User talk:Christopher Thomas/Archive06

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Special relativity
I've made a major edit to Special relativity, and there's been little discussion on Talk:Special relativity (other than reverts), far less than I would have guessed, it being such an important/pop-culture topic. (Few other articles in physics are more important, you'd think.)

Since you happened to comment on the Talk page, I think it would be very helpful if you could comment more on the article as it is now/was before. SR-the-article is far worse than it ought to be given its importance, methinks. Thanks in advance. 171.66.108.136 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that you'd inadvertently stepped on several other peoples' toes by doing a rewrite without first running the proposed changes through the talk page. The most productive approach that I can see would be something along the lines of the following:
 * Register as a Wikipedia user. Quite a lot of people assume that IP contributions will be vandalism until proven otherwise (a bad assumption to make, but several people still make it). This will bias their opinions when skimming the changes you make, upon seeing that the article has been changed. While I respect that you may have concerns about privacy, registering for an account actually improves your degree of privacy (it's an anonymized but persistent ID by which other users can contact you).
 * Recognize that the article as-written represented quite a lot of work on the part of many people, and had been vetted by people who were experts in the field. That doesn't mean it can't be improved; just that most of what's there was probably put there for a reason, and that changing it is a process of negotiation, rather than individual fiat. A corollary is that incremental changes are easier to get accepted than large-scale revisions.
 * Propose changes on the talk page, implementing them only after consensus that they're a good idea. Aids to this are creating sandbox-pages in user-space or article-space (e.g. at Talk:Special relativity/Proposed revised version of section X, or User:YourName/Proposed rewritten version of special relativity). Proposed variants will get discussed, and you'll be able to show how a rewritten version would work without actually altering the existing article, merging in parts of the revised version as they become accepted by other editors.
 * Recognize that sometimes consensus won't agree with you. Problems have occurred when otherwise-good editors thought the majority consensus was wrong, and wouldn't let the matter drop. "Edit-warring" is considered detrimental to the project, and if a user can't be persuaded to stop acting against consensus, they eventually end up restricted from editing the areas in question. You seem willing to engage in conversation, so I doubt this would apply to you; the important part is, that sometimes an article will end up in a state you don't like with community support for that state. Whether that will happen here is unknown. I think the most likely outcome is that you'll probably be able to persuade other editors to make some changes that will bring the article closer to what you want, but that it'll still largely keep its current structure. I've been wrong about such things before, though; try it and see.
 * I hope that this advice is useful to you, and that you continue to edit the project. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Interstellar travel
Yes, I will try to pay closer attention to it. I'm about to go on travel for a couple of weeks, but I do have it watch-listed and will check. Thanks for the heads-up! Wwheaton (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I struck a blow, I hope in a reasonably civilized way, with an explanation on the talk page. Looking at the contribution history, I expect we will have a continuing struggle, but at least maybe we can keep in on the talk page.  Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. He does occasionally raise valid points, so the second opinion was helpful. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Infraparticle
Regarding this article, I found the source of the argument that was provided. It was not too difficult--- Headbomb provided a general purpose source that listed the 1986 article. This material is not presented in course, and is in difficult literature. It is theoretical physics of very high quality. Why would people delete it without understanding? I can understand deleting things that you understand are wrong, but this is something that is well accepted and not impossible to source. Please, read the talk page, and help out. Without articles such as this one, the encyclopedia will not be able to maintain decent science content.Likebox (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Can you help me please??
I've been thinking about multiple universes on the basis of some statements made in accordance with hindu mythology...And to me, it appears that these postulates must be true....of course, my intention is to provide a link between Philosophy and science...


 * I hope that you know about myths...about the position of planets influencing the nature and fate of human...
 * I have tried to provide scientific explanation for this...and my theory is....

Each body exerts a gravitational force on the other...Now, for example, Jupiter and the earth are rotating around the sun.... Jupiter exerts a gravitational force on u..At the same time, sun also exerts a force on u....these forces now disturb your energy field (possibly, the energy fields created by the matter waves u emit)....Thus, your energy gets changed due to the interference of these energies....Thus, your energy changes unknowingly (without your conscience)...Thus, Ur thoughts...which also are a resultant of ur energy variations...(My hypothesis is that..Thoughts arise when our energy levels are changed due to the influence of another body)..will also change...so, correspondingly, ur deeds will change...

Coming to fate or luck...Ur energy will have an influence on others too...Some others energy fields get disturbed...accordingly, that person might begin to like or dislike u..(I believe this is the scientific reason for love, affection or what ever it may be)..

Now, when u go to perform an act, (Every work u do is just a modification of energy field)...your changing energy will also influence the work or ur task's energy field....thus, creating a negative or positive effect...means, suppose ur energy (it might be silly reasoning but dont laugh ok, coz i'm just trying my best) is in some sort of destructive interfernce with ur task's energy; then, that wud create a negative effect type of b thing...thus barricading ur effort to break the energy..or acheive that energy or emit that energy....(If u r going to do any task, it is nothing but breaking into the regions of the energy)....

Please help me in refining my thoughts. Ofcourse, ''I'm just a beginner. I have just started to read about cosmology, So I dont know much''. After watching your explanations in Hawking radiation, I've thought of asking you. I've already asked the same question to another user User:StephenPCook. He is currently,(I assume) a bit busy. So is unable to answer me. Kindly answer me and dont mock me because I'm just an amateur. Ganeshsashank (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to suggest as the best venue for this, but you'd probably find the most useful advice in a forum about alternative religious or philosophical ideas. My field of expertise is science, so I'm not in a good position to help you develop your ideas.


 * The main thing a scientist would point out is that Earth exerts vastly more gravitational force on you than other planets do, and that of the other bodies in the solar system, only the sun and the moon produce really significant gravitational effects compared to that (among other things, this gives us the tides we see in the ocean). Doing a quick check of the numbers, the influence of the most massive planet (Jupiter) is about 30 million times less than that of Earth, the influence of the moon is about 300 thousand times less than that of Earth, and the influence of the sun is about 2000 times less than that of Earth. By comparison, an apartment building a block away has a gravitational force on you about 10 times stronger than that of Jupiter. So, you'd have to come up with a very good explanation for why the effects of celestial bodies are noticeable compared to the effects of the Earth and everything on it, which are also acting on you.


 * Regarding energy fields interacting with each other, a scientist will ask you to define exactly what you mean by "energy field", and exactly how it interacts with people and with other forms of matter. Then they'll ask you to build a machine that can repeatably measure it (people aren't considered any more special than other forms of matter, as far as science is concerned, so machines should interact with this energy just as readily). The problem is that scientists have been looking for forces that affect matter for a long time, and so far have found only four despite looking very carefully. You'll have to provide a very good explanation for why the effects of your energy field have been missed in all previous experiments.


 * Regarding what to do from here, Wikipedia is probably not a good venue for pursuing this idea, because its emphasis is on giving summaries of information that other people have published (in sources fitting the criteria described at WP:RS), rather than ideas that its users come up with themselves. Per my suggestions a couple of paragraphs up, you should be able to find forums elsewhere online that will be a lot more welcoming in that regard.


 * I hope that your thoughts lead you to interesting places! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion?
What do you think of this? I'm involved, so I don't know if my judgement's been clouded, but this strikes me as not only being extremely disruptive and misleading, but also non-factual. I've actually coordinated stuff for over two years now, Likebox showed up two days ago and wants to label himself as my superior. I'd revert, but I'm involved. Opinions? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is actually my fault, per the thread on the subject. My best suggestion is to take a step back, and wait to see if he actually uses his self-appointed title to mislead any users as to what the consensus of WP:PHYS is on various issues. If that happens, post a thread on WP:PHYS asking for a straw poll on whether or not this reflects their consensus, and if that straw poll comes out negative, people will post at the thread in question (it's important that you not respond unilaterally to this).


 * Another option would be for me to reverse my position (presently being that self-appointed titles aren't something we can regulate as long as they're not used in a misleading manner), and endorse Likebox's call for elections, despite the fact that the title we're electing is meaningless. A third option would be to reverse my position, but call for an abolishment of all titles. I'm holding off on that until enough evidence builds that this is actually a problem. From what I can tell, Likebox is mostly trying to rile people up to prove a point (and especially, rile you up personally).


 * An additional option would be for other people to say "you can't/shouldn't do that". I'm not the voice of WT:PHYS. If he's only doing this because I said he could, it could be (validly) argued that my own statement did not represent consensus, and both I and Likebox are off-base in this (which may indeed be the case). Time will tell on that.


 * The larger problem is that, in my assessment, Likebox is more interested in grandstanding about how he thinks the rules are flawed, than about actually building an encyclopedia within Wikipedia's rules. In an ideal world, the rest of the community would just quietly enforce the rules and wait until he either works within them or breaks them seriously enough to wind up at ArbCom. The problem in this non-ideal world is that he's dragging good editors (yourself among them) down with him.


 * My best suggestion is to withdraw, do your best to ignore him, and let him shoot himself in the foot (or let him get sick enough of the rules to make good on his stated plan to leave Wikipedia if they aren't changed). Try to enforce the rules only in the most blatant violations, as borderline cases will have him crying "foul" very loudly and at great length. If necessary, do what I did a few times, and take a break - the wiki will still be here when you get back (though you'll be missed). IMO your priorities at this point should be a) your own peace of mind, and b) not losing the moral/ethical high ground. Disengaging when things get too stressful is one of the better ways of doing this. I've certainly had to do it often enough myself.


 * Good luck! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Christopher Thomas--- I want you to be sure that I would never claim to speak for WikiProject physics in any way, nor would I insist that my opinion is consensus opinion. But you should be aware of a few things: While editing pages, User:Finell has repeatedly backed up User:Headbomb by asserting that Headbomb is the Wikiproject physics coordinator. For uninvolved admins, this leads them to place more weight on the opinions of Headbomb. There are expert editors who will not join WikiProject physics as long as headbomb pretend to speak for the project.


 * I would like nothing more than to get back to editing articles, and avoid this sort of nonsense, but it is not possible unless all titles are stripped from everybody, and granted by consensus or election, the way other titles are.


 * You are also wrong that I have endeavored to change the rules here: I am happy with the basic rules, and they generally function well. I am asking that people take special care to protect mathematical pages, and edit them as they would review articles. This is a suggestion which is embodied best in Count Iblis' WP:ESCA, which I helped edit a little. This essay is a guide, it is not designed to replace policy. It is designed to allow the encyclopedia to expand to cover technical material, something which it has been unable to do well in the past.Likebox (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I also ask that you review my editing record: I have written more mathematical content on the encyclopedia than anyone else, at a higher level than anyone except arguably Lantonov (who wrote a masterpeice at BKL singularity). I am currently ready to write 115 articles on specialist topics the moment I know that the encyclopedia will accept and protect them with consideration to the effort that such exposition takes to write. The nonsense at infraparticle did not increase my confidence in the readiness of the encyclopedia for such content.Likebox (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, I did look up your editing history, earlier today. Of the 250 edits up to and including your edit at 19:00 23 Feb 2010 UTC, I considered 118 to be constructive (including by assumption of good faith all 58 edits to infraparticle and talk:infraparticle, rather than examining those in detail), and the remaining 132 to be unconstructive grandstanding (examined in detail to be sure of this). 50% of your time seems to be spent grandstanding, and another 25% on your pet article, which you consider to be one of only two (out of about two million, now?) worth reading by experts. Having pet projects is fine. Ignoring others' concerns about the article is not fine. Spending the majority of your time complaining, disrupting WT:PHYS, and canvassing at least three other editors to do the same, is very not-fine. Please do everyone a favour, and instead spend that time searching for sources that satisfy the requirements given in WP:V for all content you want to include. I've already made all the suggestions I really can regarding specific actions in that vein, which you have chosen to disregard. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, I have been involved in too much political nonsense for the past weeks. But go back to 06-09, and you will see that I have not been involved in politics at all, nor in "grandstanding" or any of that, and that I have spent about 10% of the time on politics.


 * The recent non-article-directed activity was an outgrowth of my indignation at the events which led up to the banning of expert editor Brews ohare, along with David Tombe, for their chatty comments regarding Speed of light. I don't like exclusionary policy, even though I also argued with Brews about things.


 * The reason I say "only two" is because they are the only two theoretical physics articles whose contents I didn't already know just by virtue of being a physicist. For better known things, there's SO(10), order disorder (which I didn't want to mention because it could also lead to a ruckus), and a handful of others. The encyclopedia is not yet at the point where professors with serious work will take the time to write up a review article and submit it here, instead of to a journal.


 * I would like to see that happen, but if the requirements of sourcing make it that it is impossible to put out a high-level description of recent research, well, that's going to be impossible. Infraparticle and BKL singularity show us what is possible. I hope I am not bugging you with this discussion, and I assure you, I am completely done with politics now.Likebox (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not under the impression Wikipedia was intended to be a place where professors published review articles; that would seem to be closer to the mandate of WikiSource (intended as a collaborative environment for new works, which would violate WP:SYN on Wikipedia). Wikipedia is just one project out of many (under the WikiMedia banner and under other organizations' stewardship). Wikipedia's goal is to produce as good an encyclopedia as is feasible given its core policies. Other projects with different core policies will produce results that are better in some respects, worse in others. It is possible (even likely) that other projects' mandates will have a better fit with your views about how best to write an encyclopedia. My point is that Wikipedia isn't necessarily the only (or even best) option.


 * The thrust of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SYN seems to be that material in this particular encyclopedia has to be checkable by people who, while not laymen, aren't already experts in the subject in question. This doesn't mean that articles should be written by people who aren't experts in their subjects; just that the content of the articles has to be sufficiently close to the provided references that skilled non-experts can verify it. The end result is an encyclopedia that is less comprehensive, and probably a worse teaching tool, than other projects' encyclopedias, but that is generally more accurate (for topics based on verifiable facts, at least; political articles are their own ball of wax). This is neither good nor bad; it is simply an aspect of the landscape of projects that are out there.


 * The impression that I've been getting, which may or may not be correct, is that your goal is to produce articles that are first and foremost good teaching tools, with strict verifiability being a secondary concern. These are very useful works, but will sometimes conflict with the mandate of Wikipedia. The best suggestion I can offer is to make user-space forks of articles you feel are being unnecessarily cut-down, and to attempt to salvage content in two ways. The first approach is incremental reintegration with the mainspace article. To do this, perform strict sourcing for parts of the article, and propose these parts for integration on the mainspace article's talk-page. Some will be integrated, and some won't, but doing this via talk-page proposals (and respecting consensus, for or against) makes it clear that you're willing to work with other editors, while also giving you a personal version of the article that you don't have to worry about others cutting down while you edit it over the long-term. The second approach is to harvest content you feel appropriate from both your fork of the article and from mainspace for use in your own works off-site (on one of the other science wikis with a different mandate, on your own page as a CC/GFDL fork of the wiki content, or anywhere else you like).


 * My point with this is, the work you've done doesn't have to be wasted even if consensus ends up being that it doesn't follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Salvaging the work by other methods is probably better in the long run than attempting to edit against consensus or against policy. I've had to move some of my own work on more speculative topics off-wiki, and while I'm disappointed at having to do it, I don't fault the wiki or its users for it.


 * I hope these comments are useful to you. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) Thanks for the thoughtful reply--- what you describe is in fact what has been happening at Godel's incompleteness theorems, where I have developed a fork which is opposed by consensus. It has not happened on physics pages, mostly because WikiProject physics was disfunctional for so long that good mathematical articles could squeak by. It doesn't happen on WikiProject Mathematics, because WikiProject mathematics long ago decided to ignore Wiki policy for all accurate content.

It is a question of what Wikipedia's scope is--- is it intended to be a dissemination tool for all knowledge, including hard to understand specialist knowledge, or is it going to be limited to what can be verified by casual inspection of sources.

The policy of Verifiability is not clear on this issue: verifiability doesn't mean "instant verifiability", nor does it mean "easy verifiability", nor does it mean "anyone can verify it". All that it means is that there are enough sources that you could, with enough study, make sure that the article is accurate. The amount of study might be very large.

I don't believe in other projects, because they are not as open as Wikipedia, or they are focused on original work. I am not interested in putting original work here, but in publicizing the neglected work that is unfairly obscure, because journals are hard to access, and language barriers prevent understanding. Wikipedia is able to clearly expose academic work to public review, even if the public has to be made to learn a lot of technical physics in the process! This can expose fradulent academic fields, it can give a fair account of topics that were dismissed as pseudoscience, it can give neglected original authors credit for their discoveries, and it can publicize needlessly obscure research. None of this requires any original research, but it does require high level original exposition.

Writing a technical Wikipedia article is also a great way to force yourself to learn the subject at the appropriate depth.Likebox (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wildbot call
Hi! I was not aware of the problem. Thank you for pointing it out. I immediately switch off the WildBot tag. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 23:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I appreciate it. I've responded in more detail on your talk page. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Opt-in scheme sounds a good idea in order to reduce the "watchlist spamming". However if the real problem is the size and/or position of the WildBot box in the talk page, I believe we have in the first place to fix this issue. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary at Talk:Pioneer anomaly
Care to explain what you mean with "you guys"? Paradoctor (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You (User:Paradoctor) and User:Tonicthebrown, per the text of that diff. Perhaps "you two" would be a better phrasing? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It would have been. Someone more paranoid than I might have read that as a subtle insult, seeing as my worldviews are incompatible with creationism, to put it mildly. Try to avoid discussing editor's intentions, that way lay drama. Paradoctor (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Per your own previous statements, please assume good faith in my edits. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I meant. I was talking to you about a phrase that is easy to misread, and now you accuse me of not AGFing. Paradoctor (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in physics
My contribution to the above predates Gandalf61's version. Please don't revert it again! Androstachys (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CONS. In a nutshell, it says that if everyone else thinks something should be changed, you shouldn't change it back. What you are doing now is called edit warring. Stop doing it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Isotopes of neutronium
Do you think this category should be renamed or deleted. Not to be a cliche, but I say delete, because I saw the exact same list on Neutronium, down the page, complete with links. I think that this category is superfluous. You can help me decide whether I should insert a move or delete nomination template.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Per my comment at the Category:Neutronium CfD, I think it should be renamed to Category:Neutron clusters or Category:Polyneutrons or the like. An alternative would be to fold its contents into an "exotic nuclei" category, if we have one (that would also include nuclei with particles other than protons and neutrons, so-called halo nuclei, and other exotica). I'm open to suggestions, but further discussion should happen at WT:PHYS, not here. I'd suggest waiting for a few days before bringing it up there, as well. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't actually ask for it but I can't be bothered to change my template
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll be sure to use it responsibly (and sparingly). The reason I didn't ask for it is that in most occasions where I'm doing vandalism cleanup, I've already interacted with the user, which means I might not count as "uninvolved". I'll make sure to only use rollback when I'm either unambiguously not involved, or authorized to do so by other uninvolved users. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
Care to try that again, a little more tersely? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I'm not quite sure what happened, but thanks for the fast response. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Contribution
I am rewriting my proposed contribution to Wikipedia to eliminate synthesis or anything else that might be construed as original research or personal analysis. This process does not affect the overall gist of this piece at all because most of the “personal analysis” and “synthesis” can be documented and verified with reliable outside sources. I just did not do this because I thought that wiki-editors might help me document such sources. It’s a terribly tedious job if I rely solely on the Internet because hundreds or thousands of search hits have to be reviewed for each case in order to find the necessary material. I may be better off at the University of Wisconsin Library at Eau Claire. Of course, I can search their collections via the Internet too. I have relatively easy access to the university and college libraries in the Chicago and Milwaukee areas as well.

When the rewritten work is done you will see that there will be no type of material that is not externally verifiable and documented, at least, on a preliminary basis. This means that, for this draft, I will sometimes annotate by means of a citation number referencing the fact that a citation is needed. I will seek editorial assistance in finding some of the references because I have done enough literature searching to know that such references should be available, but I haven’t the patience to review 6,973 or more Google hits for each one. But, there is, after all, much to be done to edit this work regardless of how well a first draft may be written. I would hope that most editorial contributions would be additive, not subtractive.

I need to get this article perfected to the point that it will indeed be accepted by editors as a first draft, however, not rejected outright. If and when I can reach this point, I will request the blessings of editors like you to place links to it on appropriate discussion pages. Then we can get a lot more assistance, I hope you will help.

Perhaps the various editorial projects and task forces that Wikipedia has established might also help. But first, I shall continue to polish the article by documenting all statements that look like “personal analysis” and referencing all cases of apparent “synthesis” and converting “original research” to outside reliably sourced material.

So, the work will no longer qualify as a “critique” because such an article would necessarily involve synthesis. I would be more like a review. Maybe it would be more like a medley of mini-reviews on each of the four major subjects that it treats. So, perhaps the title needs work too.

Don’t you think that it could be a nice idea for Wikipedia to open up a category entitled “Critiques and Reviews” just for this type of article?

Kentgen1 (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First, the best place to ask for a review of physics-related content is probably at WT:PHYS. I'm just one editor; I'm no more (or less) important than the vast number of other editors on the project. WikiProject Physics (short link: WT:PHYS for the talk page) will let you run your idea by a much larger number of editors, whose aggregate opinion probably do reflect project consensus on physics-related topics.


 * Second, Wikipedia really isn't designed to support critiques or reviews; it's intended strictly to report views published elsewhere, with an amount of space in proportion to their impact in the field in question (in the case of science, usually judged by publications in reputable journals and citations by other unrelated scientists, but sometimes also things like media exposure). A critique made by a scientist and published in a reputable journal that was then cited or referenced by many other scientists would certainly be relevant. Ditto a popular-press book that caused a similar stir (Prof. Smolin's book criticizing string theory is an example of such a critique). A critique in popular press that causes a big enough impact would also qualify (the media circus over the safety of every big particle accelerator that comes along is a good example).


 * Something that you've put together stitching together references to individual critiques, though, is still at best borderline-synthesis, and at worst well into WP:SYN territory. It would be much more useful to publish any such large collection of critiques outside of Wikipedia (in print or online), get it noticed, and then (if it's presented in a sufficiently neutral and encyclopedic tone) suggest on article _talk_ pages that other editors consider adding a link to it and take references as appropriate. Other users, rather than yourself, because if it's a work you put together there are WP:COI issues (not strictly a policy violation, but having others do it demonstrates good faith).


 * But that's just my opinion. To hear more opinions, start a new thread at WT:PHYS. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The references that I cite and the ones that I shall cite are not themselve critiques or reviews. I propose to cite only original research that is reliably sourced. Let's see what the final result is after my proposed edit aimed at finding outside sources for everything I say. I have to do this anyway because I cannot go to WT:PHYS until I have something that is more presentable.

Kentgen1 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Golden age of general relativity
Hi. I left a belated reply over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Sorry about the delay. I have been taking a break (for the most part), and was unaware of your query. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I sent you an emaail. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect, if it was something that can't be said on my talk page, I question whether it really is relevant to the discussion. I'll take a look when I get to work on Monday (that's the account my wiki-mail goes to), but I'd prefer to keep discussion out in the open.


 * To repeat what I've said elsewhere, I don't fault your intentions. I think you made both a poor assumption (about use of the term) and a poor procedural decision (making sweeping changes before bringing the topic to a suitable discussion venue). Further discussion of specifics of each of our reference searches (and those of other editors) should probably be in the WT:PHYS thread. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep the discussion out in the open, but my email is related in another way, and hopefully you will see what I am talking about, if it is still relevant by then. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your email appears to echo your statements on-wiki claiming that my accusations of lack of due diligence are spurious. I have already responded on-wiki to the extent that I intend to. The short version is, I stand by my statements. The fact that I have to continue pointing out things you seem to have missed in the searches I reference continues to cause me concern. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied to your most recent query over at the project discussion. You may be happy with the positive results. I guess I should thank you for being thorough, and making me work harder. I really was working hard at this, but not hard enough. Even though I did not like your honest assessments pertaining to me, it has proved to be effective, with positive results for the article (and for Wikipedia).   Steve Quinn (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I seemed to have a hostile tone at any point during this discussion. Your searches actually showed that the term was less commonly used than I'd expected. I'd actually be in favour of a merge into a "history of GR" article. It was only scrubbing of the term that I felt was unwarranted. I'll propose changes on the article's talk page, and we'll see if the other editors involved feel that it's a good idea. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't characterize the tone as hostile. I would say "displeased", which is understandable. In any case, thanks for the apology. I apologize for acting unilaterly. In the future, I will be sure to discuss my observations and intentions. I now relaize such errors can have negative effects on the Project Physics community as a whole, and this is an important project (imho). I have no desire to be a source of distress.  Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus
Hello. There is a further discussion of this user at WP:ANI here. Mathsci (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lovely. Thanks for the heads-up. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Checking more closely, this doesn't seem to be related to areas where I've encountered TN (relative prominence or lack thereof of Heim theory), so I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to comment on the thread. Thanks for the notification regardless. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)