User talk:786b6364/Archive 1

Unitform motion.
Tideflat (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Cliché
Hi. I think the source you removed from cliché does support the claim it was cited for in the article. I've brought it up on the talk page. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

9 x 9 = 91
Thank u for your correction to de Vasa hex chess! (I musta' been thinkin' too many 9s. In any event, I'd prefer my gradeschool teacher not hear about it!) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Physics articles by quality and importance


A tag has been placed on Category:Physics articles by quality and importance, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

''Primarily Opinion-based. According to me, string theory is important, but according to someone else, LQG is important. This entire article is stupid. Most of the pages in the catgegory are empty, very few people actually use this.''

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Dimension10 (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review this article
Hello! I have done a substantial rewrite of the Geiger-Marsden experiment article and would like to have it assessed. I submitted it for peer review but nobody took notice. Nobody ever takes notice. I am resorting to directly contacting Wikipedians with a background in physics. If you have the time, would you care to review this article, and tell me if it is worthy of being featured on the Main Page? Kurzon (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ununseptium
Hi! I'd love to ask for your attention on the ununseptium article; it's currently a FAC, but few people have actually reviewed the article. The WP:Physics subpage lists you as a user who might be potentially interested in an article on a superheavy element (as with all superheavies, it is more physics and less chemistry than a regular WP:Elements article), and your attention would be highly appreciated, as the previous FAC has gained too little attention to even stand a chance to make it to the FA status; hope you can take part. Thanks--R8R (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I need you to do some "light" refereeing of physics articles for Wikiversity/Wikipedia
Hi-I am v:User:Guy vandegrift and I just created Second Journal of Science in an effort to get students to submit ideas for articles that can be used directly in the classroom. I am focusing primarily on introductory college courses and need a physics referee, which is ironic because I am a physics prof. But my rule is that each article needs to be looked at by two reviewers, and I am the only physics prof at our small college. If it's a biology article, I can review it for clarity and show it to our resident biology prof for accuracy. But I have nobody else to show it to if it's a physics or astronomy submission.

Let me explain why this is "light" reviewing that won't be hard
 * 1) First, I won't send you a submission unless I like it.  If I vote it down, it's not in the journal.
 * 2) Second, I am looking for clear simple articles on stuff you already probably know. If you don't get it immediately, reject!
 * 3) Third, since I am not paying you, I won't work you harder than you want. Consider doing just enough to put this service on your resume.

yours truly--Guy vandegrift (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)