User talk:Steve Quinn/Archive 4

Planetary and Space Science

Hi Steve, goo job on this one! I removed the "Current Contents/SciSearch", as it is my understanding that SciSearch is just a different platform to access ISI databases (like WoS), tell me if I'm wrong. I was convinced that you must have made an error when I saw "CC/Social & Behavioral Sciences", but sure enough it's on the Elsevier site. Do you think this could be a mistake? Why would this journal be in that version of CC? --Crusio (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that "CC/Social & Behavioral Sciences" might be a mistake, but I can check it out to make sure. It could be related to the affects of space on human behavior, as with astronauts, or something like that. This journal might include such articles. Just a thought.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked at the Thomson Reuter's master journal list and it is not listed under "CC/Social & Behavioral Sciences" [1], so I will remove this from the abstracting and indexing section. "Good eye" ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space science journals

Hi again, that's a helpful category, it did indeed grate a bit to have to categorize Earth, Moon, and Planets as "astronomy journal". One question about the categories of the category itself, though. You have added "Astronomy journals" and "Physics journals". However, "AJ" is already a subcat of "PJ", so that "SSJ" is already under "PJ" if it is only in the "AJ" cat (I hope this is still clear, only read this after you had your morning coffee...). I have organized the journals categories such that they mostly constitute a linear arborization, although this is not obligatory, of course. However, I was wondering whether the "PJ" category was really needed here. Astronomy (and space science) are subfields of physics, after all. --Crusio (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that Astronomy journals are a subcategory of Physics journals. I thought Astronomy journals are a subcategory of Science journals. I guess I am looking at this way; modern Astronomy and Physics have a high degree of interrelationship. The difference is that the intent of astronomy is to deal with objects beyond the Earth's atmosphere. Physics does not have that specific intent, but focuses on the study of matter and its properties. The major subdisciplines of physics appear to be mechanics, optics, electricity, magnetism, acoustics, heat, and atomic physics. The study of physics includes descriptive quantities such as energy, mass, force, acceleration, and charge. Astronomy, like chemistry and aerodynamics, involves the application of physics. Other sciences involve the application of physics as well, but are considered to be distinct disciplines. I look at astronomy as a sister discipline of physics. I hope this helps. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that physics is a tool of astronomy. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense and actually reflects the categorization of Astronomy and Physics themselves (both subcategories at equal footing of "physical sciences"). I should have looked at that earlier... I'll change the journal cats to reflect this. (And that also makes it perfectly OK to have space science journals under both physics and astronomy). --Crusio (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: About my critique

Hello, Steve Quinn. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 03:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Restored page history

I was asked to split the page history of a page moved around a few times for complete different articles. I put the page history linked to User:Steve Quinn/Thz Metamaterial back at that location. If you want them deleted, just let me know. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metamaterial cloaking

In free time, could you please help cleaning up this article. Materialscientist (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to do it. ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thx

Steve, thanks for this comment. I had opened this thread at WQA and was a bit susprised that (apart from even more abuse from RHB), nobody at WQA took the trouble to make a comment in any way, and then the thread found itself archived in silence. This sort of left me in a state of wondering whether perhaps I had done something wrong somewhere down the line. Anyway... things seem to have died down now, so not making needless fuss but just moving on seemed the right thing to do, so, here we are. Cheers, and thx again :-) - DVdm (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Math redirects

Please note the maths project doesn't use the redirect class; we don't put any talk page banners on redirect pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein

The Manual of Style is very clear about how to handle nationality. We don't use birth nationality, we use nationality at the time the person became notable. The article say "By 1908, he was recognized as a leading scientist". He published his special theory of relativity and three other groundbreaking papers in 1905. During that period, he was a Swiss citizen. Therefore, that's what we use for nationality. Yworo (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tests of general relativity theory

I have made numerous edits to the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity. But, these additions keep get removed by you and another person. The only comments are the nor and syn. There is no other detail. I don't agree that either nor o syn applies. So, this site needs the NPOV tag, because it is biased. The tag is needed and will be readded. Please leave it on and I would like to start a discussion about the added material on this talk page under the provision #2 of the ongoing dispute resolution list. I need for the additions that I want to make to be critiqued on this page and then I'll make the corrections and re-edit. D c weber (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Steve Quinn: Would you please comment on table 2 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Tests_of_general_relativity_theory ? D c weber (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Quinn,

Here is an response and edited text user talk:D c weber D c weber (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more discussion Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Mercury_precession_-_minority_test D c weber (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick question at Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Mercury_precession_-_minority_test, thnxD c weber (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. CrazyPaco (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IChemE

I wonder about your edit here. IMO, the template was an arguably useful addition? --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read this is an international organization with global coverage, and not limited to UK science and technology. The following is from their web site, About us : "IChemE is an international professional membership organisation for people who have an interest in and relevant experience in chemical engineering... IChemE is the hub for chemical, biochemical and process engineering professionals worldwide... Founded in 1922 as a professional institution for chemical and process engineers, IChemE has grown to its current status of a 30,000 international membership across more than 113 countries... IChemE actively develops and raises standards in education with the accrediting of 60 higher education establishments internationally (over half outside the UK)." --- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No dispute about the worldwide significance of IChemE -- nor of the Royal Academy of Engineering nor the Royal Society of Chemistry (nor the Royal Aeronautical Society, etc.).

In other words, I guess this was a variant of questions about the concept of "greater-than-or-equal-to" (≥)? In other words, IChemE doesn't have "Royal" in its title (but it does have a royal charter); and that doesn't make it less British. The Royal Academy of Engineering does have a royal name and a royal charter, but the name doesn't make it more or less internationally significiant. Do you see what I mean?

Your small edit caused me to re-examine what I think about learned societies in general, as compared and contrasted with international societies which happen to be located in London, New York ... or Tokyo. Yours was a parsing decision which I hadn't considered. For example, I never considered the Royal Society nor the Royal Asiatic Societies as solely British organizations as contrasted with an international entity -- not "either/or", but "and" .... No matter what you did or didn't do in the context you yourself created, you could not be wrong; but the transient pivot between here and here caused me to wonder why? Although I would not have removed the navbox which Rangoon11 added, this remains an inconsequential issue.

No need to pursue this further. I just wondered ...? --Tenmei (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you thought the edits were helpful to you. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]