User talk:Wolfkeeper

Click here to leave a new message

explanations

In relationship to shock wave here is your explanation and below it you can find why it is wrong. I will continue to work and explain you your other misunderstandings. Fell free to ask questions, By the way http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/swlb.html place that you point me to isn't a place that you should look. One there are many mistakes. Two, you need equations to understand this stuff. This is not literature it is hard science.

genick --potto 04:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To get a shockwave something has to be travelling faster than sound. In that case some parts of the air around the aircraft are travelling at exactly the speed of sound *towards* the aircraft, so that the soundwaves leaving the aircraft pile up on each other, sort of like a tailback on a road, and a shockwave forms, the pressure goes up and up and up there, and then spreads out sideways. Because of this amplification effect, a shockwave is very intense, more like an explosion when you hear it (not coincidentally, since explosions create shockwaves.)WolfKeeper 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I really like this clarification, so I copied it to the main page. Hope that's OK. AKAF 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is totally wrong! You have to understand that get shock wave you do not need to move above the speed of sound. In fact, any movement creates shock wave. The faster the movement the larger the shock. In every explanation of the speed of sound is originated by a very small movement. Check any compressible flow book that you like, you can use my here www.potto.org or you can use shapiro or Saad or any thermo book. No matter what book you choose the results should be the same. Now take for example piston moving with Mach number 0.1 what will be the velocity of shock ahead and according to you it will be below the speed of sound. Of course you are wrong! if you where right than

you never hear car approaching you. The shock will move in Mach=1.062 for =1.4. Think differently, if you were right than zero movement (almost zero creates sound wave) yet larger velocity creates smaller velocity. You were right it will violate the second law of thermo.

Vandalisation killing

For my proposal to greatly minimise vandalisation see: Wikipedia:TimedArticleChangeStabilisationMechanism WolfKeeper 23:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work on SABRE

I think the article is really coming along now, it's much better than when I started it. Thanks! Maury 03:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice Work

Hey, way to kick ass on that Leo Strauss article! TitaniumDreads 09:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

About your changes to the Semi-protection page

You reverted my edit on the Semi-protection page where I referenced Wikipedia:Timed article change stabilisation mechanism. Given you didn't add a comment, didn't talk to me on it, or do anything else; this seems to be a vandalisation. It seems you are violating NPOV at best. Would you care to explain?WolfKeeper 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Be my guest, re-add it. -- user:zanimum

How To Copy

--- I have a problem / question which stems from the talk page on feature article 'Space Elevator'. I would like to make the following edit: state 1 state 2 state 3 ------- ------- ------- --archive 1 --archive 1 --archive 1 --archive 2 --archive 2 --archive 2 -talk 1 --archive 3 --archive 3 -talk 2 --archive 1 -talk 3 -talk 3 --archive 2 -talk 1 -talk 1 -talk 2 -talk 2 -talk 3 -talk 1 -talk 2 -talk 3

From State 2 to State 3 is just deletion but State 1 to State 2 is a COPY and i dont see any COPY in wikipedia....?? Thanx in advance if you have time for this...... uhhhhhh the above looks much worse than it looked on Sango123 talk page but maybe you can see what i want from 'space elevator' talk page. --Therealhrw 15:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Phage therapy

--- Would you care to reconsider your edit? Don't you mean:- finding a suitable phage can be difficult (?). Once the right virus is found, the therapy works by delivering plenty of viruses of the right type. In other words the quantity is not the problem, its finding it. --Aspro 21:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

RB545

I noticed you've edited the article, removing the mention that RB545 was a LACE or Liquid Air Cycle Engine-like engine.

It's not easy to get any info on this engine, AFAIK it's still covered by the official secrets act, but it doesn't appear to have been a turbojet, more like a ramjet with a precooler by the looks of it.

Also, I think it actually liquified the air; there's some vague references to it in the Skylon literature; something like 'Unlike earlier engines SABRE avoids liquifying the air'.WolfKeeper 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burbank"

I can assure you that the RB545 was not a LACE engine. I have been deliberately vague, but my description is much nearer the truth!

--Burbank 18.02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Burbank

Fair enough! I just wish I knew what I wasn't supposed to know, so I could make sure I didn't accidentally include it in the article :-) WolfKeeper 18:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Before the RB545 contract was terminated, there were unconfirmed stories that the USSR had actually built and tested a similar concept. Presumably lack of funds after the break up of the Soviet Union prevented further progress? SABRE and RB545 are very similar in cycle.:-)Burbank 16.29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wernher von Braun

"Apollo program director Sam Phillips was quoted as saying..."

Please add or indicate the source for this quotation to the article. Thanks for your contribution!
Best wishes, David Kernow 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Diagrams and animations for special relativity

Hi Wolfkeeper,

I was reading some old talk on the special relativity Talk page. You wrote:

Also check out this awesome diagram:
http://origins.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/centre.html
It shows how two comoving objects can both be at the center of a lightcone at all times.
We need one of those... WolfKeeper 16:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You are referring to Andrew Hamilton's special relativity exposition. I have made some animations that are inspired by that expositon, for the time being they are in this sandbox article on special relativity of mine. Please check it out, and tell me whether you think they are useful.

I can also attempt to do a good remake (and upload it) of this animation from Hamilton's site, which I think is very insightful. --Cleonis | Talk 11:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the animation really explains things like how the speed of light is constant. That with some supporting text (but without the 180 degree rotation, I think that just complicates things.) That would really work well. If people can understand how the speed of light is constant in Relativity then the battle of explaining it to people is mostly won I believe. That animation has almost everything. If it had alternate colours at regular intervals along each time axis it would even include mutual time dilation.WolfKeeper 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW I really like your time dilation spiral; that's really cute. That needs to go in the article. :-)WolfKeeper 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I gather you suggest a remake of the Andrew Hamilton animation, with just the rocking from left to right, and not the swiveling. I will see what I can do.
When I had finished the helix-animation it dawned on me that contrary to usual practice the lightcone isn't at a 45 ° angle in that animation. Generally, Minkowski diagrams are clearer when space and time are in a 1:1 ratio.
About the constancy of the speed of light. I read a wikipedia article which in effect produced the following reasoning: in 1900 Poincaré assumed that light propagates through the luminiferous ether whith a fixed velocity with respect to the stationary ether. Poincaré showed that you get planes of simultaneity then, and that velocities transform according to transformations that are nowadays called the Poincaré group (and the Lorentz group is a subgroup of the Poincaré group.) Therefore, it was argued, since Poincaré recognized the transformations first, Poincaré had actually beaten Einstein to discovering relativity. That reasoning is wrong, but it is pretty hard to show what is wrong about it.
My point is: because in the animation we are talking about ( this one ) only propagation of light is shown, it is also compatible with pre-relativistic physics; in itself the things shown there do not enforce special relativity. That is why in my own animations I never use light to illustrate relativity, but moving clocks --Cleonis | Talk 19:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lightcones and relativity

One more remark about that animation that depicts a sequence of Lorentz transformations (Lor-animation).

Here is how I understand it, and presumably how you understand it.
Einstein's second postulate can be presented as follows: Light, emitted from a single source, will propagate into space in a spherically symmetrical way. The propagation will be spherically symmetrical with respect to every inertial frame of reference.

More than that, if comoving reference frames happen to be coincident when a pulse of light is produced, then they are both going to remain at the center of the sphere, even though they are comoving. That's what this diagram shows. If you think about it, that goes a very long way to showing how SRT supports the constancy of the speed of light.WolfKeeper 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Einstein wants to correlate the concept of light propagation with Newton's third law. Newton's third law, which holds good for every inertial frame of reference, states that if two objects push away from each other, then there will be conservation of momentum; the common center of mass will remain moving along a straight line (which can of course be extended to any number of tiny objects).

I'm sorry, I don't understand this.WolfKeeper 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Around 1905 the concept of asigning momentum to light was introduced (or was already established, I'm not sure). The principle of conservation of momentum will hold good if and only if light has the property that it propagates away spherically symmetrical with respect to every inertial frame of reference.

How does that work???WolfKeeper 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That is how I understand the Lor-animation. --Cleonis | Talk 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for joining me in introducing serious criticism to the Special relativity. Now user infinityO, a known vandal has been destroying it. RfC.80.138.193.56 00:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you use the expression 'co-moving'

I copy and paste from above:

More than that, if comoving reference frames happen to be coincident when a pulse of light is produced, then they are both going to remain at the center of the sphere, even though they are comoving. WolfKeeper 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you refer to when you write 'co-moving'.

Oops. Yes. I meant it to mean reference frames that are moving relative to each other, exactly the opposite of what it means.

Please read that as 'non comoving' in each case.

Generally, when people use the word 'co-moving', they mean: no relative velocity between the objects involved.

I was using it incorrectly :-(

I figured that had to be the case, but I had to make sure. The crucial bit is of course that Vermillion and Cerulean are both not accelerating, not with respect to each other, and not with respect to the structure of space and time. Because neither of them is accelerating, they have in common that light propagates away from them in a spherically symmetrical way.

Maybe the reasoning can be turned all the way round: if light propagates away spherically symmetrical for both of them, shouldn't we infer from that that they are actually co-moving? :-) --Cleonis | Talk 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Um. No? ;-) I assume you're joking but the fact that the distance is increasing between them is a bit of a clue. WolfKeeper 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was joking. On the other hand, there is the impossible thought experiment of what you would see when you would be co-moving with a ray of light. For the light itself no time elapses as it propagates. For the light itself the separation between any two points in space-time is a null-interval. As seen from the perspective of the light (which is impossible) Vermillion and Cerulean are not moving with respect to each other; hence light propagates spherically symmetrical away from both of them. --Cleonis | Talk 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In all diagrams and animations illustrating special relativity there are objects involved that do have a velocity relative to each other. Andrew Hamilton calls his two subjects: 'Vermillion' and 'Cerulean'. Vermillion and Cerulean are not co-moving, they have a velocity relative to each other.

Then again, maybe you and I see very different things when looking at a Minkowski space-time diagram. --Cleonis | Talk 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hi, I just wanted to alert you to the case thing that's been brought forward of which you are a part. I'd be happy to mediate a compromise, and would really like to encourage civil discussion. Please see that page and provide a response to the complaints made, if you could. Thanks! --Keitei (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your opinion on the introduction Zleitzen wrote? Would you agree to keep it as a compromise? --Keitei (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's good.WolfKeeper 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merged with other articles

See: Talk:Rocket engine nozzle

Specific impulse

Hi Wolfkeeper. I just realized an edit I made looks like the opening salvo in a revert war, but it's not, as you can see by comparing with my previous version. I hope I'm actually helping this article and not just hindering your efforts to make it more accurate. --P3d0 20:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no prob.WolfKeeper 23:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Scramjet

Hi Wolfkeeper,

I made a number of edits to Scramjet lately, trying to do a bit of a cleanup of the whole article, which I wrote about in Talk:Scramjet

I'd be grateful for any input if you have time.

AKAF 07:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Wolfkeeper,

I wrote some comments in Talk:Scramjet, which I now in part regret. I'll leave them there, but want to discuss alternatives with you, rather than get too excited about it.

The amount of text we're generating in discussion scarcely seems worth it for the small size of the article text. I wanted to propose splitting the text to a new article, and leaving a stub on the main page, much as I did for the scramjet programs section. I want to do this for several reasons:

1. The scramjet article is bordering on being too long.
2. The topic is important in itself, and impacts other supersonic airbreathing engine types exactly as much as scramjets (for example, a link from the SABRE and ramjet articles would probably be a good idea)
3. There appears to be more than enough material for a full-length article
4. There appears to be enough editorial interest

I'm not too sure what to suggest to call the article so it would appear in searches. Perhaps something like "Supersonic Airbreathing Engine Efficiency Considerations"?

AKAF

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[1] made on April 30 2006 (UTC) to Elo_rating_system====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 07:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case on Elo rating system

Hi! I've tried to help on your mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27_Elo_rating_system. Please take a look. Fetofs ^Hello! 16:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look on what I've proposed? Thanks. Fetofs ^Hello! 21:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wolf, do you have any reference that Hydra played with a team, besides that one? Look at my comment. If you don't agree anyway, I might take your suggestion and present it to the other party. Fetofs ^Hello! 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope this does it... Fetofs ^Hello! 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Hans Morovec was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hybrid rocket

What hybrid rockets use a solid oxidizer? Night Gyr 04:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hybrid rockets are largely experimental (famously used on SS1 of course), oxidizer rich chambers are mentioned in a paper I have read on them.WolfKeeper 04:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Atmospheric reentry

Wolfkeeper,

Night Gyr just left an "accuracy dispute" marker on Atmospheric reentry. Night Gyr previously left a "Cleanup" marker on the article that you later removed. I would like to organize a coordinated response. I've also contacted Georgewilliamherbert about this. Thanks.

Egg plant 04:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Sigh...WolfKeeper 17:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. I wonder if it would be helpful to redirect Night Gyr towards the Space exploration article? That thing is a hopeless road apple and needs a full rewrite. Night Gyr's efforts could only improve it. Egg plant 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This Isn't Your Talk Page, It's Wikipedia's -- Play By THEIR Rules, Please

Note I'm adding new material, so this is not a violation of WP:3RR on your talk page. But you are continually removing my comments while not replying to them. This is not civil and is a violation of Wikipedia policy in and of itself, on top of your violation by allowing a copyedit modifying someone else's comments to stand. Knock it off, do what policy says, and I'd be out of here. You don't own your talk page — Wikipedia does. Your own rules don't go here — theirs do. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Go away, leave me alone.WolfKeeper 12:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully ask you to address the issue on which I originated my comment. Since you have erased it, I will ask you again here: please reverse this change you made, which was a violation of Wikipedia's WP:TPG policy not to copyedit other people's talk page comments. Your then-continued blanking of this issue, unreplied, off your talk page was a separate issue in and of itself, but I won't choose to bring that up anywhere. Once you address this issue, I have no further cause to inquire with you on this matter. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  12:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear WCityMike, By my count you've spent 1114 words on this here. Wolfkeeper changed one letter of one word, which did not change anything about the meaning of the comment. (proove to prove). It was perhaps not an optimal use of his time, since Wolfkeeper is a valuable contributer to wikipedia, but it scarcely misrepresented anything. My advice to you is to get over it.

If not, then I'd note that it's Wolfkeeper's talk page, and that he's not bound by 3RR, but you most definitely are, and I count 5 reverts in 30 minutes. Additionally, I'd note that WikiPedians frown on stalking and harrasment far more than on minor breaches of etiquite with no actual impact. AKAF 14:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it amazing that you actually bothered to obtain a word count. Your revert count is incorrect: reversions 1, 2, 3. This was not an reversion, and this introduced a query as to why he was doing this, with this being a followup to his query. Finally, it's interesting you seem to feel Wikipedia policy can be broken at will: that "harrassment" and "stalking" (you calling me same is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in and of itself) is unacceptable, but it's perfectly fine for Wolfkeeper to repeatedly violate WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:TPG, and to blank pages, and to not be called on it, and when someone does, to start being incivil to them. That having been said, this has soured my mood incredibly, and I've sworn to myself that I'll enforce a cooldown period upon myself in matters such as this. So I'll drop the matter. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  14:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Timed article change stabilisation mechanism

Given our disagreement, I began checking out some of the other stuff you are involved in. I found this article, and thought it was actually a rather groovy idea. I hope you don't mind, but I did a little bit of spit-polishing. Now, listen, I know you're going to read this comment and think I'm a monster and I just screwed up your proposal, but the change was totally benevolent, I promise. Here's a link that compares your last edit with my most recent one. See? Nothing malicious.

My edits mostly comprise:

1. some sheer punctuation/apostrophe copyediting;
2. some replacement of awkward phrasing with Wikipedia terminology or clearer words:
   1. "vandalisation" became "vandalism";
   2. "disincentivise" became "deter";
   3. some clarification as to when "users" meant "public" and when "users" meant "editors";
   4. etc.
3. some alteration of phrasing, etc. to tighten up the concepts.

I don't believe that anywhere I actually altered the substance or meaning of what you meant, but I wanted to alert you to my edits so that if I did change the meaning, you could advise and/or edit the particularly misphrased part back to what you truly meant. I also put probably a good 10-20 minutes' worth of work into the spit polish/rephrasing/cleanup, and didn't want you to flat-out revert it just because of our conflict earlier today.

By the way, this is not meant as an "I'm sorry" gesture — I still feel exactly as I did when I stepped away from our conflict earlier today.

But here's the thing: it's a very good idea and I hope the spit polish helps in getting it to move forward a bit in higher-up circles. Let me know if I can be of any help in that, although I've got the political pull of a mudfly around here. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  17:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. I think it's a good idea tooWolfKeeper 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification Requested

public is wrong, logged in editors work the same as non logged in

Okay ... but editors see whatever the most recent version is, right?

Original: The edit would always be of the absolute newest version, as now. (We do not want to branch the wikipedia).

Reword: The version presented for editing to editors would always reflect the most recent edits, regardless of whether that edit was made by an immature or a mature editor. (We do not want to branch Wikipedia)

Are you thus saying that, whether you are logged in or not, the "article" tab would show the current approved version of the article, and the "edit this page" tab would show whatever the most recent edit was?

That sounds like it has the potential of introducing severe confusion for editors, considering that the "article" tab and its source in the "edit this page" tab have never been disconnected before. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought about it, but on balance I decided it was extra complexity, without very clear benefits. Also, some 'public' have accounts anyway, to store wikipedia preferences, so the concept of public is a bit fuzzy. We could consider ways of reducing any possible confusion, for example, when editing a page, if the current isn't the same as the edited version, the web server could warn of that at the top of the edit screen, similar to the current behaviour when doing a revert.

But there's also race-conditions at the moment which can cause that kind of problem anyway. If an editor brings up a page, reads it for a while, then goes to the edit tab, then it's quite possible that somebody will have edited the page since they started reading. The edit is of course of edited page, not the page that was being read...WolfKeeper 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Space elevator

Thanks for your edit to Space elevator, and the explanation on the talk page. You marked it as a minor edit, but I don't think it was - apart from anything else, credit where credit's due :) --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the mass fraction examples of SSTO consitant / clear ?

Hi Wolfkeeper,

Firstly I'm completely new to Wikipedia so please excuse any misunderstanding on my part. In the article "Why SSTO?", I found the examples of mass fraction inconsistent. The original equation limit suggests that a mass fraction of 25 to 1 is 25parts fuel to 1part dead mass, but the high performance planes appear to reverse this with a ratio of 4 to 1 being explained as 1part fuel to 4parts dead mass? The airliner example is different again (but that may be because of my attempted edit :-( )

Is this incorrect, or could it be more clearly explained ?

Thanks.

--PianoTuner 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're mass ratios, rather than mass fractions.

Mass ratios are the ratio of initial mass to final mass. So if there's 1 part fuel and 1 part dry mass, that's 2 to 1.WolfKeeper 15:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I started typing some of this stuff up, before having a crisis about whether its useful for a general access encyclopaedia. Anyway maybe this explanation could be useful? AKAF 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Are you educated in rocket propulsion or is it just a hobby? I am very intrigued by your additions! Jay Kay 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus's Conduct

Hello. I've been reading through Dionyseus's contrib history, and found he was involved in a dispute with you. I myself have also clashed swords with him, and I've just recently requested the arbitration committee review his conduct. I'm trying to build the case that he's been an irresponsible editor. If you don't feel that this is the case, you may feel free to disregard this message, or if you found him accomodating, you should certainly support him in Arbcom- I'm for a fair hearing. If, however, you feel like he's not intellectually responsible in his edits, I'd really appreciate your input at [Arbitration Request]. Thanks! Danny Pi 21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, he seems to delete material and insert POV that has no supporting evidence he can cite.WolfKeeper 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

DanielPi is going through my contribution history searching for people I've had arguments with, basically he's doing a little witchhunt. Our argument about the ELO rating matter was solved months ago if I recall, WolfKeeper. Dionyseus 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well I obviously agree with you, WolfKeeper. I'm claiming that Dionyseus is an irresponsible editor. I'm trying to find evidence outside of my case that supports the claim, establishing a pattern of bad behavior. You're welcome to offer information in support of him as well as against him. I hardly consider it a "witchhunt". Should you agree with my claim, as you seem to, I'd appreciate your statement on the arbitration request page. Thanks! Danny Pi 00:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

DanielPi you're trying to stir up trouble where there is none. Me and WolfKeeper went through mediation and the case ended peacefully. Dionyseus 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the mediation process has not ended, I just got bored with it, as did the mediator so far as I can tell; but it has not formally been completed. Your edits were and are not consensus, and you have added unsupported POV to the article.WolfKeeper 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits say that grey is white, when there are quotes saying that it is black. That is not peaceful, and not NPOV.WolfKeeper 01:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The last time I've edited the ELO Rating article was back in May 23, I'd say that was a peaceful end. Dionyseus 01:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your edits did not make consensus, but you were happy.WolfKeeper 01:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you dissatisfied with the current ELO Rating article? I see you haven't edited it since April 30. Dionyseus 01:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's adequate.WolfKeeper 13:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point: would you be willing to write a short statement on the arbitration page?Danny Pi 05:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir up trouble? I'm just trying to support my claims in arbitration with testimonials from people who have had conflicts with you before. I'm not asking anyone to restart arguments. If I shouldn't be doing this, provide me a rule forbidding it, and I'll gladly stop. As far as I know, this is what I ought to be doing (i.e. building a case). If you feel like you can add anything to these proceedings, Wolfkeeper, please do. I'll stop cluttering your talk page now =) Danny Pi 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

mass fraction

Your edit to mass fraction here is confusing and inconsistent with the material that was previously there. The claim you added, "Everything else being equal, a vehicle with a higher mass fraction than another can achieve longer range or higher overall acceleration," is confusing and misleading, because it's impossible for everything else to be equal. Depending on what changes to change the mass fraction will create different end results. Further, you changed "low" to "high" with no additional explanation. Night Gyr 06:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A mass fraction is a number between 0 and 1. A mass fraction of 0.5 is 50% fuel at takeoff. If you then replace a metallic tank with a lighter composite tank the mass fraction improves. The mass fraction might then be 0.55, even with the same fuel quantity, engines, undercarriage etc. It will therefore fly further since it doesn't need to create as much lift to stay in the air and thus creates less drag. 0.55 is higher than 0.5. Ok?WolfKeeper 11:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you replace your engines with more efficient ones, and only require 80% as much fuel to get the same delta-V, your mass fraction for a given orbit may fall.

Yeah, but Isp is limited by the propellant used- so in practice that doesn't happen. And that's also why I said everything else being equal. And raising your mass fraction isn't necessarily a win for another reason- propellant is dirt cheap; whereas dry mass is very expensive.WolfKeeper 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Or, if you use special materials and cut the weight of your jettisoned stages in half, you'll again cut your mass fraction. Hence, the desireability of a higher or lower number varies. Night Gyr 17:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, if you do that, the mass fraction of both the entire vehicle and separately for each of the boosters go up.WolfKeeper 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Penis circum.jpg

Howdy, I noticed you created the image Image:Penis circum.jpg. Should the hoizontal axis be labeled something like "girth" or "circumfrence" rather than "length?" Or am I misreading the plot? --TeaDrinker 05:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Length around?WolfKeeper 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that is clear enough. --TeaDrinker 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Cooper-Harper?

Hi, noticed that you made a redlink to the Cooper-Harper rating on the Rotary Rocket page...are you getting ready to write an article on the scale? It's been on my To-Do list (under the "procrastinate" section, unfortunately), ever since the subject came up on RR's talk page back in June. If you aren't, I'll make it a point to get going on it, or I'd be just as happy deferring to you. Thanks! Akradecki 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to imminently do that, it was just a place holder; by all means have at it.WolfKeeper 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much...I'll let you know when I have some workable text, and would appreciate any input/additions. Akradecki 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Got a few minutes of spare time, so it's now up and ready for input at Cooper-Harper rating scale. Thanks!! Akradecki 03:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You should probably include the NASA diagram; as you noted, NASA pictures aren't copyright, so it should be safe to upload.WolfKeeper 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Done...layout okay? Akradecki 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you totally nailed it. That's an awesome article!WolfKeeper 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Akradecki 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

public key caption reversion

I modified the caption ot both clarify missing stuff not in the image and to stress the ide a of pairs. You reverted. Why? ww 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it read better before. I only did a partial revert though, of one sentence; the other changes you made seemed to be very good. Incidentally, your submission had several spelling errors, please make sure you do a spelling check in future.WolfKeeper 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit of Pressure vessel

Wolfkeeper, with all due respect, I don't want to make a big thing of it but don't you think that your insertion of the words "constructed from isentropic material" into the Pressure vessel article introduces an unneccessary and extremely jargonistic word (namely, "isentropic")? Would you please consider removing your edit? - mbeychok 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use isentropic, that's something else entirely.WolfKeeper 21:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me ... guess I had a brain "fart". In any event, thanks very much for removing the edit about isotropic materials. - mbeychok 21:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Aluminium

Good fixes in that article. Let's keep it simple and clear.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Safety

Dear Wolfkeeper, I see you have reverted my edits on hydrogen peroxide. I must thank you for your attention in checking edits, but I will explain why I (and some with me) do think that safety does not belong in the wikipedia (and hence, why I axe those sections). Wikipedia can never put a full record of safety on compounds, it will always be a part of it. Hence, there is a risk that someone, using hydrogen peroxide (or one of the other compounds we stated) will be injured while using it. I am not sure about the legal implications of that, but I can imagine, that the person could sew (remember that Wikipedia is used by everybody all over the world) Wikipedia because there was nothing about the danger that that specific person was suffering from. We can point people to MSDS, and thereby give some info. Moreover, I do not believe that safety tell something about the compound, modes of action maybe. I have reverted the reversion. (for more information, see hydrogen sulfide and hydrazine, a.o.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The MSDS doesn't have most of this information in it, so you are simply deleting information. Further, you are not citing any actual wikipedia rule or policy to do this deletion. Given that, this is simple vandalism.WolfKeeper 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I object. The first 3 paragraphs are condensed into two sentences (which state more or less what is told in the three paragraphs), and a mentioning of an MSDS. I do believe that the IARC data is in MSDS files (and well, it is a IARC-group 3). Then there is a sentence "Hydrogen peroxide is produced as a byproduct of oxygen metabolism, and virtually all organisms possess enzymes known as peroxidases, which catalyse the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen (see Decomposition above)." which has nothing to do with hazards, I must confess, that data is now deleted, but it should not have been here. And the same goes for the last two paragraphs. All three are not referenced, and the latter is simply untrue, hydrogen peroxide and sulphuric acid do not make a bomb. Moreover, I'd like to keep bomb-information out of the wikipedia anyway. So yes, I can warrant the clause that you call it vandalism, and I will see if I can replace the three last parts, but still I believe, that the safety information should be kept to a minimum.

I hope I have given a bit more explanation, and I will do my best to reinstate some of the lost information. Hope to see you around! Kind regards, Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I do believe that MSDS's do give quite complete information, companies cannot afford to give incomplete safety data. If something new is discovered, it is probably earlier in the MSDS than in online literature. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wolfkeeper, I hope we can get to a workaround for this. The section as is now, is completely unreferenced, and does contain serious errors. I am not going to revert now, it is of no use getting into an edit war. But I still do believe that the section should be minimized, rewritten, and that data should be moved to more appropriate sections. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is only 'what would you expect to find in an encyclopedia?'. It doesn't seem to me you are asking that question.WolfKeeper 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I expect good and verifyable information. That is not what is there now. It is incomplete, it contains errors, and it is not verifyable, there are no references. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this part looks much better already. The sentence 'Concentrated hydrogen peroxide (>50%) ... inhalation over 10%.' can also be found in an MSDS, but I will leave it. I will bring the point up in other chemical sections, or in the chemicals-portal. See if there is consensus about these things, and maybe it should be put into a policy. Thanks anyway! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Net Neutrality

I reverted your edits to Net Neutrality because you replaced the most solid definition we have - 66.7.225.34

Define 'most solid' and explain how it is that there is no references in the article for this position?WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

- from the legislative language - with a fuzzy definition of your own. Part of the problem with this issue is the disconnect between what NN advocates say they want and what their legislation really does.66.7.225.34

Irrelevant. The top of an article is to define what something is. The legislature are irrelevant in that. I have merely moved stuff around, and added a general definition, which I have referenced.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would submit that the issue isn't clarified by the substitution of personal opinion for verifiable fact.66.7.225.34

I agree. In which case you will need to find solid references. I don't particularly care where you get them from, but you need references. In the meantime: reverted.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

References are nice, and there are several of them to the language of the Snowe-Dorgan amendment in the article. The problem with your approach is that you assume that any definition you can reference is automatically "the definition". That's obviously absurd reasoning. The fundamental characteristic of this debate is the lack of clarity in the definition of neutrality, and you really have to accept that. This isn't ball bearings, you see.RichardBennett 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, my point is not so much that there is 'a' definition. My point is more that people must have tried to define it, and we should try to quote them. Anything else is OR. Right? And it just seems like there's lots of weasel words at the moment. And I'm not clear that the definition covers the subject matter. For example it currently claims that 'Large Internet content providers maintain' that neutrality is mostly about websites prioritisation and QOS, but it kind of implies that users or network providers don't agree; whereas presumably many network users do think that that's what it's about, but don't necessarily agree that they should be prioritised, and some of the network providers think that network neutrality proposals should allow them to be able to prioritise.WolfKeeper 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s. please sign your comments with four tilda's to insert user and date info, thx.WolfKeeper 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

just a note from someone else with interest in the topic saying thanks for your work on net neutrality.Ben 21:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hydra

Ah... I do apologise. It never occurred to me that the plagiarism might have been the other way round! Why would the Hydra official site need to go to Wikipedia to generate their material, anyway? Maybe they found your prose particularly inspired... SteveRwanda 17:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so. The bit about Moore's law and ASICs is definitely mine though.WolfKeeper 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Genital modification and mutilation

In the first place, please limit your comments about specific topics to the talk pages of thoes topics. I'd prefer it greatly if you didn't discuss topic-specific issues on my personal talk page.

That's impractical, and besides I was taking issue with *your* behaviour, and that's what these talk pages are for. If you don't like the way pages are used in the wikipedia, tough!WolfKeeper 01:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Second, your suggestion that I re-read WP:NPOV is advice you may want to take yourself. In no case is it acceptable for an editor to inject his or her personal POV into an article.

True, but...WolfKeeper 01:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a separate issue from presenting a balance of published and cited POVs within an article. If you feel so strongly about the issue at hand, I suggest you spend your time finding citable sources for the POV you are trying to protect rather than trying to engage me in a petty dispute. You say that the material I am trying to edit is non-contoversial. You need to prove this; it is not acceptable for you to just assert it and then use popups to revert my edits.Dasondas 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

..but we only have your assertion that they are POV in the first place, and that's *your* POV, and whilst it was not a formal citation they mention an authority in atleast one of the sentences that you deleted and I saw absolutely no evidence that you had tried to check or refute that. Given that, your edit is inappropriate.WolfKeeper 01:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I second Wolfkeeper Dosondas - you are engaged in an attempt to push your POV onto the GMM page, and you have openly asserted on it's talk page that you are going to push your pov. Furthermore your comment "intolerant fringe groups" is a personal attack Lordkazan 16:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

re: concord, "ships and aircraft are always feminine (her/she) in English"

This is certainly true of individual aircraft, but to refer to the whole class of Concord aircraft is rediculous.

Concorde is a bit of a weird case really. It's always singular for example. Given that it's definitely feminine in the singular, and given that Concorde is always singular, then the class of Concorde must be feminine also.WolfKeeper 13:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your baseless accusations

I have not violated 3RR. I have not removed a citation. Your edits are in violation of NPOV, OR, and CIV. Whether or not you intend it to be so, your edits are religiously intolerant and bigoted. The world will not stop if you leave it alone.Dasondas 03:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC) A small correction; I did remove a cite, however it is not a relevant cite as it does not specifically address the so-called controversial nature of religious circumcision.Dasondas 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The article you cited is clearly trying to make that inference, but I do not see any evidence of a real controversy surrounding the practice of religious circumcision.Dasondas 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So we can leave the article as it stands, it's not making any direct attacks on religious circumcision? It links to a balanced BBC article that mainly talks about non religious, non medical circumcision, and that notes that relgious circumcision is perfectly legal in the UK and elsewhere. I consider this to be NPOV, or as near as we're ever going to get.WolfKeeper 16:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Concorde

Re: partial rv: AHEM!!! (I took a lot of effort to find that info)

Ooops. I must have accidentally editied a version behind the current. I didn't mean to take out your citation, sorry about that! --BadWolf42 09:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Before you go quoting policy...

Perhaps you should take a minute and READ THEM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

These are Wikipedia list of policies and the definition of "vandalism" No where is listed that an article about a british plane is required to be written in british english, nor does it say anything about a british article must be written in british english, no does it say an article about something french should be written in french. Aspensti 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit breaches Wikipedia:Civility "Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly." Most British people find your edits rude, insensitive and petty. And you are certainly unable to point to a policy that said that everything should be changed to American spelling.WolfKeeper 17:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your missing the point here, friend.

You're not my friend, and you're making bad-faith edits to the Concorde article.

Originally in the article was a request to "leave british english in an article about a british plane". However, I felt there was no need for such a request.

Yeah. And? Am I supposed to be impressed?WolfKeeper 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have provided for you, there is no policy stating that such a request is valid, so I corrected the article.

As a matter of fact, there is, and I knew I had read it. Further the arbcom takes a dim view of people arbitrarily changing spelling, particularly in national related articles.WolfKeeper 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You called it vandalism, which I also showed you it was not.

It's simple vandalism.WolfKeeper 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets say no one is going to win the battle on wheather it should be british or american english in this article. I can agree to disagree, but there is NO reason at all for a warning to be hidden in the article stating that changing said wording violates policy as it clearly does not. I have gone ahead and left the british wording in the article per your request as to not be "rude". I have also removed the incorrect wording about policy. Aspensti 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say you have thoroughly lost the battle over this article; and I have reverted your moronic edits for the last time. Now are you going to continue your policy of vandalisms so I can get you a suspension? Please?WolfKeeper 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, you were wrong to call it vandalism; it is only arguably vandalism if you neglect WP:AGF, which I know is sometimes hard. But it is in breach of a policy I already showed you, Aspensti, so you were wrong too. As I already said, Aspensti, please stop editing this article to U.S. English. Wolfkeeper got that right. It is obviously an article about a British topic, so quite correctly takes the British spelling. (copied to both talk pages) --Guinnog 00:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If he was editing from malice, then it constitutes vandalism. I consider it self evident that that was the case. His edit was nationally chauvinistic, and he even deleted text asking him specifically not to do that, which he had obviously read, otherwise he wouldn't have deleted it. And his edits weren't any kind of consensus; in fact he showed that he didn't give a damn about consensus. And he did this multiple times, not just once. It's vandalism. It was an attack on the article. This is considered a quintessentially British plane. It would be like me going to the Pentagon article and changing all the spelling to British English; there's no way that's what he did is not vandalism.WolfKeeper 00:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point Wolfkeeper; you may be right. Let's just consider that we've educated this editor about an important policy, and move on. I'll certainly help you to revert any further edits like the one Aspesti made. I also watch and have edited Air France Flight 4590, and inserted the in-line comments about spelling. I know how frustrating it can be when people change it arbitrarily. Let's just leave it at that, unless it happens again. --Guinnog 01:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Strawman argument

Hi. Recently on Talk:Specific impulse, you edited a comment of mine in a way that made it appear rather foolish in the context of your response. My comment started like this:

To your first point: I don't agree that there's a difference, but even if there were, these minutae don't enhance the article, and only serve to make it more verbose. If you can give an example of an incorrect conclusion someone might draw from the claim that N•s/kg is a speed, then I'd agree that we should make a distinction. To your second point ...

You broke it off after the first sentence, inserted my signature, and replied like this:

To your first point: I don't agree that there's a difference, but even if there were, these minutae don't enhance the article, and only serve to make it more verbose. --P3d0 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother to be accurate??? No that doesn't work.WolfKeeper 20:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine it was convenient to remove my request for an example, but you ended up responding to a point I never actually made. You may want to consider refraining from editing other people's comments when replying to them. --P3d0 16:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove your request for an example; it's still there, and I answered it in general terms. If you actually want an example of how ridiculous it gets, just consider the rocket equation in the form that uses the effective exhaust velocity. If you use specific impulse instead of effective exhaust velocity (which is claimed to be the same thing) you get a delta-v measured in N.s/kg... which whilst technically accurate is likely to confuse the heck out of people; particularly people who are likely to read the article to find out what's going on.WolfKeeper 17:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to discuss Specific Impulse issues here. I just want to say that, yes, you did not delete my request; sorry if I implied that. --P3d0 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Net Neutrality

User:RichardBennett is up to his old antics again, nuking the article intro entirely in a revert-warring bit of spite, making no attempt to compromise. --Calton | Talk 11:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to add cites that this really is the meaning of the term; and I'm not convinced that everyone defines it the way the article currently states, so that makes it POV. POV is not wrong in the wikipedia, NPOV might really better stand for Notable Points Of View, but the current definition excludes other interpretations and needs to be enlarged.WolfKeeper 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights and wrongs

Hi Wolfkeeper,

I noticed a couple of comments on copyright that you made on Talk:ThrustSSC. To be honest, I think copyright is rather more complicated than that. For example copyright law varies quite a bit from one country to another - e.g. in many countries, including the US, copyright lasts from 70 years following death of the author. Also, an image is not automatically copyright of the photographer. If the photographer is commissioned to take some photographs, the images may be copyright of the commissioning body. When you get into the realms of derivative works, trademarks, copyright exceptions, unknown authors not to mention non-copyright issues such as privacy laws and trespass, it can really get quite complicated.

See the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ for more guidelines and I particularly recommend the two short external guides linked in the 'Other considerations for photographers' section. -- Solipsist 10:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but the chances of him finding a picture between 50 and 70 years older than the date of death of the photographer is pretty miniscule, probably 99.9999% on the web are wayyyy less than even 50. And to a first approximation you can assume that when works are commissioned that comes under licensing (it's not quite true legally, but it's near enough for people with no clue what they're doing.)WolfKeeper 14:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jet engine changes by User:82.33.106.83

Wolfkeeper wrote:

You reverted some changes to the Jet engine article and added a warning on the users talk page.

I looked over the changes, they didn't seem to me to be obvious vandalism, although I may have missed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_engine&diff=78129862&oldid=78117848

I was planning to undo the revert and remove the warning on this anonymous users page, but I thought I should check with you first. Is there some specific concern here?WolfKeeper 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing this out. My apologies for not looking more closely, as this certainly wasn't vandalism. I saw this edit in Recent Changes and since it seemed to be the removal of a section with no explaination, I assumed it was vandalism and used rollback. Of course that then reverted the rest of the user's work on the article; had I looked at these contributions I would have seen that the removal of the section was justified, since the material had been added elsewhere and the user was merely re-arranging things. I have reinstated the user's changes and left an explanation on their talk page – Gurch 18:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Spacecraft propulsion

Spacecraft propulsion is up for a featured article review, and I noticed your name often in the edit history. Detailed concerns about the article may be found here. Please leave your comments if you're able to help us maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if you're still watching the discussion, so I thought I'd mention that I responded to one of your points there. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

recategorization

there has been a merge tag on the Category:Space exploration and Category:Spaceflight for quite some time.. rather than calling my edits vandalism, you could have taken up the issue on the talk pages first. see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Mlm42 17:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Virtual particles

JRSprings is right. We all know that quantum field theory accurately describes nature, and includes virtual particles, but it's true that we can't detect individual virtual particles. A virtual particle is defined to be a particle internal to an interaction;

That's simply incorrect. The definition is that a virtual particle is a particle that violates conservation of momentum, charge, energy etc. for a period of time in accordance with the uncertainty principle. As a matter of fact it can be the only particle involved in an interaction.WolfKeeper 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

if you detected it, it would no longer fit the definition. We can track down a source for this easily enough, if you like,

Please do so.WolfKeeper 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

but I assure you I am not misremembering my recent coursework in quantum field theory. -- SCZenz 07:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No. That wasn't what the piece said. It said we couldn't detect them at all. And that's what I violently objected to. I'm reasonably sure that not being able to detect single virtual particle interactions is not characteristic of virtual particles; but it may well be characteristic of current experimental technology.WolfKeeper 15:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The current phraseology is fine though.WolfKeeper 15:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Although to be honest, even the current phraseology is pretty weasely; and I'm not entirely sure it's true in any normal sense of the word. Don't forget it's thought that electrostatics is mediated by virtual photons; you can't get much more easily measured than that.WolfKeeper 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your violent objection is unfounded. Nobody claimed the effects of virtual particles can't be observed. But in an interaction like $e^{+}e^{-}\to \gamma ^{*}\to e^{+}e^{-}$ you can't see the virtual particle itself without changing the interaction entirely (becaues you need a new interaction to "see" anything). What you really see is the scattering, which is mediated by more than one possible Feynmann diagram anyway as you go beyond first order in perturbation theory—thus it's a philisophical question which if any virtual particles "actually exist," and science doesn't set out to answer such questions.

You might be interested to know that there is current research in calculating QCD vertices without making use of virtual particles. [2] It works for certain very specific diagrams. If there's a way to calculate an interaction without virtual particles and get the same answer as with those particles, then there's no sense in which detecting the interaction tells you you've detected a virtual particle.

If you want to debate this further, can I ask what level of knowledge you have on this subject? I don't want to waste my time or yours on explaining things you already know; if we already know the same physics and it's just a question of philosophy then I'll approach further discussion differently. -- SCZenz 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the reference you wanted:

Peskin, Michael E. (1995). "Invitation: Pair Production in e⁺e^- Annihilation". Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Westview Press. p. 5. ISBN 0-201-50397-2. Feynman has invented a beautiful way to organize and visualize the perturabtion series: the method of Feynman diagrams. . . . For our particular calculation [e⁺e^- → μ⁺μ^-], the lowest-order term in the perturbation series can be repressented by a single diagram. . . . The diagram is made up of three types of components: external lines (representing the four incoming and outgoing particles), internal lines (representing "virtual" particles, in this case one virtual photon), and vertices. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This as close as a textbook on QFT comes to defining virtual particles—an abstraction for the internal details of terms in the perturbation theories. -- SCZenz 16:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

X-38 question

Hi Wolf...I could use your expert input in an issue over at Talk:X-38 Crew Return Vehicle. Once upon a time, there were two articles, one on the X-38, one on the CRV. A merge was proposed, and I agreed to do it, a decision which I now regret, as it led to a fair amount of contention, especially from one editor. There's now a discussion to unmerge them (under the heading of "Wrong Decision"). Before I agree to do the unmerge, I want a clear consensus of editors who have the background to know what they're talking about. You seem to be one such editor...if you have time, would you mind reviewing the situation and giving input? Thanks! Akradecki 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The structural problem is that without the X-38 the most logical layout would push you towards having everything it their own articles but there probably isn't that much to talk about in a separate CRV article.WolfKeeper 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should be at CRV (adding some general summary at the top about CRVs in general) and put the X-38 in a subsection of CRV, pointing out that it is a prototype only. You'd need redirects from X-38 to CRV of course.WolfKeeper 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article really does get too big, then you can always split later.WolfKeeper 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Concorde

"It's easy. Learn English, rather than some mongrel 'American' masquerading as English. :p WolfKeeper 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)" While I sympathise with your frustration, and agree with you on the usage issue, please try and be more civil than this. --Guinnog 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

hormesis

Hi, you posted in a comment on Talk:Hormesis, you wrote, "Somebody seems to have 'accidentally' deleted radiation hormesis. I have undeleted it, and removed the 'merge' tag. If you wish to delete a page you must put it up for deletion. Thanks for not abusing process." I was simply following the wikipedia guide for merging. When I read the hormesis page, I was shocked to see that it was either redundant or frankly junk. If you don't agree with the way I merged the two but agree that they should be merged, please add in the relevant material and undo your rvs. otherwise, we can continue to discuss the merits of having both articles on the hormesis talk page. Cheers, Pdbailey 19:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Aplus.Net

Thanks for the heads-up. I can't believe this guy. :) --Aguerriero (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. Worse than the last time, deletion of which I proposed. Ohconfucius 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Done some more digging, I found this complaint. Not as serious as the google bombing, but interesting nevertheless. It reveals several other related outfits, including one called Cedant, in which another Vachovsky (Lilian) is principal. I suppose you must already know that Ted V is the marketing Director. Ohconfucius 14:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article had been saved, and one sentence articles are far from unknown. Can I suggest you use a word processor and copy longer pieces of text before saving, rather than writing article one sentence at a time. Please also refrain from using descriptions like vandalism for a legitimate, if now contested edit. It costs nothing to be polite. jimfbleak 08:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect may I suggest that there is no policy saying that I should do that, and I should point out also costs nothing to hit the link key to see that it was already dead linked from 4 separate places, or the history key which showed an ongoing pattern of editing.WolfKeeper 08:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on RPJ

Hi. I'm advocating a case on behalf of a user who is experiencing numerous problems with RPJ. I can see from RPJ's talk page that you have interacted with him in the past. If you have a moment, would you be so kind as to head over to the RfC page and leave any guidance that might help in resolving this dispute. Thanks so much, and have a great day! →Bobby← 15:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard Feynman IQ claim

Hi, I was trying to find a source for the claim that Feynman's IQ was 124, and I see that you were the one who originally put this claim in the article. This claim seems to be repeated on many websites, but I can't find any that cite a source, and I'm wondering if it might just be one of those internet rumors...do you know of a published source? Hypnosifl 05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It was in 'Genius' by Gleick see: [3] WolfKeeper 05:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

drag

Thanks for your explanation. FWIW, staging in the atmosphere has a huge effect on drag -- it's just not what Wolfkeeper thinks staging is for. FWIW the vast majoriy of rockets do not reach space. The notion that stages 'collide' is risible, to one familiar with physics. One such incident would be interesting to hear about. I don't mean a staging failure, I mean a 'collision.'

If you have a reference to a rocket vehicle that stages within the atmosphere (n.b. I don't think airlaunch really counts), by all means add it to the article.

No I won't.

I don't know of any, and the SR-71 program had issues with staging a ramjet vehicle at mach 3 (as in a collision, as in somebody died); similar sorts of things can happen with rockets.WolfKeeper 07:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Parallel staging:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmlgN4DRk2Y

Sequential:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXygFVxfjS4

And as you can see, no effect on drag.

Now simply redefine 'rocket' to 'real rocket' and you're golden. Brainhell 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

+ I removed your edit, FWIW staging doesn't usually reduce aerodynamic drag; it's not the purpose of it at all. In practice rockets rarely stage until they're outside the atmosphere anyway, otherwise there's a severe risk that the stages will collide due to aerodynamic forces during separation.WolfKeeper 01:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Network neutrality

You removed referenced material from the wikipedia, on the grounds that apparently nobody had bothered to go through 192 countries and list the violations of network neutrality in each one, and list them for each country. That's a ridiculous position for you to take.

In addition you marked the edit as minor, when it clearly wasn't. That's a bad mistake. Not happy.WolfKeeper 01:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed a poorly written paragraph that did not support the only assertion it made- the frequency of "network neutrality violations for political or moral reasons". The paragraph asserted that such violations are "not uncommon". Two examples of that assertion, which constituted vaguely worded mentions of 'Net access censorship in Saudi Arabia and China, were provided along with an external link. The external link provided to supposedly reference the assertion made in the paragraph in question did nothing but reiterate the same things- the matter of 'Net censorship in Saudi Arabia and China without any supporting data provided in its own right.[4] The magazine article's author mentions a few tidbits like "Because Google is routinely blocked by the Chinese firewall, for example, it has created a truncated index called Google.cn for its Chinese customers." None of this establishes that "network neutrality violations for political or moral reasons" are "not uncommon". It only establishes a small amount of proof of two examples out of 194 nation-states. An external link to a page or website that deals specifically with 'Net censorship around the world would be what is needed. This site is a good example of such. Studies for particular nation-states are also readily available.

I am reasonably certain that China and Saudi Arabia do actively censor the 'Net access provided to their citizens. Whomever wrote the paragraph in question wanted to say something that is, indeed, useful the article in question, but apparently had little experience with citing anything since the citation provided did not, in fact, provide independent corroboration beyond a magazine article writer's opinions and uncited mentions of one or two examples.

In short, you are incorrect in your assertions here regarding my actions. Nor do I have a desire for the list that you seem to think I wanted. I simply ask that things be cited properly and are written based on either commonly understood and/or citable facts and reasonable conclusions.

In my judgement, it was minor. This judgement is based on the quality of the paragraph in question. I am sorry that you disagree with my opinion on the matter.

As a gesture of good will, I have edited the article in question to reflect the things I have said here.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Many thanks. I'm sure there's a lot more network non neutralities out there, I'm fairly sure that Germany blocks Neo-Nazi websites and such like. Singapore is another one IRC. Network neutrality is a principle, and I think most people would agree that in some situations it could be taken too far.WolfKeeper 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Network Neutrality Biased Edits

Either you're completely ignorant of the subject or you're a paid shill of Google or some other combatant. Please refrain from injecting your personal feelings into the article and refrain from deleting contributions by knowledgeable people.

Either or huh? Looks like a 3rd personal attack right there.WolfKeeper 04:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Network neutrality YouTube Link

The TBL excerpt is on youtube video, which appears to be cut from the savetheinternet video. They wouldn't care at all.

I claim this is fair use, and we are simply linking to a report on what TBL has said.

I would imagine we would also have immense protection from Google itself- it's in their business interests to ensure that that video stay up on the web.

It's so ridiculously unlikely that the wikipedia could get into any trouble over this link.WolfKeeper 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but please see WP:C that states that we must not link copyvios. I thought long and hard about this deletion but there is no fair use for videos. --Spartaz 20:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The operative words there are probably and perhaps we can get a license. Look I'm not going to fight you but C is pretty clear and its policy that we are expected to follow.

This is marginal and I won't revert you back if you choose to restore the link. I'm sure you understand the subject area better than me. All I ask is that if you do revert you review C first and post a note on the talk page explaining why you feel the link is valid. That's not for me but in case another editor contributing disagrees with the decision.

?OK --Spartaz 22:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it anyway. It was a huge PITA, I eventually found TBLs blog entry (probably no other blog would have done) and he linked to a video on MIT.edu site which has a license saying you can definitely link, so it's all golden.WolfKeeper 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. That's a much much better solution. Nice work there. Sorry for the PITA but this should ensure that the link to the vid is stable in case of any future reviews of YT links. Spartaz 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: RichardBennett new NPA violations.

Given him his one and only warning. Will check his contribs, periodically, but feel free to let me know if I miss anything. Luna Santin 06:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You have new messages at WP:AIV. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

.

Shock wave reversion

Hi Wolfkeeper. I've just reverted Gennick's changes to shock wave. It's mainly because I think his edits are in too poor English to be understood. I'd like it if a cool head would have a look at the page though.

Thanks, AKAF 12:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

explantion

In relationship to shock wave here is your explanation and below it you can find why it is wrong. I will continue to work and explain you your other misunderstandings. Fell free to ask questions, By the way http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/swlb.html place that you point me to isn't a place that you should look. One there are many mistakes. Two, you need equations to understand this stuff. This is not literature it is hard science.

genick --potto 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To get a shockwave something has to be travelling faster than sound. In that case some parts of the air around the aircraft are travelling at exactly the speed of sound *towards* the aircraft, so that the soundwaves leaving the aircraft pile up on each other, sort of like a tailback on a road, and a shockwave forms, the pressure goes up and up and up there, and then spreads out sideways. Because of this amplification effect, a shockwave is very intense, more like an explosion when you hear it (not coincidentally, since explosions create shockwaves.)WolfKeeper 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I really like this clarification, so I copied it to the main page. Hope that's OK. AKAF 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is totally wrong! You have to understand that get shock wave you do not need to move above the speed of sound. In fact, any movement creates shock wave. The faster the movement the larger the shock. In every explanation of the speed of sound is originated by a very small movement. Check any compressible flow book that you like, you can use my here www.potto.org or you can use shapiro or Saad or any thermo book. No matter what book you choose the results should be the same. Now take for example piston moving with Mach number 0.1 what will be the velocity of shock ahead and according to you it will be below the speed of sound. Of course you are wrong! if you where right than

you never hear car approaching you. The shock will move in Mach=1.062 for =1.4. Think differently, if you were right than zero movement (almost zero creates sound wave) yet larger velocity creates smaller velocity. You were right it will violate the second law of thermo. --potto 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC) genick

here another one

The text said it propogates through a medium, this implies that they are referring to the mediums reference frame.WolfKeeper 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me take your explantion one step further. we have a disturbance propogates due to unknown reason for unknown reason in the speed of incoming (upstream) gas. Thus, if you increase the gas velocity then your disturbance will increase the speed. Conclusion from this, that gas is the source of this disturbance. So, why the disturbance is moving in the opposite direction? If the gas is the source of your disturbance than if you cut the nozzle it should not effect the disturbance, yet it will.

Sir, I do what I am good at. I think that you should do what you are good at. Shock wave is not a disturbance and it doesn't propogates it sometime stationary.

genick --potto 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

yet anotehr one

I don't see how that could be true in the general case. For example a shockwave forms around a nuclear bomb that very definitely does propogate for a distance at least, and I don't see how that would not be carrying energy away. I'm wondering if the solution is that shockwaves can carry kinetic energy, in the case of a nozzle the shockwave is stationary in the lab frame, so that would explain your example. Also see: [5] which very definitely says that shock waves can carry energy.WolfKeeper 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Again you are confusing issues. I wish that you once pick in a good book, check my book or Shapiro. There are moving shocks and there are stationary shocks. In the case of stationary shock, there is no energy change. In the case of moving shocks there is a difference between energy in different frame of reference. This is the source of your confusion. Perhes, you should write about this topic after you took a class in gas dynamics.

--potto 04:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC) genick