User talk:Joke137 - Knowledge

581:, although the concept of a gravastar seems to be one that is mainly communicated in the popular press. Thanks for the Baez link – that is exactly the sort of thing I was intent on saying, plus it includes the useful observation that the last photon coming from the nascent black hole emerges in finite time. Of course I agree with everything Baez says; my point is that although in theory (if not in practice) the signals of the hole forming take arbitrarily long to reach you, that doesn't mean the hole hasn't yet formed because there exists a time after which it would be causally impossible for you to go and 309:

for the cosmological constant. Do you have any proof that Weinberg is a supporter of the anthropic principle since the man is actually a famous athiest and critic of both religion and the anthropic principle? When I read this I thought it was a joke, especially because the only supporter of the anthropic principle listed was actually a sworn enemy of it. Then I researched this and found that it started with you and your user name happnes to be Joke137. It was sad to see that so many editors failed to notice this from March to October.

108:, but I believe it is not a really Good Article unless it would be accessible to the common reader. We expect people writing articles on technology or even computer games or those Pokemons to write them so that everybody can understand them, so I see no reason why maths or physics articles should be exempt from this criterium. That said, I do believe that creating a universally understandable article on a topic from advanced maths or physics is much harder than on many other topics, but, well, that's just the way life is. 657:

they are labeled as "scientific" or as a guideline. For example, they might be problematic in biology, medicine, etcetera. I'll look at them in greater detail as soon as I have time; I just thought that adding them as a guideline and under such a broad title, with so little community exposure, was premature. Another thought: if they do become a math- or physics-specific guideline, then perhaps they would be better handled in Project, for example, as

1706: 1596:(i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. 1556:(i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. 1636:(i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. 290:.) Please, change the quality and importance ratings of articles as you see fit (discussing on the talk page for the article if you think the change will be controversial). The main place the info resides is on the talk page of the article - when a rating is changed there, it will be automatically picked up and updated on the list of articles. My main aim on WP at the moment is to tag all physics articles with 1958: 1729:. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Knowledge using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate 1817: 21: 1487:) to its current title from what I think is probably the correct one. I don't see a pattern for upper-case words in cosmology articles, and it certainly goes against the grain in the rest of WP. I would just list it as an uncontroversial move, except it seems there might be some controversy originating from you. Of course that was a long time ago, so what's your take on it now? 421:

copied below. In my opinion,it might make sense to insert some conditional, but I invite your comment. People coming to this subject from Astrophysics background might differ with String Theory and Particle Physics guys on the subject, about what is proven fact, and what's still just theory. I see you are frequent contributor and ardent editor. Keep up the good work!

1617: 1577: 1537: 1914: 1337: 1588:(i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the 1548:(i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the 1082:

Lambda. This "Dicke coincidence" phrase is now percolating through Knowledge as an alternative name for the large number problem, which I'd like to stamp out. As it happens I've never heard this phrase (in either suggested context) before reading Knowledge, so if it's not a new coinage could you give a citation?

1316:. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse -- 1268:, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date. 782:

whether I do it inappropriately. The Electric Universe, for example, I describe nowhere else, other than in the article on the subject, and I've never tried to include it in even "fringe" scientific subjects. And I agree that I give a more sympathetic point of view of such subjects, as (a) NPOV suggests:

1234:

is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by

781:

My apologies for including you in you my ArCom request for evidence, you are correct that the diffs do not show it, and I must've read it too quickly. Thanks for explaining your point of view. I have a couple of comments. I respect you opinion that I promote pseudoscientific theories, the question is

489:

and even in the scientific literature is the confusion of the tautological statement "it is not possible to send a signal from inside a black hole to an observer outside" with the manifestly false statement "black holes never actually form." As far as I can tell, this comes from people's inability to

465:

I had never seen the article before. It is the usual kind of science-cruft. Non-peer reviewed papers from the arXiv or papers published in third-rate journals somehow get long Knowledge articles, despite getting little attention in the scientific community. Their authors – or cultish followers intent

230:

related to the article, it had enough in common that it provided some pictoral means of interpretation to a reader less familiar with the subject (not to say that the image you added is any less useful to the article, but it's not as accessible - and images are always a good way to entice a reader to

1663:

that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped

661:

handles medical articles — just an idea (that might not work, though, because MedMos adds to broader Wiki policies, rather than subtracting from them, prescribing additional items for medical articles). If they result in less stringent citations than are generally required in Wiki, I imagine you've

431:

Thanks! I agree that the article can use some streamlining. I am in the midst of a rather large rewrite of the article, which means I am improving the referencing, content and organization but probably not always producing the most lucid prose. Hopefully that will come in time, and when I submit the

308:

On March 4 2005 you did a major rewrite on this topic. Under the heading of Comological Constant you inserted a reference to the anthropic principle (something unscientific) but the real problem was that you said Steven Weinberg was a physicist who supports the anthropic principle as an explanation

656:

Hi, Joke: thanks for the note. I don't yet have any pre-conceived notions about the proposal, other than the misleading title. They *may* (I'll study them in more detail later today) describe good practices for math or physics articles, but they need to be exposed to the broader community before

594:

The observational and theoretical arguments which actually proved that the Galactic Black Hole Candidates (GBHC) are Eternally Collapsing Objects containing strong intrinsic equipartition magnetic field in lieu of an Event Horizon (EH) was first shown in an important paper published by two American

134:

1. Google has a "link scoring" system in order to have the more valuable and relevant links show up first regardless of how often is the searched word repeated in the page's meta heading and stuff, and Knowledge has the honor of being one of the highest-scored sites in the system. I think they even

111:

Let me reiterate - I am not trying to argue there is no place in WP for articles that are not instantly accessible to all readers (though I believe all articles should ultimately strive for that). I am just trying to argue to turning the entire WIAGA upside down is not a good idea. Not all articles

196:

should be required to any more than provide one (or maybe two) references (and by this I mean nothing more than a naked URL at minimum, or a author-title for offline refs). Asking someone who actually adds content to concern themselves with any more than that is idiotic, and anti-wiki, and I'd be

1081:

you say that the flatness and cosmological constant problems are sometimes called the "Dicke coincidences". Confusingly, among the three references cited is Dicke's 1961 Nature letter giving an anthropic explanation for Dirac's large number problem, which has nothing to do with either flatness or

420:

Thanks for correcting what was awkward, in first paragraph, and trying to make it better. That article could use some streamlining, for sure, as many parts are confusing. One edit you made was to remove my word believed (probably mis-spelled) and I made some commentary on the Talk page, which I

494:

of a Schwarzschild black hole. Quantum mechanically, things are a little different. The recent work by Hawking has to do with how unitarity is preserved in the Euclidean path integral because the path integral has zero measure on worldsheets in which a black hole forms compared to worldsheets on

231:

continue reading). It certainly needed some formatting/proper positioning, though. I don't particularly have a strong opinion one way or the other, it just seemed that removal of the image (particularly without any justification in the edit summary or on the talk page) seemed a little arbitrary.

480:

This is one of the biggest problems facing science writing on Knowledge today, and I'm not really sure how to deal with it. Probably you wanted an opinion about the actual article, though, not ruminations on the deficiencies of Knowledge. One of the pests that keeps coming up again and again on

850:

I do both, though whenever I edit the script on other software and copy+paste it into Knowledge I usually make a lot of careless typos (then again, same when I edit directly). Most of the times though, for longer and more important fixes I don't work on the edit window, but to make small quick

968:

the preconception cast upon it (as Natalya did, for instance), it reads completely different. Knowledge talk messages, like email, SMS and other text-based systems, do not have a "tone" that a reasonable person can read into them, so it's probably best not to try. You might also want to read

241:

No, there was no strong reason for removing it. My rationale was that (i) it was poorly formatted (ii) it wasn't clear to me exactly what was being communicated with the image (iii) I was a little uncomfortable using a press release image like that (not because there is any problem with the

709:

Hi Joke, I was struggling with how to deal with the need for making a distinction between for example a reference to an article that states "science is crap" purley for fact verification on the one hand, and worthwhile references for consultation on the other hand.

201:

to tell off anyone you point out to me who does this. However, I do believe that pedantic, fully cited, templatized, copious references are useful (and I enjoy finding and putting them in), so I also strongly believe that all this complicated structure should be

1092:

Certainly Dirac's large number problem does have something to do with both flatness and Lambda. But that's besides the point – although I don't have my copy handy, the reference you're looking for is almost certainly the material on inflation in P.J.E. Peebles,

1154:

of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in

1133:

1062:

1982:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

1628:(i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the 810:"A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Knowledge should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy" 82:

For the 66.194.98.0/24 block (City of Clearwater, according to RIPE), I agree it does not make sense, since he seems to be using most of the range; more numbers is just continuing the same behaviour. Probably a good idea to record others, though.

540:

To show my lack of knowledge of the subject matter, isn't it the case that whether or nor you can observe the completion of black hole forming depends on your frame of refence and of the global geometry of space time? At least I read this

138:

2. & 3. I am genuinely very, very happy that we seem to think alike on that! I was trying to make some "hardliners" realize how futile this whole debacle is, but apparently all I have achieved is getting some angry comments in my talk

588:

Yes, I think the best thing to do is to avoid mentioning this in, say, the black hole article. The article as it is is long and so difficult to understand that it would be hard to fix, short of cutting it down to a stub. Sentences like

474:

iteration of the) particular pet theory as evidence that it is correct, or at the very least that the NPOV, NOR and V policies don't permit us to label the article as the kind of fringe science it manifestly is. (Sadly, they may be

1664:

for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the

68:

It was actually listed, but I agree that page was a mess so I have sorted it with the couple of blocks I've made today. To be honest, I'm not sure it continues to serve much purpose to continue to record every IP address he uses.

1621: 1581: 1541: 1198:

pages a give some feedback. I'm currently trying to bring that article to Featured List status, but I'm not a particle physicist so I probably made half a dozen mistakes. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

973:

post he made inbetween, suggesting one of our most trusted editors (a CheckUser, indeed) was not to be trusted - just so you can see the full facts and not jump to your friend's conclusions. Matter closed, okay? Thanks!

142:

Anyway, I hope we are getting closer to common understanding, or to the understanding that this was a misunderstaning, and we can continue working on both article development and the GA process proceedings further :D

1986:

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 notice from the top of the article.

466:

on fringe theories they found in New Scientist – work up extensive Knowledge articles, which nobody can be bothered to fact-check or bring in conformance with NPOV because there is so much work to be done writing

1771:. 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 1421: 1097:. If you just want to confirm that the phrase is used by professional cosmologists, a search on Google scholar gives papers from people like Kamionkowski, Rees, Spergel, Peebles and Cornish on the first page. – 1150: 1304: 101:

You might not be aware of that, but articles on WP that exist over a week or so almost automatically land in one of the top spots in Google searched due to priority given to Knowledge links by Google.

1058: 929:, on the basis that they discuss applications of the same physical effect. I'm mentioning this here because you opposed this the last time it was proposed. Please let me know your thoughts over at 1226: 1129: 210:

to the WikiGnomes - asking authors to do it (unless they want to) is a terrible idea. Just had to get this off my chest. I wish you the best of luck in whatever you are doing, on-wiki or off.

116:

I can expand on that more, but I am really tired and I am trying to work on some actually important things in the meantime. This whole discussion consumes almost the entire time I have for WP.

1258: 1169:

Yes, his English isn't good, and he goes into way too much detail, thats why I took it off my watchlist. Ill look at it again this month. Ill also write him and suggest he start a blog or a

397: 393: 1929: 897:. On November 22, 2006 the article became a featured article thanks to helpful tips and suggestions by users like you. Thank you again on behalf of the editors and members of the 2037: 206:, and authors should be gently reminded of WP:OWN if they complain about wikignomes messing with their deathless prose. But such fixing, detail adding, and polishing, should be 112:

have automatically be Good Articles, and no editor has to strive for this status. So, there is no need to disrupt the work of the Good Articles Project without an actual reason.

2032: 1288: 135:

have special constraints programmed in for Wiki pages - see how the main GA page would appear if you search for "good articles", but not all other GA pages or talk pages.

389: 379: 1415: 677:

Sorry not to respond in the last day, Joke. With the dangerous and devastating fire and deaths in California, I just don't have the focus right now; I put TS up at

365:

page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the

894: 272:

and remove the citation needed references that you think can be removed and keep the ones you think should stay? I really trust your judgement on these matters. --

173:

A masterpiece of trying to keep everyone happy, and I say that in a good way. Would you have any objections to my putting your name forward for Kofi Annan's job?

999: 872: 1013:. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page. 242:

copyright, just because it seems somehow odd to use those graphics...). If you want to reinsert it, or if we can find a good use for it, that would be great. –

1506:

There are two cites for the sentence you removed, one of which is the NYT which discusses the current arrest's anticipated impact on his political career.

1272: 452: 366: 875:. Do you think it might be time to make one more post on the math and physics talk pages and then edit the header to say consensus has been reached? 1979: 1969: 163:

I was only able to give it a brief run through before having to head off to work here but I really like it so far. I think you're onto something. :)

714: 1349: 1010: 682: 756:! We've all got to have a thick skin, ideals, and irrational optimism to keep going here, but a bit of praise now and then helps, too. Thanks. -- 1878: 1313: 1796: 325: 1629: 1589: 1549: 964:

I rather think that you read his response and that coloured your view of my message to him. If you'd care to re-read my original message

1174: 811: 35:. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. 1907: 619: 720:

In order to avoid confusion with official guidelines, you might consider to rename it "Scientific_citation_tutorial", similar to

523:. Nichalp a really nice, valueable contributor but AFAIK without domain knowledge took the article on rediff.com for face value. 1792: 1730: 1882: 1366: 1210: 835:, you're the first person besides me to edit the page, which is why I didn't really monitor the history of the page) Thanks, 294:, mostly unclassified, in the hope that people will then classify them (and re-classify them as appropriate in the future). 188:

I happened to see your (devestatingly apt, and sad) dialog about reference police making it too difficult to do the actual

1436: 470:

articles about subjects of actual prominence. Usually their authors cite the fact that nobody has bothered to refute the (

27: 1403: 1783:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1870: 1828: 1806: 1788: 600:

are, aside from being some of the most tortured English I've read in weeks, not an opinion held by very many people. –

45: 1857: 1874: 790:

than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section .. We should, instead, write articles with the tone that

1973: 1937: 623: 42: 55:

in your listing of Licorne accounts, it seems that 66.194.98.242 is not yet listed. Got banned yesterday-or-so.

1824: 1810: 1625: 1585: 1545: 1374: 1356:

policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure

321: 1397: 537:? I assume less, as the Gravastar often gets mentioned in passing in populare science magazines and websites. 1921: 922: 915: 721: 542: 1738: 694: 667: 58:

I do recommend sorting the entries by number - it makes it easier to see if something's already listed. --

317: 1718: 1693: 1633: 1593: 1553: 1472: 1393: 998:

has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on

433: 404: 273: 232: 681:

to keep distracted. I'm sure it will get sorted out. What about making use of a construct similar to

1933: 1492: 1195: 1006: 995: 496: 313: 2014: 1886: 1784: 1722: 1601: 1561: 1519: 1507: 1475:

has an oddly capitalised title - note that the article itself uses "universe", all lower case. The

1443: 1429: 898: 876: 639: 334:

It would be sad to see that so many editors failed to notice it from March to October, except that

287: 144: 117: 1641: 1626:

provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year

1586:

provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year

1546:

provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year

1361: 1321: 1280: 1240: 1204: 930: 520: 486: 358: 1265: 495:

which no black hole forms. This is a quantum mechanical statement, which he has argued only for

1364:. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1110:

Thanks. I've still removed the 1961 reference as it does not discuss either Dicke coincidence.

499:, and classically it is probably best to go about our lives as if black holes actually exist. – 1853: 1760: 1751: 1734: 1668:. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through 1457: 1357: 1190:

I noticed that you had an interest in particle physics, so I wondered you could head over the

975: 950: 690: 663: 432:

article to peer review and eventually as a featured article candidate. See my comments on the

392:. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, 370: 276: 148: 121: 1995: 1780: 1764: 1078: 1045: 1025: 757: 658: 291: 223: 1779:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1016:

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message.

1705: 1660: 1488: 1271:

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the

1191: 1111: 1083: 856: 840: 818: 546: 491: 211: 84: 59: 1409: 2010: 1776: 1768: 1597: 1557: 1480: 1284: 1041: 934: 907: 799: 627: 422: 295: 253:

Also, the image could probably be cropped a little to cut out the large black border. –

2026: 1890: 1840: 1772: 1669: 1637: 1353: 1341: 1317: 1276: 1236: 1200: 1156: 1135: 1064: 943: 926: 728: 685:, as we've done at Medical? We just brought some of the citation/sourcing info from 678: 1483:

tried to move it to the lowercase title, but found you had previously moved it (see

1479:

says "ordinary" capitalisation should be used, which means lowercase "u" here. So I

1674: 1665: 1571:

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

1453: 1098: 978: 953: 767: 738: 686: 615: 601: 566: 516: 500: 456: 437: 339: 254: 243: 70: 1531:

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

226:- was there a particular reason for removing the WMAP image? IMO, while it wasn't 1009:. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on 530:. At least be it should be OK to refuse mentioning the subject in other articles? 1991: 1839:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

1384: 1170: 1018: 560: 174: 164: 1686:

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

1370:

article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the

852: 836: 618:'s talk page, I just wanted to let you know that I moved all 41 articles from 482: 20: 1002:, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request. 556:

article: Do you see any chance (or even motiviation) to sanitize the article?

1964: 1948: 902: 890: 578: 534: 105: 994:

Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the

269: 192:, and I just had a comment I wanted to make. I sympathize, a lot - IMO, 1913: 1336: 2009:

Just letting you know that you have been added to Missing Wikipedians.

1733:. Thanks for editing Knowledge and I look forward to working with you! 831:

Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean to revert that. (If you look through the

362: 350: 1144:

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

1726: 2018: 1999: 1941: 1900: 1800: 1742: 1680: 1645: 1605: 1565: 1524: 1512: 1496: 1461: 1325: 1292: 1244: 1214: 1177: 1159: 1138: 1114: 1101: 1086: 1067: 1035: 983: 958: 937: 909: 879: 860: 844: 821: 770: 760: 741: 731: 698: 671: 646: 604: 569: 503: 459: 440: 425: 407: 373: 342: 298: 257: 246: 235: 177: 167: 152: 125: 87: 73: 62: 1298:

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009

1005:

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review

1767:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

396:. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, 1052:

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

553: 1220:

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008

1123:

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007

515:

Now I recall I first stumbled over this some months back, when

1476: 15: 1920:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

1912: 1815: 1704: 388:

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened:

104:

I am not saying that there is no place for articles such as

867:

Scientific citation guidelines - ready to declare consensus

786:"refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look 1611:

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

455:

on your watchlist? What's your opinion on this article? --

662:

all considered that articles won't meet FA requirements?

398:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop

394:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence

131:

Trying to maintain the same numbering as in my talk page:

1340:

Hello Joke137! Thank you for your contributions. I am a

338:

Read the reference I inserted if you don't believe me. –

1962:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

1881:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

1863:

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing

1656: 1484: 970: 832: 753: 1846:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

1428: 547:

Talk:Black_hole#Danras_edits_and_the_three-revert_rule

533:

Would you consider it more or less notable than e.g.

1968:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to

1655:Hello. You are receiving this message because of a 1257:You received this message because your were on the 1348:of the articles that you created is tagged as an 871:There have been no comments for over two weeks at 1759:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 889:Thank you for your recommendations in regards to 812:Knowledge:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience 1273:current list of WikiProject Physics participants 390:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 380:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 490:understand the causal structure of the simple 1442: 1000:Knowledge:Changing username/Requests to usurp 873:Knowledge talk:Scientific citation guidelines 8: 2038:Wikipedians who opt out of template messages 1259:old list of WikiProject Physics participants 2033:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery 1928:redirect, you might want to participate in 1632:and the userright will be restored per the 1592:and the userright will be restored per the 1552:and the userright will be restored per the 563:. And the obligatory New Scientist article. 1924:. Since you had some involvement with the 453:Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object 1980:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Cosmology 1717:! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the 1350:Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person 1310:WikiProject History of Science newsletter 1235:following the link. Yours in discourse-- 1232:WikiProject History of Science newsletter 577:I would say that it is less notable than 715:Knowledge:Scientific_citation_guidelines 545:that way and even voiced the opinion at 403:On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, 1852:notice, but please explain why in your 1624:in June 2011, consensus was reached to 1584:in June 2011, consensus was reached to 1544:in June 2011, consensus was reached to 1011:Knowledge:Changing username/Usurpations 990:Knowledge:Changing username/Usurpations 933:(and please don't bite me...). Thanks. 705:Scientific_citation_guidelines: thanks! 683:Knowledge:Manual of style (mathematics) 263: 1518:That wording is better, thank you. :) 595:astrophysicists, Robertson and Leiter. 1360:, all biographies should be based on 7: 1970:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 1312:is ready, with exciting news about 1183:Peer review for the list of baryons 361:where a total re-write of the main 31:. Joke137 has not edited Knowledge 1932:if you have not already done so. 1841:deleted for any of several reasons 1831:because of the following concern: 1630:Knowledge:Bureaucrats' noticeboard 1590:Knowledge:Bureaucrats' noticeboard 1550:Knowledge:Bureaucrats' noticeboard 14: 1978:The article will be discussed at 1906:Picture(string theory) listed at 1866:{{proposed deletion/dated files}} 1849:{{proposed deletion/dated files}} 1785:review the candidates' statements 1253:WikiProject Physics participation 1044:. Please direct any questions to 851:changes I just edit it directly. 620:Category:String theory physicists 413:Edits to page on Cosmic Inflation 28:This user may have left Knowledge 1956: 1696:Knowledge Partnership - We need 1615: 1575: 1535: 1335: 1095:Principles of Physical Cosmology 614:As per the comments you made on 367:Physics Project participant list 19: 264:If it's not too much trouble... 1791:. For the Election committee, 1761:Arbitration Committee election 1752:ArbCom elections are now open! 1175:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1160:00:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) 949:Just once in a while. Thanks. 168:17:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 153:16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 126:02:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 88:06:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 74:21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 63:05:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 1: 1901:19:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 1801:12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 1497:01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC) 1354:biographies of living persons 1173:on him for all the detail. -- 938:21:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 910:00:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 880:19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 357:You might like to join us at 2000:16:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC) 1942:15:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC) 1681:00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC) 1467:Article title capitalisation 1462:06:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1326:03:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC) 1302:It's here at long last! The 1178:21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 1039: 1036:12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 996:policy on usurping usernames 984:20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 959:09:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 861:21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 845:02:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 822:10:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 771:04:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 761:08:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 742:03:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 732:21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 699:16:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 672:15:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 647:21:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 605:20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 570:18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 504:18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 460:17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 441:19:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 426:16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 408:11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 374:08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 218:Question about image removal 214:09:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 212:JesseW, the juggling janitor 1885:allows discussion to reach 1787:and submit your choices on 885:Featured Article: Vancouver 526:So now we have one more of 349:Total re-write of the main 343:15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 299:16:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 277:11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 258:16:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 247:16:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 236:15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 178:14:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 2054: 2019:19:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC) 1877:exist. In particular, the 1793:MediaWiki message delivery 1380:tag. Here is the article: 1215:21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 1068:03:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 1040:This message delivered by 1871:proposed deletion process 1825:File:WMAP 3yr TTTEPol.png 1811:File:WMAP 3yr TTTEPol.png 1692: 1646:01:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 1293:15:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 1115:02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 1102:02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 1087:23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 624:Category:String theorists 1972:or whether it should be 1908:Redirects for discussion 1743:21:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 1666:bureaucrats' noticeboard 1606:17:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC) 1525:04:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 1513:04:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 944:Please assume good faith 713:Thus I find your advice 585:the hole from forming. 1930:the redirect discussion 1566:19:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC) 1245:23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 1139:05:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 923:21 centimeter radiation 916:21 centimeter radiation 722:Knowledge:NPOV_tutorial 559:And heck, there's also 282:Re: Classical mechanics 159:Your proposed guideline 1926:Picture(string theory) 1922:Picture(string theory) 1917: 1837: 1820: 1709: 777:Pseudososcience ArbCom 766:You're most welcome! – 748:Thanks for the flowers 336:it happens to be true. 1916: 1833: 1829:proposed for deletion 1819: 1765:Arbitration Committee 1719:World Digital Library 1708: 1694:World Digital Library 1473:Shape of the Universe 899:WikiProject Vancovuer 652:Scientific guidelines 434:Talk:Cosmic inflation 286:{Re: your message on 268:Could you go through 1883:files for discussion 1858:the file's talk page 1661:administrator policy 1634:re-sysopping process 1622:community discussion 1594:re-sysopping process 1582:community discussion 1554:re-sysopping process 1542:community discussion 1196:Talk:List of baryons 1151:September 2007 issue 1007:Knowledge:Usurpation 497:anti-de Sitter space 2005:Missing Wikipedians 1769:arbitration process 1723:Library of Congress 1721:, a project of the 921:I've proposed that 33:since June 13, 2012 1918: 1875:deletion processes 1821: 1781:arbitration policy 1710: 1344:alerting you that 1305:January 2009 issue 1073:Dicke Coincidences 931:Talk:Hydrogen line 796:at least plausible 487:general relativity 353:page is in progess 1898: 1807:Proposed deletion 1748: 1747: 1448: 1331:Unreferenced BLPs 1030: 330: 316:comment added by 39: 38: 2045: 1960: 1959: 1894: 1889:for deletion. ~ 1868: 1867: 1851: 1850: 1818: 1690: 1689: 1677: 1651:Notice of change 1619: 1618: 1579: 1578: 1539: 1538: 1522: 1510: 1447: 1446: 1432: 1388: 1379: 1373: 1362:reliable sources 1339: 1079:Cosmic Inflation 1059:March 2007 issue 1034: 1032: 1028: 1023: 905: 827:Peer reviewer js 800:Fairness_of_tone 737:Quite welcome! – 644: 637: 632: 329: 310: 292:Template:Physics 274:ScienceApologist 224:Cosmic inflation 184:Reference idiots 23: 16: 2053: 2052: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2023: 2022: 2007: 1989: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1934:UnitedStatesian 1911: 1897: 1879:speedy deletion 1865: 1864: 1848: 1847: 1835:Orphaned chart. 1816: 1814: 1789:the voting page 1755: 1688: 1675: 1653: 1616: 1613: 1576: 1573: 1536: 1533: 1520: 1508: 1504: 1469: 1389: 1377: 1375:unreferencedBLP 1371: 1333: 1314:Darwin Day 2009 1300: 1255: 1222: 1192:List of baryons 1185: 1167: 1146: 1125: 1075: 1054: 1049: 1026: 1019: 1017: 992: 947: 925:be merged into 919: 903: 887: 869: 859: 843: 829: 779: 750: 707: 689:into there ... 654: 640: 633: 628: 612: 492:Penrose diagram 449: 415: 383: 355: 311: 306: 284: 266: 220: 186: 161: 98: 53: 12: 11: 5: 2051: 2049: 2041: 2040: 2035: 2025: 2024: 2006: 2003: 1955: 1954: 1952: 1947:Nomination of 1945: 1910: 1904: 1895: 1869:will stop the 1813: 1804: 1758: 1754: 1749: 1746: 1745: 1711: 1701: 1700: 1687: 1684: 1652: 1649: 1612: 1609: 1572: 1569: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1521:Steven Walling 1509:Steven Walling 1503: 1500: 1468: 1465: 1450: 1449: 1332: 1329: 1299: 1296: 1254: 1251: 1249: 1227:May 2008 issue 1221: 1218: 1184: 1181: 1166: 1163: 1145: 1142: 1130:May 2007 issue 1124: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1105: 1104: 1074: 1071: 1056:The inaugural 1053: 1050: 991: 988: 987: 986: 946: 941: 918: 913: 886: 883: 868: 865: 864: 863: 855: 839: 828: 825: 815: 814: 804: 803: 794:presented are 778: 775: 774: 773: 752:Gee, I have a 749: 746: 745: 744: 706: 703: 702: 701: 653: 650: 611: 608: 598: 597: 575: 574: 573: 572: 564: 557: 550: 538: 531: 528:those articles 524: 513: 507: 506: 477: 476: 448: 445: 444: 443: 414: 411: 382: 377: 354: 347: 346: 345: 318:70.233.154.132 305: 302: 283: 280: 265: 262: 261: 260: 250: 249: 219: 216: 185: 182: 181: 180: 160: 157: 156: 155: 140: 136: 132: 114: 113: 109: 102: 97: 96:Re:Specialists 94: 93: 92: 91: 90: 77: 76: 52: 51:Yet another... 49: 37: 36: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2050: 2039: 2036: 2034: 2031: 2030: 2028: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2004: 2002: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1988: 1984: 1981: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1950: 1946: 1944: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1915: 1909: 1905: 1903: 1902: 1899: 1893: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1861: 1859: 1855: 1844: 1842: 1836: 1832: 1830: 1826: 1812: 1808: 1805: 1803: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1753: 1750: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1685: 1683: 1682: 1679: 1678: 1672:. Thank you. 1671: 1667: 1662: 1658: 1657:recent change 1650: 1648: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1610: 1608: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1570: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1530: 1526: 1523: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1511: 1501: 1499: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1466: 1464: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1445: 1441: 1438: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1420: 1417: 1414: 1411: 1408: 1405: 1402: 1399: 1395: 1392: 1391:Find sources: 1386: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1376: 1369: 1368: 1363: 1359: 1358:verifiability 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1338: 1330: 1328: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1297: 1295: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1269: 1267: 1262: 1260: 1252: 1250: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1219: 1217: 1216: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1202: 1197: 1193: 1188: 1182: 1180: 1179: 1176: 1172: 1164: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1153: 1152: 1143: 1141: 1140: 1137: 1132: 1131: 1122: 1116: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1103: 1100: 1096: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1085: 1080: 1072: 1070: 1069: 1066: 1061: 1060: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1038: 1037: 1033: 1024: 1022: 1014: 1012: 1008: 1003: 1001: 997: 989: 985: 982: 981: 977: 972: 967: 963: 962: 961: 960: 957: 956: 952: 945: 942: 940: 939: 936: 932: 928: 927:Hydrogen line 924: 917: 914: 912: 911: 908: 906: 900: 896: 892: 884: 882: 881: 878: 874: 866: 862: 858: 854: 849: 848: 847: 846: 842: 838: 834: 826: 824: 823: 820: 813: 809: 808: 807: 801: 797: 793: 792:all positions 789: 785: 784: 783: 776: 772: 769: 765: 764: 763: 762: 759: 755: 747: 743: 740: 736: 735: 734: 733: 730: 725: 723: 718: 717:very useful. 716: 711: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 684: 680: 676: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 660: 651: 649: 648: 645: 643: 638: 636: 631: 625: 621: 617: 610:Category move 609: 607: 606: 603: 596: 592: 591: 590: 586: 584: 580: 571: 568: 565: 562: 558: 555: 551: 548: 544: 539: 536: 532: 529: 525: 522: 518: 514: 511: 510: 509: 508: 505: 502: 498: 493: 488: 484: 479: 478: 473: 469: 464: 463: 462: 461: 458: 454: 446: 442: 439: 435: 430: 429: 428: 427: 424: 418: 412: 410: 409: 406: 401: 399: 395: 391: 386: 381: 378: 376: 375: 372: 368: 364: 360: 352: 348: 344: 341: 337: 333: 332: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 303: 301: 300: 297: 293: 289: 281: 279: 278: 275: 271: 259: 256: 252: 251: 248: 245: 240: 239: 238: 237: 234: 233:192.91.147.34 229: 225: 217: 215: 213: 209: 205: 200: 195: 191: 183: 179: 176: 172: 171: 170: 169: 166: 158: 154: 150: 146: 141: 137: 133: 130: 129: 128: 127: 123: 119: 110: 107: 103: 100: 99: 95: 89: 86: 81: 80: 79: 78: 75: 72: 67: 66: 65: 64: 61: 56: 50: 48: 47: 44: 34: 30: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2008: 1990: 1985: 1977: 1963: 1951:for deletion 1925: 1919: 1891: 1873:, but other 1862: 1854:edit summary 1845: 1838: 1834: 1822: 1756: 1735:SarahStierch 1714: 1697: 1673: 1654: 1620:Following a 1614: 1580:Following a 1574: 1540:Following a 1534: 1505: 1502:Strauss-Kahn 1471:The article 1470: 1451: 1439: 1433: 1425: 1418: 1412: 1406: 1400: 1390: 1365: 1345: 1334: 1309: 1303: 1301: 1270: 1263: 1256: 1248: 1231: 1225: 1223: 1207: 1189: 1186: 1168: 1149: 1147: 1128: 1126: 1094: 1076: 1057: 1055: 1020: 1015: 1004: 993: 979: 965: 954: 948: 920: 888: 870: 830: 816: 805: 795: 791: 787: 780: 751: 726: 719: 712: 708: 655: 641: 634: 629: 613: 599: 593: 587: 582: 576: 552:Back to the 527: 517:User:Nichalp 512:As I feared. 471: 467: 451:Do you have 450: 419: 416: 402: 387: 384: 371:MichaelMaggs 356: 335: 312:— Preceding 307: 288:my talk page 285: 267: 227: 221: 207: 203: 198: 193: 189: 187: 162: 115: 57: 54: 40: 32: 26: 1416:free images 1385:Edward Kolb 1171:Google Page 1155:discourse-- 1134:discourse-- 1063:discourse-- 788:a lot worse 758:Art Carlson 561:Twin Quasar 521:Abhas Mitra 405:Thatcher131 359:Physics/wip 304:Dark Energy 2027:Categories 1777:topic bans 1489:Hairy Dude 1285:WP Physics 1266:2008-06-25 1165:Wallenberg 1112:PaddyLeahy 1084:PaddyLeahy 819:Iantresman 543:Baez essay 483:black hole 85:Alvestrand 60:Alvestrand 2011:IMiss2010 1965:Cosmology 1949:Cosmology 1887:consensus 1827:has been 1823:The file 1773:site bans 1598:MadmanBot 1558:MadmanBot 1452:Thanks!-- 1042:EssjayBot 935:Mike Peel 891:Vancouver 659:WP:MEDMOS 579:gravastar 535:Gravastar 475:correct.) 423:JonathanD 296:Mike Peel 199:very glad 106:cobordism 41:Archive: 1638:WilliamH 1318:ragesoss 1277:Headbomb 1237:ragesoss 1211:contribs 1201:Headbomb 1157:ragesoss 1136:ragesoss 1065:ragesoss 877:CMummert 806:and (b) 729:Harald88 727:Thanks! 519:created 326:contribs 314:unsigned 270:redshift 228:directly 1974:deleted 1715:Joke137 1676:MBisanz 1659:to the 1485:history 1454:DASHBot 1422:WP refs 1410:scholar 1308:of the 1230:of the 980:REDVEЯS 966:without 955:REDVEЯS 893:on its 833:history 616:Ageo020 583:prevent 567:Pjacobi 457:Pjacobi 436:page. – 417:Howdy, 385:Hello, 363:Physics 351:Physics 204:allowed 190:writing 145:Bravada 139:page... 118:Bravada 1992:Heanor 1856:or on 1763:. The 1727:UNESCO 1670:WP:RFA 1481:boldly 1394:Google 1352:. The 1224:A new 1046:Essjay 1021:Essjay 679:WP:FAC 194:no one 175:qp10qp 1437:JSTOR 1398:books 1187:Hi, 691:Sandy 687:WP:RS 664:Sandy 2015:talk 1996:talk 1938:talk 1797:talk 1739:talk 1731:here 1725:and 1698:you! 1642:talk 1602:talk 1562:talk 1493:talk 1458:talk 1430:FENS 1404:news 1322:talk 1289:PotW 1281:ταλκ 1241:talk 1205:talk 1194:and 1148:The 1127:The 1099:Joke 1029:Talk 971:this 904:Mkdw 768:Joke 739:Joke 695:Talk 668:Talk 630:Nish 602:Joke 554:MECO 501:Joke 468:real 447:MECO 438:Joke 369:. -- 340:Joke 322:talk 255:Joke 244:Joke 222:Re: 208:left 165:Agne 149:talk 122:talk 71:Joke 1892:Rob 1809:of 1757:Hi, 1713:Hi 1477:MoS 1444:TWL 1367:688 1342:bot 1264:On 1261:. 1077:In 895:FAC 754:fan 635:kid 622:to 2029:: 2017:) 1998:) 1976:. 1940:) 1896:13 1860:. 1843:. 1799:) 1775:, 1741:) 1644:) 1604:) 1564:) 1495:) 1460:) 1424:) 1387:- 1378:}} 1372:{{ 1324:) 1291:} 1287:: 1283:– 1275:. 1243:) 1213:) 901:. 853:AZ 837:AZ 817:-- 802:)" 798:"( 724:. 697:) 670:) 642:64 626:. 485:, 400:. 328:) 324:• 151:- 147:, 124:- 120:, 83:-- 2013:( 1994:( 1936:( 1795:( 1737:( 1640:( 1600:( 1560:( 1491:( 1456:( 1440:· 1434:· 1426:· 1419:· 1413:· 1407:· 1401:· 1396:( 1346:1 1320:( 1279:{ 1239:( 1208:· 1203:( 1048:. 1031:) 1027:( 976:⇨ 951:⇨ 857:t 841:t 693:( 666:( 549:. 472:n 320:( 69:– 46:2 43:1

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index