|Archives for the RockMagnetist talk page|
|1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- 1 WikiProject Physics template
- 2 DYK for Trivial name
- 3 Removal of refimprove tag at Amplituhedron
- 4 Articles for creation/International Association of Geoanalysts
- 5 DYK for Magdalena Bermejo
- 6 Note
- 7 Please help out
- 8 Category:Earth and atmospheric sciences journals
- 9 Any way forward?
- 10 off topic
- 11 Exchange spring magnet
- 12 Thank you
- 13 The problem of the lead
- 14 New outline
- 15 A barnstar for you!
- 16 Mirror symmetry article
- 17 MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science pearls
- 18 DYK nomination of Magnetic anomaly
- 19 DYK for Magnetic anomaly
- 20 DYK for Morton B. Panish
- 21 Janet Yelen assessment
- 22 WikiProject Did you know nomination
WikiProject Physics template
- I'm a bit confused by your message. I didn't add a template, I just changed the parameters in the existing one. The previous assessment was greatly inflated. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Trivial name
|On 16 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trivial name, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after an atomic element has been isolated, it gets a trivial name? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trivial name. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
Removal of refimprove tag at Amplituhedron
I am curious as to why you removed the refimprove tag at Amplituhedron. As far as I know, there is still no peer-reviewed paper published on this topic. The article exists largely on the basis of a few pop sci articles about it. There is a preprint at Arxiv, but that is about it. I would think that the need for improved sourcing would be uncontroversial. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Mark viking:, I removed it after a cursory look at the article. There was a refimprove-section tag in Implications, and outside of that there seemed to be plenty of citations, so the article refimprove tag seemed redundant. If there is a problem with the quality of sources for the article as a whole, maybe a notability tag would be better. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles for creation/International Association of Geoanalysts
Hi, Recalling your work on Lake Michigan-Huron and your expertise, I thought I would ask you to please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Association of Geoanalysts. I am of decided opinion on it, which you can see at . Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Alanscottwalker: I'm flattered that you value my opinion on this. I'm not sure that I see the way forward on this one. It would probably involve more coverage of the society's work on geostandards. I added a source on this (possibly still not independent since it is published by the society's journal). I also noticed the following:
- I think it would be better to write an article on geoanalysis, providing the big picture, before working more on this article. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Magdalena Bermejo
|On 23 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Magdalena Bermejo, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that of 143 gorillas studied by Magdalena Bermejo in October 2002, only 13 were still alive four months later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Magdalena Bermejo. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
Hello, just a heads-up that I moved your comment on Talk:Nutation from the vote section to the threaded discussion section. If I wasn't supposed to do that, feel free to revert me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Please help out
A new contributor has started to make edits to articles having to do with the double-slit experiment and the Delayed choice quantum eraser. He is highly opinionated and is using pre-quantum mechanics conceptual scheme to think about this stuff. He seems to hold me in contempt, so I would like to get some backup. No use starting an edit war, but he is putting in stuff that doesn't work. Thanks.P0M (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, as our "resident geologist" :-) could you perhaps have a look at this category and its subcats (especially Category:Meteorology journals)? I find the current situation not completely satisfactory. For example, I'm not sure that "climate" journals belong in "meteorology". Other journals that currently are in the main cat could perhaps be diffused, but some may be difficult to place in the current subcats. Would it make sense to create a "climatology journals" cat? Would that be a subcat of meteorology journals, the other way around, or a parallel subcat within Earth and atmospheric sciences journals? Thanks for your advice! --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: I'm no expert in climate, but I would be inclined to structure the journal cats in parallel with the subject cats. Thus, we would have Climate journals < Meteorology journals < Atmospheric sciences journals < Earth sciences journals (with a variety of other supercats for each level as well, e.g., Physical geography journals above climate journals). List of earth and atmospheric sciences journals might be useful for organizing this. Of course, there are anomalies in the subject classifications; for example, I don't think that having Climatology as a supercat of Climate makes sense. Of course, there are a lot of relevant wikiprojects where people might have opinions on this. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Any way forward?
I can see no hope of communicating with DP. He confuses a potential for interference with interference itself. He argues backwards. He would argue, it seems, that a ton of hamburger is the same thing as a steer. Each time since these discussions with him began he simply drops an argument that he is not winning and a while later the same unreasonable conclusion comes up again.
His basic mistake is to believe that a photon split in the double-slit diaphragm and processed with two quarter wave plates so that the two photon-splits have opposing circular polarization can superimpose with interference. He is almost correct, because all of the "information" continues to exist, but the "information" splits can't interact with each other because of their opposite chirality.
His next mistake is to indicate that mathematically you can fix the chirality mismatch after light exits the two quarter wave plates, but fail to see that in the real world this amounts to a change done to the photon-splits without which they cannot interfere. He says, in effect, "Look! It was there all along." What he wants to do could be accomplished by using a half-wave plate on top of one of the two quarter-wave plates. That way there would be consistency between the chirality of the two sets of photon-splits. However, that is also what is accomplished by using the POL1 device in the signal wing of the actual experimental apparatus. The main difference is that the experimental design uses something that takes two steps to get at all of the photons, mainly because in that way the experimenters can engineer a way to re-polarization to occur at different distances in time from initial photon emission.
I can't get through to him, and except for Cthugha82 nobody has ever stepped in to say that my arguments are correct. I think that such reinforcement might be helpful. Otherwise he will turn out like Zenmaster (somebody who had scrambled ideas on the genetics of so-called "races")P0M (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Patrick0Moran: I'll try to help if I can, but I'm really pressed for time these days. That's why I have been slow to get involved. In the meantime, keep insisting that the sources explicitly say what he claims. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- At first I thought there might be some help for him, but I've checked and he has never finished an exchange. That's the same problem I had with Zenmaster or whatever his username was. His outcome was not good. P0M (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Exchange spring magnet
A question came up at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science about Exchange spring magnet asking if it was real or a spoof. It actually seems to have been written by a Chinese person struggling with the English language. I notice from their talk page that you welcomed them to wikipedia some months ago. Is there any chance you could have a look at the article and give them a helping hand? Richerman (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome, but I was just a catalyst. You and Stigmatella aurantiaca did the real work. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem of the lead
Just wanted to say I agree with you about the general problem of hairsplitting in the lead you identified on the Talk:Magnetic field page. The definition in the lead gets expanded until it becomes so complicated or abstract that it is incomprehensible. I've come across some real doozies. I feel this is a serious problem because the intro is often the only part of the article general readers will read. Nontechnical people will often want only the simplest possible definition of a technical term, but they get one of these gobbledygook definitions and get discouraged with WP. I've noticed that on several articles you have worked to keep the introductions comprehensible, and I wanted to thank you. --ChetvornoTALK 20:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're very welcome - I wish I could say that I was always successful! RockMagnetist (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Heads up from the WikiProject Outlines. The following outline was recently built:
Please take a look at it, to provide some feedback, or to see if you can improve it.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Special Barnstar|
|Thank you so much for your amazing work on List of female scientists before the 21st century! You are amazing! Keilana|Parlez ici 02:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)|
Mirror symmetry article
I noticed that you're a member of WikiProject Mathematics and that you've expressed interest in mathematical physics. I wanted to let you know that the article on mirror symmetry is currently a featured article candidate.
If you're interested, we'd love to hear your thoughts on this page. Please note that you do not need to be an expert on the subject.
Thanks for your help!
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science pearls
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science pearls, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science pearls and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science pearls during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 13:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Magnetic anomaly
Hello! Your submission of Magnetic anomaly at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Magnetic anomaly
|On 31 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Magnetic anomaly, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that an instrument used to measure magnetic anomalies was originally developed to detect submarines during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Magnetic anomaly. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
DYK for Morton B. Panish
|On 15 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Morton B. Panish, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Morton B. Panish and a colleague at Bell Labs developed a laser that led to fiber optics, laser printers, barcode readers, and optical disc drives? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Morton B. Panish. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
Janet Yelen assessment
I see you assessed Janet Yellen as low importance. I am not sure how assessments are done, but it seems that the head of the federal reserve board should be rated higher. Just my $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Assessments are pretty much guesswork. If I'm not familiar with the subject of an article, I may look at the overall article score in a list like this (see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Article selection for an explanation of the score). Then I consider how much they contributed specifically to science (as opposed to, say, government policy). In the article, at least, not much is said about her scientific contributions. Based on those considerations, I wouldn't rate her higher than mid-importance for this project (note that she is also only mid-importance for WikiProject Economics). But I also try not to spend much time thinking about it because it makes little difference how the article is rated (except, perhaps, for those rated top- or high-importance). RockMagnetist (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Did you know nomination
Genetics and the Origin of Species
- ... that Dobzhansky explains in his book, Genetics and the Origin of Species that all life evolved through natural selection, and this revolutionary theory became critical knowledge not only for the scientific progress of genetics, but for humanity as a whole?
- ALT1: ... that Genetics and the Origin of Species is a 1937 book by the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky which novelized the theory that mutations of genes lead to rapid evolution within a species?
- ALT2: ... that Genetics and the Origin of Species by Theodosius Dobzhansky united genetics with Darwin's theory of evolution?
- Comment: This article has been expanded in depth with a deeper focus on mutations, speciation and also recognizing its historical impact during this time.
- Prose portion was expanded fivefold between March 31 and April 4, and it far exceeds the length requirement. QPQ check fine: no previous DYKs. However, the first hook exceeds the 200-character limit and could just as well apply to Darwin. In the second hook, I don't know what is meant by "novelized". There are plenty of similar obscurities in the article. I think this article can qualify for DYK, but first needs a thorough going over by someone with a native command of English. I'll see what I can do. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am going to recuse myself from reviewing this further because I have made extensive changes to the article. I think that I will need a few more days to fix all the problems - I hope that reviewers can wait. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)