User talk:RockMagnetist/Archive 5

< Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  ... (up to 100)

edit of Magnetic field

You think that "the aspect of the electromagnetic field that is seen as a magnetic field is dependent on the reference frame of the observer" does not suggest that the remaining aspect (the electric field) is excluded from this description? Any such suggestion is misleading. How would you word it to avoid this suggestion? — Quondum^☏ 16:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think, rather than rewording, a good example is needed. There are textbook examples of electric fields that become magnetic fields in a different reference frame (or v. v.), but I don't have time to find them myself. Perhaps you could? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Have not found an example, but tried a referenced rewording (despite an inclination to simply remove this from the lead). My grammar previously was nonsensical, which may have prompted part of your objection. An example (or even a subsection) may be worthwhile in the body of the article, but I don't see a place for it in the lead. — Quondum^☏ 17:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it was in the lead; I agree that an example isn't appropriate there. Yes, the grammar did influence my decision to revert your edit, and the new edit needed some fixing too. The relativistic perspective is a fundamental point, and definitely should be in the lead. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we seem to have settled on something that works, and thanks for the fixes of my messes. I used to be good at proofreading; I'm appalled at how many simple language mistakes I've been making lately. I agree with the mention of the relativistic perspective in the lead; it is fundamental as you say, and is highly significant at non-relativistic velocities. My mention of removal was intended only about the tail-end of the sentence, but as revised it is more readily interpreted and clarifies it; I like it there. — Quondum^☏ 08:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

How is that Vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.232.219 (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

How is what vandalism? RockMagnetist (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Walter C. Pitman, III

I reverted your recent edit to Walter C. Pitman, III as it removed categories, persondata etc diff. --Racklever (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoah! How did I manage to do that? Sorry! RockMagnetist (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for T. Wayland Vaughan

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes of the length of day

Dear Rockmagnetist,

you may have noticed that the section "Theory" is based on a published article from 1996 cited in the contribution. I would have prefered another name of this contribution, simply "Change of day". However, this name appears to be already reserved by wikipedia.

Concerning the contribution "Volland-Stern Model", would it be possible to change that name to the more conventional "Volland-Stern model"?

yours sincerely,

Bnland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnland (talk • contribs) 13:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Bnland, I moved Volland-Stern model. You could have done this yourself: see Wikipedia:Moving a page. As for Changes of the length of day, I don't have any special claim on that article, and it would be better to discuss it on its talk page. I do have a concern I will mention there.

Don't forget to sign your comments (add four tildes: ~~~~). RockMagnetist (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for correcting my error and take care about Wikipedia :) EnekoGotzon (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Two-body Dirac Equations

Hello,

I am a novice at using Wikipedia. I submitted a very short article on the Two-body Dirac Equations of constraint dynamics. I did not want to submit a long one until I learned more about the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Obviously I intend to expand upon it and your comments and input are valued.

I included the scalar interactions as they are of importance in quark model calculations. They are independent of and unrelated to the vector interactions. The vector interactions themselves include not only electromagnetic interactions, but also certain aspects of the interactions between the quarks.

I think that since this caused some confusion I will leave out the scalar interactions until later in the article.

I intend to include a piece on constraint dynamics in the article, which will include many more references.

It is my understanding that, unlike journal articles, the Wikipedia articles are not expected to include derivations but to present an established (recent as well as past) body of knowledge, together with appropriate explanations and motivations.

I noticed that you (or someone) put in the titles of some of the articles I cited. Is this a standard procedure?

Thanks for your help

Horace Crater

Hcrater (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Horace. Sorry your introduction to Wikipedia has been a bit rough. I can't really comment on scalar vs vector interactions - the Dirac equations are far from my area of expertise. But ideally your target audience should include nonspecialists.

Yes, you are right about derivations and about presenting an established body of knowledge.

Titles are generally included in the references: see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Wikipedia being an online encyclopedia, there is no need to save space; and it reassures the reader that the citation is relevant without forcing them to dig up the article. For the same reason, doi's are really helpful; Wikipedia automatically adds a link to the article abstract.

Have a look at the Manual of Style and making technical articles understandable. You might want to look at General relativity, an example of a featured article, the ideal to which we aspire on Wikipedia. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Updating article

Later today I will be sending an updated version of the Two-body Dirac equations article. It includes quite a few more references and material of constraint dynamics related to the subject. Would appreciate your comments.. also this message is for F=e(E+vxB)

Horace Crater

PS Is there a simple way of taking the article from my sandbox and submit that to be published instead of my copying the whole sandbox and pasting onto old article? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcrater (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I don't know of any better way of updating the file than copy and paste. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is starting to look good! Mainly, I would suggest making it more accessible. Try to emulate Feynman and create an introduction for freshmen. Most of the citations in the lead should be moved to the body and the lead should summarize the content of the article (with as little technical language as possible). RockMagnetist (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Help assessing a biophysics biography page

Thanks for greeting Videau!

I've done a lot of work on the Fred Richards page and am very pleased with it (altho not quite done with following possible enhancements). But I'm still pretty clueless about exactly what constitutes a good or a featured article, so I've requested general assessment for it. If you could help with rating and/or suggestions, that would be wonderful and much appreciated! - Dcrjsr (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Algoman orogeny

The article Algoman orogeny you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Algoman orogeny/GA1 for comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Pyrotec. It's fortunate there weren't any serious issues because I am on holiday. I noticed your deleted comments - I do intend to review a nomination when I have time. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Volcanism

Hello RockMagnetist, I noticed you recenetly tweaked the volcanism article moving an unreferenced banner to the top, no problem with that. I wondered if you might be able to give the article a bit more attention, as you look to be much more of a geology expert than I could claim to be. I know it is unreferenced but in your opinion are there any obvious bits that are wrong and need fixing, rather than just missing references (some of which can probably be found in the linked articles), and are there any bits that are obviously missing in your view? EdwardLane (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Momentum

Thank you for doing this. It may be a couple of days before I get a chance to have a deep think. It's the end of a vacation tomorrow and a two-day drive awaits. However I have taken 10 minutes to jot down how I would explain momentum. This rough draft probably has all sorts of issues, but just view this as the level I would pitch the intro at.

Momentum (plural momenta) is a measure used in classical physics to describe mass in motion. It is sometimes known as linear momentum or translational momentum.

All objects have mass; so if an object is moving, then it has momentum. The momentum of an object depends on how much mass is moving and its velocity. It is calculated using:

Momentum = mass • velocity

Because velocity is a speed in a specified direction, an object's momentum also has a direction as well as magnitude. Quantities that have both a magnitude and a direction are known as vector quantities. That is why there is a dot in the equation above, rather than a simple multiplication sign. Because momentum has a direction, it can be used to predict the resulting direction of objects after they collide, as well as their speeds.

Physicist use 'p' as the symbol for momentum, so the equation above can be rewritten as:
p = m • v
where m is the mass and v is the velocity. When using the SI system, its units are kilograms metres per second......

Unfortunately the article still introduces great complications/sophistication before the basics are explained. For example, expressing the momentum of a single particle in three dimensional terms early in an article just over-complicates things, however pure it might be. I would also describe the basics of conservation of momentum long before the reference frames of special relativity get a mention and without resorting to differential calculus. Perhaps the best solution is a whole article that is just a basic intro to the subject

Physics shouldn't be a closed society. I don't think we are sure if we are writing for other physicists or a wider readership. If the latter, then we should try to something that is both clear and true. JMcC (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point about saving vectors for later. A precedent for that is Feynman's lectures, in which he introduces momentum and conservation of momentum before covering vectors. And that was for a college class in Caltech! RockMagnetist (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

regarding the Magnetism page edit

hello RockMagnetist

i just made the changes in the page to check the editing and verification functionality of Wiki. Sorry for the trouble.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.194.72 (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I have added a welcome banner on your talk page with helpful information on contributing to Wikipedia. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nutation

Thanks. You are doing a good, and unenviable, job of refereeing this argument. I confess I feel somewhat bullied by the tone adopted by the other main protagonist. If you agree, would you consider having a word? Globbet (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do think that the tone of this debate has been very negative, but I have learned that most people don't respond well to behavior modification (look what happened the last time I tried). I think I can help the most by staying neutral and trying to get everyone to reach an agreement. Then we can all get on with editing articles.

For what it's worth, I have been attacked occasionally, but I find that if I don't rise to the bait the attacker quickly runs out of steam. Sometimes the attacks are rather funny (here's my favorite). RockMagnetist (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to second this (although not bullied), and not even sure that you get enough recognition for the immense efforts you put into WP. Thank you! Maschen (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate your kind words. It is nice to get the occasional thank you from good editors; sometimes we seem to be working in a vacuum. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Momentum rewrite

Thank you. You really deserve this, WP wouldn't be the same without editors such as yourself (although we aren’t quite done with momentum elsewhere... the main article is far better).

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		You have been a driving force for this article, and as we know - force is the rate of change of momentum (!).Maschen (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is my favorite barnstar. I sometimes get them for some trivial action, but I worked hard for this one. And it's so pretty! ;) The timing of the debate on Momentum operator is ironic - the next section I was thinking of developing in Momentum is the quantum mechanics section. It's pretty skimpy right now. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oopsie?

I think you meant for RockMagnetist/Drafts/Corrupting Dr. Nice to be created as User:RockMagnetist/Drafts/Corrupting Dr. Nice--in user space, not in article space. You can probably move it yourself (without leaving a redirect). 207.157.121.92 (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So that's why the feedback box was added! Thanks for noticing this. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. I refrained from giving feedback, but you probably guessed correctly that it "needs more porn". Happy editing. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You must be thinking of WickedPedia.com. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Corrupting Dr. Nice

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lake Michigan-Huron

Hi. Since the Further Reading refs you're adding to the article have specific page numbers, I assume that you're reading them. Do they say anything specific that can be added to the body of the article and then referenced, as opposed to being simply listed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So far I have only skimmed them, so all I can say is that there is definitely material that is worth adding to the article and referenced. Right now, though, I am only performing some triage on the article - finding good references that present a more balanced picture of the names. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So you plan to add the material to the article? That's great. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, is there an online link for the source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Just look it up in Google Books and search the preview for "Michigan-Huron". RockMagnetist (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did so, and added a section to your list (pp.303-309). Since, as far as I can tell, the references to "Michigan-Huron" are all about hydrology (which appears to be the general subject of the book), it fits in well with the other sources, all of which define "Lake Michigan-Huron" in terms of hydrology only. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And it also provides some material that goes beyond a mere definition and describes how hydrologists study it as a system. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Just chipping in to say thanks for taking the lead on this... You're doing an awesome job making headway on what seemed previously to be a pretty intractable dispute! I'll try to make some contributions in the near future. DanHobley (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, DanHobley. Too bad I slipped up in the end and tried to close the debate. I underestimated the desire of some of the principals to continue their fruitless attacks on each other. In truth, this article is way down my list of priorities, and I have said all I want to say. Good luck with improving the article.RockMagnetist (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a sandbox of the article, "on the downlow", so to speak, over at [1]. I went off your last revision, did a bit more hunting through the literature, and tried to avoid value judgements of all sorts. I would be most glad of another pair of eyes on it, if you don't mind. I'm hoping to just drop it in in place once done, WP:DRAGON-style. That should really please people! I'm hopeful I will have enough "disinterested observer" credit to get away with this, but we'll have to see. DanHobley (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a good approach; I'll have a look. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It is already looking much better. Here are a few observations from a quick skim of the article:

1. A lot of the details and citations should go into the body of the article.
2. I think the quotes should be in footnotes and the reasons for considering them a single lake summarized in the body.
3. Strictly speaking, the statements about "most sources" should be backed by a citation that specifically says "most sources". Otherwise, it's WP:OR. Of course, it may be difficult to find any such statement because it's so obvious to most people. An alternative may be to say that the separate names are used in historical and legal documents, atlases, etc. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's great. Back on it ASAP. DanHobley (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the recent discussions, and it looks to me like your work is cut out for you getting people to stay focused on improving the article. I rather sympathize with Curtis Clark's suggestion that everyone should be topic banned except you. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was just reading through all that stuff as well. It's just so depressing. Makes me glad to be cloistered for most of the time in the Earth and Planetary Sciences divisions, where most people appear to be pretty easy-going. DanHobley (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Change

The mild eroticism was a joke. I fixed a mechanical error that you didn't remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.255.170 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Crystallography

Someone already removed the MfD tag, and I think I found the page that wasn't moved correctly. In the future, if you see obvious mistakes, feel free to just fix them. WilyD 05:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if a non-admin should remove an MfD tag. RockMagnetist (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Something like Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and ignore all rules. More or less, there's no reason to be pointlessly bureaucratic. Don't worry too much about fucking anything up, it's easy to undo mistakes. WilyD 09:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

List of anonymously published works

hi rock magnetist i would to tell you that i building a website on the anonymous writers as a graduation project for my diploma and i wanted your article to be as an external and internal back links , so if its possible to do so please confirm with me as soon as possible ... thanks for your help and consideration and sorry for any convenient action made by me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsouki (talk • contribs) 14:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Monsouki. I'm not sure what you mean by "external and internal back links." As far as I could tell, there was no content on your page yet. I would suggest you wait until you have some content and then add the link again. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

There are typographic errors on the page about Ariel Fernandez. Also, he is not currently employed at Rice University, so this should not be listed as an affiliation for him. Finally, I am not a sockpuppet. If you notice, I have corrected misinformation on the page given by "Arifer" and tried to make the page more neutral rather than submitting promotional bs. It is much appreciated, though, that Wikipedia locked down this page and converted it to a neutral form that isn't being constantly edited by the subject of the page. Ridiculous .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.185.122 (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As far as I know, the Institutions/Workplaces field in the infobox is intended for all the significant places the subject has worked. I only found one typo - if there are still more I'd suggest mentioning them on the article's talk page. I'm not all that interested in this article - I only stepped in because I noticed that some tags were being rather hastily removed from the page, and then I realized that sock/meatpuppetry was going on. Your edits do seem more neutral than many of the others, but I listed you in the investigation because you have only edited this one article. Not to worry, though - I don't think any action has been taken against you specifically; there is simply a block on IP edits of Ariel Fernandez and Dehydron. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RockMagnetist. You have new messages at Webclient101's talk page.
Message added 05:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Webclient101 (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

contribute

i want to contribute idea why no?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.134 (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I give some reasons at Talk:Unit of length. If you disagree, you should respond there - a few editors have already asked you to do so. Have a look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to see how these disagreements should be handled. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Holocene extinction, etc.

You do realize that the references you added to Holocene extinction#Further reading were suggested by socks of (the same) blocked editor, don't you? If you're willing to take responsibility for the relevance of the additions, that's OK, but you should be informed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the history. Could you give me a link to it? I'm not worried about the references I added - they seem pretty relevant, and they are from the New York TImes, Scientific American, and Nature. Can't get more reliable than that. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit revert (External links)

Re: your edit - (→‎External links: Restored links deleted without explanation)
Which reverted - (→‎External links: Clarify links and cleanup: remove 3 dead links + remove sub-link)
External inks removed (reason):

• Canopy life ← ("404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.")
• (Packard, 1972). See [2] ← ("HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found. Internet Information Services [IIS]")
• John Hutchinson, at [3] ← (Non-descriptive link = sub-link page from previous external link: Learn the Secrets of Flight from Vertebrate Flight Exhibit at UCMP)

Although I did provide "explanation", I should apologize for not being more explicit in explaining that I clarified links which didn't provide sufficient destination information; and removed three links, two of which were dead-links; and one of which was a sub-link (redundant) which didn't indicate thus. My explanation might have been misleading. I should have said: "... removed 3 links: 2 dead + 1 redundant sub-link" - ~sorry, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Eric F, I was pretty sure that you removed these links for reasons such as those. Really, I should apologize for being too lazy to state my real reason for restoring these links - I thought they could be recovered using Checklinks. I recommend you consider using this tool next time you find a dead link. Often, you can find the original page using the Wayback Machine and then search the title of the page to find a more up-to-date address. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for sorting out the formatting issues on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 17:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! RockMagnetist (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Beth Willman

Hello, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as I believe the person may well meet the notability guidelines.

Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 21:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

O.k. It would help if you said something on the article's talk page about what criterion you think it satisfies. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• In this case probably the General notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 22:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. She appears to be notable for only one event (it would be stretching it to say that each satellite is a separate event); there is no coverage of any other biographical detail in secondary sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

WPWS tagging

Hi, just a quick note. When tagging talk pages for WikiProject Women scientists such as [4] & [5], please note that "class=" is case sensitive so "Class=" wouldn't be recognised. KTC (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! If that's true for {{WPWS}}, it's probably true for all the other wikiproject banners. Which means that I have mis-tagged quite a few articles over the years! Thanks for pointing that out. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of physics concepts in primary and secondary education curricula for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of physics concepts in primary and secondary education curricula is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of physics concepts in primary and secondary education curricula until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Index of women scientists articles

Hello, RockMagnetist. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Index of women scientists articles, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks,  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Physical quantities in SI

I noticed you reverted my changes of physical quantities from bold italics to bold. It is generally accepted that physical quantities be in italics. Here's a quote from the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) Section 5.3.1:

Symbols for quantities are generally single letters set in an italic font, although they may be qualified by further information in subscripts or superscripts or in brackets. Thus, C is the recommended symbol for heat capacity, C_m for molar heat capacity, C_m,p for molar heat capacity at constant pressure, and C_m,V for molar heat capacity at constant volume.

Adding boldfacing, underlining, or arrows make the quantities into vectors. In LaTeX, the command to do create bold-italics is \boldsymbol. Many of the physics articles have not respected this convention so I have tried to correct the deficiency. You could help. Cheers. Dger (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already added a comment at talk:Momentum agreeing with you. We learn something new every day! I'll go ahead and make the change for Momentum. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would make two suggestions, though. First, state this reason clearly in your edit summary; and second, change all of the symbols at once in a given article. I found this easy enough to do using the find and replace button of the editor. Of course, you have to go back and find the few places where that isn't appropriate - text, for example. Still, it only took me about a minute to do it for Momentum. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice but I found too many mistakes occured so I did things paragraph by paragraph if too many changes were required. By the way I found another reference at: ISO 31-0. Dger (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on how consistently the article was formatted to begin with. I wrote almost all of this article, so it is very consistent. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Magnetic force fields

So you are interested in magnetic fields! And you ascribe their existence to a nonunderstandable thing like a virtual photon, which can exist without mass in an empty volume of space during an indefinite time period! I'm not being mean spirited but merely admiring the way that a discussion of a subject matter can be deviated away to essentially a dead end discussion. I'm also interested in light energy transmission and photons, and of course think that if they are "bundles of energy", then they also must contain matter. Do you think that we will ever get down to the real question of the constituency of matter such that it can contain electromagnetic energy and exert physical forces?WFPM (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, WFPM, but I don't think this is the right forum for debating changes to the existing physical theories. If anyone manages to improve on them, they will do so in a lab, not a Wikipedia talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the answer! However, if we are going to achieve an answer to this situation, it would seem reasonable to assume that the logical thought of approach would be to recognize the required area of exploration, rather than to cover it over by a nonsensical argument. And that's what mathematics will lead you to, like in the division by zero, and in an orthogonal 4 dimensional time-space continuum.WFPM (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I also am inclined to agree with you about the place for improved knowledge accomplishments re this subject matter with the exception that I have built models of the atomic nuclei as per the indicated accumulation sequence properties of the Janet periodic table that point more specifically at the need for correct conceptualization of the properties of magnetism and electrostatic force matters in order to get a rational explanation of the noted nuclear properties and related phenomena.WFPM (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

migrating poles

It is widely agreed that the Sun is not solid............ In my mind I am sure OTHER planets have ended up falling into the Sun. What if thier METALLIC cores were still orbiting the center of Mass???? Science now realizes the Sun reverses it's Poles every 11 years. (the solar cycle of sorts) Lets say.............the Earth being partly solid and partly VISCOUS in form that EARTH also has object orbiting within the Mantle. The South Atlantic Anomaly being off-center could be some OBJECT revolving about the center of gravity of the Earth. Our crust being of various thicknesses could be HIT with an object orbiting within the Mantle and PUSH out as it rubs against the crust........... COMMENT?????? Science has noted the NORTH Magnetic pole has been migrating since it has been discovered and the movement has been ACCELERATING......... signed iforeplay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iforeplay (talk • contribs) 04:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

signiture.........

Thanks......... I believe I have the signiture right now.Iforeplay (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The impact of machine readers to assist visually impaired readers

See: for the first inkling of a problem. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC).

Hello, RockMagnetist. You have new messages at Crowsnest's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Hawking link is active (and not dead)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#cite_note-39

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/events/strings02/dirac/hawking/ "Gödel and the end of physics" is there, I just saw it.

( Thank you for your efforts in the page. I understand it is a difficult one to maintain..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.3.203 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So it is! As Mark Twain said, "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." Thanks for pointing it out. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather bring this up here.

It might sound crass to ask this on that project page, but what does that article say about the subject? Does it prove or disprove that theory? Lighthead ^þ 06:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the Daily Science article proves or disproves the theory? They just report it. I notice, though, that they don't report any comments by third parties - generally a good practice in journalism. Neither do reports by Huffington Post and Technology Review. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The first question you asked is the one I was asking. I'm wondering if that point of that article disproves or proves the theory since I'm not a science expert. The article says something about a wave moving along the edge of something, but I'm not sure if that proves or disproves it. I was just curious. Sorry for the slow reply. Lighthead ^þ 03:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a description of the test that the authors of the theory propose to determine whether we live in a computer simulation. You can't "prove" a theory like that - but if the predicted behavior were seen, then maybe it would prove we're in a simulation. On the other hand, someone else might come up with a different theory to explain the same observations. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What you said is actually what I suspected. Thanks for the info. I thought it would be exciting to hear some actual proof or dis-proof of the theory. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 19:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Note

I was overly optimistic at expecting to be able to read the entire stanford page in one day and be able to work from there; I'll be a little slower, but hopefully making edits by the weekend, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you have the time to read it - I'm pretty snowed under. I hope you can find a way to work with Peter morrell. He has a very useful collection of books and seems eager to work on the article. Have you looked at Talk:Criticism of science/Feminist? RockMagnetist (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at it, but I want to become familiar with this Stanford source first since it's a good tertiary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

And all the best to you too! RockMagnetist (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nicolaus Olai Bothniensis

dude, the article i tried to undo and i couldnt was hacked by some1, he even joked on talk page, so pls remove all his changes and care less about mine :-)

Ps: idk if it was some auto-function which did that from u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.91.97.141 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop bitching at people for the sake of it!

You're going to a lot of effort to invent lies. Why? Also, the guidelines are just that, and don't cover links for archival purposes. Why not just convert the information into what you think is the proper format rather than bitch about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.44.36 (talk • contribs) 24.224.44.36 (UTC)

It would make more sense to discuss this at Talk:Determination_of_the_day_of_the_week#Proxy_server_links_not_allowed, where I have already outlined my reasons for deleting those links. Try to avoid personal attacks and be more clear about your disagreement with my interpretation of Wikipedia policy. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bots and Dashes

Hi Rock', we spoke briefly during a discussion about &n/&m-dash and bots going around putting these into the various pages and you said you have only seen the opposite occur. Off hand do you know of a bot that does this? Thought who ever manages (coordinates?) overall bot activity should know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Offhand, no. Note that the actions of bots go through an approval process, so you can complain to a bot but it might not change anything. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Above I said nothing about complaining to a bot, and even with the approval process we have bots adding en/em-dash while other bots remove them. Apparently who ever approves one bot hasn't got much of a clue about what the others bots are doing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Science collaboration of the month

Hello: I've noticed your contributions to science-related articles, so if you're interested, check out:

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Micrometeorite

Hi RockMagnetist, Thank you for your assessment of the new article, Micrometeorite. I was hoping that you could leave some specific suggestions that would elevate the article to B class at the Talk page. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Selecting publications

Dear RockMagnetist, this is a little bit outside your stated area of expertise but you were kind enough to contribute to this biography in the past. I wonder if you would be able to choose from Marcia McNutt's publications so Wikipedia can have a list of the best ones? She wrote about 100 so far. I used the Google Scholar top number of "cited by", along with three papers from PNAS. Best I can guess at what is important. Thank you either way. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added some articles based on their citations in Web of Science (probably a more reliable source than Google Scholar, although the differences turn out to be small). I'm not sure how important the PNAS papers are; I removed the one that was just an introduction to a special issue. I also added author masks; I like them, but feel free to remove them if you don't. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thank you RockMagnetist. At least you're a scientist and might have some insight. It looks great. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

< Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  ... (up to 100)