archivedate
parameters in a citation template. Also, if you suspect the page has just been moved and you're reluctant to use an archival copy, you can search for an exact string from the archived copy -- sometimes you can find where it's been moved that way. I've fixed that one. You did the edit 2 years ago, so if you were just a new editor then and now you know all this stuff, never mind! =)
Wingman4l7 (
talk) 03:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 02:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timur#Who was .22Kurgan.22 .3F. Peaceray ( talk) 05:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 02:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited D-type asteroid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phobos ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I have done a substantial rewrite of the Geiger-Marsden experiment article and would like to have it assessed. I submitted it for peer review but nobody took notice. Nobody ever takes notice. I am resorting to directly contacting Wikipedians with a background in physics. If you have the time, would you care to review this article, and tell me if it is worthy of being featured on the Main Page? Kurzon ( talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your edit summary at Milton Rosen but, per Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people, unverifiable material on the pages of living (or possibly living) people must be removed. Has notice of his death been published somewhere in a third-party, reliable source (I couldn't find one with my own searching but maybe you would know where to look)? Alternatively, if you can forward the family's confirmation of his death to the Volunteer Response Team (I can help you with that if necessary), they can verify the information and add it to the biography. Canadian Paul 00:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of suspected murder suicide incidents involving commercial aircraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musi River. 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) 09:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Wwheaton. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled " Plum Brook Reactor".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot ( talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Particles can't possibly hit the earth at anywhere near the speeds that the LHC creates because the red shift alone means they will have slowed down way below .99999991 c before they get here. The claim that "this happens all the time in the upper atmosphere" is totally false. Jeff Carr ( talk) 19:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Wwheaton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,
you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: /info/en/?search=User:KPU0/sandbox Plutonium 16:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 ( talk • contribs)
I realize this is from a long time ago, but would you mind commenting on Talk:Synchrotron_radiation#Bremsstrahlung_again? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Hello, Wwheaton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Wwheaton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello.
[5] is a bad edit. [Save] pushed twice by mistake?
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 17:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)