User talk:Waleswatcher

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

Welcome!

Hello Waleswatcher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

In Wikipedia, new Users do not automatically receive a welcome; not even a machine-generated welcome. Welcome messages come from other Users. They are personal and genuine. They contain an offer of assistance if such assistance is ever desired.

I suggest to everyone I welcome that they may find some of the following helpful — there’s nothing personal in my suggestion and you may not need any of them:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on Talk pages (ie discussion pages) using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin51 (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

String theory[edit]

Could you give a source for this edit?[1] We don't draw our own conclusions about things on Wikipedia, that's called original research or improper synthesis. The testability of string theory is definitely covered by sources, so stick to what they say about it, please. Fences&Windows 01:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur and have removed the unsourced information. DKqwerty (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement you're objecting to follows by trivial logic from the one preciding it, there is no synthesis or original research. If string theory is Lorentz invariant (it is, and that's sourced), and nature is shown not to be, string theory is falsified. But anyway I'll add a textbook reference that says exactly that (and more).Waleswatcher (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on sailing faster than the wind[edit]

Thank you very much for your comments at Talk:Sailing faster than the wind and for having reverted to a sensible version of the article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Inertial coordinate system[edit]

And editor and I are trying to come up with a way to modify the Inertial frame of reference definition. It currently uses a paraphrasing from Landau and Lifshitz similar to suggestions you made on the talkpage. Based on discussion on the talk page I guess people want to simplify it, or at least have a simplier lead in which is then followed by a stricter definition. Anyway, would you mind stopping by and sharing opinions on how to word it? FlyingBob (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


December 2011[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. —slakrtalk / 02:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that rule until about an hour ago. In any case, see the talk page for that article. All of my reverts were back to a long and well-established version, and were accompanied by requests to stop edit warring and discuss there instead. At the moment, we are having a fruitful discussion. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation[edit]

Wikipedia-Medcab.svg

Dear Waleswatcher: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 December 2011/String theory.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, bobrayner, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Testing... Waleswatcher (talk)

Scythian languages[edit]

Just to note I've removed the material your restored - not your fault, but it is pretty clearly a copyright violation from elsewhere, lacking any full citations and in a citation style inconsistent with the article. It was replaced and I've reverted again because of the copyvio issues. Even if those are settled it isn't verifiable as it stands. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Tachyon[edit]

I left a response for you.Sumanch (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nexia asx[edit]

Blocked as an 8digts sock. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

tachyon reverts[edit]

I count 5 recent reverts. That's well above the 3 revert limit. We're objecting to the first couple of sentences, so it might be a good idea to talk about any changes you want first and get some agreement. Bhny (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted twice, actually. As you can see if you look, the other edits aren't reverts, they're constructive edits to other parts of the article. Please discuss on the talk page, and if you want to edit the article, please do so selectively rather than with wholesale reverts. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation templates[edit]

I wanted to draw your attention to the possibility of using citation templates to format reference you insert in to articles. Citation templates work sort of like BIBTeX style citations. The main advantage is that it makes it easy to provide and maintain a uniform formatting of references in an article. There are two families of templates one is {{citation}} the other is a set of template called "cite XXX" (e.g. {{cite journal}} for journal articles) the syntax for these templates is more or less the same, the difference is mostly in the formatting of their output (and some advanced features).

I hope you find these useful. Happy editing.TR 20:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Waleswatcher (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Waleswatcher. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bargmann-Wigner equations?[edit]

Hello!

There is no article on the Bargmann-Wigner equations for particles of any spin. I asked the wikiproject physics group some time ago about this but there was no response (admittedly my post was fairly hyperactive and rude, but I've calmed down now).

I plan to cobble together in User:Maschen/Bargmann-Wigner equations a few papers [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and at least generate some start to the article. However I don't know eneogh QFT, nor have/can find any sources of my own which cite these equations (most books I source on WP are from the uni library).

Your expertise in QFT would be really valuable here. Thanks in advance for any/all help! I'd really appreciate it. Maschen (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Coriolis effect[edit]

Thank you for your input, I'm assuming allowance for a brief "general discussion" here on your talk page. I'd like to direct your attention to the animation in the upper right side of the Coriolis effect article. If the upper animation is being viewed from the center of gravity, then the black dot should be showing a slight deflection, and not an absolutely straight line at any non-equitorial position. If you agree with me that this animation is in error, all's good. If you disagree, then I'll chase down the rigid math proof and post it to my sandbox. I'm afraid that we may be stuck with Weather science referencing, not many other disciplines use the effect.

The cause is due to the torque component of the acceleration from gravity at any non-equitorial position, so that when another force is applied, even if it is completely linear, the resultant force on the object will still have this rather small amount of torque. The deflection is the Work done by the torque. As another example, a bullet only experiences the Coriolis effect while in the gun barrel, once the bullet exits the applied force is removed, the bullet flies straight as viewed from the center of gravity. There's an article titled Coriolis field that seems to address your comments about Relativity. There seems to be enough scientific papers concerning the effect in Quantinum Mechanics to create a new article.

If I may be so bold, there has to be a physical reason for the predominance of cyclonic motion. Somehow, optical illusions just doesn't work for me. Watchwolf49z (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Watchwolf49z, I'm going to move this to the talk page of Coriolis effect, so that others can participate. I hope you don't mind my copying your comment there. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind, just I think it may be unwise if my Physics is bozo [adorable grin] Watchwolf49z (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell the poets dude... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepton01 (talkcontribs) 15:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have recently begun mustering an army of poets, for challenging the onerous and repressive Wiki Protocols! We will destroy you! and make Wikipedia a much better place for poets! Lepton01 (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, me again, we've a bit of a problem developing on the Talk:Coriolis effect page and I was hoping you'd have time to look in and see if you can help resolve the dispute. I made some edits to the article that were reverted immediately and labeled as vandalism. What we have here is an invitation to Edit-War, including ad hominum attacks ... and I'll not play along. Going forward, I believe that any future edits I make are just going to be reverted; and now I've been designated as a vandal. Thanx in advance. - Watchwolf49z (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

All these people commenting on Heim. its a catch 22 it's not reviewd because there are no reviews, ets. They other thing How physicist worked at the max planck institut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.215.232 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Radiative equilibirum[edit]

Your attention is required, can we remove the "tone" lede of that article? Any suggestions? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiative_equilibrium#Remove_of_tone_notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talkcontribs) 07:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

FA review?[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that you occasionally edit articles on string theory. Right now, I'm working to bring the article AdS/CFT correspondence to FA status, but I'm having trouble finding people to review the article. I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at it and tell us your thoughts at this page. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban Content Removal[edit]

Hi, As far as I know, after a user gets topic-banned, you aren't supposed to revert their edits unless they were not a positive contribution. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers, --TJH2018talk 21:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have no idea what is supposed to happen in general, but in this case, the contributions were definitely not positive. My one hesitation in these edits is that I am incidentally reverting/removing some edits by editors that actually understand quantum physics. However, at least in most cases those edits were attempts to remediate the damage done by Chjoaygame, so it's probably OK. Personally, I had largely given up editing wikipedia because Chjoaygame made it a Sisyphean task. That most likely remains the case for articles on thermodynamics (and will be until s/he is banned there as well), but at least now I can edit quantum articles in peace.

For context, I am a professor of physics, I've taught courses in quantum mechanics at both the undergrad and PhD level, and I use it every day in my research. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

To back Waleswatcher, there is no guideline for not "revert(ing) their edits unless they were not a positive contribution". Even if there was, Chjoaygame's edits were not positive. MŜc2ħεИτlk 13:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Take for example Virtual particle. I read that article for the first time a few months ago. I could instantly sense that "Chj has been here". Sure enough. I had planned myself to restore that article once Chj was gone, but Ww got there before me. YohanN7 (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Second law of thermodynamics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reversible process (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)