![]() | 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. |
I came upon a physics page that looks to have some big rules violations, see Unruh's interferometer, Talk:Unruh's interferometer. I don't have expertise either in that area of physics nor (more importantly) with wikipedia rules, and since my attempt to edit was met with a very emotional response from the author/subject (yes, the same person), I'm hoping someone here will back me up. At issue is not whether this guy is right or wrong (which I don't know or care about), but whether he should be using the wikipedia to advance his views. See also User_talk:Christopher_Thomas#Care_to_Help.3F for more background. Thanks. PhysPhD 03:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Needing help
I have explained this problem to editor of physics porthole and I was advised to come to this section.
I have developed a user page with help of the advisor of the wikipedia help line over past two or three weeks.
The subject is about gravitational field forces and is under the user name of Keshe Theory .
I would like to move this article or part of it into a part of talk where it can be commented on or corrected or debated, but not for it to be deleted.
My technology has already been assessed by different governmental and scientific organisations, and this is for the first time I am putting it in public domain for discussion, even though I have internet site with over 30000 hit per month.
I have already developed prototypes and tested the outcomes, and in some cases the independent investigations have been paid by federal governments.
Can you please advise how to do this, or direct me to the way it has to be done.
Thank you in advance Keshe Theory 20:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC) keshe
The page User:Keshe Theory looks like an article on the Keshe Theory in user space. This is the equivalent of using Wikipedia to advertise the Keshe Theory without actually creating an article. This is also highly inappropriate; the guidelines at Wikipedia:User page state that user pages should not be used for "extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia", and this user page certainly does discuss a topic that is unrelated to Wikipedia. I will ask the user to remove this content voluntarily. If he does not, I will bring this to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which looks like the best place for this type of thing. Dr. Submillimeter 22:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Liquid is an important article for both physics and chemistry, but currently it's a very weak article - a poor Start-Class. The chemistry folks will be working on this a little during June (our COTM is not too active these days, though), we'd appreciate some help for physics if any of you have the time. Thanks, Walkerma 04:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
See here. I think he is tesing how easy or difficult it is to include false information in wiki articles while sticking to the wiki rules. Count Iblis 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Big Bang is now on Featured Article Removal Candidates. Anville 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Started monumental paper, please feel free to chip in. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Peter. I'm currently a 6th form student, and I'm interested in being able to make some contribution to Science and Mathematics related articles, but primarily Physics related articles. I know that there is a special section for adoptees to seek adopters, but most of the users putting themselves forward for the program seem to be involved in reverting vandalism, fixing formatting, patrolling recent changes etc. But very few are involved in writing articles, and none in the area of the more technical article topics like Physics.
I don't require a lot of time. I am fine with the editing syntax and the way Wikipedia works, and I am very willing to look things up and try to find my own answers. What I need is someone who can occasionally check up on my writing and tell me how to improve - preferably someone who has experience in writing technical articles. I also sometimes have trouble knowing what copyright to choose when uploading images. I would be really grateful if someone who meets these needs could adopt me, though I appreciate that any experienced technical writer may not have time to take on an adoptee.
I'm sorry if I've posted this in the wrong section. I know it isn't related directly to the Physics WikiProject, but I though this would be my best bet at getting the sort of person I'm looking for.
Thank you. Iomesus 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
A new user turned the energy article into a disambig page; we are trying to fix the problem presently. Please cast your vote at straw-poll overview, on the proposed solution. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Merging astronomy and astrophysics. This really needs to be done. Dr. Submillimeter 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been archiving (or overseeing the archiving by Werdnabot, before it quit) this talk page since about October 2006. However, due to a need to focus more on making money rather than spending it, I will probably have to drastically reduce or stop editing Wikipedia at some uncertain time in the next three months or sooner. Therefore, I would like to resign as unofficial archivist of this talk page and ask someone else to step forward and take over the job.
Recently, my practice has been to archive a contiguous block of sections beginning with the first one on the page roughly once per week. I have been taking sections which are about 18 days old or older. I create a new archive file for each month and begin it with a header and an invocation of the "talkarchive" template. The new person may wish to continue this practice or change it; that is up to him. He might also consider using
MiszaBot II (
talk ·
contribs) which is being used by
CBM (
talk ·
contribs) (formerly CMummert) to archive
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.
JRSpriggs
07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I'm Sonic is Cool!, formerly Gabycs, and I wish to announce the scientific peer review of Cohesion (chemistry). For those who know about the science of chromatography and its connection to cohesion, I invite you to comment on either the article's talk page or the scientific peer review page for cohesion. Hope you can help! Regards, Sonic is Cool!! 22:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at the recently-created Particle model of matter? I'm not sure if there's anything worthwhile in it; it seems like it should be deleted or redirected. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The user page for User:Keshe Theory has been nominated for deletion. This is basically an article promoting a pseudoscientific theory on a user page. As an article, it would be deleted because it is not supported by reliable references. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Keshe Theory. Dr. Submillimeter 09:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, the user has contacted me twice asking for his page to be restored (see my talk page). I have directed him to Wikipedia:Deletion Review each time, as I do not have any ability to restore the page anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have performed a complex edit on these articles, please see the discussion at Talk:Heat (disambiguation). The way, the truth, and the light 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
To complete this change, I would need to have the disambiguation page moved to Heat, but I will not propose that unless I gain consensus for this change. The way, the truth, and the light 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Heat is not the same thing as thermal energy. Confusing the two of them is extremely poor form. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy and is analogous to work being the transfer of mechanical energy. -- ScienceApologist 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please help combat The way, the truth, and the light's inappropriate introduction of misconceptions into the pages related to heat. Thanks all. Also, if there are any administrators here, could they move heat (thermodynamics) back to heat? That was a move that was highly inappropriate. -- ScienceApologist 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In case people are interested, The way, the truth, and the light was blocked for edit warring regarding this topic, and ScienceApologist has written a declaration that he has become completely disgusted with Wikipedia and is quitting. Dr. Submillimeter 10:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
In the future, if anyone has a disagreement with The way, the truth, and the light, I suggest seeking immediate administrator intervention. The editor has a history of edit warring. Dr. Submillimeter 20:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Both Rotational_motion and Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis are on near enough the same topic, and much of the content is shared word for word between both articles. I don't think there is really any dispute over whether they need merging, but what title should they be merged under? I think that 'Rotational motion' is the better option as it keeps things open. Also the article 'Rotation around a moving axis' does not exist, so 'Rotational motion' seems sufficient.
Once merged the article definitely needs some attention. The introduction in particular seems very comparative rather than directly informative. Iomesus 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Could we get some more eyes over at Magnetic field. I just stumbled onto it a few days ago, and it appears that an anon (81.***) seems rather insistent on passing of high school physics analogies as the real deal. I changed the intro, which had some oversimplification errors in it, using the intro in electric field as a model, which created IMO an accurate yet simple description. However, he/she reverted most of it this morning, I essentially reverted her/him, and I really don't want to be drawn into a revert war - hence my request to the project to bring in more outside eyes before going to a RFC. The anon seems obsessed with Faraday's lines of force, constantly saying the the Lorentz force law cannot explain all magnetic field interactions (like the attraction b/n two bar magnets) and even appears like he/she sees her/himself as a crusader against a conspiracy perpetuated by a physics "the Man" establishment [1] (admittedly, some other knowledgeable editors may have been a bit gruff/short with the anon). Thanks in advance for any help. -- FyzixFighter 15:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be greatly helpful if an expert could help simplify and explain Abeles matrix formalism. Anybody game?
-- Guroadrunner 07:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Appearently, the streeks or tendrils are incorrect. Using a fast past cameral, they found out that they are balls of lightning that shoot down then up at 0.1 the speed of light. Followed the talk page to here. So, not sure who takes care of lightning.
Thanks, CarpD 6/12/07.
00:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. 00:00, 13 June 2007 (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. |
I came upon a physics page that looks to have some big rules violations, see Unruh's interferometer, Talk:Unruh's interferometer. I don't have expertise either in that area of physics nor (more importantly) with wikipedia rules, and since my attempt to edit was met with a very emotional response from the author/subject (yes, the same person), I'm hoping someone here will back me up. At issue is not whether this guy is right or wrong (which I don't know or care about), but whether he should be using the wikipedia to advance his views. See also User_talk:Christopher_Thomas#Care_to_Help.3F for more background. Thanks. PhysPhD 03:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Needing help
I have explained this problem to editor of physics porthole and I was advised to come to this section.
I have developed a user page with help of the advisor of the wikipedia help line over past two or three weeks.
The subject is about gravitational field forces and is under the user name of Keshe Theory .
I would like to move this article or part of it into a part of talk where it can be commented on or corrected or debated, but not for it to be deleted.
My technology has already been assessed by different governmental and scientific organisations, and this is for the first time I am putting it in public domain for discussion, even though I have internet site with over 30000 hit per month.
I have already developed prototypes and tested the outcomes, and in some cases the independent investigations have been paid by federal governments.
Can you please advise how to do this, or direct me to the way it has to be done.
Thank you in advance Keshe Theory 20:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC) keshe
The page User:Keshe Theory looks like an article on the Keshe Theory in user space. This is the equivalent of using Wikipedia to advertise the Keshe Theory without actually creating an article. This is also highly inappropriate; the guidelines at Wikipedia:User page state that user pages should not be used for "extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia", and this user page certainly does discuss a topic that is unrelated to Wikipedia. I will ask the user to remove this content voluntarily. If he does not, I will bring this to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which looks like the best place for this type of thing. Dr. Submillimeter 22:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Liquid is an important article for both physics and chemistry, but currently it's a very weak article - a poor Start-Class. The chemistry folks will be working on this a little during June (our COTM is not too active these days, though), we'd appreciate some help for physics if any of you have the time. Thanks, Walkerma 04:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
See here. I think he is tesing how easy or difficult it is to include false information in wiki articles while sticking to the wiki rules. Count Iblis 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Big Bang is now on Featured Article Removal Candidates. Anville 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Started monumental paper, please feel free to chip in. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Peter. I'm currently a 6th form student, and I'm interested in being able to make some contribution to Science and Mathematics related articles, but primarily Physics related articles. I know that there is a special section for adoptees to seek adopters, but most of the users putting themselves forward for the program seem to be involved in reverting vandalism, fixing formatting, patrolling recent changes etc. But very few are involved in writing articles, and none in the area of the more technical article topics like Physics.
I don't require a lot of time. I am fine with the editing syntax and the way Wikipedia works, and I am very willing to look things up and try to find my own answers. What I need is someone who can occasionally check up on my writing and tell me how to improve - preferably someone who has experience in writing technical articles. I also sometimes have trouble knowing what copyright to choose when uploading images. I would be really grateful if someone who meets these needs could adopt me, though I appreciate that any experienced technical writer may not have time to take on an adoptee.
I'm sorry if I've posted this in the wrong section. I know it isn't related directly to the Physics WikiProject, but I though this would be my best bet at getting the sort of person I'm looking for.
Thank you. Iomesus 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
A new user turned the energy article into a disambig page; we are trying to fix the problem presently. Please cast your vote at straw-poll overview, on the proposed solution. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Merging astronomy and astrophysics. This really needs to be done. Dr. Submillimeter 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been archiving (or overseeing the archiving by Werdnabot, before it quit) this talk page since about October 2006. However, due to a need to focus more on making money rather than spending it, I will probably have to drastically reduce or stop editing Wikipedia at some uncertain time in the next three months or sooner. Therefore, I would like to resign as unofficial archivist of this talk page and ask someone else to step forward and take over the job.
Recently, my practice has been to archive a contiguous block of sections beginning with the first one on the page roughly once per week. I have been taking sections which are about 18 days old or older. I create a new archive file for each month and begin it with a header and an invocation of the "talkarchive" template. The new person may wish to continue this practice or change it; that is up to him. He might also consider using
MiszaBot II (
talk ·
contribs) which is being used by
CBM (
talk ·
contribs) (formerly CMummert) to archive
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.
JRSpriggs
07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I'm Sonic is Cool!, formerly Gabycs, and I wish to announce the scientific peer review of Cohesion (chemistry). For those who know about the science of chromatography and its connection to cohesion, I invite you to comment on either the article's talk page or the scientific peer review page for cohesion. Hope you can help! Regards, Sonic is Cool!! 22:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at the recently-created Particle model of matter? I'm not sure if there's anything worthwhile in it; it seems like it should be deleted or redirected. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The user page for User:Keshe Theory has been nominated for deletion. This is basically an article promoting a pseudoscientific theory on a user page. As an article, it would be deleted because it is not supported by reliable references. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Keshe Theory. Dr. Submillimeter 09:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, the user has contacted me twice asking for his page to be restored (see my talk page). I have directed him to Wikipedia:Deletion Review each time, as I do not have any ability to restore the page anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have performed a complex edit on these articles, please see the discussion at Talk:Heat (disambiguation). The way, the truth, and the light 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
To complete this change, I would need to have the disambiguation page moved to Heat, but I will not propose that unless I gain consensus for this change. The way, the truth, and the light 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Heat is not the same thing as thermal energy. Confusing the two of them is extremely poor form. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy and is analogous to work being the transfer of mechanical energy. -- ScienceApologist 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please help combat The way, the truth, and the light's inappropriate introduction of misconceptions into the pages related to heat. Thanks all. Also, if there are any administrators here, could they move heat (thermodynamics) back to heat? That was a move that was highly inappropriate. -- ScienceApologist 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In case people are interested, The way, the truth, and the light was blocked for edit warring regarding this topic, and ScienceApologist has written a declaration that he has become completely disgusted with Wikipedia and is quitting. Dr. Submillimeter 10:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
In the future, if anyone has a disagreement with The way, the truth, and the light, I suggest seeking immediate administrator intervention. The editor has a history of edit warring. Dr. Submillimeter 20:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Both Rotational_motion and Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis are on near enough the same topic, and much of the content is shared word for word between both articles. I don't think there is really any dispute over whether they need merging, but what title should they be merged under? I think that 'Rotational motion' is the better option as it keeps things open. Also the article 'Rotation around a moving axis' does not exist, so 'Rotational motion' seems sufficient.
Once merged the article definitely needs some attention. The introduction in particular seems very comparative rather than directly informative. Iomesus 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Could we get some more eyes over at Magnetic field. I just stumbled onto it a few days ago, and it appears that an anon (81.***) seems rather insistent on passing of high school physics analogies as the real deal. I changed the intro, which had some oversimplification errors in it, using the intro in electric field as a model, which created IMO an accurate yet simple description. However, he/she reverted most of it this morning, I essentially reverted her/him, and I really don't want to be drawn into a revert war - hence my request to the project to bring in more outside eyes before going to a RFC. The anon seems obsessed with Faraday's lines of force, constantly saying the the Lorentz force law cannot explain all magnetic field interactions (like the attraction b/n two bar magnets) and even appears like he/she sees her/himself as a crusader against a conspiracy perpetuated by a physics "the Man" establishment [1] (admittedly, some other knowledgeable editors may have been a bit gruff/short with the anon). Thanks in advance for any help. -- FyzixFighter 15:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be greatly helpful if an expert could help simplify and explain Abeles matrix formalism. Anybody game?
-- Guroadrunner 07:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Appearently, the streeks or tendrils are incorrect. Using a fast past cameral, they found out that they are balls of lightning that shoot down then up at 0.1 the speed of light. Followed the talk page to here. So, not sure who takes care of lightning.
Thanks, CarpD 6/12/07.
00:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. 00:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)