User talk:Rangek

Precision tests of QED
Precision tests of QED

Its is counter intuitive but the difference comes not from the accuracy but from the quantum scale involved.

Its a hard one but will do my best to simplify when I have the time, accept my apologies for the confusion this has caused.

The key phrase is on Quantum electrodynamics " (and limited by experimental errors) "


 * What does that have to do with it being the most accurate theory? If we can't measure it, then it isn't. Rangek (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The nature of the phenomenon that causes see http://xxx.lanl.gov for refs Omeganumber (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not even a complete sentence. What use is a link to arXiv anyway?  There are thousands of papers there. Rangek (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Just use the Boolean Search, theres a lot of pieces to put together if you are serious about understanding this. I cant put it on a plate for you Omeganumber (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

However it may be better to remove the accuracy reference and replace it with the fact it has contributed more to society than ANY other field of science.


 * Holy POV and peacock words, Batman. Not that I necessarily disagree, but you are going to need some serious references for a statement like that. Rangek (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to elaborate on the Condensed matter systems section also but this is well above a simplified explanation. Omeganumber (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: If this is acceptable please let me know

"Subjectively from a physicists point of view given the proportions involved in any quantum theory this makes QED the most accurate physical theory constructed thus far" Omeganumber (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that doesn't work for me. "Subjectively" and "physics" should never appear together.  What are these proportions you allude to?  I don't understand how this is so hard.  Which ever theory makes the most accurate predictions is the most accurate.  There should be no equivocating.  Just look at the numbers. Rangek (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"To clearly discuss quantum theory, learn to speak the language of quantum mechanics."

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610131 Omeganumber (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please. You are speaking gobblydegook.  I am asking you to write a clear sentence that explains the relative accuracy of these theories.  If you can not do that, stop trying. Rangek (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Clear" thats relative to you even understanding the problem Omeganumber (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You slay me. I understand the problem just fine.  If you can't explain it so that someone without a Ph.D. can understand it then just go away.  This is an encyclopedia meant for lay person consumption.  I have rejected scientific papers that were clearer than the collection of motley sentences you have managed to string together thus far.  Your intimation that my understanding is the issue here is laughable on many levels.  I am merely asking you to write something nearly everyone can understand.  If you can't do that, or if it is impossible to do (which can happen, but I don't think this is one of those rare instances), then we should just remove the statements from the articles.  Rangek (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the tone of my recent comments, OK last try full and simple: The determination of the accuracy of QED which is in effect a perturbation theory of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum can leave more questions than answers. The determination of the accuracy is quite different to eg. determining the accuracy of mmx or spr. Parts of an electromagnetic phenomena are inaccessible to direct measurement and parts cannot be experimentally tested (eg "virtual photons" not that these would affect the accuracy its just an example), they are either are excluded from or affect the determination of the accuracy of the theory eg. The calculation.

Any references needed to add to this description would probably involve wading through a mountain of journals. If you still consider this "Gobbledygook" please delete revert. regards Omeganumber (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * MUCH better. Not perfect, but MUCH better. In light of this analysis, I think it would be best to remove any references to "most accurate theory", and maybe just settle for "one of the most accurate physical theories" or something. Rangek (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Used you're suggestion thanks for the feedback Omeganumber (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. And thanks for taking the time to hash all of this out. Rangek (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian Black Salt
I am really not sure if Black Salt is pure sodium chloride. In fact, it is made up of two conventional minerals, one white and the other red in colour. The second mineral is thought to be KCl. Most references mention this, but there is no reference of any chemical test.

Khmer Rouge
Arbitration has been filed, do you care to make a statement? WP:RFAR CJK 23:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Uvula Edit
It was I who edited the uvula page (it's my biggest edit so far), and I felt it was a good edit. I'll go through the edits...the first three aren't so bad.

The page calls the uvula "cone-shaped", which it can be, but not always, and not in the visuals that accompany the article. This phrase, "cone-shaped" seems to have been copied from another source.

The page later says the uvula got its name from its "grape-like shape". This also is not always true, and is not seen very much in the visuals. Other sources say that the word uvula in latin meant a swollen uvula, which do look like grapes.

I put some brackets around nasopharynx, so those who have no idea what it is can go to its page.

Here's where I got a bit bolder. It seemed so obvious to me, that I defied all of my sources. I guess I didn't consider it research because of its obviousness. The uvula simply cannot be used as a place of articulation. My guess is that people got confused because of the term "uvular", which I think is used because the terms palatal and velar were taken, and they needed a term that indicates a sound made further back, NEAR the uvula, at the very back of the soft palate. I explained this lower down in the section, in far fewer words.

I dont think the paragraph on phonetics belongs in this article. It should be on the Soft_palate page. Maybe a link from the uvula page would be appropriate.

Oh, two things wrong with the page...the main function of the uvula isn't mentioned, and I should have put brackets around my "uvular" at the bottom.

If you feel it was wrong to bring this here, I apologize. Write somethin' back.


 * I don't think defying your sources is ever a good idea. I am glad you wanted to make improvements, but you need sources if you are going to delete/change already existing material that seems reasonable.  A better place for this discussion would be that talkpage for the article in question.  You may also find that contributions from people with accounts, rather than anonymous editors are not dismissed as readily.


 * Oh, and sign you comments, please. Rangek 03:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, using the talk page doesn't work. No one pays attention until you actually start editing a page. And then they don't understand what you're doing. I just wish I could get some people on my side. If only more people were as passionate about uvulas as I am...sigh...


 * And I think defying your sources is sometimes the only reasonable position. – Misha


 * 216.254.12.114 02:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anton LeVay
I don't deny that Anton LeVay said he was influenced by Ayn Rand. However, I have been told many times by different people that this particular list is for philosophers only. Now, if there are some individuals who are eager to identify LeVay as a philosopher but remove all statements referring to Ayn Rand as one, I think this article has some serious problems.

Also, I don't think that deleting LeVay's name is vandalism because there are people who strongly object to his presence on that list on the grounds that he doesn't belong.

Alright I guess if some people are that passionate about it, I can live with his name in the article. Adam T.

Nollywood
Hello! I came accross this news item (published just a few months back) that states :
 * In the last five years, Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, has been churning out between 600 and 2,000 films a year, becoming the third-largest film industry behind the US and India.

I, in good faith, do not mistrust the article in Economic times that you are pointing as reference, even though I cant view it. But this news item seems to directly contradict it. Also, in the ref that you provided on Cinema of India, you are comparing the 2003 output of India and US, to that of the 2006 output of Nigeria. Could you please provide a different source that backs Nollywood's claim? Perhaps from some Novergian newspapers? Thanks!-- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia for coursework
I saw your comment at /Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard and thought you might like to know that a number of teacher do use Wikipedia sucessfully, myself included. You can take a look at my user page, which has a navigation bar of links to pages associated to the work my students are doing this semester. You can also look at School_and_university_projects which is a page specifically for those teachers who want to incorporate Wikipedia in their courses in some way. Feel free to contact me if you like!Thelmadatter 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're kind of splitting hairs.
A bazooka is a rocket-launcher. You're both right. HalfShadow 00:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLAGS on Joint Direct Attack Munition
I don't see that the usage there was in violation of the policy. Can you explain?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not. You can see that I undid the change seconds after I did it.   Sorry. Rangek (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, Ok. I was paging through the history and missed that you'd reverted.  Sorry to bug you.  Thanks for the response!  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indole
No, I would put the link on the original page rather than creating a new page with no content but the link. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The external link to the MSDS in the infobox worked fine for me just now. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No idea -- I'm not good with the technical side of things. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Centre stick vs side-stick
An article that you have been involved in editing, Centre stick vs side-stick, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Bond angle of water
Hi. Your edit to Water (data page) introduced a reference (Hoy 1979), but without any further details as to the paper. The reference was subsequently removed. You mention the CCCDBD in your edit summary, but it currently lists the experimental equilibrium bond angle as 104.48, without the extra two digits of precision. A question came up on the Science Reference Desk regarding the large precision of the number you included. If possible, could you edit the Water (data page) to include the full reference information for that number, so that other curious about it can find further information? Thanks. -- 174.31.194.183 (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)