User talk:Aqm2241

Wave behavior of large objects
I deleted the last paragraph in the "Wave behavior of large objects" section.

"Whether objects heavier than the Planck mass (about the weight of a large bacterium) have a de Broglie wavelength is theoretically unclear and experimentally unreachable; above the Planck mass a particle's Compton wavelength would be smaller than the Planck length and its own Schwarzchild radius, a scale at which current theories of physics may break down or need to be replaced by more general ones."

1. I believe it to be incorrect.

2. I don't think that it adds to the topic.

3. I may be wrong on both counts; but I willing to give my reasons if someone thinks that I am.

AQM2241

Welcome!
Hi! -- Hope you find the above links useful, and that editing Wikipedia is a pleasing and satisfying experience for you. I did delete your signature from the end of the Nuclear fusion article however, as it is not customary to sign & date-stamp comments on articles, but only on the discussion ("talk") pages. First, articles do not "belong" to any single author, but to the community. Second, it is possible to see each author's contributions by using the "history" tab at the top of each page. All the best, Wwheaton (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics
Hi, I just posted a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics on the sonofusion question. I doubt we will settle the issue (Oh, faint hope!!) this way, but at least if I am way out of line I hope to be corrected. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

3rr warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility warning
I consider this posting insulting and unproductive. Please do not make posts like that in the future. Olorinish (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is another example. Olorinish (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Cold fusion. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions on cold fusion articles
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Cold_fusion, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''Do not try to discredit me by writing untrue negative statements about my editing history and about my intentions. Do not accuse me of a conflict of interest when you have no evidence.'' Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

hi
The talk page is to discuss the article, if you have comments about a user you should use their talk page. When you do, make sure you try to find some common ground to work from. We are expected to try to work with other editors.

What you can do is make a list (on the article talk page) of the entries that you think have been removed inappropriately and/or things you want to see included. After that you can only wait for other editors to respond to that. Just like I'm waiting for editors (read "you") to review my entries there. If you are going to take the other editors to war that will only make it harder for me to get everyone to agree. We get the disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing that this wikipedia article is so famous for.

Anyway, I've deleted your posting from the talk page: Hope that is ok with you. We did loose some of your valuable insights in the process, it would be good if you had another try writing those down. For example:


 * "in a couple of quick edits, you casually discarded a year's worth of effort to introduce mainstream scientific articles (over the major efforts of the anti-CFers) that disproved the stories that the anti-CF editors have been trying to foist on the readers."

That would look better as a list of edits, then under each list item you mention the sentence and/or source that you want to include/remove/etc, and why it is important. It doesn't really matter who wrote or removed it. It is either worth including it or it isn't.

Hope that helps :)

84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Falico Soliton
I have deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Falaco Soliton as unambiguous copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hi, Aqm2241. You have been warned against making personal attacks on Talk:Cold fusion and have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions in force on the article and its talkpage. Nevertheless, I see you continue to condescend to your opponents, to assume bad faith and to sneer. You construct your opponents as a dishonest "anti-CF crowd" or "anti-CF club". This comment of yours is egregious: ''I just realized that the reason that the anti-CF club must remove legitimate sources that are pro-CF is that they have to maintain the fiction that CF is fringe. Then, to show that they are 'neutral', they can allow as many pro-CF as anti-CF references. Thus, they play the game. ... Furthermore, some of the anti-CF group are less than honest and know that periodically, they can bring in a 'big gun' and just arbitrarily 'erase' many of the pro-CF references to maintain the appearance that CF is still only "fringe" and no real work or progress is happening. Or this, just yesterday, directed at User:JzG: Since you are so set against CF and want to eliminate any positive references, why don't you just leave the title and eliminate all but one line, "bullshit", and save us all a lot of grief. I'm sure that you can find a reference for that. It expresses your POV, your OR, and all of the other excuses that the anti-CF club has been using over the years to deny evidence and to convince themselves of their rightness and righteousness.''

You have been warned that uninvolved admins can sanction you for repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or expected standards of behavior in this place. Some of your comments on Talk:Cold fusion are completely unacceptable. Please read the policy Assume good faith and reconsider the tone you use. If you continue to post uncivilly, you will be blocked from editing. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC).

Editing of another user's comment
Hi, I noticed that your edit here removed "User " from JzG's signature, breaking his link to his talk page. I assume this was accidental, you've been around long enough to know you shouldn't edit another user's comments under most circumstances. I have reverted that portion of your edit for you, but wanted to give you a heads-up to remind you to be careful about this going forward. --Noren (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Noren,


 * I clicked on 'user' to get to JzG's page. Then I couldn't find it. I think that you just solved the problem. Thx. Somehow it must have gotten erased during a power outage (I'm in India) or some other accident. I don't know whether to respond to you on my talk page or yours. What is the proper protocol? Aqm2241 (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is fine. I don't believe there is any required protocol and there are editors with preferences either way, but I tend to prefer to keep the whole discussion on one page. Just to clarify a bit, JzG keeps his official User page blank (so it would be a red link), but he uses a custom signature to direct those who click on his name to go directly to his User talk page instead of the default user page. Somehow, in the process of leaving your comment you deleted part of the signature part of JzG's comment and broke the link.  I don't think any significant harm was done this time (if someone wanted to contact JzG there were several other places on the page where he'd left a signature that were still working)  I did think it was worth bringing this to your attention because if an accident similar to this one had instead caused a substantive change to the body of text of someone else's comment ... well, that would be very unfortunate.  I hope that you can avoid such problems in the future.  Happy editing! --Noren (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutron radius
Hi, Aqm241! I notice you have technical expertise in nuclear physics. Therefore I ask your feedback on the topic of neutron radius data discussed on Talk:Neutron.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion alert
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 June 2014‎ (UTC)