User talk:JabberWok

Bohr model
Thanks for your efforts with the Bohr model article. It's always good to see informed contributions to Wikipedia. --Christopher Thomas 05:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, JabberWok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  00:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Email
Do you have an email address? PAR 17:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Connection between moment of inertia and coriolis effect
Hi JabberWok,

I noticed you have been adding references to Physics articles. The coriolis effect article needs references, and there is a bit of a problem. Not all physics textbooks discuss the connection between moment of inertia and the coriolis effect explicitly. (Implicitly they do, in discussing gyroscopic precession. Gyroscopic precession and the coriolis effect are related phenomena.

So the quest is on to find a textbook that discusses that connection, I can't just throw in any physics textbook. Maybe a textbook for engineers. In helicopter design there is the matter that when a rotorblade flaps the blade's center of mass moves towards or away from the axis of rotation, causing a change in the blade's angular velocity, (hence a change in lift). Can you possibly help me? --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 11:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought about it a bit, and quite honestly I have no idea what references to add to the coriolis effect. It's only briefly mentioned in a couple physics books I've read.  There is a lot of confusion about the topic so it would be nice to find a good textbook discussion of it...I'll have to keep my eyes open. JabberWok 21:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I found a discussion in my Berkeley Physics Course, under the heading: Angular Acceleration accompanying contraction which is the coriolis effect. (But the Berkeley text doesn't mention the Coriolis effect). It mentions the obvious: in order to contract while there is rotation requires doing work, increasing the rotational kinetic energy.
 * On the Talk:Coriolis effect page, a User named William M Connolley isn't buying the newtonian dynamics in the article. If you think the content of the article is sound, then could you please say so on the Talk:coriolis effect page? --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 23:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A colleague of mine mentioned that a good discussion of the Coriolis effect can be found in a book by the title of "Classical Dynamics". There are a couple books with this title - it might be the one by Donald T. Greenwood. From what I've been told, the Coriolis and other interesting effects occur when one derives equations of motion for things on the surface of a rotating sphere.
 * And about that article, a spinning skater bringing in her arms to spin faster is entirely due to conservation of angular momentum. Angular momentum
 * $$L = mvr \,$$
 * is a conserved quantity, when the radius r of her arms decreases, the velocity v of her arms must increase to keep L the same - which is why she spins faster. This seem totally unrelated to the Coriolis effect and I'm not sure why it's brought up in the article. The whole "The Coriolis effect in mechanics" section seems like it should be in the angular momentum article.
 * I'm going to have to read more about the Coriolis effect to be able to comment further though.

Are you kidding me? When performing calculations on a dynamics pheonmenon you can both look at the momentum and at the kinetic energy, it's not an either/or situation. Sure, very often only angular momentum conservation is discussed, I have chosen a different didactic approach.

Let me copy something I've written on the Talk:Coriolis effect page:

About the ice skater and conservation of angular momentum. Of course, conservation of ancgular momentum does apply in the case of the ice skater spinning up, but conservation of momentum is relatively unsuited for explaining the dynamics of a situation.

For example, when a cannon is fired the projectile is hurled away and the barrel recoils, as there is conservation of momentum. It sounds rather odd to say 'the projectile flies away because the barrel recoils'. That is rather unsatisfactory. A dynamic explanation focuses on what happens to the energy: the gunpowder explodes, chemical potential is converted to heat, expanding gases accelerate the projectile through the barrel. The general practice in physics is to look to the energy and to the forces. Energy is more associated with causality, because energy is associated with how processes develop over time, while momentum is more associated with symmetry of space.

In the Coriolis effect there is conversion of energy from one form to another. Potential-kinetic, kinetic-potential The general physics approach to understanding a phenomenon is to keep track of the energy conversions. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 06:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well ok, whatever you like. I only mentioned it because you asked for my opinion. JabberWok 06:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that there are two different phenomena that are both called Coriolis effect, causing a lot of Babylonian confusion

In engineering, the angular momentum conservation is known as the coriolis effect. For example I have Google searched for "helicopter blade" and coriolis, and I found the following sort of descriptions: "When the bending of the blade gets stronger, its center of mass moves closer to the main axis of the rotor. This increases the angular velocity of the blade, increasing its lift". And a Google search with "ice skater" and coriolis, gets a lot of hits. Also the operating principle of the Coriolis mass flow meter is based on changes of moment of inertia.

My apologies for the remark "Are you kidding me?", that was very unpolite. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The difference in the way engineers look at it and the way physicists look at it could very well be the main source of confusion over the article. I only know of it from the physics side. JabberWok 20:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What Gustave Gaspard Coriolis describes in his 1735 paper corresponds to the engineers coriolis effect. Also the coriolis effect that needs to be taken into account in meteorology is the engineers coriolis effect. One of the few exceptions is ballistics, that is is an example where the issue is coordinate transformation between an inertial coordinate system and a rotating coordinate system. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 20:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Another example: orbital mechanics. Comets have orbits with the largest eccentricity. As the Sun accelerates a comet, towards the center of the solar system, the gravitation is doing work and the angular velocity of the comet with respect to the sun increases. That corresponds to the mechanical coriolis effect: angular acceleration accompanying contraction. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 20:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Period at the end of sentence
Hi. I saw you removed periods at the end of formulas in method of steepest descent. I would like to ask you to not do that in the future. Putting a period at the end of formula if formula is at the end of sentence is accepted practice in mathematics publications and also on Wikipeida, as per the math style manual. I am aware that engineers don't like that, but at least in math articles, we will use the math conventions. :) Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Lightbulb images
Hello,

I was notified that this image, which you originally uploaded and I converted to PNG, will soon be deleted, due to its image page not having information about the source. Could you please provide that information? Thanks in advance, --Fibonacci 18:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Flux
Re: Flux (disambiguation): Do not alphabetize disambiguation pages. Per the Manual of Style, entries on disambiguation pages should be in order from most common to least.--Srleffler 01:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:USDA organic seal.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:USDA organic seal.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  01:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i accidently deleted the agricultural piece when i just wanted to make changes. it is surprising for a PhD student to portray the whole agricultural news so subjectively. The E.coli outbreak was most likely caused by wild pigs and the 2003 review paper is very unconvincing. ncbi has several other papers that are more statistically significant stating the opposite.

Organic Food Problems:
I asked for the organic page to be delisted because it has so many errors that it was futile for me to attemp editing it. It is systematically biased. --Zeamays 02:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Independent scientists is commonly taken to mean scientists, such as academic scientists, without professional affiliation to a profit making entity (agribusiness) or a philosophically-based group (such as the Rodale Institute). All of the citations I added were to governmental or academic people or organizations. --Zeamays 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

hey i find your latest addition to organic food is mostly editoralizing. i don't think the article should argue for organic food, which is what your addition does. look at Amillsx last additions, he does the opposite, at least he does it in the controversy section, but i feel he also just adds his own opinion, rather than documenting criticism. must admit, me i am also a fan of short intros. as it is now i would like to take both addition off. trueblood 09:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

this is not gonna be easy
i have a little trouble editing the article because it is not clear to me of what should be where. i guess i am not happy with the motivations article. whose motivation, why farmers grow organic or why consumers buy organic? i feel some sections should be in the food article, all the contamination stuff, plus taste, whilst there are sections in the food article that should be in the farming article, like um the benefits of organics (except for the consumer, but that is redundant with the stuff from motivations) and the history. oh and the identifying section could be a lot shorter. i say this here because you started the motivations article, didn't you. ps do you still think i delete too much or too quickly? --trueblood 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC) i removed the trevawas or was it trewavas link because it was not functionable. they even put up a note that someone should tell the people at wikipedia that this link does not work anymore. he is a scientist though--trueblood 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which is the more "general" article: Organic food or Organic farming, and since both articles seemed to list arguments for and against organics, I sort of hoped that the Motivations for organic agriculture could be an overlap between the two. After creating the page I sort of have ignored it and concentrated on the Organic food page - in the hopes that I could help make it shorter and more to the point with good references.
 * Oh, and I don't think you delete too much or too quickly. JabberWok 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments on my own discussion page. --Zeamays 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

ii feel i got rather bogged down by this little argument. i would like to get on with improving the structure of the articles. for instance i am not sure if this whole sustainability issue shouldn't be rather in the farming article. i guess i am going to take stock of what is where and come up with some suggestion of moving sections between articles. i really would like to have criticism sections in each article and have all controversy contained in those sections.good job with creating the trevawas article. i think his nature article is based on opinion rather than evidence. most of it's links that interested me did not work though--trueblood 07:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

deletor
you are refering to the atrazin thing, you are right i am often to impatient to wait until i find something better to replace it. in this case i really want a link that is summarizing the research about effect of pesticide residues in food (which should than also be in the pesticide article). i think it is not helpful to just pick out some study that proves some connection, because you can also pick another study that failed to prove a connection. but you are right i ran into people for deleting things. i should be more careful. on the other hand there is the note that says that the article might to long.--trueblood 16:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) ah and i think organic farming should be the more general article since organic food is just the outcome of it. organic farming should be the longer article of the two. and i still think the sustainability controversy should be there, since it should discuss organic farming practices.--trueblood 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:SpringsInSeries.png
Thanks for uploading Image:SpringsInSeries.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Gluon-top-higgs.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Gluon-top-higgs.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 01:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:ComptonScattering-s.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:ComptonScattering-s.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

GFDL works on wikicommons
Hi, would you please upload your GFDL images, such as Image:Kaon-Decay.svg onto the Wikicommons so that I can use them on other languages? --Tevatron 12:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, although it might be a slow process for me to do (looks like some people have a tool to transfer files from wikipedia to the commons).
 * Kaon-Decay.svg

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Quality Assurance International.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Quality Assurance International.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Electron-positron-annihilation.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Electron-positron-annihilation.png, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Joelholdsworth 09:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Electron positron Feynman diagram
Shows them undergoing a repelling reaction. I suppose it's in theory possible to scatter an electron off a positron (though I wouldn't bet that it is), however, since the most common interaction is one of attraction, not repulsion, wouldn't it make a much less confusing diagram if both of these particles had the same charge, in a diagram which shows them moving away from each other after the exchange of the photon? S B Harris 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey there, good point, it's just that Feynman diagrams technically don't depict where things are actually moving. Like, it is not meant to represent a positron and electron going in the same direction, getting closer, passing a photon between them, and then getting far apart. In other words, Feynman diagrams aren't a "physical picture." I can see how someone might think that, but I actually created that diagram for technical Bhabha_scattering article, which happens at particle accelerators that smash positrons and electrons head-on into eachother. But that's a good point, I should get around to creating images of the actual physical picture of what's happening in these interactions. JabberWok 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But indeed SOMETIMES Feyman diagrams can be used to picture things as through actually moving, since time is one axis. So if you take a frame where both particles are moving and you use that time axis as the velocity direction the particles are moving IN, then each particle does trace out its actual physical path, moving toward (or away) from the other, changing course with emission or absorption of a virtual particle. Of course, for inertial frames in which particles head exactly at each other, it's just a graph, where this is laid out as a strip-recorder would see it. BTW, since time is an axis, you technically need your photon wavy to have an angle from origin point to absorption point, so it doesn't look like it's being transferred instanteously. Look at all real F diagrams and you'll see that angle, even for massless exchange particles S  B Harris 01:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the way it's always been taught to me is summed up by this quote from my first introductory course in modern physics,
 * "The lines are symbolic and do not represent the particle trajectories. It is the interaction that we are interested in describing." - Modern Physics by Tipler and Llewellen.
 * And all the feynman diagrams in this book do not have this "angle" that you're describing (you mean this, right?). In addition, the feynman diagrams I've created were drawn the same way they are in the standard graduate level particle physics book Halzen & Martin (ISBN 0-471-88741-2). So, I guess what I'm saying is that the "modern style" of drawing feynman diagrams is just as I've drawn. JabberWok 05:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Math on CFL article
See User_talk:MrVoluntarist for discussion. MrVoluntarist 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Garden_of_Eatin_Yellow_Chips.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Garden_of_Eatin_Yellow_Chips.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

hostile takeover at organic food
did not drop in for a while, but now i found the article on organic food to one sided, now it seems bottom line is organic food is less sustainable, don't have the time now but i'd like to put things back into perspective a bit more sooner or later. keep up the good work trueblood 16:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Organic Valley, Inc. Article
Hello- I just recently joined Wikipedia and uploaded my first article, Organic Valley, Inc.. I was hoping that you might have the opportunity to read my article and provide feedback because of your envolvement in the other organic food articles. Any help would be appreticiated! Thanks Goldtome 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Goldtome

Image:Newsweek-May-22-2005.jpg
I have tagged Image:Newsweek-May-22-2005.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Thirdship 04:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Newsweek-LosingAfghanistan.png
I have tagged Image:Newsweek-LosingAfghanistan.png as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Thirdship 05:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bohr model image wrong
Hello, thanks for all your effort. I just noticed that your picture which is prominently featured at the top of the article Bohr model seems to be wrong. 1) The atomic nucleus is missing (which in itself is probably not a big deal); 2) The electron on the lowest level (n = 1) should be on its orbit and not in the center of the atom. Please let me know what you think. 149.217.1.6 09:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, apparently you are not the author of the current version. 149.217.1.6 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Compton@Commons
Hi JabberWok, I have uploaded your diagrams on Compton scattering on Wikipedia Commons (links on my page there) to use them in the german WP, which only had the s-channel diagram. I had a bit of trouble figuring out the exact meaning of the gnu licence you used but according to the guys in the WP chat -and considering the is a function on Commons explicitely doing this- I hope that is ok. timo, 15 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.250.44 (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HydrogenLineAntiParallel.svg
Hi JabberWok!

We thank you for uploading Image:HydrogenLineAntiParallel.svg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Diagram of Higgs particle production
This is in regards to Gluon-top-higgs.svg that appears on the Higgs boson page. The two antiquarks should be drawn with time-reversed arrows, which is the custom for all antiparticles. 74.66.23.172 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JAS_organic_seal.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:JAS_organic_seal.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ab-logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Ab-logo.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:German_organic_seal.jpg
I have tagged Image:German_organic_seal.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Australian_organic_seal.jpg
I have tagged Image:Australian_organic_seal.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Quark Image
Hi JabberWok, I noticed that your Image:Quarks_and_decays.png is in a nice prominent place up at the top of the quark article. However, I am concerned that the image is incorrect, since it neglects the (admittedly very rare) weak decays t → d and b → u. Have you thought about making a version that correctly indicates these decays? Xerxes (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

body doubles source request
Hi Jabber you have tagged a statement re body doubles in the toplessness articles - does this reference from IMDB satisfy reliability guidelines or do we need something more? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235280/trivia cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Quarks and decays.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Quarks and decays.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct evidence vs. indirect evidence
Perhaps a typo, but the observations of the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 qualitatively and quantitatively comprise INdirect evidence for the existence of dark matter. Also, I'm of the opinion that yet other wording in the MACS J0025.4-1222 article would give the uninformed reader the impression that dark matter is canonical fact instead of an unconfirmed (though promising) scientific hypothesis. But this is a more subjective interpretation of the semantics; so I've limited myself to simply removing the "in" from "direct" in the MACS J0025.4-1222 article, which is a more cut & dry matter. Keep up the good physics work! --bd, 11/11/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.64.48 (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Australian organic seal.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Australian organic seal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Bohr model Balmer 32.svg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:German organic seal.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:German organic seal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

137 + 1/27 + .5%
Help, Help. I am caught in the 137 black hole and can't rationalize the last .5%. Can't eat, can't sleep. I like the Feynman diagrams, three circles or two circles with one circle cluttered with an extra photon. If someone would please give me the mathematical expressions for these diagrams, I might be able to come up with an explanation for that last piece. If someone could send me the math corresponding to those diagrams, there is a small chance I could find a wormhole out of the black hole I am trapped in. Please use my email address nasapt.summers@aol.com. Or send me a reference that has it.

Sincerely,

Sleepless in Philadelphia

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Feynman-annihilation.png


The file File:Feynman-annihilation.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Feynman-scattering.png

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo organic.png
Thanks for uploading File:Logo organic.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Gluon-top-higgs.png


The file File:Gluon-top-higgs.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Electron-positron-scattering.png


The file File:Electron-positron-scattering.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:UW-Madison-Moped-Parking.jpg


The file File:UW-Madison-Moped-Parking.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, no encyclopedic use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Organic Apple.png


The file File:Organic Apple.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused. Superseded by File:Organic Apple.jpg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 10:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Tau-decays.png


The file File:Tau-decays.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused, superseded by File:Feynman diagram of decay of tau lepton.svg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 03:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)