Jump to content

User talk:Salsb: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Hello {{PAGENAME}}, and [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome]] to [[Wikipedia]]! I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

* Read the [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|tutorial]] and learn [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|how to edit a page]].
* Experiment in the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]].
* Follow the [[Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset|Simplified Ruleset]].
* Try to edit from a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]].
* Use [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] to communicate with other editors.
* [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|Be bold in updating pages]].
* Eventually, read the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and learn about the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|Five Pillars of Wikipedia]].
* And most importantly, have fun!

If you need any help, see the [[Help:Contents|help pages]] and [[Wikipedia:Glossary|glossary]], add a question to the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]], or ask me on [[User talk:Bcat|my talk page]].

I hope you will enjoy editing and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]. Good luck! — [[User:Bcat|Bcat]]

==Another Welcome==
Here's another welcome to the editing side of Wikipedia. Here's a tip that [[User:Bcat|Bcat]] didn't mention: You can sign your posts with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) so that other members can easily see who said what and can easily contact you. Enjoy editing!--[[User:MSSEVER|mssever]] ([[User talk:MSSEVER|Talk]] | [http://scottseverance.blogspot.com Blog]) June 29, 2005 06:12 (UTC)

== Dogon ==

Hi Salsb, I've moved [[Tombo (Language)]] back to [[Tombo language]], as the latter is the preferred format for language articles on Wikipedia. Cheers, &mdash; [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|&#9998;]] 3 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still learning the ropes. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 3 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

==Aetherometry==

I'm not sure removing the protoscience category is for the best. It may well be protoscience for all I know. Or it may well be a bunch of hogwash. But either way it would be a good thing if you were to justify the removal on the talk page. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 5 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)

Aetherometry fits squarely the definition of pseudoscience, but I justified it on the talk page. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 5 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

Thank you. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 5 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

== Dynamic theory of gravity ==

Thanks for your help over at [[Dynamic theory of gravity]]. If you are feeling interested, you might take a look at other [[Nikola Tesla]] related articles - perhaps including [[Generalized theory of gravitation]]. Its not that I dislike Tesla - far from it, he was a great chap - but the Tesla-philes puff him up to a degree that makes him absurd. I see you mention psuedoscience on your user page: I too find this stuff disturbing. There is (I think) currently not a good mechanism for countering the fervent enthusiasm of fringe folk. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-06 22:21:00 (UTC).

== Dynamic theory of gravity ==

Thanks for your help over at [[Dynamic theory of gravity]]. If you are feeling interested, you might take a look at other [[Nikola Tesla]] related articles - perhaps including [[Generalized theory of gravitation]]. Its not that I dislike Tesla - far from it, he was a great chap - but the Tesla-philes puff him up to a degree that makes him absurd. I see you mention psuedoscience on your user page: I too find this stuff disturbing. There is (I think) currently not a good mechanism for countering the fervent enthusiasm of fringe folk. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-06 22:22:34 (UTC).

::: WMC, you edit with a anti-tesla POV (as it seems that Salsb is doing). Read the references! [[User:216.185.232.203|216.185.232.203]] 8 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

== Co-ordination ==

[[User:Christopher Thomas]] asked me about the creating some co-ordination to deal with pseudo physics. You seem to be <s>masochistic</s> bold enough to be interested? Perhaps I should setup a provisional project page for brainstorming? --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] July 7, 2005 19:05 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested. go ahead set up a page. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 7 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

: Me too! [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-07 19:37:11 (UTC).
:: Created, at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience]]. Salsb, if you'd be so kind as to add this as a sub-project on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics|WikiProject Physics]], that'd be nice. I'm reluctant to perform that edit myself, as I'm not on the list of maintainers of that project (might be perceived as an attack). There's a to-do list on the talk page. Most of the blank sections have temporary content in italics. I'll fill in what I can of the templates on Monday. --[[User:Christopher Thomas|Christopher Thomas]] 8 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)


I've been advised that you guys are forming a cabal. What's it all about, Dr. C.? (And hi, Salsb, sorry to barge in like this) [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] July 8, 2005 01:15 (UTC)

:Hi Ed. Come on in: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience]] looks like the place to be. If its a cabal, its not sekret. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-08 19:26:36 (UTC).

:Calling this a "cabal" is a bit of an exaggeration. This is mainly just a place to put a set of templates to aid editing of non-mainstream science and pseudoscience articles that don't confirm to NPOV, and to provide guidelines (for our own reference) based on the consensus reached in past article edits and votes for deletion on pseudoscience articles. The users involved are no more powerful as editors than they already were, and we aren't likely to do anything other than what we already have been (except use the handy infobox templates, when they're created). While I respect your concerns, I'm puzzled as to why you think we'd instantly turn into vandals, or how we'd suddenly gain the power to do so.--[[User:Christopher Thomas|Christopher Thomas]] 8 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)


Since you addressed this to [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]], and I am the newcomer here, I'll let him answer you fully. But by way of explanation, I came into this dispute by comming across [[Dynamic theory of gravity]] which seem to have some odd and exaggerated claims and which seemed not to be NPOV. After reading the talk page, it appeared to me that an anon user had been reverting text despite the talk page, and so I reverted back. I then came across the Tesla page, which appeared to have the same problems. In the meanwhile, someone alerted me to the possiblilty of a pseudophysics project, as there appears to be several of us who are intersted in NPOV articles, on pseudophysics. You can read the articles for yourself and see. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 8 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

: The DToG claims are cited (eg., verifiable) and from reputable source (the biographies of Nikola tesla and his own words). That is how to be NPOV. Your editing, as well as the WMC's editing, has made the article inaccurate and POV. You continue to remove any additions to the article that improve it, letting it stay inaccurate and POV.
: Note, just because something is not in a peer-reviewed article DOES NOT mean that it should be removed from wikipeida!-- Anon
:: Dear anon, my objections are not to the presence of the material, but to its presentation. I reverted DToG back to what appeared to be the consensus from the talk page. As far as our discussions about Bass' theory, my objections are that you are presenting something as scientific fact, when it is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, and because as written the theory does not make sense, but might as a separate article. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 8 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
:: Lets argue about DGoT over there. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-08 19:26:36 (UTC).

==Force-free magnetic fields ==
Anon -
Thank you for adding references to this article. I was in the middle of doing so when I was distracted by work. I believe the Energy Buildup one is a little technical for Wikipedia, but I will leave it in you would prefer [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 8 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

== flags ==
No problem, thanks for letting me know - but (as you acknowledge) it's Coolcat's idea...and his code. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 04:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

==Timeline of cosmology==
Thanks for making the change (&rarr; discovery) to Penzias and Wilson. I have not been able to convince that (probably) young and enthusiastic anonymous editor of the benefits of concise language. He makes spelling errors rather consistently, and uses a terminal at the [[Linda Hall Library]], of all places. He seems to make good use of the reference materials at the library, but this guy [[User:204.56.7.1]] needs more people to help keep watch over him. He tends to get into edit wars all too easily, reverting anyone who makes a change to one of his edits (Tesla is one example&ndash; see his contributions for others). You don't need to worry too much about his reversions, though. Just wait until the library closes and he has to go home! --[[User:Blainster|Blainster]] 07:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

== Original research ==

Results obtained by Google or Proquest or Lexis-Nexis searches I don't think can be considered original research. Indeed, much of the information and documentation now on WP comes from Google search. A trivial text search on the Math or Physics arxiv should be treated no differently, in my view. Math or Physics arxiv though not peer-reviewed, is probably the most common technique for divulging new research. That it attracts crackpots is inevitable, but frankly there are surprisingly few and they are pretty well circumscribed to small areas.--[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 16:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
: Hmmm.. I'm surprised by your remarks. It is true that in Math (and also Quantum Information) almost everything gets into the arxiv.--[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 17:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:: well, that is not the case in most of physics. The preprint archive is very important in some fields of physics especially GR and HEP work, but not in general. Just look at the categories, HEP has four separate ones; yet the Particles & Fields division of the American Physical Society is only ~8% of the membership. Several of the biggest subfields of fields are lumped together into a single physics category. It is a great resource for some fields, but it is far from comprehensive. Which doesn't mean it shouldn't be used, but with caution as its neither peer-reviewed nor comprehensive. That's why I prefer citation and abstract databases. Web of Science has at least every reputable science and engineering journal in it. Of course, you need to be at a company or institution that has a subscription . [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 18:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::: I'm not sure if we're disagreeing in substance, since I'm not suggesting scimath and similar resources are not valuable research tools, particularly since (usually) they provide indpendent summaries or reviews; however, Connes and Witten are no slouches and they do put stuff in the arXiv (Connes regularly, Witten I guess gave up several years ago). My point is that I'm hopeful of the possibilities of the arxiv to free us from the tyranny of publishers. --[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 19:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

::: PS --- tyranny in the sense of price gouging not control of contenet.--[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 19:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::::My disagreement is solely in using arxiv to determine what's an active area of research in physics as it is far from comprehensive in most fields of physics. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 19:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

:::: I personally doubt that arxiv is going to go much further in freeing us from price gouging by publishers, since its been around for a while at least since the early 90's, and it hasn't penetrated far in most fields of physics. However, there is an emerging trend of open-access journals paid by author charges -- which could lead to a different problem --such as the [http://www.iop.org/EJ/njp New Journal of Physics ], and the [http://prst-per.aps.org/ Physical Review Special Topics] journals. Though the biomedical community is much further ahead due to the NIH new policies, and a whole line of open-access journals. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 19:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

:::: ''I personally doubt that arxiv is going to go much further in freeing us from price gouging''

::::: That seems like a decidedly Americo/European statement of complacency with the state of affairs in the world of research in much of the world. For example, most research universities in South America have barely enough to pay their faculty a living wage (much less maintain halfway decent facilities). It is really painful to see a large chunk (most of it really) of department budgets going to journal publishers.--[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 21:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

:::::: It's not complacency as much as a statement that preprint servers haven't made much of an impact overall in science. At least in the US, there is a growing annoyance with the journal publishers continually raising the prices of journals, cutting back on archival access, and requiring authors to do more work in getting articles closer to ready-to-publish. Given the critical nature of peer-review, I suspect the electronic only open-access journals which require page charges are going to make more of an impact on publishers than the preprint servers have. The biomedical community has really lead the way in this, see [http://www.biomedcentral.com Biomed central] This model does shift the cost to the authors unfortunately, which creates its own problems. I agree It is painful to see how much money goes towards maintaining access to journals even in the US, and much journal costs have increased in the last few years . Personally, I like the open-access model. even though it can get expensive for authors. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 21:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

== Kettlestone Article ==


Thanks for reminding me about the [[Kettlestone]] article. It was one of the first things that I did on Wikipedia and I (wrongly) thought that the copyright of 1940 would have expired by now! I have done some research today and it definitely has not, still at least five years to go, hence if you look at the article now you will see that I have added quite a bit of material and extensively edited the text about the church and the history of the village.

Just out of interest do you have an interest in Kettlestone, I have some ancestors that lived there in the past, it's a pretty place though have not been there for years.

Thanks again


Rob ([[Robert Walden]])

No problem. I honestly don't remember how I got to the article, as I don't have any particular interest in kettlestone. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 20:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

== VFD ==

Hi, you voted to keep [[Authentic Matthew]] because you said that the article wasn't original research. The topic is "what was the original form of matthew". This is already discussed at [[Q Gospel]], [[synoptic problem]], [[markan priority]], [[two source hypothesis]], AND [[Gospel of Matthew]].

What actually exists at Authentic Matthew is the claim that the original version of the gospel of Matthew is the [[Gospel of the Hebrews]], which is also claimed to be the same as [[Gospel of the Nazarenes]], and [[Gospel of the Ebionites]].

This claim is supported by no-one outside the article's creator, and is a thesis badly strung together from misuse of parts of the aforementioned articles. None of the article's references support it (they support the aforementioined articles). The claim that the [[Gospel of the Hebrews]] is the same as the [[Gospel of the Nazarenes]], and [[Gospel of the Ebionites]], is near universally regarded, by academics, and non-academics, as wrong, based on an error Jerome made because he didn't have enough access to these sources. This article is entirely the original research of the author of it, and although the title exists elsewhere, the content exists nowhere else whatsoever.

Is it possible for you to re-contemplate your vote? [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 08:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

== Texas and Pacific Railway ==

Hello! I have merged your work in [[Texas and Pacific]] into the [[Texas and Pacific Railway]] article. I think your article is better and more complete than the one I wrote (which is why I copied most of it over), however the latter naming convention is preferred in many articles and templates such as [[Template:North America class 1|this one]]. I hope you don't mind. Happy editing! - [[User:Thatdog|Thatdog]] 21:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That was one of my first articles, so I didn't know any better.
[[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 23:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

==VfD pollution ==
[[user:-Ril-|Ril]] enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Historical_persecution_by_Muslims_%282nd_nomination%29#.5B.5BHistorical_persecution_by_Muslims.5D.5D] --[[User:Germen|Germen]] ([[User_talk:Germen|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Germen|Contribs]] [[image:nl_small.gif|25px]]) 10:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

==IDRIVE==
subst:{{AIDvoter}}

== Electromagnetism and Reciprocity (electromagnetic) ==

Is Electromagnetism not a category or did you think reciprocity didn't belong in it.
I want to revert the edit or add Electromagnetism back, but I don't know why you made it.
--[[User:David R. Ingham|David R. Ingham]]

I am going to put "[Category:Electromagnetism" back, because though the article I used that equation in was in ''Antennas and Propagation'', it was actually on diffraction, with radar cross section applications in mind and not primarilly for antennas.
--[[User:David R. Ingham|David R. Ingham]] 00:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


==Electromagnetic components==
Hi there. The [[:Category:Electromagnetic components]] is intended to group electronic components and devices that use electromagnetism or inductance to form parts of larger circuits. It isn't intended to include larger assemblies or systems such as whole trains even though that aspect features in their operation.

I might suggest a new category for the items you've tagged...[[:Category:Magnetic devices]] perhaps? This could exist as a subcat of [[:Category:Magnetism]] and [[:Category:Electrodynamics]]

Regards,
--[[User:Hooperbloob|Hooperbloob]] 05:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
:Sure, sounds like a good idea [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 11:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
::I went ahead and made [[:Category:Magnetic device]] and populated it, and [[:Category:Magnets]], which I had made last night, with most of what I added to [[:Category:Electromagnetic components]] . [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 11:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
:::Cool. Unfortunately naming conventions here on Wikipedia suggest we use plural forms for categories so your first one will need to be updated. A simple tag in the body text can flag it for renaming. --[[User:Hooperbloob|Hooperbloob]] 04:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Okay, no problem. Though why did you revert the addition of [[:Category:Electrodynamics]] and [[:Category:Magnetism]] to [[:Category:Electromagnetic components]]? Since Electromagnetic components use magnetism and inductance it seemed appropriate to add them as a subcat. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 11:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
:::::I was concerned that it might draw in articles more similar to the items you listed earlier. I've put them back and I guess we can see how it goes, you're right - they are related topics. --[[User:Hooperbloob|Hooperbloob]] 01:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

==Atromeroptics vfd==
Thank you for voting to delete this entry! [[User:Hfwd|Hfwd]] 00:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

== test templates ==

Hi Salsb. Thanks for your work in vandal-fighting! When you add a "test" template to a user talk page, please remember to sign it with four tildes. The timestamp is very helpful if another user comes to warn the same user with the next "test" message. Thanks! [[User:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] [[User talk:FreplySpang|(talk)]] 18:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

== You're posted on the Vandalism page, thought I might give you a heads up- ==

203.198.242.116 is at it again:

--------------
* {{vandal|Antaeus Feldspar}}-- Has vandalised the [[Frey effect]] entry on a daily basis for weeks in retaliation for links added by me from and toward [[Hikikomori]], [[Homokaasu]], [[Tinfoil hat]] and other [[Mind control]] related entries. Redirect has been used as a last resort. Well organised and working in team, other vandals of this group that pray mostly on [[Mind control]] entries (possibly for years) include:
**{{vandal|Salsb}}
**{{vandal|ColinMcMillen}}
:This seems to be a way for them to avert the three revert rule.--[[User:203.198.242.116|203.198.242.116]] 12:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

--------------

This may have arisen since I noted the anon's actions on various pages here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#IP_Moderate

You might want to watch the page. --[[User:Mdziesinski|Mdziesinski]] 13:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

==Merge: [[Frey effect]] -> [[Microwave auditory effect]]==

===Natural Carriers===

I asked for a citation on the frey effect page as to the relationships of any of these natural carriers to neuron firings, since as written it looks like speculation. I can't find any myself, so I am removing the section pending supporting documentation . [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 16:56, September 7, 2005 (UTC)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMicrowave_auditory_effect&diff=22781715&oldid=22761961][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microwave_auditory_effect&diff=next&oldid=22781715]

:Your opinion that it looks like speculation should not determine if the section should be removed. Others may have references. Consensus should determine if the section is removed. --[[User:AI|AI]] 07:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMicrowave_auditory_effect&diff=23026222&oldid=23026025]
::If others have reference, then please provide them, which is what I requested. As written the section consisted of repeating some basic facts about decay and then adding something about the possibility of neural firing. This makes it look distinctly like original research. If you look at the talk page on the [[Frey effect]] you will see that I am not the only one who has had concerns about this section [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 17:18, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

== Chemistry and physics ==

Hi there! I came across your page after noticing your edits to one of the pages on my watchlist. After reading your user page, I am curious to ask if you have done research in the field of [[vibronic coupling]] before? --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 00:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

:I haven't done research in vibronic coupling as such but I've had to think about vibronic effects in some of my research projects, so I know much of the basics. Why?[[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 00:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

::It's an area that I have an interest in, and was wondering if some our interests might be the same. Maybe we can collaborate on an article or two on Wikipedia in the future? --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 00:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Gladly. Give me a buzz, if you see a likely article to collaborate on. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 00:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
:::I just noticed that you have stat mech on your user page; I've noticed that [[:Category:Statisical mechanics]], and the articles therein, need some work. I did some organization there [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 00:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

==Fake name==
Regarding the imposter {{User|SaIsb}}: the middle letter of its name is not a small "l", but a capital "i" (look at it using a monospaced font like Courier and you can see for yourself). --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 12:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

:BTW, the impostor has been blocked. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]]<big>[[User talk:MarkSweep|&#x270D;]]</big> 12:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

:BTW, looks like he got in one more revert on [[Expansion theory]] before he was blocked. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 13:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

== [[Elastica (theory)]] ==

I've redirected it at the article it copied. Someone's user page carried a redlink to it and the article got copied and pasted by accident/inexperienced eds. [[User:Mholland|mholland]] 01:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

== Fictitious Force / William M. Connolley ==

I'm not sure how to deal with William in this article anymore. It seems his rudeness and impatience are getting in the way of legitimate discussion on which direction the article should go in. Do you have any suggestions? -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 13:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
:My plan is to ignore his rudeness -- if you look at the Talk and history he has had to deal with some nut-jobs on this article -- and improve the article. Hopefully, he will stay out of the way while the article is slowly improved. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 13:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
::I suggest that SCZ learns to spell my name and avoid calling my articles crappy, if he doesn't want to appear rude himself. However, as to the article itself, I'm going to leave you to it. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 15:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC).
:::I should have written, his and your rudness, as there was a fair amount of incivility going on by both parties, which I in general try to ignore, but I was addressing ScZenz. I personally would have preferred to expand your stub, than fix the mess the article currently is, but that does not seem to be the consensus. I see that there has been a fair amount of junk/bad writing in the article in the past, some of which still persists, so I understand what I preceive as your frustration with the article, but I find your insistence on including a statement that the concept is of little use or validity troublesome. The idea that a force is due to an interaction, and not due to either a changing reference nor geometry, is deeply embedded in physics as taught at every level from the introductory to the graduate level; that's why gravity is considered fictitious in GR, because it suddenly is just due to the fact that spacetime is curved. Since Wikipedia is supposed to represent what is, not what should be, I strongly disagree with your intro. {Now I'm going to keep the talk about the article to the talk page} [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 17:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
:::: OK, thanks for that, I was a bit unhappy with what I thought was your imbalance, I'm glad to know it was only apparent. To clarify one thing: I do *not* insist on stating that its useless; what I'm trying to say is that *if* this is supposed to be a useful concept then someone should be able to provide an example of it being useful! All the rest, as you say, over to the article itself. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC).

==Rasch models==
Just wondering what bothers you about having [[Rasch model]]s in the category of measurement. The articles on Rasch models are more suited to the category of measurement than that of statistics: they are stochastic measurement models, not statistical models. Application of the models entails the use of statistical tests of fit, but the primary reason for their application is to obtain interval-level measurements. Would appreciate it if you let me know your concern. I would take it out of the stats category rather than the measurement category, if anything. Cheers [[User:Stephenhumphry|Stephenhumphry]] 10:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

:Regarding your response - gotcha. Makes good sense, hadn't realised psychometrics is a subcategory of measurement. Have also removed [[law of comparative judgment]] from category of measurement for same reason. I'd argue the Rasch model is potentially considerably more general in application than psychometrics, but as things stand this is by far its main area of application. And the current definition of psychometrics was mine, so can't much argue with you there :-) Thx for the explanation. [[User:Stephenhumphry|Stephenhumphry]] 12:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

==Please vote on ''list of lists'', a featured list candidate==

Please vote at [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics]]. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 20:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== [[Modding]] ==
I found this page because of a question in the general help area, then I added some stuff myself, because much of my IT career has been in the legal modifying of licensed derivative software, and my employers have been involved in the modifying of hardware that many people might not associate with the notion of modifying.

I also enjoy [[simulation games]], have both designed some of my own, and modified others, where it was my understanding that modifying was an entirely approved activity by the game publisher. I have also been involved in the organization of games conventions, where I have discovered that different game companies have totally different notions of what is an approved use of their games.

Then I took a look at prior editors and thought I would give y"all a heads up that I had made some mods to this article on mods to try to clarify notions of where this is a very bad thing to do vs. ho hum so mundane as to be no question but that it is perfectly legitimate activity. [[User:AlMac|AlMac]]|[[User talk:AlMac|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

== AfD aka VfD on [[Philosophical interpretation of classical physics]] ==

We could use your opinion on this article at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical interpretation of classical physics]]

I have nominated as original research but feel that it is important to solicit additional opinions on the matter before an administrator is forced to make a decision. As I mention in the discussion on the [[[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical interpretation of classical physics|AfD page]] - I think the underlying idea - to discuss the impact of classical ''Newtonian'' physics has had on other discpiplines and the impact that QM should (but in many cases has not fully) had on those same disciplines - is an interesting one; however, I need help in determining if existing article should be the starting point for such a discussion (or if this topic is covered elsewhere). Thx in adv -{{User:Trödel/sig}} 10:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

== Your missing physics list ==

I've moved [[User talk:Salsb\Missing physics]] to [[User talk:Salsb/Missing physics]] because that way it's a proper subpage and, er, stuff. [[User:Alphax|Alphax]]&nbsp;<sup >[[User talk:Alphax|&tau;]][[Special:Emailuser/Alphax|&epsilon;]][[Special:Contributions/Alphax|&chi;]]</sup > 09:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

== biophoton ==
Hi Salsb, I was wondering if you could expand on your revert on the biophoton page about reverting to the more accurate article? I'm a physicist, so please don't hesitate to be specific. I can reference every statement I put up, so I am curious what struck you as being ''inaccurate." [[User:Cypa|Cypa]] 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

== Vandalism warnings ==
Hi, and thanks for helping warn the [[User_talk:212.85.15.66#December|vandals]]. I saw that you used the <nowiki>{{test1}} , {{test2}}</nowiki>, ''etc.'' templates. That's certainly appreciated. But unless you know something I don't, I believe that they should be used in the form <nowiki>{{subst:test1}}</nowiki>. That causes the text of the template to be actually copied into the page in the database when you save it, rather than inserted at rending time when the page is accessed. The rationale for this is discussed [[Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warning_templates|here]]. Thanks again for your help! -- ''[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3rd]][[User_talk:Kbh3rd|<sup>talk</sup>]] 17:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)''

== [[Black hole]] and [[Talk:black hole]] ==
Hello. I put [[black hole]] up on PNA/Physics a while back. It could still use attention from someone able to rigorously construct toy cases for 1) objects falling into Schwarzschild black holes and 2) light emitted radially from the vicinity of Schwarzschild black holes. For reasons mostly described on PNA/Physics, the talk page is overflowing with questions about this from people who won't accept qualitative answers (or quantitative, in the case of the first objector, which makes me wonder what's left). Would you be willing to tackle this? --[[User:Christopher Thomas|Christopher Thomas]] 19:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

== [[21 centimeter radiation]] ==

Hi, I removed the merge tag you added. The rationale is on the talk page: the page ought to be a page about the implications of the 21 cm line for cosmology. It may not have the correct title, but as a major new subfield of observational cosmology, it certainly deserves it's own page, like the other principal observational efforts in cosmology: say, the [[Lyman-alpha forest]], [[weak lensing surveys]] (which, incredibly, has no page) or [[cosmic microwave background]]. In fact, these measurements have much more statistical power than the cosmic microwave background, at least in principle. &ndash;[[User:Joke137|Joke]] 17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== Scientific peer review ==

You might be interested in a new project, [[WP:SPR]]. [[User:Karol Langner|Karol]] 19:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
:Oh yes I am! Thanks for letting me know about it [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
::Like with the others, I would aske you to give a hint which article you are proud of. A good article or even a featured one would be nice. The experience in the real PR are very good, but I think experiance in the PR within wikipedia would also be good. Thanks! People like you will give the project a boost. --[[User:Stone|Stone]] 13:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[Special relativity]]==

If you happen to have the time to look at the "second postulate" discussion on [[Talk:Special relativity]], it would be appreciated. I'd attempted to fact-fix a mangled paragraph that talked about measurements of the speed of light, and now a user whose page states that his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to patrol relativity-related articles is taking issue with it. I agree that round-trip measurements are about the only thing you can do in practice, but the rest of the statements made are setting off alarm bells. You have a much better grasp of the subject than I do. --[[User:Christopher Thomas|Christopher Thomas]] 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==

[[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
{|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
|valign=top|
;Stubs:<!--'''[[Wikipedia:Stub|Stubs]]:'''-->
:[[Johnny "Guitar" Watson]]
:[[Obscenity]]
:[[Michael John LaChiusa]]
:[[Ear]]
:[[Balearic Islands]]
:[[Bartonism]]
:[[Valencia (city)]]
:[[Saint Vincent (island)]]
:[[George of Duklja]]
:[[WCWM]]
:[[Jammu & Kashmir National Conference]]
:[[Eugene R. Black]]
:[[The Kids Will Have Their Say]]
:[[Roz Weston]]
:[[Lawrence Joel Veterans Memorial Coliseum]]
:[[List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors]]
:[[Bank run]]
:[[List of Salvadoran Americans]]
:[[MMT]]
|align=top|
;Cleanup
:[[Hack (technology slang)]]
:[[Teflon]]
:[[Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca and Fischer]]
;Merge
:[[Ballot]]
:[[Grand Alliance]]
:[[Trypanosomiasis]]
;Add Sources
:[[Alex Rodriguez]]
:[[Kerala Congress]]
:[[Memory bias]]
;Wikify
:[[Steve DeVito]]
:[[Social Liberals (Austria)]]
:[[Paulinho Da Costa]]
;Expand
:[[Court]]
:[[List of Little Penguin colonies]]
:[[List of British entomological publishers]]
|}

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have '''feedback''' on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on [[User_talk:SuggestBot|SuggestBot's talk page]]. Thanks from [[User:ForteTuba|ForteTuba]], SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on [[User:SuggestBot/Requests|the SuggestBot request page]]. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

== HR Diagram in Electric Universe article ==

I urge you to read the talk page of the electric universe article for a detailed explanations of the insensibility of challenging the EU model with HR diagrams.

:As Zowie pointed out before I was able to your "explanations" are interesting but error-filled [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

==Feedback request for proposed move==
I'm considering moving the content within "[[Wavicles]]" to a new article "[[Wavicle]]", and then creating a redirect from the old to the new. I can then also include other references to the term "wavicle" on the new page. I think it is better to have one page containing all of the different references, rather than having two pages which can make things confusing. Feedback is requested on this proposed action on an existing discussion topic on the [[Talk:Wavicles]] page. (Any reply posted here will not be reviewed by me.) --[[User:Abelani|Amit]] 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

==Re: Regarding request for physics/chemistry collaboration/help==

Thanks for your response. I am a chemist with a strong physics background and am interested in contributing to many areas on wikipedia that have interfacial aspects to them. I hvae noticed that these areas tend to be contentious places. This is often due to "ownership" issues or perhaps more accurately semantic differences. I do not understand how people are unwilling to accept overlap between the sciences as being positive and working towards accurately representing these semantic differences to the novice reader in an impartial manner. Anyways, to get to teh meat of the matter the two issues that I could use some input on <s>are the definition of [[Chemistry]], there seems to be a contingent that is unwiling to accept that chemistry extends beyond interactions between matter to include such things as [[photochemistry]]. This is a very civil debate however</s> (issue resolved) your input would (still) be appreciated (since it tends to arise from time to time with new editiors). The other issue is in a very uncivil state at the moment. (it was quieter when I asked for your input). There is a [[User:Kehrli]] who is continuing to make a case that the only "correct" unit for the [[Mass-to-charge ratio]] in both physics and [[mass spectrometry]] (an interfacial field but perhaps currently more dominated by [[analytical chemistry]] that anything else, it of course is highly physical in its basis however) is the [[Thomson (unit)]]. Now this is a unit which I know of and somewhat like however it is uncommon and not accepted by any body having jurusdiction. It is hard to find in use but does exist in my search in fields very closely if not exclusively within the field of mass spectrometry and even then very rarely. My question to you is: Do physicists use this unit? Is it commonly used? Is there something that I am missing? I know my electrodynamics pretty well and have generally stuck with SI units myself, perhaps switching to cgs from mks occassionally. I think atomic units are not unreasonable for physical problems on the scale of mass spectrometry however I would tend to convert after solving a problem, myself and I especially see no benefit to having a single unit for mass divided by charge in this case. I do see that in MS this might be good. OF course being wikipedia I am more interested in teh verifiability than the utility or truth. Well thanks for the insight and I hope to get a different perspective.--[[User:Nick Y.|Nick Y.]] 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nick, you completely distort my arguments:
* I never said the unit thomson is the only unit that should be used for mass-to-charge ratio. I only say that it was intriduced by Cooks and Rockwood, two of the best mass spectrometrists, and that they had their reasons to do it.
* I say that a quantity of mass-to-charge ratio has dimension mass/charge and therefore die dimensionless m/z by definition cannot represent the mass-to-charge ratio. m/z is something else. This is all verifiable. (Unfortunately m/z is so ill defined that not even Kermit knows what it is). --Kehrli

I apologize for Kehrli and for my bringing vitriol to your talk page. I was interested in having an open minded civil semi-private conversation with you, not drag you into the middle of an incivil argument, which I am trying my best to avoid (even going to the lengths of figuring out if I may be wrong somehow). I would still be interested in hearing your perspective and working with you on interfacial projects. --[[User:Nick Y.|Nick Y.]] 00:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

==Seeing as how you do research at the interface...==

You might be very interested in this article [http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Tree_of_Knowledge_System Tree of Knowledge System] it is a theoretical framework for describing human knowledge in terms of matter (physics & chemistry), Life (biology), Mind (Psychology) and Culture (sociology). The interesting part is the 'joint points' between those different levels of complexity.

Its not on this Wiki though, its off-site at [http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Tree_of_Knowledge_System The Psychology Wiki] which is a Wiki project started by professional psychologists. We just need a good physicist to clean up this article in particular though!

Let me know what you think

[[User:Mostly Zen|Mostly Zen]] 02:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:12, 25 September 2006

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salsb&oldid=77702474"