User talk:VQuakr/Archives/2024

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is "John de Lancie". Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!

EpicTiger87 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You are threatening to ban me...
You are threatening to ban me for what I consider no legitimate reason. Just for the record why are these participants, in the threads you consider inappropriate, allowed to have no account pages? Selbram, DrPhysics999, UndarkHorse and why are they being allowed to claim they have the power to ban me from this site? Draft Physics (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * banning is a community decision. It would be an unusual case if the target of the ban agreed with the ban. I do not understand what you mean by "no account pages". It is obvious that this is a continuation of a dispute from elsewhere on the internet and other editors have followed you here (please do not link the source, I don't care and there are WP:OUTING concerns). Don't worry about those other editors, worry about your own actions. Recapping the issue that could result in a block to stop the disruption: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It is not a forum for you to promote your pet theory that every introductory physics textbook from the last 300 years has been wrong. VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you mean by "no account pages". 
 * When I click on their names I get a page that says: 
 * Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by the user UndarkHorse. If in doubt, please verify that the user account "UndarkHorse" exists. Draft Physics (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not a forum for you to promote your pet theory that every introductory physics textbook from the last 300 years has been wrong. 
 * Your accusations regarding what I'm doing here would have more credibility if you would answer the simple question?
 * Do you sincerely believe it takes 100 times the energy to spin a motor 10 times as fast? Draft Physics (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (Slight TPS)
 * Per Rotational_energy:
 * $$\begin{align}

E_1 &= \tfrac{1}{2} I \omega^2 \\ E_2 &= \tfrac{1}{2} I (10\omega)^2 \\ &= 100 \tfrac{1}{2} I \omega^2 \\ &= 100 \ E_1 \end{align}$$
 * - DVdm (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not who needs to answer the question, and I would kind of prefer a more direct yes or no answer, but thanks providing input. If you don't mind to follow up question? Have you ever seen in real life it take 100 times the energy to spend a motor 10 times as fast? Draft Physics (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * spin a motor Draft Physics (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't, and in the same real life, I have never climbed a 10 stories building and stepped over the edge of the roof to verify whether gravitation actually has an influence on me. - DVdm (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have (the flywheel, not the roof). First semester physics lab like 2 weeks in. Spin up a wheel to different speeds, bring to a halt with a thermally insulated brake, measure the temperature increase. Basic, basic stuff. If there were some massive physics conspiracy to hide this information for unknown motives, not only would we have detected it that day, but also all sorts of machines wouldn't work. VQuakr (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been arguing this for over 2 years now... I know of at least a dozen people who have tried to find some physical evidence of this experiment. If you could provide a link it would save all of us a lot of grief. Any experiment over 9 times the fuel to go three times as fast would be incredibly helpful. A link to some machine that wouldn't work without the quadratic fuel demand would also be great to see. I find your honest answer bizarrely hard to understand, but thanks for providing it. Draft Physics (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not optimistic about changing your opinion since you seem, in a word, entrenched. I already described an experiment/demonstration I've personally performed that confirmed this obviously factual issue that you are (quite comically) railing against. Another example would be to launch a marble vertically in the air. Twice the velocity (for low velocities in which air resistance is negligible) will result in four times the maximum height reached as the kinetic energy is converted into potential energy against gravity. But you've changed the subject when you talk about "quadratic fuel demand". We were talking about kinetic energy of a spinning object, not ongoing power demand. In most machines, the amount of energy to come up to idle or operating speed is small compared to the energy expended in operation. That means the kinetic energy stored in the rotating equipment is an insignificant portion of the overall fuel consumption (not to mention we get that energy back when, for example, a vehicle coasts to a stop). The fuel consumption of a machine in operation will vary. For example: for deeply subsonic flows drag forces tend to be quadratic, whereas sliding friction and rolling friction forces are typically constant regardless of speed. VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * user pages: that merely means they haven't created their user page (you have not either, and no one is under any obligation to create one).
 * Yes, the kinetic energy of a spinning object increases quadratically with rotation speed. This is readily experimentally verifiable, and is critical to proper design of things like brakes and flywheels (as in, if this weren't the case these machine components wouldn't work since they were designed using mainstream physics). Please don't try to control who posts to my user talk space. VQuakr (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

International Women’s Day Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon, Sunday, March 10
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Portland/Participants list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "MP4 file format".The discussion is about the topic MP4 file format. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should notify you as well, but out of caution:

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"7.9" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7.9&redirect=no 7.9] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Trovatore (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Einstien E=Mc^2
Why did you delete my post regarding Samuel Preston? Did you know it is well documented that he discovered this formula and not Einstein? K00la1dx (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Lacked a reliable source and consensus to include. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a reliable source:
 * https://www.amazon.com/Samuel-Tolver-Preston-Father-Atomic/dp/B0B92G12YH
 * just read the description:
 * "In 1875, four years before Albert Einstein was born, Samuel Tolver Preston published an amazing book entitled "Physics of the Ether". In it he set down the now famous formula E = mc2 and thoroughly explained its implications" K00la1dx (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:K00la1dx Sorry, the name, or introduction of a book available to be bought on the Amazon page, is not accepted as a reliable source (it is not necessarily peer reviewed and discussed before being published). For a reliable source you should cite the relevant part of the actual book where your claim could be verified. Also, the reasoning and sources used by the author in question could then be assessed.
 * You should also probably mention the whole name of Samuel Tolver Preston when you first mentioned him (there are several notable Samuels Preston). Also, a link to the original book Preston's Physics of the Ether would be extremely welcome, because experiments seem still to show that models of the universe including ether are not valid, and it would be extremely useful if we could se how Preston dealt with that in that book.
 * Also, the name of the book on Amazon you propose as the source of the citation is intentionally provokative to sell the book, and, per se (= without supporting reasoning), not much more reliable as other commercials (about best cleaning agent with new powerful formula, whatever that author meant with it, etc.). E.g., if Preston's book Physics of the Etherwas not rediscovered (and known) before Bjerkman found it and published his book, how could Preston influence builders of atomic fission reactors (e.g. Fermi) and atomic bombs (see Manhattan project)? Without them knowing that, Preston might be an antecedent, but not father of atomic bomb, because his idea would have no children until Bjerkman published his book.
 * All that should be addressed before changes you proposed could enter - and stay - in the articles.
 * Please, also do not get excited if other WP users (and editors) do not yet know if/when/... Samuel Preston discovered the now famous formula; I think you yourself didn't hear of that before Bjerken's book in question was published in 2022. If you get excited about that, at least please be nice to, and not angry on yourself, and don't call yourself names about being uninformed etc. you might have already used on the others.
 * To User:VQuakr: please excuse me for entering discussion on your talk page about a problem regarding other pages; this might need to be moved to K00la1dx's talk page, or talk page(s) where his edit(s) were reverted. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Preston's discovery of mass and energy is already in the wiki article:
 * He is known for his works (1875–1894) on the kinetic theory of gases and his attempts to combine this theory with Le Sage's theory of gravitation. In his book Physics of the Ether (1875) he claimed that if matter is subdivided into ether particles, they would travel at the speed of light and represent an enormous amount of energy. In this way, one grain of matter would contain energy equal to 1000 million foot-tons (whereby one foot-ton = 2240 foot pounds)."
 * I don't know why you decided to pick on me for not using citation. K00la1dx (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We require reliable sources. That's not picking on you, it's universal. A self-published book is not a reliable source. VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is your credential that you deleted my post?
 * Are you actually someone that has a slightest interest in physics?
 * You don't contemplate the context of the Samuel Preston article.
 * If you did, you would not be so blind that Dr. Preston's book Physics of The Ether completely defies Einstein. Quit bickering about reliable sources.
 * Why don't you give me a reliable source that Einstein was the discoverer of E=mc^2 in regards to Dr. Preston. If not, just read the article that currently stands. Read the wiki on Preston. It not only says that Einstein stole E=mc^2 but also stole general relativity and special relativity.
 * K00la1dx (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Having this talk page on my watch list, I'll give some comments here...
 * Our credentials or interest in physics, are entirely irrelevant. The only thing thing that matters here, is the reliabilty of the supplied sources. Being self-published, the source that you supplied is not reliable for Wikipedia standards. If you don't like that, there are no more than two options. The first option is to find a source that is reliable for Wikipedia standards. Failing that, the second option is to propose to modify Wikipedia's standards. You can go to Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources and ask for guidance. - DVdm (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for links on your user page
I used to correct evident errors (spelling etc.) before 2020 as anonymous user without knowing much of WP policies, and proposed changes to articles on talk pages. About then 2020 I created the username mostly to be able to get feedback info on my proposals, and since learned a lot - but far from enough. Because I am more of a causal than prolific editor, that also takes time...

About citations, when I see/saw that info in the article claimed unsupported by template is verifiable, I add citations (including sometimes reverting, or reintroducing; contents deleted for missing citations; it seems I did that carefully and well enough that none of those had been re-reverted yet).

But I didn't yet use templates asking for citations myself often before, and now I came on articles where I think it is needed, and tried for awhile to find again help on using those templates, unsuccessfully til I found link on maintenance on your user page, so thanks for having it (with other useful stuff) there. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Moscow Institute and Oxford comma
I sometimes keep myself busy adding interlanguage links, which recently involved the "Moscow Institute of Philosophy, Literature and History". (There were slight variations among the approximately 20 articles that referenced this, e.g. "Institute of" vs. "Institute for"), plus spelling of "Philosophy". The presence or absence of a comma between "Literature" and "History" was the particularly annoying thing, since I wanted to be sure it was used consistently.

I generally prefer the Oxford comma, but I realize this usually the minority position, and a web search showed that only 40% of the hits used the Oxford comma

Nevertheless, it seemed to be quite "irregular" to omit the second comma, so I set up the label in Wikidata to use the Oxford comma and edited the 15 or so articles affected.

Article links are generally unforgiving about variations, so you can either create multiple versions of the link or just get it right when you create the link. To be sure, I really didn't like this without the Oxford comma, and I'm kind of looking for some confirmation of my decision to use the Oxford comma, and least in this instance. Fabrickator (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am a strong proponent of the Oxford comma. 40% is close enough to half that neither option seems "wrong" in this case. VQuakr (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Just thanks
@VQuakr, Some times users are greatly involved and tend to get emotional. I was not online later, and you communicated well with User talk:Jim856796.

Just thanks &#32;Bookku   (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)