![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please express your opinion here. Materialscientist ( talk) 01:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
See Spiral galaxy
An editor has rewritten the article, with respect to the formation of the spiral shape with reference to a newly published paper, seemingly violating WP:UNDUE , and perhaps WP:OR, who seems to have a WP:COI since his user name matches the supporting website used as a reference.
There was a notice at WT:AST#Spiral galaxy COI, so I thought I'd let you guys know.
See also Talk:Spiral_galaxy#New_Explanation_for_Spiral_Structure
76.66.202.219 ( talk) 05:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
An additional note, there is a suggestion by User:RQG to rewrite Density wave theory according to the newly published paper, see Talk:Density wave theory.
76.66.202.219 ( talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone look at X-ray astronomy? It ballooned from 13k to nearly 200k in the last couple of months. At 200k, it's rather large for a single article.
Several of the X-ray astronomy related articles ( Stellar X-ray astronomy, Solar X-ray astronomy, X-ray telescope, ...) seem to be very repetitive of other articles, and some have sections called "Featurette" which don't look like any other Wikipedia article I've seen...
76.66.197.2 ( talk) 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
A thread is in progress at talk:special relativity regarding the postulates used to derive it. I vaguely recall that this was a topic of contention in the past. It might be worth having a few more eyes on the thread, to avoid any such difficulties this time around. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't yet have any opinions on the new article tited Gaussian q-distribution (beyond the formatting cleanups I did) but an obvious problem is that hardly any articles link to it. Could anyone who knows of any articles that should link to it attent to that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know I've implemented the book-class for the Physics project. To clarify, the book-class is much like the template-class but for Wikipedia-Books. I also coordinate the WikiPedia-Books project, and the general idea is that specialized projects (in this case the Physics Project) take care of merging books, deletion, content decisions, etc. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts.
There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone look at DNA Phantom effect and tell if it is real or a hoax? Thank you. RJFJR ( talk) 20:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
There are currently three physics articles that have been nominated for GA and are awaiting review:
If anybody here has some time to spare please consider reviewing one of these articles. Review GAN's does not require any special privileges on wikipedia so anybody can help out. Just be sure to review the guidelines at WP:GAN. Some experience with GA process is useful though, for example having worked on an article that has passed GAN. Even if you don't have time to do a complete review, it can still be very helpful if you can leave some comments on these nominees. Remember that this process can only work if people with suitable background actually participate! Thanks. TimothyRias ( talk) 09:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
(Previous thread: here)
I've been busy enough at work that it's becoming clear I won't be improving my spectrum plotting script any time soon. Instead, I've put the code on-wiki at User:Christopher Thomas/spectrum script v1. By all means copy and modify this code if you would find it useful to do so! -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 17:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I found the sentence helium-3 has a very large cross section for the (n,p) reaction with thermal neutrons in the tritium article and a IP changed it to helium-3 has a very small cross section for the (n,p) reaction with thermal neutrons. Ha anybody a clue which of the two versions is right? Thanks.-- Stone ( talk) 10:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, Introductory physics has been prodded for deletion.
70.29.211.163 ( talk) 05:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything got some needed reworking. It would be nice if others could check it for completeness and neutrality.-- Verbapple ( talk) 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Infraparticle is up for deletion possibly only because it is so badly written that us non-high-end physics types can't tell whether it is just a bunch of physico-babble. We are aware that there is a real reference to such a thing, but we can't tell whether this article is actually about it. Some tough love from experts is needed. Mangoe ( talk) 14:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a banned user creating multiple accounts serially, mostly editing BLP and physics articles. Their accounts may include Verbapple ( talk · contribs), Afteread ( talk · contribs), and Miles1228 ( talk · contribs), all currently blocked. The edited articles include Bogdanov affair, Marcus du Sautoy, Edward Witten, Antony Garrett Lisi, An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, Andrew Wiles, Elliot McGucken, Pythagorean triple, Lee Smolin, Leonard Susskind, Steven Weinberg, The Elegant Universe, Frank Adams, Jan Hendrik Schön, John C. Baez, Theory of everything, Peter Woit, Standard Model, Alexander Grothendieck, The Story of Maths, Kent Hovind, Luboš Motl, and several others. The banning policy encourages but does not require editors to enforce the ban:
"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content by so doing."
Since there were a lot of edits in this case, reversion help would be appreciated. Thanks. Golumbo ( talk) 09:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a thread that might benefit from input from the physics project at WT:WPM#Tensors on Wikipedia. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Recognized content page is now automatically updated by a bot. This means less trouble for us, and up-to-date goodness for us and others. Maybe someone could incorporate this into the physics portal. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please express your opinion here. Materialscientist ( talk) 01:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
See Spiral galaxy
An editor has rewritten the article, with respect to the formation of the spiral shape with reference to a newly published paper, seemingly violating WP:UNDUE , and perhaps WP:OR, who seems to have a WP:COI since his user name matches the supporting website used as a reference.
There was a notice at WT:AST#Spiral galaxy COI, so I thought I'd let you guys know.
See also Talk:Spiral_galaxy#New_Explanation_for_Spiral_Structure
76.66.202.219 ( talk) 05:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
An additional note, there is a suggestion by User:RQG to rewrite Density wave theory according to the newly published paper, see Talk:Density wave theory.
76.66.202.219 ( talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone look at X-ray astronomy? It ballooned from 13k to nearly 200k in the last couple of months. At 200k, it's rather large for a single article.
Several of the X-ray astronomy related articles ( Stellar X-ray astronomy, Solar X-ray astronomy, X-ray telescope, ...) seem to be very repetitive of other articles, and some have sections called "Featurette" which don't look like any other Wikipedia article I've seen...
76.66.197.2 ( talk) 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
A thread is in progress at talk:special relativity regarding the postulates used to derive it. I vaguely recall that this was a topic of contention in the past. It might be worth having a few more eyes on the thread, to avoid any such difficulties this time around. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't yet have any opinions on the new article tited Gaussian q-distribution (beyond the formatting cleanups I did) but an obvious problem is that hardly any articles link to it. Could anyone who knows of any articles that should link to it attent to that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know I've implemented the book-class for the Physics project. To clarify, the book-class is much like the template-class but for Wikipedia-Books. I also coordinate the WikiPedia-Books project, and the general idea is that specialized projects (in this case the Physics Project) take care of merging books, deletion, content decisions, etc. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts.
There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone look at DNA Phantom effect and tell if it is real or a hoax? Thank you. RJFJR ( talk) 20:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
There are currently three physics articles that have been nominated for GA and are awaiting review:
If anybody here has some time to spare please consider reviewing one of these articles. Review GAN's does not require any special privileges on wikipedia so anybody can help out. Just be sure to review the guidelines at WP:GAN. Some experience with GA process is useful though, for example having worked on an article that has passed GAN. Even if you don't have time to do a complete review, it can still be very helpful if you can leave some comments on these nominees. Remember that this process can only work if people with suitable background actually participate! Thanks. TimothyRias ( talk) 09:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
(Previous thread: here)
I've been busy enough at work that it's becoming clear I won't be improving my spectrum plotting script any time soon. Instead, I've put the code on-wiki at User:Christopher Thomas/spectrum script v1. By all means copy and modify this code if you would find it useful to do so! -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 17:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I found the sentence helium-3 has a very large cross section for the (n,p) reaction with thermal neutrons in the tritium article and a IP changed it to helium-3 has a very small cross section for the (n,p) reaction with thermal neutrons. Ha anybody a clue which of the two versions is right? Thanks.-- Stone ( talk) 10:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, Introductory physics has been prodded for deletion.
70.29.211.163 ( talk) 05:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything got some needed reworking. It would be nice if others could check it for completeness and neutrality.-- Verbapple ( talk) 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Infraparticle is up for deletion possibly only because it is so badly written that us non-high-end physics types can't tell whether it is just a bunch of physico-babble. We are aware that there is a real reference to such a thing, but we can't tell whether this article is actually about it. Some tough love from experts is needed. Mangoe ( talk) 14:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a banned user creating multiple accounts serially, mostly editing BLP and physics articles. Their accounts may include Verbapple ( talk · contribs), Afteread ( talk · contribs), and Miles1228 ( talk · contribs), all currently blocked. The edited articles include Bogdanov affair, Marcus du Sautoy, Edward Witten, Antony Garrett Lisi, An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, Andrew Wiles, Elliot McGucken, Pythagorean triple, Lee Smolin, Leonard Susskind, Steven Weinberg, The Elegant Universe, Frank Adams, Jan Hendrik Schön, John C. Baez, Theory of everything, Peter Woit, Standard Model, Alexander Grothendieck, The Story of Maths, Kent Hovind, Luboš Motl, and several others. The banning policy encourages but does not require editors to enforce the ban:
"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content by so doing."
Since there were a lot of edits in this case, reversion help would be appreciated. Thanks. Golumbo ( talk) 09:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a thread that might benefit from input from the physics project at WT:WPM#Tensors on Wikipedia. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Recognized content page is now automatically updated by a bot. This means less trouble for us, and up-to-date goodness for us and others. Maybe someone could incorporate this into the physics portal. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)