User talk:Gravitophoton

Thanks

Congradulations!
BLEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH... You, are one lucky person!Mr.Iownarocketnowbecausethisawesomeusergaveittome... Syke or watever u spell it like. You have earned my daily (sometimes weekly)award for people who ike space exploration. I 2 think this world would be better off with no religion. thank you very much*$Marie*Night*Fox$* for the award:) i like your user page also, and i ve never seen so many userboxes b4. i hope u don t mind if i c&p some cool ones, thanks again and c u around ;) --Gravitophoton (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * >    *Marie* (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * >    *Marie* (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heim theory
Heim theory has been much improved and it needs your help to prepare it for peer review.-- Novus Orator 05:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 4 your message, i ll see what i can do:) --Gravitophoton (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

2nd nomination for deletion: Heim theory
Hi - an article you contributed to has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to comment. Thanks, Maschen (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * i did, thank you. --Gravitophoton (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Bold comment
Please understand that I know nothing -- less than nothing! -- about this area of science.

In general, the more vague your claims about the notability of a thing or a person, the more other editors will suspect you're flogging a dead horse. Of course those people have been to conferences -- every academic goes to conferences. Of course they have introduced the thory -- why else were they there? So it doesn't help anyone to say so. It just appears to the reader that someone on Wikipedia is searching round for bland nice positive things to say about the theory, and they will stop reading.

So, if I felt confident that the fact that this theory has been presented at conferences is really interesting and important, then I would say something really, really specific and exact about it. You probably have this information! At which scientific conference, what date, where in the world was it first presented?, Or, most fully presented? Or -- it's a real stroke of luck if you can show this from the published proceedings or from a science news journal -- at which scientific conference, what date, where in the world, did it arouse the fiercest discussion, and who spoke most forcefully against it, and who spoke in its favour?

This may be no use at all -- you may have done all this already, please forgive me if that's the case -- but if there's any useful idea here I'll be very happy to have helped. Andrew Dalby 09:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * thank you for your comments Andrew Dalby, I appreciate it. to get an npov-picture of the story i thought it should be included as the sources are respectable. "its outside mainstream-science" but the authors presented papers for many years on different major propulsion conferences in the us and are published in quite a few proceedings by acceptable publishers.... i still think this is an interesting detail; however... not a problem :-). thanks again and all the best. --Gravitophoton (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2013 (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) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)