User talk:Eb.hoop2

Hello, Eb.hoop2, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

Assume Good Faith
I appreciate your improvements to Cotton Mather, but insinuating that my removal of commentary from the lede was "non-neutral" was inappropriate. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In reviewing the recent history of edits to that article, I see that the removal of material from the lead that had struck me as potentially non-neutral (in that it took out almost everything that was mentioned there previously which would strike a modern reader as a positive aspect of Mather's career) wasn't carried out by you, but rather previously by User:Lewismr (see ). I might add here that I get the impression that this particular editor may have been allowed too free a hand in this and other articles related to the history of colonial New England, with few or no challenges raised to what, in my own opinion, might be regarded as advocating a particular set of views in a way that could be at odds with Wikipedia policies on avoiding original research.  Your input on this matter would be appreciated.  See also my comment on the contents of the article in the talk page.  - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proper source please
The source you added in Triboelectric effect for superradiance is to a news blog, not an actual source about superradiance. Can you please change it, as technically the statement you added is not appropriately sourced at present. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The source in question is a signed article in Physics World, which is a magazine published by the Institute of Physics. I think that this is more than a "news blog".  In any case, the connection with the theory of rotational superradiance is made in the scientific article by Alicki and Jenkins (published in Physical Review Letters in 2020).  I just thought that the story in Physics World would be more accessible to a Wikipedia reader. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Slight miscommunication. As written the page refers to the Physics World article as the source to explain superradiance, which it is not. The Physics World article would fit with their article, and then a separate source for superradiance.
 * N.B., I tried to avoid the masses of popular articles on the topic (including those on the flexoelectric contribution) and give a fair representation of all views, particularly the work which some have ignored. For instance Jamieson's 1910 paper is amazing and disproves so many models that it was ignored until recently. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)