User talk:Logger9/Archives/2009/March

March 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the reminder. I will try to make a habit of that in the future !


 * logger9 (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why aren't you using one in Glass? Jdrewitt (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
Hi, I realized that in the article glass there is some edit war going on. It would be best to discuss controversial issues on the glass talk page first and to use an edit summary for changes to the article itself. As almost always, disagreements are best resolved by communication. By the way: well researched additions to the article Glass are certainly needed, as for example described in the to-do-list on the glass talk page. I am looking forward to a beneficial co-operation.--Afluegel (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Email
Hello there. I hope you are doing well. I have responded to your email by the same medium. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 21:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fork
RHaworth: Before you created glassy state did you consider whether it might be better to add the information to the existing article?

logger 9: I really did not want to "step on anyone's toes". But I see now that is a defeatist attitude.

RHaworth: Were you satisfied that what you had written did not duplicate material already present here?

logger9: Yes....that did not appear to be a problem in this case.

RHaworth: Every single edit of yours was clearly visible.

logger9: I can see that now...but I could not see it at that time. That represents a very big assumption on your part as editor.

RHaworth: I recognized that they had useful content and would never have considered deleting them.

logger9: Thank you very much...I appreciate that now :-)

logger9 (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I have been forced to once again redirect glassy state. For precisely the same reasons as RHaworth states (see talk page history) Jdrewitt (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
It would be best, if you could always use a shourt edit summary for your edits as already said above. Otherwise it is not clear right away what you have done for other editors. Co-operation and discussion among editors is necessary. Thank you. --Afluegel (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits reverted
Hi, I just reverted your recent edits to the article glass, as they were not discussed or explained. Please discuss such large changes first, especially, if they are controversial.--Afluegel (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough....I have explained my additions in a lengthy post on the Glass/talk page. It is up to you whether or not you choose to use it. It's your publication, and it continues to be an immense asset to me in teaching the basic sciences.

I wish you all the best with it :-)

logger9 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not the meaning to push you out completely. The problem is that you first made substantial edits without explanation, then they were re-worked substantially by Jdrewitt and you just reverted them, without getting into discussion with him in detail. To many comments you did not reply. "Take it all or nothing" is not a good approach for collaborative articles. Anyway, I am sorry if I caused you bad feelings. I wish you all the best with your work at the university, and hopefully also with Wikipedia. --Afluegel (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To the contrary, (and please correct me if I am wrong) -- but none of the following work has ever even been discussed.

1) Viscosity of simple fluids

2) Structural relaxation

3) Viscoelastic behavior

4) Vitrification

As the bulk of my work in glass physics, it has simply been dismissed by Wiki authors.


 * logger9 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The way ahead
Hi Logger9. Thanks for your latest message on my User talk page. Please don’t give up! Making major contributions to Wikipedia, as you are doing, can be frustrating. I have fallen into a number of traps and found it annoying and frustrating, but I have learnt a lot from each of those unfortunate experiences. I now have a number of strategies that help me succeed with my work, and help me avoid the traps.

You have already discovered the value and importance of discussing significant changes and initiatives on the Talk page. Changes that are consistent with the article in its current state will rarely attract adverse comment from other editors, particularly if those changes are supported by a suitable citation for verification purposes. Those changes can be made without prior discussion. However, changes that will alter the shape or direction of an article are more likely to succeed if you use the Talk page to first announce what you see as the problem and the solution, announce your intentions, and ask for comments from others. In my experience, this works in two ways – firstly it will attract useful comments from others who are active in the field. Secondly, other users will be reluctant to revert your edits or challenge them if they can see that you announced your intentions on the Talk page a week or two earlier and they failed to respond in a timely manner.

I strongly suggest you start at least one personal sandbox, possibly called User:Logger9/Sandbox. This will be your personal page that others can view, but others won’t alter it. At your convenience you can write your new article, or major change to an existing article, without fear of being disturbed by others. If it is a proposed new article you can leave a message on the User talk pages of other editors who work in the field, advising them of your proposed new article, giving them a link to your personal sandbox, and asking for their comments. If it is a major change to an existing article you can use the Talk page for that article to announce your intention to repair or up-grade the article, leave a link to your personal sandbox, and ask for comments.

To create a personal sandbox, see WP:SP.

I was recently involved in a controversy over Thrust-to-weight ratio. I spent a week developing my proposed changes on my sandbox; then I contacted the other users who were likely to be interested and invited them to visit my sandbox and let me know of any comments. There were a few comments and I gave them due consideration. After a week there were no new comments. When all was silent I copied the article from my sandbox and pasted it into Thrust-to-weight ratio. Since then, there have been no changes or challenges to my work.

You have now made 399 edits to Wikipedia so your knowledge about the place has increased significantly since I left a Welcome message in January. Keep up the good work. Please don’t hesitate to contact me again if you think I can help in some way. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. My user subpage can now be viewed by opening:

User:Logger9/Physics_of_Glass

Thanks :-)

logger9 (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Physics of glass
Hi Logger9. I have looked at your new sub-page and it looks very good. Congratulations!

Other users will normally not make changes to a document that is on a User's sub-page. However, in the interests of helping your new article to look as professional as possible I have adjusted the three math formulae. The new presentation is consistent with the appearance of math forumulae elsewhere in Wikipedia, and I think they now look clearer. If you want to change my presentation, go right ahead. If you don't like the look feel free to revert my changes.

Information on use of math text in Wikipedia is available at WP:Math.

It is also established protocol in Wikipedia that article titles, and sub-headings, have a leading capital letter, but all subsequent words are lower case except where it is essential that they be capitalised. Therefore the preferred title of the article in question would be Physics of glass rather than Physics of Glass.

Keep up the good work. Dolphin51 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiversity + wikibooks
Hi, I found your comments and dismissal of wikiversity and wikibooks rather disappointing - They are certainly still in the development stage and not as established as wikipedia but this does not mean they will not be as good as and as useful as wikipedia given time - We are all volunteers here and the more people who contribute constructively the better these resources will become. The suggestion of using wikibooks was not my idea, it came from wikipedia policy here: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK i.e. if you are trying to write a text book then use wikibooks instead as it is more appropriate. To dismiss these resources is an insult to the contributors there who do put in a lot of hard, unpaid work to try and improve availability of free education - something which you do actually seem to care about. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean those comments to be hostile by the way - I have a habit of seeming abrupt but I always act in good faith. Anyway, I've said enough, voiced my opinions and there is no point in repeating anything that is already at talk:Glass. I'm going to be away for a while - have more pressing mattters to attend to in real life - but I hope it work s out and that somehow a way is found to incorporate your contributions in a way that fits in with wikipedia policy. regards Jdrewitt (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Solid 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Solid 1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I took care of it. The file is now public domain. Please let me know if there are any further problems with this image ! -- logger9 (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Solid 1.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Solid 1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 04:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed it for you, you just needed a tag on the page. Have a good day, &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 19:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mucho gratsi !!! -- logger9 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all! Any questions you have, just message me on my talk. :) &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 22:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A belated welcome from the WikiChemists
Welcome to Wikipedia! If you want and help or advice, or simply want to comment on chemistry articles on Wikipedia, feel free to join us at WP:CHEMISTRY or WP:CHEMICALS. The former is for chemistry in general while the latter is for articles about specific chemical compounds, although you'll usually find pretty much the same people in both groups. There is also an IRC discussion channel on freenode, #wikichem, which is most active around 1600–1800 UTC on Tuesdays. Best wishes, and thanks for your contributions. Physchim62 (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Page move
Hi, you did not do the page move from Physics of the glass transition to Glass transition correctly. I will undo it and explain you the correct procedure in a minute.--Afluegel (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that...I gave it my first shot! Please advise the newbie. -- logger9 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I made the same error the first time. This kind of copy and paste page move destroys the edit history, does not move the associated talk page, and generally causes problems for later editors. The correct procedure is detailed at WP:MOVE.--Afluegel (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not allowed to move to "Glass transition" as long as it already exists (with a redirect to "Glass-liquid transition"). What next ? Do I need to contact an administrator ?? -- logger9 (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, contacting an administrator is the best way in this case.--Afluegel (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. I have submitted the move as an uncontested request. -- logger9 (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I am glad it worked out well. I will try to set a small disambiguation template on top with reference to the glass transition temperature, in case an user looked for that actually. - Otherwise, we are just trying to set up a task force glass (WP:GLASS). If you wish, you are welcome to contribute and to become a member.--Afluegel (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Most excellent....count me in :-) -- logger9 (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Email
Hello there. I hope you are doing well. I have responded to your email by the same medium. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 21:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)