User talk:Kmarinas86

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


For discussions on deletion, see User:Kmarinas86/Deletion (17 sections).
For discussions on fair use, see User:Kmarinas86/Fair use (4 sections).
For discussions on good article reviews I received, see User:Kmarinas86/GA reviews received (13 sections).
For discussions on good article reviews I sent, see User:Kmarinas86/GA reviews sent (8 sections).
For discussions on my template experiments, see User:Kmarinas86/Template experiments (4 sections, 3 subsections).
For discussions on un-linked files, see User:Kmarinas86/Orphanage (12 sections).
For discussions on un-sourced files, see User:Kmarinas86/Unspecified source (7 sections).
For discussions on the content of the Rael articles, see User:Kmarinas86/Rael articles (8 sections).

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello Kmarinas86! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 01:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Comments on Kmarinas86's User-space[edit]

User page[edit]

Hi KMarinas. Would you mind putting the {{userpage}} template at the top of your user page? Your page will appear in a google search, and we're worried that the less computer-literate of our readers may mistake it for an encyclopaedia article. Normally, wikipedia guidelines state that userpages are not for publishing personal essays, however you are an editor in good standing, and the material is both interesting and unoffensive, so there is no reason to delete it if the template is up. Thanks a lot. yandman 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

template added ;)Kmarinas86 14:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. yandman 14:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there Kmarinas86, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Kmarinas86. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything else[edit]

Entropy edits[edit]

Hello - can you give a list of your changes and some discussion on the Entropy talk page? I'm quite sure that they will be reverted unless there is some discussion, since the changes are so many and it's a page that is closely watched by a number of people. Thanks - PAR 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gravitational redshift[edit]

I added some contents at the top to this subject to give a better overview. Could you look at it? Thanks --Homy 17:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use talk:cult and talk:sect for off-topic discussions[edit]

These talk pages are only meant to suggest improvements for the article. They are not meant for theorizing about the subject. Thanks in advance. Andries 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Would you please explain on Talk:Entropy the purpose behind the many edits you have done today and what your last edit comment "(this is where it was dozens of posts ago)" means. Are you suggesting that all recent edits have been worthless? I am far too busy organising a Conference that is on this weekend, but I will get back to look at this article. I will say one thing however. That is that the first para has indeed gone back to being totally unintelligable to the average reader as opposed to being only partly unintelligable. This needs to be addressed. The first para should give the ordinary reader a real idea of what the article is about and perhaps they will then delve deeper. --Bduke 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Are you suggesting that all recent edits have been worthless?" nah. of course not!Kmarinas86 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Entropy page restructuring[edit]

Your recent edits to entropy were certainly bold, and while I've no doubt that they were well intentioned, the page has been the subject of much editing and discussion by a number of editors. In cases such as this it is best to fully discuss and document changes: the restructuring is now under consideration at Talk:Entropy#Recent massive edits and it will be great if you can contribute to the discussion and to making this an excellent article. ... dave souza, talk 10:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for answering my question.;DPendo 4 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4

Olbers paradox[edit]

Hello, KMarinas86! Would you be so kind to upload your own animation to wikimedia commons? I could use it in the Dutch Wikipedia: thanks a lot. I tried but didn't succeed. --Dartelaar [write me!] 20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I learned that I had to download first your image to my pc and then upload it to Commons. Please check if I have done it right and correct data if you like. --Dartelaar [write me!] 00:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for providing more citations on Joseph Newman (inventor). Please note that if you cite a source multiple times, you need not repeat all the information in the cite multiple times. That's why we name the ref tags (preferably without spaces in the name). So if you have a citation like this: <ref name="invention">Citation information here, with links and such</ref>, then the next time you need that citation in the article, you need only write out the tag with the name like this: <ref name="invention" /> (note the terminating /> in the tag). -Amatulic 21:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to join our WikiProject?[edit]

WikiProject University of Houston

Hello! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Houston, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Houston. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Brianreading 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Its raining oranges

You know when you've been tangoed!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Electric machines[edit]

As the article talk pages should concentrate on discussions central to the improvement of the article, I'll copy our little exchange about electric machines and efficency to your talk page, will briefly comment, and -- if you're interested -- discuss matters more thoroughly later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjacobi (talkcontribs) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And just for the record, I (unsurprisingly) sincerely belief that not much new technology will come out of Newman's invention. Even leaving all the contradictions to physics aside, there is a much more pragmatic argument: Any electric motor design which "only" cut backs losses by 50% (going from 90% to 95% efficency) would be of outmost commercial importance. You would be able to go (with bodyguards and lawyers if you prefer) into the development centers of Siemens, EMD, or Bombardier, demonstrate your working prototype and leave as a very rich man.
--Pjacobi (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
RI^2 = heat losses
RI*(meters/ohm) = current times distance = current momentum
Current momentum can be determined by integrating current along the length of wire (with dl as the derivative length). It can be found in the Biot-Savart law.
To maximize current momentum / heat losses, the following should be maximized:
RI*(meters/ohm) / RI^2 = (meters/ohm)/I = cross-sectional area of wire / (resistivity * current)
But current momentum produces the magnetic field, the square of which is proportional to its energy. So to maximize the energy of the magnetic field / heat loss.
R^2*I^2*(meters/ohm)^2 / RI^2 = R*(meters/ohm)^2 = distance^2/ohm
Just use a longer wire! I guess the mere acceleration of two opposite charges converts mass into energy, causing electromagnetic radiation. Even the simple movement of a charge can cause a magnetic field, causing acceleration, and therefore radiation! If the wire is so short, that is like shorting the battery (e.g. connecting them in series) and not using the charges to your advantage.Kmarinas86 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I'd like to start by saying that I may more or less completely misunderstand you, but (apart from a very good remark about the mass to energy conversion), your statements look rather heterodox to me. Granted, Newman would have to have found new physics to make his machine work, but I assume we are discussing textbook physics and EE in this side note. Specifically:

  • It's not the resistive (heat) losses (or other losses) which bound the electric motor's efficency to 100%. Even using a supraconducting coil and everything you wish, you won't get above 100% -- the counter voltage induced by the rotation will make the input power needed to sustain rotation equal to mechanical work done.
So is 100% efficiency a moving target? Will simply making your motor smaller, more powerful, lighter, etc. simply increase what the 100%-efficient power would be?Kmarinas86 (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Equal amount of copper will give you motors of equal parameters, only with voltages and currents scaled in different, compensating directions. E.g. both thse setups will give the same magnetic field and motor operation:
    • 1 meter of 0,15 mm diameter copper wire (about 1 Ω) at 4 V and 4 A (stall current) and
    • 4 meter of 0,075mm diameter copper wire (about 16 Ω) at 16 V and 1 A (stall current)
  • But I agree with your guess that the mere acceleration of two opposite charges converts mass into energy. Every time some energy is transported away from a system, the system loses mass according to E=mc² -- in most cases an unmeasurable low amount. Also if you temporarily attach strings to the oppositely charged bodies, you can extract mechanical energy while reducing their distance, exactly that amount of mass will be lost (If we keep the system isolated, its total mass stays the same, e.g when letting the two bodys clonking together, the energy will first be converted to kinectic energy, then to heat, and both contribute to the mass of the system, which in effect stays constant). But in a motor the movement is periodic, so there is nothing in sight which can result in mass loss -- unless some copper atoms are vanishing mysteriously or sort of transmutate into something other than normal copper.

Ouch. Not exactly briefly. Sorry. --Pjacobi (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's ok.Kmarinas86 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kmarinas86! You've written a long answer, but used HTML comments to make it invisible? I'm assuming, that you aren't finished with that one. Regarding the other remark: 100% a moving target => Getting 1W mechanical work out of 1W electrical energy is the absolute limiting target using textbook physics and electrical engineering. What is done in the manufacturers' research labs and written about in science and engineering journals is:

  • Getting nearer to 100%, reducing the amount of heat that must be carried away which often is the limiting factor at which power a device can be operated
  • Reducing size and weight for a specified power and efficency

--Pjacobi (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • LAW 1: Magnetic field produced per current is proportional to the length of the conductor used by all that current.
  • LAW 2: Therefore, the magnetic field produced per electrical power is proportional to [length of conductor * current] / [current^2 * resistance], or simply [length of conductor] / [current * resistance].
Note I said product of current and resistance, not voltage, since doubling current can be done at the same resistance and voltage by putting two batteries in parallel.
  • LAW 3: The magnetic field energy produced per copper mass is proportional to the [length of conductor * current]^2 / [length of conductor * area cross-section of conductor]. This can be simplified as current^2 * [length of conductor / area cross-section of conductor].
  • LAW 4: The magnetic field energy divided by electrical power is proportional to [length of conductor*current]^2 / [current^2 * resistance] or length of conductor^2 / resistance. If length of conductor is proportional to resistance, then the magnetic field energy produced per electrical power is simply proportional to the length of that wire.
  • LAW 5: Magnetic field produced per mass of conductor is proportional to [length of conductor * current] / [length of conductor * area cross-section of conductor], or simply current / cross-section of conductor.

Default case: 1 meter of 0.15 mm diameter copper wire (about 1 Ω) at 4 V and 4 A. Produces 1x the magnetic field and 1x the magnetic field energy (see magnetic pressure).
LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 100%
LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 100%
LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 100%
LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 100%
LAW 5: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 100%

WIDE AND LONG: 4 meter of 0.30 mm diameter copper wire (about 1 Ω) at 4 V and 4 A. Produces 4x the magnetic field and 16x the magnetic field energy, lasting just as long. Electrical power is the same as default.
More for your electrical power, but average life.
LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 400%
LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 400%
LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 100%
LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 1600%
LAW 5: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 25%

LONG: 4 meter of 0.15 mm diameter copper wire (about 4 Ω) at 4 V and 1 A. Produces 1x the magnetic field and 1x the magnetic field energy, for 4 times as long (because current is 1/4th as much). Electrical power is 1/4th of default power.
More strength for your electrical power, less for your weight, but long life.
LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 400%
LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 400%
LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 25%
LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 400%
LAW 5: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 25%

Magnetic field / Copper mass = 100%

WIDE: 1 meter of 0.30 mm diameter copper wire (about 1/4 Ω) at 4 V and 16 A. Produces 4x the magnetic field and 16x the magnetic field energy, for 1/4th as long (because current is 4 times higher). Electrical power is 4 times the default power.
More strength for your electrical power/weight, but early death.
LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 100%
LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 100%
LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 400%
LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 400%
LAW 1: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 100%

THIN AND LONG: 4 meter of 0.075 mm diameter copper wire (about 16 Ω) at 4 V and 1/4 A. Produces 1/4x the magnetic field and 1/16x the magnetic field energy, for 16 times as long (because current is 16 times lower). Electrical power is 1/16th of default power.
Less strength for your weight, but long life.
LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 100%
LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 400%
LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 6.25%
LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 100%
LAW 5: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 25%

THIN: 1 meter of 0.075 mm diameter copper wire (about 4 Ω) at 4 V and 1 A. Produces 1/4x the magnetic field and 1/16x the magnetic field energy, for 4 times as long (because current is 4 times higher). Electrical power is 1/4th of default power.
Less strength for your electrical power/weight, but long life.
LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 100%
LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 100%
LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 25%
LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 25%
LAW 5: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 100%

Wow, what a hell of work you did to do all examples. I'll look at the details soon. But very generally speaking, I'm doubting you are taking the back reaction into account, i.e. the voltage induced by the rotating rotor. It's obviously proportinal to the number of turns. And it's that back reaction, which limit the efficiency to 100% -- the resistive losses only determine how far below 100% we'll end. --Pjacobi (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In short:

Magnetic field energy per electrical power is proportional to:

(current * length of wire)^2 / (current*voltage)
(current * length of wire)^2 / (current^2*resistance)
(current * length of wire)^2 / (current^2*resistivity*length/area cross section of wire)
length of wire^2 / (resistivity*length/area cross section of wire)
length of wire / (resistivity/area cross section of wire)
length of wire * area cross section of wire / resistivity
mass of wire / resistivity

Magnetic field energy per mass of wire is proportional to:

electrical power / resistivity

Magnetic field energy, therefore increases with the electrical power and the mass of the conductor. As such, there is some point at which the energy from the magnetic field exceeds the electrical power. The only way to justify this is to say that the energy comes from the mass of the conductor which is "excited" by electrical current.Kmarinas86 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I now make the conclusion that all electric motors, not just Newman machines, convert mass into energy beyond that required to produce portable storage of electrical energy * (i.e. batteries). The conversion of mass into energy corresponds to simply the magnetic field that is produced and collapsed, similar to the concept of work done by expanding and contracting gases in a thermodynamic engine. The efficiency of this then would be determined by how much of that energy is usable and extracted by having a mass which interacts with this magnetic field, whether they be permanent magnets or electromagnets.Kmarinas86 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Doubling the mass of the wire can affect the electrical power depending on how you scale it. If you double its length, the power will be cut in half, while the total magnetic field will stay the same. This results in a energy efficient, but heavy, machine that is not suitable for portable power. This matches the specifications of a Newman machine which is not complemented by other devices.
  • If you use wire that has twice the cross-sectional area, you double the current and the magnetic field, quadrupling the power, but halve the life span, which doubles the total magnetic energy produced, but for twice the mass. This results in energy inefficient, and heavy machine that is suitable for portable power. This matches the specifications of large electric motors. These would be suitable for complementing a large Newman machine to power large vehicles.
  • Alternatively, you can use batteries that produce higher current (whether by parallel arrangement or greater voltage), which increases the current for a given coil, as well as increasing the total magnetic field per mass. This results in an energy inefficient, but light machine, that is suitable for highly mobile power. This matches the specifications of small electric motors. These would be suitable for complementing a small Newman machine to power small vehicles.
Kmarinas86 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Friendly fire[edit]

Sorry for getting snippy on the Newman talkpage the other day. — NRen2k5 08:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Woah man, you’re on fire! The Newman Machine article hasn’t seen this much attention in… ever! — NRen2k5(TALK), 13:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On magnet[edit]

Thanks for your units correction regarding the article Magnet. By the way, you come across as shocked and appalled to have discovered this error. Just so you know, there are errors everywhere in wikipedia's physics articles. The sense of shock will eventually wear off. But anyway, good work. :-) --Steve (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

July 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Scalar field theory (pseudoscience) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. I have reverted your reversion as your don't seem to understand why I reverted it. WP is not a place to promote one person's point of view, it is an encyclopedia. WP asks for neutral third-party sources and your addition is sourced solely from the website of the person about whom you are writing. Find other sources to prove your point and I'll leave it alone. Frmatt (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Reformed GA Symbol.png[edit]

File:Reformed GA Symbol.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Reformed GA Symbol.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Reformed GA Symbol.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

no support?[edit]

So I don't have your support? 018 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you do! Maybe I should add it back since you are concerned. :DKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I just thought it was funny that you added that and then removed it. I'm not sure how valuable it is to have a comment that just says that it supports the previous one. 018 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

November 2010[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't attack other editors in edit summaries[edit]

Information.svg Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Aspartame controversy. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Your most recent edit summary at Flo McGarrell is of a similar vein. Edit summaries are especially problematic as what is written in the heat of the moment cannot be redacted. Novangelis (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for Campus Ambassadors in Houston[edit]

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian connected with the University of Houston. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at another Houston school, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live in Houston and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Applying Kabbalah-50-50 to the Book of Revelation in italian...[edit]

In the last chapter You find the letters '-E-L-O-I-N-' (between parenthesis already in the text !)

Mislabeling of percentage rankings in graphic[edit]

World Population by Continent and 10 Most Populated Countries.png

In [1] the percentages seem to not fit the country rankings. I'm assuming that the percentage indicates the percentage of the world population and the associated number is the overall ranking in population size. Javirosa (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Charts on the left:
  • Top: % Share of (World) Population from 1950 to 2010
  • Bottom: % Share of Population (of the present top ten most populated countries) from 1950 to 2010
  • Columns on the right:
  1. --.-%: Population Growth in the 2000-2010 Decade (descending order)
  2. #--: Rank by population size
  3. -------: Continent/Country name
Notice how Russia's population growth rate is negative from 2000 to 2010 (last line).
Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 14:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Your editing of Heat[edit]

You have made a very large number of edits in the article on Heat personally I find what you are doing as very confusing. The article is in desperate need of improvement. You made at least 12 edits in January this year alone; I find almost no relevant discussion in the Heat:talk page. The result is chaotic and obscure for all others, I do not think this is the objective of Wikipedia. Would you care to summarise what you have done in the Heat:talk page? This would let others know what you have in mind. Thanking you in advance. --Damorbel (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

All my recent edits to that article were reverted last month.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk
12:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


You somehow lead me to Frames of Reference, which is a concept I've meaning to look into. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study[edit]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Microscopy is a topic and a proper name for a category. Microscope would be a proper category name for specific machines like TEAM, but not for techniques. Materialscientist (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Thanks!siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk
22:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The trick here is that many articles contain both, a technique and a description of specific device. Thus the general categories microscopy and microscope might be warranted (or might be not ..), but duplication of a topic so specific as electron microscopy into two cats would be an overkill. Happy editing. Materialscientist (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Nayah[edit]

Kmarinas86's note: The first edit to the English Wikipedia article about Nayah was translated from the French Wikipedia article ( The IP of the person responsible for the copyright violation is which is an IP in Paris, France ( Thank you and have a blessed day.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk
12:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Nayah, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from As a copyright violation, Nayah appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Nayah has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Nayah and send an email with the message to See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Nayah with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Nayah.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

studying for exams??[edit]

You wrote:

A lot of the higher mathematics articles would seem to be much ado about nothing, if it were not for its utility for those who are simply reviewing for higher level math exams.

Why would you say something like that? It is not only young people studying for exams that use Wikipedia's math articles; they are used by mature mathematicians as well. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Kmarinas86. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Hi there. I've come across a number of your internet posts, etc, regarding Mills' theory of classical physics. I share a similar interest, and it appears we are both around the same level of 'technical proficiency' with it. I'd love to discuss it with you sometime, if you're so inclined. My wiki page is

I am new to wikipedia user/editing, and I have no idea how one sends another member private message, etc. I'd rather discuss over email, etc. Anyway, feel free to drop me a line.

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cubic equations of state[edit]

Category:Cubic equations of state, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brad7777 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

An article of interest to you is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS[edit]

In WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

You're being notified of this Arbcom case due to your interest in Blacklight Power. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

posting personal information[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bhny (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely, until you can convince another admin that you won't violate the WP:OUTING policy that thoroughly again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello - as an oversighter I was asked to look over the (now suppressed) edits you made, and personally I think the indefinite block was the right call in this case. You made it fairly clear they considered your course of action necessary in order to defeat someone else entirely in an argument and therefore, while what they were doing could arguably have been seen as a good-faith action, I believe you would not hesitate to repeat the act in future. I would advise you to consider what you have done while they are blocked and appeal the block when you understand that your actions were inappropriate. — foxj 15:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I appealed for the unblock yesterday. I am a waiting for a response from the administrator. That's all I want to say right now.

This is an automated message from the English Wikipedia Unblock Ticket Request System. In order for your appeal to be processed, you need to confirm that the email address you entered with your appeal is valid. To do this, simply click the link below. If you did not file an appeal then simply do nothing, and the appeal will be deleted."

Sincerely,siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk
14:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kmarinas86 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

See above.

Accept reason:

per your request and subsequent discussion at WP:AN. Welcome back. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

In need of expert opinion[edit]

Hello, there is a page in need of expert opinion. Could you please take a look at it? Albertlberman (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User page[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your userpage does not violate our guidelines, please leave a note on this page. As an alternative, you may add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's userpage guidelines. Thank you. a13ean (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Posting of block text[edit]

Please do not post large blocks of quoted text as you have been doing at the BLP article. A link to the material is sufficient. Also, in case you are not aware, abstracts are not reliable sources, and may, or may not, accurately reflect the information in the given article. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Category theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Field theory (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) 11:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Stargen, random solar system generator[edit]

Hello, I would like to talk with you about Stargen,
If you have any interest and would like to spend the time,
please contact me at catan76(at) Thanks.
For example, try Seed 27, Solar mass 1.392, moon option on. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Covering group into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


Can you please keep your irrelevant rants off article talk pages, like the one here [2]. It is disruptive. See WP:NOTFORUM. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Okie Dokie.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk
22:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Signature[edit]

Could I persuade you to use a more conventional signature? You signature in the section above sounds like this to someone using a screen reader for the blind:

siNkarma eight six dash Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia Okie Dokie. Eight six equals one nine plus nine plus one four plus karma equals one nine plus nine plus one four plus talk two two colon three one comma six april two zero one three left paranthesis yoo tee cee right parenthesis.

This has a few problems. First of all, the clever two-line effect makes the "Okie Dokie." come out below the "siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia". Second, your use of numbers, "+" and "=" makes it hard for blind persons to read. Besides being annoyingly long, normally someone using a screen reader hits the "go to the next sentence" key as soon as the see the pattern "name number number colon", knowing that the rest is a normal Wikipedia signature. All those numbers make it hard to tell when the name ends the time begins.

Might I suggest something like this?

(Start of example signature)

Okie Dokie. --siNkarma86: Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 00:00, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

(End of example signature)

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ecological fallacy[edit]

Hi, regarding this edit to Lie detection, could you please elucidate the ecological fallacy's relevance to lie detection? --Chealer (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ruggero Santilli[edit]

I have reverted your restoration of a 'sanitised' version of the IP's antisemitic rant at Talk:Ruggero Santilli. It isn't our job to rewrite material which per WP:NOTFORUM has no legitimate reason to be on a talk page in the first place - and you should note that the IP has already been blocked for posting it. Furthermore, we don't even know if it is Santilli, and allowing such inflammatory material to be posted in his name without verification could well violate WP:BLP policy. I cannot see any possible benefit in encouraging further such behaviour, regardless of who is responsible for the posting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:All-raelian.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Clone Maker.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clone Maker.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 19:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Heat page. Is heat only something transferred?[edit]

Hi, I saw your comment on heat on the heat page.

>>Heat is the thing being transferred. Heat is the quantity of thermal energy responsible for the change of thermal energy of an object. You can think of "heat flow" as the transfer of the transferred entity "heat". So in the context of classical thermodynamics the term "heat flow" is a redundant way of saying "heat".

For some strange reason many modern textbooks are in denial about the classical meaning of heat as described by Kelvin Planck and co. As far as i can see this came about because of the influence of one particular text book writer in America.

Planck treatise on heat was published with its 22nd edition in 1964 with the text clearly saying heat was something in matter.

Wiki for some really strange reason totally refuses to allow the classical view to be correctly described and refuses to allow any explanation as to why the change to the modern version used by some text books is the only allowable version of reality.

I spent months on this a few years back. All of my labouriously created edits to show the classical view of heat were instaneously removed by one editor after i had worked enormously hard to get my changes past other editors who had earlier insisted i was wrong. It is just too weird that something as simple as heat cannot be described on wiki. I am by the way banned on wiki and dont want to get involved again and find i am just wasting my life on these topics.

One thing is for sure these heat discussions will continue forever if Wiki refuses to allow the classical view of heat to be correctly described and refuses to show why the change was made to the current version that wiki insists is the only allowed version. I cannot understand it. Why would anybody behave like this??

Thanks for listening!

Regards Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk
03:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

BlackLight Power[edit]

That is quite a job list. Fuel cell technician? For plasma reactors? I wonder how many of the applicants have viewed BLP on WP. Any of them swayed? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

interesting fact - no media relations specialist. telling. Ronnotel (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at BlackLight Power shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bishonen | talk 03:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

BlackLight Power is under discretionary sanctions[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Bishonen | talk 04:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

Signature length[edit]

Please review WP:SIGLEN as your signature is 625 characters of wikitext:

<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em;  font-size:{{#ifeq:|f|85%|85%}}; text-align:right;"><!--
  -->'''[[User:Kmarinas86|siNkarma86]]'''—Expert ''Sectioneer'' of Wikipedia<br /><!--
  --><sup>''86'' = ''19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + [[User talk:Kmarinas86|talk]]''</sup></span>

Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning regarding your edits at Talk:BlackLight Power[edit]

Kmarinas86, regarding your edits at Talk:BlackLight Power, including this recent one: This is another notice that the article is under WP:ARBPS, and a warning that article Talk pages are to be used to only to discuss improvements to the article, based in reliable sources and Wikipedia content rules. Your comment I linked consisted almost entirely of your unsourced personal theories and speculation about how the company operates; the only phrase that would be clearly acceptable under WP:TPG was "we can't add it to the article yet per Wikipedia WP:RS". Further misuses of the article Talk page will result in sanctions. Thank you. Zad68 02:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Sheriff. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 05:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

New wikia page[edit]

In case you were unaware, I thought you might be interested in this new site at Wikia. Ronnotel (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)