![]() | 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. |
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a content dispute at the article
Fuzzball (string theory) which is allegedly disruptive. The thread is
Content_dispute_at_Fuzzball_(string_theory). Thank you. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
00:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I have started to clean/reorganize this page. Over the years it has become a mess, with people adding material often out of order and context, and also often without sourcing. This project rates the topic highest, although much is outside physics, hence I am asking for thoughts/suggestions here.
Some are obvious, for instance move, correct or rewrite much of the "theory" to a modified dynamical diffraction page (which is only for x-rays). (A proper dynamical electron diffraction page is another project.) I welcome other thoughts. Ldm1954 ( talk) 14:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I recently created Amaterasu particle. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 07:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I recently reviewed parts of the Roger Penrose article, and saw the following citation. I viewed it as unsatisfactory in all respects—as a poor biographical source, as a very marginally related source otherwise, as a self-serving mention of a notable physicist in an essentially unrelated work, etc. I hid the source—to leave it available to follow-on editors so that its content could be reviewed, and the source replaced with a third-party, independent source supportive of a primary Penrose source appearing—and wrote a substantial edit summary.
Challenged citation:
Sen, Shuvendu (24 October 2017). Why Buddha Never Had Alzheimer's: A Holistic Treatment Approach Through Meditation, Yoga, and the Arts. Health Communications, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7573-1994-5. Archived from the original on 7 December 2021. Retrieved 12 October 2020.
Note, no page number is mentioned, but the link takes the reader to page 118 of the Why Buddha Never Had Alzheimer's book, where it uses a reference to Penrose to support Sen's argument regarding the inadequacy of the laws of physics to explain consciousness.
This simple, conservative, constructive, scholarly edit—a call for a better, more suitable source—was reverted, and the source was returned. Rather than risk an edit war with an editor likely brought to the site using a digital tool that flagged an IP edit, I bring this before this wider audience, for review and decision. As a former major university faculty member and scholar, I judge this citation as poor (i.e., stand by the original edit). I also note, this status quo supportive reversion is time-wasting (even if in good faith and Twinkle-driven), and contributes to why many of us contribute sparingly, here. Cheers, in your corner. 73.8.193.28 ( talk) 15:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Note two-dimensional space / 2-dimensional space / 2-space have appeared at WP:RFD redirects for discussion/deletion -- 65.92.247.90 ( talk) 06:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Liquid crystal has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Please weigh in: Talk:Electromagnetic_spectrum#What_is_the_first_sentence_trying_to_say?. Thanks. fgnievinski ( talk) 04:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The article
Einstein aether theory looks to me like T Jacobson picked a famous name to attach their work to for reasons of visibility an unfortunate name. Einstein has no "aether theory". Do their publications referring to this name make it a de facto appropriate name for the article nevertheless?
Johnjbarton (
talk)
04:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
What is it called in the sources?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 16:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Do we need this introductory article: Introduction to the heaviest elements? Seems like and odd one compared to the others introductory articles for topics like: electromagnetism, QM, SR, GR and M-theory. ReyHahn ( talk) 14:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Done--
ReyHahn (
talk)
15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi all. Can someone weigh in here?: Talk:Rankine–Hugoniot conditions#Rankine-Hugoniot condition does not apply to shock waves. CoronalMassAffection ( talk) 23:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
During new page review I moved a page back to draft at Draft:Ocaya-Yakuphanoglu method. The page was created directly by @ Ocayaro without going through the AfC review process. I have pointed out that the article needs work, and probably will not pass a review as it needs more to meet notability. User Ocayaro feels that this is inappropriate, and wants to have additional expert opinions. I thought it would be simpler to post here for comments to be made to his talk page. Please remember to be polite and remember that new users do not always know how Wikipedia works Ldm1954 ( talk) 16:43, 31 December 2023 (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. |
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a content dispute at the article
Fuzzball (string theory) which is allegedly disruptive. The thread is
Content_dispute_at_Fuzzball_(string_theory). Thank you. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
00:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I have started to clean/reorganize this page. Over the years it has become a mess, with people adding material often out of order and context, and also often without sourcing. This project rates the topic highest, although much is outside physics, hence I am asking for thoughts/suggestions here.
Some are obvious, for instance move, correct or rewrite much of the "theory" to a modified dynamical diffraction page (which is only for x-rays). (A proper dynamical electron diffraction page is another project.) I welcome other thoughts. Ldm1954 ( talk) 14:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I recently created Amaterasu particle. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 07:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I recently reviewed parts of the Roger Penrose article, and saw the following citation. I viewed it as unsatisfactory in all respects—as a poor biographical source, as a very marginally related source otherwise, as a self-serving mention of a notable physicist in an essentially unrelated work, etc. I hid the source—to leave it available to follow-on editors so that its content could be reviewed, and the source replaced with a third-party, independent source supportive of a primary Penrose source appearing—and wrote a substantial edit summary.
Challenged citation:
Sen, Shuvendu (24 October 2017). Why Buddha Never Had Alzheimer's: A Holistic Treatment Approach Through Meditation, Yoga, and the Arts. Health Communications, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7573-1994-5. Archived from the original on 7 December 2021. Retrieved 12 October 2020.
Note, no page number is mentioned, but the link takes the reader to page 118 of the Why Buddha Never Had Alzheimer's book, where it uses a reference to Penrose to support Sen's argument regarding the inadequacy of the laws of physics to explain consciousness.
This simple, conservative, constructive, scholarly edit—a call for a better, more suitable source—was reverted, and the source was returned. Rather than risk an edit war with an editor likely brought to the site using a digital tool that flagged an IP edit, I bring this before this wider audience, for review and decision. As a former major university faculty member and scholar, I judge this citation as poor (i.e., stand by the original edit). I also note, this status quo supportive reversion is time-wasting (even if in good faith and Twinkle-driven), and contributes to why many of us contribute sparingly, here. Cheers, in your corner. 73.8.193.28 ( talk) 15:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Note two-dimensional space / 2-dimensional space / 2-space have appeared at WP:RFD redirects for discussion/deletion -- 65.92.247.90 ( talk) 06:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Liquid crystal has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Please weigh in: Talk:Electromagnetic_spectrum#What_is_the_first_sentence_trying_to_say?. Thanks. fgnievinski ( talk) 04:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The article
Einstein aether theory looks to me like T Jacobson picked a famous name to attach their work to for reasons of visibility an unfortunate name. Einstein has no "aether theory". Do their publications referring to this name make it a de facto appropriate name for the article nevertheless?
Johnjbarton (
talk)
04:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
What is it called in the sources?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 16:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Do we need this introductory article: Introduction to the heaviest elements? Seems like and odd one compared to the others introductory articles for topics like: electromagnetism, QM, SR, GR and M-theory. ReyHahn ( talk) 14:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Done--
ReyHahn (
talk)
15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi all. Can someone weigh in here?: Talk:Rankine–Hugoniot conditions#Rankine-Hugoniot condition does not apply to shock waves. CoronalMassAffection ( talk) 23:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
During new page review I moved a page back to draft at Draft:Ocaya-Yakuphanoglu method. The page was created directly by @ Ocayaro without going through the AfC review process. I have pointed out that the article needs work, and probably will not pass a review as it needs more to meet notability. User Ocayaro feels that this is inappropriate, and wants to have additional expert opinions. I thought it would be simpler to post here for comments to be made to his talk page. Please remember to be polite and remember that new users do not always know how Wikipedia works Ldm1954 ( talk) 16:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)