User talk:Uanfala

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


Missing dab page entries[edit]

Hi! I've been working from your page User:Uanfala/dab/missing entries 2018-11-26, and I was wondering if I should/may remove or strike through the ones I've taken care of. I just didn't want you, or anyone else, to waste time going through pages that have already been fixed. (I'll watch here, so no need to ping me.) --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How did you come across it? I'm surprised anyone is using that list. It was only a temporary dump; the main report is at https://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/view/File_viewer#log:missing_entries-enwiki.log. It is maintained by Dispenser, and it's usually updated every day. You're probably better off working straight off that; its format is a bit different though – the links are not to the articles, but to the dabfix tool targeted at the corresponding dab page. This is definitely worth giving a try – it can find additional missing articles not listed in the report, and it can help pluck out descriptors from the articles. If you prefer the format of the list you've been using so far, then User:Uanfala/dab/missing entries latest should do the job: it's up to date (I've just generated it out of yesterday's report) and I can update it from time to time if it gets used. There's no need to strike anything off it. – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Your page was in the "What links here" of dab page I was cleaning up, and I thought "This looks like something useful to work on." So I just dug in. Thank you for the suggestions of the other list and tool. I'll look into it. Cheers! --ShelfSkewed Talk 01:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You[edit]

have been here for quite long enough to know that lodging SPIs against IPs is of no benefit; due to our prohibitions against linking an IP to user. WBGconverse 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So you do suspect sockery then? CheckUser data can't be used to connect IPs to registered users, but in most SPIs you don't need to have recourse to CheckUser anyway: accounts and IPs can, and very often do, get blocked solely based on behavioural evidence. But if it's just about this, then it's not worth the bother: you can simply point out why the IPs is wrong, and there's probably no need for that either: their opinion is likely to be ignored anyway. Either way, you know you can't just remove other people's comments like that. – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Hinduism in Africa[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Hinduism in Africa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Template:Hinduism in Africa is not a hardcoded instance of Template:Africa topic: that latter template is a quick and dirty way to build navboxes, which doesn't work well in cases like this as it doesn't really navigate between the few articles we have on the topic, but has a profusion of entries for permanent redlinks and redirects to broader articles with the tiniest of mentions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Uanfala, FWIW {{Hinduism in Africa}} had zero uses until you just made those changes. They all worked fine. There was no reason for you to implement it the way you did... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
No they didn't: three quarters of the entries in the previous template were almost useless, and certainly against basic navbox practice (like WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). – Uanfala (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a better idea how this might work? – Uanfala (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hinduism in Africa[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Hinduism in Africa has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Impetus and the Tunnel Experiment[edit]

Uanfala,

Wonderful article: hugely informative and well written.

I am not writing to critique except insofar as to point out newish developments pertaining to the tunnel experiment. Possibly they are beyond the scope of the already-written piece. Possibly also, they deserve their own Wikipedia entry.

Perhaps the most important advance on the subject is the upcoming book by Martin Beech, Going Underground -- which traces the history of the idea.

https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/11236

The hard copy publication is due out in May or June of this year. Excerpts are already available. It seems the e-book version may also be available (I haven't checked).

A point that appears to be neglected in your article and Beech's work is that the tunnel experiment need not be left without direct empirical support, i.e., as a mere THOUGHT experiment.

The standard oscillation prediction has sometimes been PRESUMED to be true, so as to form the mechanical strategy of "gravitational clock" experiments designed to measure Newton's constant G. As in the 2016 paper by M. Feldman, et al:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02126

Earlier (1975) proposals to measure G with similar "tunnel-like" apparatus are found in a NASA paper by Larry Smalley:

https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19750014902

I have written to the authors of the Feldman, et al paper to urge performing a much simpler proof-of-concept experiment in a laboratory on Earth or in a near-Earth satellite. One of the co-authors, Virginia Trimble responded positively to my paper:

http://vixra.org/abs/1612.0341

I think it is important to realize that our LACK of empirical evidence to support the oscillation prediction also bears on Einstein's theory of gravity, General Relativity (GR). This is because the prediction is directly correlated with the GR prediction concerning the rates of clocks along the tunnel walls and at the center of the source mass. Specifically, the Schwarzschild Interior Solution to Einstein's equations has never been tested.

The last paper linked above provides details to understand this connection between Newton's and Einstein's theories. Most importantly, it emphasizes that certain key consequences of these theories are only PRESUMED to correspond to physical reality. In fact, they have not been tested. But THEY COULD BE TESTED, by turning the original thought experiment into a real experiment.

Cheers,

Richard Benish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CC02:D7D0:802:FC8D:F9A9:F7C5 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from Dharug-language terms has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Redirects from Dharug-language terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

why deleted my page[edit]

why you deleted my page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%DD%A2&redirect=no i provided sources but u deleted thats not fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rana Zubair Punjabi (talkcontribs) 14:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Rana Zubair Punjabi, the page you created uses a source which is not realiable. The letter ݢ has well-established uses in other languages and they are described in the article that ݢ redirects to. You could add some content about the use of the character in the proposed new Punjabi orthography, but only if there are reliable secondary sources that discuss it. There are many proposed orthographies for various languages out there, and we can't have articles about them all unless they are actually in common use or there has been some wider coverage in the literature. – Uanfala (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I moved the 5 extra Saraiki letters to Saraiki alphabet. (It's been a month since I read those source, and I don't really have time now.) I don't know where to put this dotted k or the retroflex l, so I mentioned them as possibilities there. It would be nice to at least know which varieties of Punjabi use them. Since retroflex l is ਲ਼ in Gurmukhi, I would think it might at least be used for loans. Maybe that's something Rana Zubair Punjabi could help with? — kwami (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ainu languages[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ainu languages. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Lucy in the Sky (disambiguation)[edit]

Thanks for reviewing my SD request at Lucy in the Sky (disambiguation). Submitted an AfD here. There was one thing in your summary that wasn't clear to me: What does PTMS stand for? Nardog (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, should have linked: that's partial title matches: entries for which the ambiguous term is part of the title, and hence not usually included in the body of a dab page (though sometimes eligible for the See Also section). – Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I see, thanks! Nardog (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)