User talk:The Cube Root Of Infinity

Welcome!


Hello, The Cube Root Of Infinity, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to continue. Some useful pages to visit are:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. We're so glad you're here! 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎)


 * Thank you.The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Astrophysical jets
I have reverted your edits on astrophysical jets because they imply something that is not actually true. So far you have given no explanation at all, citing only that "Formation and powering of astrophysical jets is not fully understood." When contending new text and it is reverted, you should follow WP:BRD process and validate the claim via the article's talkpage. It is the original text added that is the responsibility of the one who placed it there, explaining their reasoning. (It is not the one who revert it. Hence saying, "you haven't raised it at the talk page, nor has anyone else" is wrong.) However, I have modified and revised the article text and added info on the article talkpage, which you are quite welcome to refute.

Note: The source of the contention here was here saying in the deletion: "However, even after decades of work, major theoretical and observational questions about their origin and collimation still remain." The now old 2001 Blandford et al. "Compact Objects and Accretion Disks" cite says this pg.11, but the text is not properly quoted, as following this, it says: "There are, generically, two proposed origins for the jet power: the central object (black hole, neutron star or protostar) and the accretion disk. In both cases, the energy derives from differential rotation." This immediately refutes saying: "Why do the accretion discs surrounding certain astronomical objects emit relativistic jets along their polar axes?". Hence, deletion.
 * I also now see List of unsolved problems in physics, which you should have highlighted. However, the article cited doesn't even say this at all, and only refers to low-luminosity galaxies and not even black holes etc.! (I have now removed this.) Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Arianewiki1's points with User:The Cube Root Of Infinity's response

 * I have reverted your edits on astrophysical jets [...] because they imply something that is not actually true... So far you have given no explanation at all, citing only that "Formation and powering of astrophysical jets is not fully understood."
 * No. As I told you in my edit summary, that's what the article intro itself said.
 * When contending new text and it is reverted, you should follow WP:BRD process and validate the claim via the article's talkpage... It is the original text added that is the responsibility of the one who placed it there, explaining their reasoning. (It is not the one who revert it. Hence saying, "you haven't raised it at the talk page, nor has anyone else" is wrong.)... However, I have modified and revised the article text and added info on the article talkpage, which you are quite welcome to refute.
 * Again, the article itself was already stating that the jets are not fully understood. It therefore required an "unsolved problems in physics" template.
 * Note: The source of the contention here was here saying in the deletion: "However, even after decades of work, major theoretical and observational questions about their origin and collimation still remain.".. The now old 2001 Blandford et al. "Compact Objects and Accretion Disks" cite says this pg.11, but the text is not properly quoted, as following this, it says: "There are, generically, two proposed origins for the jet power: the central object (black hole, neutron star or protostar) and the accretion disk. In both cases, the energy derives from differential rotation." This immediately refutes saying: "Why do the accretion discs surrounding certain astronomical objects emit relativistic jets along their polar axes?". Hence, deletion.
 * That was not the source of contention at all, since that is an IP edit from 24 September 2016, whereas my edit was over a year later on 17 November 2017 under my username, here: . So I don't see what that has to do with anything here.
 * I also now see List of unsolved problems in physics, which you should have highlighted.
 * It was me who pointed List of unsolved problems in physics out to you:
 * However, the article cited [...] doesn't even say this at all, and only refers to low-luminosity galaxies and not even black holes etc.! (I have now removed this.)
 * It does indeed say it, in the introduction...:
 * "Our goal is to understand the kinematics and dynamics of these jets. There are, as yet, no predictive theoretical models for FR I jets on kiloparsec scales. The problem of simulating the propagation of a very light, relativistic, magnetized jet in three dimensions is computationally prohibitive, with poorly known initial conditions: no simulation can yet hope to follow a jet all the way from its formation on scales comparable with the gravitational radius of the central black hole to the kiloparsec scales for which the most detailed observations are available."
 * ...and adds in the conclusion:
 * "We conjecture the following about the internal physics of the jets from the systematics given above..."
 * i.e. the internal physics is conjectural, and that was a paper from December 2013.

Talk:Abraham Lincoln
It's not a big deal, but for future reference, you are misconstruing the intention of the following that you typed into the edit summary:


 * WP:TALKO: "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent."

What that means is that you shouldn't take a previous comment and intersperse your comments. For instance:


 * WP:TALKO:
 * This is the guideline I am talking about
 * "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points;
 * The second individual point...
 * this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent."
 * See what I mean, this makes for confusing dialog....

Versus where people respond, which is what you seemed to have issue with. Indentation is used to show what users are responding to. Does that make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:TALKO: "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, you may not talk much, but you sure have a good handle on copy-paste!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Your username
Great username! Is it a reference to Conway's surreal numbers? -- The Anome (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I got it from an episode of The Prisoner, The Schizoid Man: "By the time we finish with him, he won't know whether he's Number 6 or the cube root of infinity." The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The Prisoner references are good too. Happy editing! -- The Anome (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Home Energy Resources Unit
Hello, The Cube Root Of Infinity,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Home Energy Resources Unit should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Home Energy Resources Unit.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Home Energy Resources Unit
I removed WP:PRIMARY and affiliated sources, in line with our sourcing policy. This is normal and routine. You have a very limited editing history so I understand you may be unfamiliar with this. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, your edits were:
 * edit 1: you removed an External link (not being used a source)
 * edit 2: you removed BBC, VoA, Hip-magazine.co.uk, Cleantech, Lunar Festival and Hansard (none of which are primary or affiliated)
 * edit 3: you removed RT (not primary or affiliated)
 * edit 4: you nominated for deletion (apparently without reading the previous failed AfD)
 * edit 5: you withdrew the nomination for deletion you had just posted
 * edit 6: advert tag
 * edit 7: you removed Metro, Localgov, Google Patents, Gov.uk, Brunel.ac.uk (only the last source could be considered in any way affiliated).
 * The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You do not own this article. I have rather more experience of sourcing Wikipedia articles than you do (approaching 110,000 edits vs. fewer than 200, some of which have been revision deleted as copyright violations) so it is probably a good idea to at least consider the possibility that I'm right here. Examples: The external link was to an OMICS group journal, they are banned as spammers and are not reliable, we do not link them and we have removed literally thousands of links to OMICS papers. The "BBC" was a YouTube video not hosted on the rights owner's site. We typically remove these. Hip Magazine has no evidence of being a reliable source. Neither VOA nor, especially, RT is a reliable source either. Hansard is unquestionably primary for the content. Metro is churnalism. And so on. Feel free to discuss these on the talk page if you think they would, unusually, merit inclusion, but don't forget to declare any connection with the subject and don't forget that when you write an article, you are not the best placed to judge if it reads like an advert or not. Guy (Help!) 05:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there's been no copyright violation - the accuser had mistaken Wikipedia material mirrored on another site for copyrighted material, then attempted to hide this fact with redaction . Secondly, your 110,000 edits show that you're not in gainful employment, but they don't exempt you from WP:EDITCONSENSUS, which states:
 * "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page."
 * Consensus at Articles for deletion/Home Energy Resources Unit (the real AfD, not your abortive attempt) was keep, so reason for mass deletion of material was not obvious. It therefore required clear edit summaries or discussion, but you began deleting without doing this. The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Plaskett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartagena ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/James_Plaskett check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/James_Plaskett?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Home Energy Resources Unit for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Home Energy Resources Unit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Home Energy Resources Unit& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)