User talk:Efilnickufesin

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! --Actown e 03:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, maybe you'll find the following recent paper useful for the subject of the zero-point energy.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th?papernum=0503100

Note however, that Casimir effect has its own article, and maybe the smartest thing to do would be linking there rather than duplicating the information.


 * Thanks, it's a good article. The point of describing the effect was to describe as concrete and real-world an example of zero point energy as possible, in plain english in a few paragraphs. Perhaps someone else can do a better job, but I think simply linking to a seperate, in-depth article doesn't accomplish the goal. The point wasn't to describe the Casimir effect perfectly and duplicate the Casimir article in an article that really isn't about Casimir. It is simply a good example to use in describing ZPE. -- Efilnickufesin 22:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not correct wikietiquette to refer to another editor as a prick. Such language should be avoided and was certainly not appropriate in your edit summary on the Melbourne page. There was not even the slightest provocation for such an unkind statement. Please treat other editors with respect. Xtra 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the person in question did provoke me. Have a look at their edit and comment, and my edit and comment, I think you'll agree that the person's comment did not truly show fairness in the context, but was a punitive and reactive redaction of my effort to improve the page. Such behaviour can rightly be attributed to a 'prick'. -- Efilnickufesin 23:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is never correct to use personal attacks on Wikipedia. This is a community project and everyone needs to work together. You do not get cooperation through insults. Xtra 01:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Cooperation requires two or more parties. The other party made no effort at "cooperating" to integrate my edit or address the concern that my edit addressed, so I saw fit to label the person using a term which seemed to match the behaviour and attitude they displayed towards me. There are a lot of things that are a problem in a community situation. Personally, I think choice of pronoun is relatively unconcerning. If other problems were as actively policed, this would probably be a very good information resource. And if the spirit of integrating public input was as actively promoted and adhered to as you make out in your criticism of my choice of language in responding to what I perceived as a personal slight, I would find the wiki a friendlier place -- even if it meant more people using informal terms of addressal. -- Efilnickufesin 01:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to be shunned or admonished by other editors, I suggest you act more cooperatively, and not attack anyone who disagrees with you. Xtra 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Threats of punitive remedy lead to progressive resolution even less frequently than does random abuse. Please review your own behaviour instead of mine. -- Efilnickufesin 01:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was only trying to assist you in integrating into Wikipedia. You should really try to keep your anger in check. Xtra 02:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well thankyou for your concern, and I agree. But I've really had it with people who check the history of the page and then revert the most recent edit(s), without waiting to see what develops from it/them. Seems to happen more often to new-user contributions. I haven't found polite discourse any use for this so I thought it might be worth trying shock. -- Efilnickufesin 02:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Zero-point energy
If you are still logging in to Wikipedia in 2007, I read your comments on ZPE with interest and have added some thoughts on the links between ZPE and Religion, also ZPE and Magic.1stonery 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)