User talk:Rhwentworth

Image copyright problem with Image:Adler3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Adler3.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Source for Einstein and Ethical Culture?
Hi, no real problems with your edit on Einstein - but I'd like to see a source cited in at least one of the articles that mentions this support. There's recently been a POV conflict in this article, and the result has been an overall increase in nervousness about statements that can't be traced back to a verifiable source. Hope that's no problem! --Alvestrand 10:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
If I didn't make it clear on the mediation talk page for "Humanist Papacy", I want to thank you for your insight into the case. Feel free to continue to comment if you wish. What you said was very helpful.Chandler75 03:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the appreciation. Thanks. -Rhwentworth 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Objective Truth and Secular Humanism
Hi Rhwentworth,

I didn't realize the search for objective truth was from the CSH. Perhaps my changes could go to the criticism section? I don't see how a secular humanist can believe in objective truth, this is ultimately a belief in the existence of an external 'thing' called objective truth, which is closer to Buddhism or western religions (e.g. Christianity). Secular humanists can perceive something they call truth from the human POV.

However, that is more my criticism of secular humanism, so I would be okay if you want to revert back to the original. The current change looks okay too.--Jjoplin 13:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest. You can edit the template at Template:Humanism. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Digging trees and shrubs for transplanting


The article Digging trees and shrubs for transplanting has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Purely instructional content which cannot be transformed into a neutral description of the subject

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

History and development section of NVC article
Thanks for the work you did on pulling together material from Marion Little's thesis. It puts the article on a much better footing, IMO. It was easy for me to summarize the quotes. Someone might observe that we are very reliant on one source for this section. Perhaps, to forestall that, we could find one or two other sources on history and development. I will look around. Nice working with you. Sunray (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
Consensus decision-making is defined as: "a process that seeks the consent, not necessarily the agreement, of participants and the resolution of objections." In the discussion on the NVC talk page, no one has resolved the objections you and I have raised. Therefore, we do not have consensus and the article would remain as it is now (minus Gorsevski). I saw your post with a suggested alternative way of including Gorsevski. I don't think that it resolves the objection. Sunray (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Washington Ethical Society


Hello, Rhwentworth. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Washington Ethical Society".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Self-published sources
Hi! [/index.php?oldid=1039289351&diff=prev Your edit to Hydrogen storage] has been undone because it relied, directly or indirectly, entirely on self-published sources. Per WP:SPS, these are only acceptable as sources under specific and rare circumstances. For more detail, see the talk page. — (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hydrogen storage
Previously, I noticed that you added a section to hydrogen storage detailing photo-chemical storage in the form of light-activated hydrides. However, no working demonstrator has ever been made, nor have these claims been peer-reviewed to any real extent. YouTuber Thunderf00t (Phil Mason) has debunked this vapourware already. You might want to give this video a watch and perform some more in-depth research in the future. 97.70.186.205 (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Greenhouse effect lead changes
I rolled your edits forward today and then tried to edit them into something we'd both like. The main reason I backed things out yesterday is that I thought the sentences you added were too long and technical, and I didn't have time to do edits then. In an introductory topic like this, I want to keep things at a middle school reading level. Thanks for bearing with me while we work this out. Efbrazil (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Edits to greenhouse effect lead
A bit more explanation on my edits, to hopefully avoid some thrash as we sort this out.

Regarding the first paragraph, I thought it was best to just keep things simple. The upper atmosphere cooling is a transitional state that is happening on Earth now, but not a steady state feature. The real effect is increasing the temperature differential between lower and upper atmosphere, and I thought that was unnecessary to include and somewhat redundant with what is already said.

For the last paragraph, I don't think it is necessary to state that the Earth loses heat to space exclusively through radiation. If we added gases to atmosphere that somehow inhibited convection (a viscous gas?) it would also cause global warming. Put another way, a greenhouse in space would also lose heat exclusively through radiation. I just don't know if the fact is relevant to the comparison that is the point of the paragraph. Efbrazil (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Craig started a discussion on the talk page regarding all this. Let's put the focus there for now. Efbrazil (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You: "The upper atmosphere cooling is a transitional state that is happening on Earth now, but not a steady state feature." — Why do you say that? I don't think it's true. Greenhouse gasses play a core role in cooling the upper atmosphere (meaning the stratosphere and mesosphere), and increasing greenhouse gasses will increase that cooling. I don't see any way in which that is simply "transitional."
 * You: "The real effect is increasing the temperature differential between lower and upper atmosphere" — I don't see any justification for calling that "the real effect"; that differential seems largely irrelevant to the physics of climate.
 * What does have to do with the physics is that as greenhouse gas concentrations increase, the "effective height" of thermal emissions from the atmosphere increases. The temperature at the "effective emission height" is set by the need to match the rate at which energy is being absorbed from the Sun. Since temperature is related to altitude via the lapse rate, this means that as the effective emission height rises (while maintaining a consistent temperature), the surface temperature must rise, in the absence of any change in lapse rate.
 * You: "If we added gases to atmosphere that somehow inhibited convection (a viscous gas?) it would also cause global warming." — If there were no longwave-absorbing gasses (which inhibited radiative heat transfer), but there were gasses that inhibited convection, that would NOT cause global warming. (Under those circumstances, thermal radiation would leave the planetary surface and travel out to space; convection would be irrelevant to the planetary cooling process.)
 * If there are both type of gasses present, the answer gets more complicated; convection-inhibiting gasses could alter the greenhouse effect (by altering the atmosphere's temperature profile, which is a factor in radiative effects). It's not symmetrical -- gasses that absorb longwave radiation are essential to the greenhouse effect. Gasses that alter convection could influence the greenhouse effect, but aren't fundamental to it. This asymmetry is a consequence of the fact that Earth losses heat to space exclusively through radiation.
 * I'm happy to focus on the discussion Craig started on the "Greenhouse effect" talk page. But, I did want to address what I perceived as misunderstandings in what you offered here, lest those seemingly "slightly off" beliefs influence your editorial choices. Rhwentworth (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023
Your edit to Greenhouse effect has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for correcting my regrettable and serious slip. The material in question was so similar to words that I myself have written in the past that I suppose to some part of my tired brain the words seemed generic. Thanks for calling this out. I'll be more attentive going forward. Rhwentworth (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Superemittive metamaterials break Second law of thermodynamics
Hi! I'm posting to your talk page because I noticed you made the ~same edit in both the Stefan-Boltzmann law page and also in Emissivity page, the edit being that some metamaterials can have emissivity greater than 1. However, this can't be right because a body made of such a material would be able to break the Second law of thermodynamics. Observe: a black body is facing another black body, and they are in thermal equilibrium. They both emit an amount of energy in time, P and both absorb the same amount of energy in time. Now replace one black body with a superemissive body. Because this superemiter has emissivity greater than 1, then it will emit more energy in time then the black body, say 2P. All of this energy will hit the black body and, by definition, the black body will absorb all of it. Yet the black body will still emit only P energy back. Unless one wants to break the Law of conservation of energy in addition to the Second law of thermodynamics, the superemitter can't possibly absorb more than P energy. Which in turn means there is a net flow of heat energy from the superemitter to the black body, breaking the thermal equlibrium. This also holds if you replace the black body with a real body that reflect a percentage of energy and absorbs the rest.

I'm writing to you first and not making any edits yet because you made the ~same edit on multiple places so I suppose you have an appropriate rebutal. I can't be the first one to figure this out, and you're apparently a Very Serious Scientist(tm) with a Ph.D. from a Very Serious Institution(tm), so I'd vager you can offer a counter to the thought experiment I gave above. And whatever the final outcome of this challenge, it has to be noted in the Wikipedia pages where your edits are for clearly a major fundamental breakthrough has been achieved and we'll soon be able to build real perpetuum mobiles! Or else the edit is to be neutered by pointing out it's impossible for anything to have emissivity greater than 1 and the Very Serious Scientists(tm) that are writing Very Serious Papers(tm) claiming otherwise are full of shit. Pard'n my French. Triklod (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking, and sorry it has taken so long to notice your message. I don't yet have a deep understanding of this issue, but was quoting my references, which seemed to be corroborated by some vague memories I had of having been told previously that there were some small exceptions to the limit on emissivity. I would have to look into the references again (and perhaps look for others), but at the moment I recall an impression that emissivities greater than 1 are possible under some rather narrow and restrictive conditions (e.g., from a sharp point of dimensions less than a wavelength, or in the near-field region, or...?) Whatever the restrictions are, they would have to be something which prevents setting up a 2nd Law violating arrangement. It would be good to get greater clarity about this and then improve what is said in the relevant articles... Rhwentworth (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)