User talk:Wwheaton

Info
Greetings. Wwheaton is Wm. A. Wheaton, of whom more can be learned at http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/index.html. I have also edited a few times as user 71.92.70.146 or user 66.215.4.91, when I was logged out accidentally. Thanks to all who have helped and commented, and to the Wikipedia community at large! Wwheaton (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi there. I've noticed the edits you've made to Bevatron and I must say, good show! If you have anyquestions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. And welcome to wiki! --Falcorian (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. I must say I really Love Wiki, but the dangers of spreading bad information, and meaningless conflict, are a bit daunting too. So I appreciate the hand-holding, and may well turn to you for advice in the future. Wwheaton 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

helpme
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Re: vandalism
Saw your post on Alex's talk page and decided to butt in. WP:VANDALISM is the page explaining vandalism and how to deal with it in detail.

The easiest way to deal with vandalism is to use the "history" tab at the top of the page, which shows you a chronological (newest first) list of edits to that page. "Cur" and "Last" on the left-hand column will produce a report showing the difference between the page as of that edit and the current page, or the page as of the prior edit, respectively. You can also manually select two revisions with the radio button and hit "compare selected".

Once you have a diff, you can use the "Undo" feature to, well, undo the edits. Or, from "history" you can click on the date of the edit, which allows you to bring up the "edit this page" as of that version, so you can restore the page to the last pre-vandalism edition. Just be careful not to nuke legitimate edits made since the vandal struck.

Finally, when a user vandalizes a page, try adding a user warning template to their talk page, such as Template:uw-vand1. If they already have a bunch of templates from before, or they are doing something really awful like moving 20 pages at once to "pagename ON WHEELS!", then add them to the administrators' vandalism noticeboard which will result in them being blocked in short order.

Hope that helps. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like ClueBot - and everybody else - entirely missed the vandalism at issue, which is why your changes were not restored. The next person to edit it only removed the gibberish without re-instating the "list of uses", and nobody noticed. In this case, fortunately, nobody else came along and edited the article productively since then, so it's safe to revert all the way back a couple of weeks, which I just did. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pu-238
Merry christmas, thanks for the question regarding RTGs and Pu-238. The first thing to understand about Pu-238 is that it is far more active per gram than Pu-239, this can cause it to behave in a very different way. The self damage due to radiation which occurs in PuO2 pellets is much faster with Pu-238 pellets than with Pu-239 pellets. As a result a pellet of Pu-238 will be more likely to fall apart at an early time than a Pu-239 pellet. I would expect that all Pu RTGs would use PuO2 as the chemical form for the Pu. While Pu metal would be more dense it is very reactive towards air/water, and Pu corrosion is very complex.

Now the good news, the RTGs made using Pu are oftein made in such a way that the Pu fuel is packaged in such a way that it is likely that the package will tolerate the heat of re-enetry. Also Pu(IV) is very insoluble in pH 7 water, but be aware that collidal PuO2 could be very mobile under some conditions, also insoluble Pu in the air is more harmful to the lungs than soluble Pu while in the case of oral Pu the reverse is true. It is also important to bear in mind that the fuel and the package only have to contain the Pu for about 900 years, after this time 99.9% will have decayed away. I am not able to say with authority if a RTG which has reentered will be safe or not. You would need to do more literature research, anyway "what is safe" ?

By the way you got my colour code in the Trinityglassactivity bar chart almost perfectly right, the green bars are for activation products, the red for a fission product and the blue for natural radioisotopes.Cadmium (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism
WP:UAA is for reporting usernames that violate our username policy. To report users who are repeatedly vandalizing, please go to WP:AIV. However, before reporting there, vandals must have a full set of warnings. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards,  Lara  ❤  Love  17:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can create the talk page when it does not already exist. I looked over their edits and, not knowing much about VeggieTales, I'm not sure if the edits are vandalism or not. Much of it appears to be good faith editing to me. Whether the additions are relevant or not, I can't say. But I'm sure the article custodians will sort it out.  Lara  ❤  Love  18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you may be interested in our adoption program.  Lara  ❤  Love  18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I guess I am not certain either, I thought we were under attack. Live & learn.  Wwheaton (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:Solar power satellite, my apologies for deleting a lot of stuff. I clicked on a "diff" or an old version button in the history page, and stupidly edited what I saw and saved, discarding subsequent stuff including more of my own comments. I was just not paying attention to what I was doing, I did not intend malice. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- WillWare (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Groupthink (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is where they actually first created the interpretations article. Dreadstar †  08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the "raw work", heh, I'm actually refining the raw ore into a more polished article..I hope! I look forward to your return to editing the article! Although, your project of 70um infrared star photometry sounds fascinating! Dreadstar  †  08:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tedious; but important I guess, like much else. See http://web.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mips/70ufot/index.html for a taste -- I hope to have 50% more observations processed and up by later today.  Anyhow, I am just delighted with the work you are doing in the sandbox, and do hope I can contribute usefully (and "legally") later in the week.  BTW, while it seems sensible to chat in one user's talk space or the other (rather than in both), how can I notify you when I've responded?  There ought to be a way, WP has tools for everything....  Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment! I think it's starting to look pretty good.  I'm trying to finish up sourcing for the Monolith and HAL sections, then I think it'll be ready to go! Dreadstar  †  01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no further comment on the Draft version, I asked that the page be unprotected and moved the draft into place. Let me know what you think! I'm still working on the HAL segment, your assistance with that would be most welcome! Dreadstar †  23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm glad you like it! Unfortunately, Groupthink decided to remove everything he disagreed with, edit warred over it instead of discussing and crossed the line into WP:3RR territory.  I reported him and he was blocked for 24 hours.  The last version before he started removing sourced material is here. Dreadstar  †  00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to talk page comment
In addition to the Wikipedian core values that have been vociferously discussed on the Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey talk page, another one of WP's doctrine's is "don't bite the newbies". In other words, be welcoming and patient with newer users who have good intentions. Well, I bit you, and I apologize for that. Your heart is definitely in the right place, and I'm eager to see if you can in fact write a well-sourced article that establishes the topic's independent notability. If you can, then I will be that article's staunchest defender. Best of luck. Groupthink (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of basic space exploration topics
No need to wait for me. I look forward to seeing your developments. Have fun.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

2001 article
Just to let you know that the draft has been put into the mainspace: Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Groupthink has disputed the sources and content, so your input would be welcome in that discussion. Preliminary details on the dispute are in the section above.Dreadstar †  02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All these HAL materials are yours, except Europa, attempt no landings there. :) Dreadstar  †  02:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GRO J1655-40
Hi, I noticed your edits at GRO J1655-40. At first I was scratching my head wondering why this was on my watch list. Then I realised that I created the talk page. There might be something useful in there as it came from an old submission AfC. Perhaps you could take a look when you have time. Cheers. MSGJ (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Combustion instabilities/screeching
As I understand it, the combustion instabilities like screeching don't usually cause damage by mechanical means (although they could do in principle, particularly at very low frequencies, but screeching is much higher frequency).

No, the main problem is that they thin the boundary layer down, and that means the heat flow (which is normally stupidly high anyway) goes up massively. The wall then usually suffers from catastrophic burn through.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Continued from the Black Holes page
However, there is no disputing the smallest "observability" of our universe as given by the size of a photon (i.e. the planck length). This limit is well known to exist and is accepted by quantum mechanics. I agree, that there could be something smaller than the photon, but it would be fundamentally unobservable to us even if there was.

If you would be so kind as to read the gravastar article, I explain much of my reasoning behind the need fix to the black holes theory. Please tell me what you think. Much of the info is directly from published research, however the interpretation of it is my own work. Does it sound plausible?--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Interp 2001
Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey has been unprotected, so improvements and additions can resume! Dreadstar †  22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to see you editing again! With the attention given to this article's sourcing, it would be good to provide references for edits like this.  Otherwise it looks like the editor's opinion, which would violate WP:NOR.  Dreadstar  †  19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're quoting or paraphrasing Clarke, that's good, but it looks like an original opinion - so identifying where it comes from is important if it's challenged. Dreadstar  †  21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Question On The Particle Wave Theory
I luv you, seriosly that message you sent me, I have limited expertice, your just an astronomer and a physicist, aka what I want to be and What most of my questions are in. How exactely do photons superimpose themselves into quanta. Just dum the math down a little and I'll figure it out. Thanks! 11341134a (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Images
Which one do you like better? I had to do these from scratch to avoid any copyright complications. Dreadstar †  03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * details
 * plain

Hi!
Hullo, Bob -- I'm a physicist, working in high-energy astronomy for long, and lately in IR on Spitzer space telescope in Pasadena. I have enjoyed and appreciated your labors lately on Cygnus X-1, which is an old friend of us gamma guys. I am fairly new to Wikipedia (& maybe a slow learner to boot...), so looking to meet the more experienced professionals working the turf. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Wwheaton. Thank you very much for your comments on the Cygnus X-1 article. I'm hoping to make the page more comprehensive and bring it up to FA quality, but it may take a while. Unfortunately my professional field isn't in astronomy, although I have had a life-long interest in the subject so hopefully I know enough to make it an interesting read.


 * Most of the astronomy-related discussions take place over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, so you might consider visiting. I'm sure they'll appreciate your comments. Thanks again.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the Cygnus X-1 article. It will take a long time to review it (and the references) as carefully as they deserve. We are still working with the earth-occultation BATSE data, and now have the full nine-year stretch of the CGRO data for it. We seemed to see a ~1 MeV flare in [HEAO 3] data in 1979, and our BATSE occulation project at JPL was above all motivated by the desire to try and find other similar instances. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Good luck with your search. I hope you find some interesting results.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Planck time
Hey Bill, would you mind reading something of mine at talk:Planck time. I'm interested to hear what you think.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Godel/Physics
Thanks for your vote of confidence, but then why do I still feel so ignorant? My view on the question you raise is that the theory of everything is string theory, and it tells you how matter interacts fundamentally, while Godel's theorem is about computations and tells you that you can't predict computer program behavior arbitrarily far into the future. I wrote a blurb along those lines on Theory of everything a while ago, but it got erased. There is no contradiction between knowing all the rules of nature and not being able to predict how a computing system will behave, because computing systems can always surprise you by learning your methods of predicion and defying them. The distinction is between physical laws, which are like the instruction set of the computer, and computer programs which are combinations of those instructions into complex programs. You can know the instruction set but you can't know the eventual behavior of every program. Hope that helps.Likebox (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I used to be a student in string theory, but I am not in the field anymore. It took me a very long time to understand any of it, because I started out completely skeptical. But I am not skeptical anymore, and anyway, it's easy to keep up with stuff when there's arxiv. The main point which changed my mind personally is that black holes have a semiclassical entropy which demands that their dynamics is described in certain dimensions and limits by a field theory in a dimension one less--- a principle called holography. This leads to physical limits on the charge and mass of particles, which are true because of general thermodynamic principles, not because of strings. In order to work in quantum gravity, these principles demand certain light winding modes in certain cases, and this is provided in string theory by the string extension, or by membranes, or by other extended objects.


 * The strings themselves should be viewed as quantum-size extremal charged extended black holes and string theory describes the scattering of strings as a deformation of the black hole surface, just as 'tHooft suggested for thermal point black holes in the eighties. I think (as do a lot of people) the theory itself is more or less well defined by now, and I think it is the correct framework. What the details of the theory predict for our universe is another matter. I hope you find out more about the axiomatization program of Hilbert, although I think you should keep in mind that the interesting questions in mathematics are all in the limit of infinite future, what happens when calculations are done forever, and in physics, that's not usually true. Cheers.Likebox (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the comments I made on the black hole page. I had just failed an extremely hard Biology test and was looking for a vent. I have replaced those comments with less inflamitory ones. Dont worry I wont be failing any bio tests any time soon. I beg your apologies, 11341134a (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Colonization of the Moon
Hi - friendly question for to answer if you would please :). I've seen your edits around Wikipedia and have just looked at your pages at Caltech. I must say it is nice to be able to ask your opinion on something. Your work with Gamma Rays is awesome. I am an "armchair" astronomer...

So, I saw the edit that you made {then undid}. My question revolves around that.

What is your take on including these sorts of (non-inline) types of references in Wikipedia. You know, the "generic" ones. Just curious.

E_dog95'  Hi ' 00:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - I was under the impression that you'd been contributing for some time. Good to have you here. Welcome to Wikipedia! E_dog95'   Hi ' 05:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke
please note that references in talk pages are supposed to be written thus: —Cesar Tort 02:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still learning my way around this strange place.  Bill Wwheaton (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can still edit your previous post and convert the https so that other editors may see the links you added. —Cesar Tort 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —Cesar Tort 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I may even remember the next time the occasion arises, but mostly I delighted to find your Karellen page.  (At work I am waw@karellen.ipac.caltech.edu.)  I consider him the best real hero in all Clarke's work [but you may think otherwise?]  I hit CE when I was 13, in 1955, after I had been an atheist for long.  It convinced me that dogmatic atheism was untenable, as Clarke takes a straight materialist path and gets quite plausibly into deep deep mystery, something as vast as the galaxy and as mysterious as the brain.  So, I am a church-going agnostic, and Clarke gets a good bit of the credit or the blame.  Wwheaton (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Automated Transfer Vehicle
Hey Bill - Thanks for restoring the article. As it turns out Onsly has been making working in some articles. I had let him know about using the edit summary on March 16th (8 days ago) because of a similar situation.

What he had done is reduce the amount of content in the Automated Transfer Vehicle about the Jules Verne ATV. User GW Simulations split the article on March 9th.

So to you it looked like a questionable edit. I encountered nearly the same thing previously. It's all about the edit summary. If he'd left a note, this wouldn't have happened. I restored his edit as it looks like that was a good thing to do. I looked & it doesn't look like GW Simulations reduced the original ATV article at all since the creation of the Jules Verne article. I left Onsly another note on his talk page regarding the use of the edit summary & how it's necessary being that this is a very large collaborative project.

Thanks Bill & good to have you on board. Cheers! E_dog95'  Hi ' 08:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it -- I forget the edit summary myself sometimes. I could tell it was not malicious.  Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict on "Accretion disk"
Hi, I left the raw text of my version on the talk page. BTW, I have been trained (? ApJ style, I think) to hyphenate "X-ray" when it is used as an adjective, but not as a noun. No idea how this fits with external conventions. -- Bill Wwheaton (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry my edit summary is lost, but you'll figure it out I guess. I started with the figure caption & couldn't stop once I got going.  B Wwheaton (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've asked at the reference desk about the correct usage of the hyphen. It wouldn't surpirse me to find that it may have already been discussed at some point.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

7001 Noether
Thanks for your reply. I've responded at the place. Cheers! – Scartol  •  Tok  11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag
You mean the one at the top of the talk page? If so, that one stays to show that the article went through an earlier AfD. If there's another delete tag, let me know - I can't seem to see one.

If the source is in relation to the subject of the article (interpetations of 2001), then it wouldn't be OR. If you want to give me the links, I'll take a look and see...say, have you seen this site?

Oh, yes! Dial F! I remember that story very well...read it ages ago..great stuff....as with all of Clarke's ideas; and yes, he does seem to have a penchant for either killing us off or evolving us out of existence..;)  Dreadstar  †  05:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading link?
Hi, Is that even the case for a link to a section?! Doesn't seem reasonable. (There is even a subsection for sounding rockets, but I wasn't sure how to link to that.) Live & learn.... Bill Wwheaton (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. In the past I've had criticism for wikilinks that appear to point to one article but instead go to an entirely different article. So I'm careful not to make that mistake. In this case, the intended subject of the "suborbital rocket launches" link seemed like it should be pretty clear: rockets that do not reach orbit. Instead you had it changed to the topic of X-ray astronomy observation. I'm very sorry, but I tend to be a little aggressive in my editing when a page is up for FAC; the reviewers are super picky about every little detail. Anyway, I tried putting in a compromise statement.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re User:Josephmd
That's fine - I'll defer to your judgement on that. SparrowsWing (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Center of The Surface of a Sphere.
The surface of a sphere most certainly has a center of mass. If the surface is uniform (you don't say this)throughout, the center of mass of the surface will be approximately, if not exactly, in the common center of the sphere - somewhat in the manner of the doughnut's center of mass being in the hole of the doughnut.

Never mind all the professed good intent - if you really meant well you'd remove that 'unscientific' shall we say, comment from the end of my theory.

Show me something with no center. If you were any kind of scientist, that should take you about five seconds.

Pete Lamont, Author:- The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Strong" in Cygnus X-1 article.
Greetings. It looks like you introduced the word "strong" into the lead of the Cygnus X-1 article. Unfortunately this conflicts with MoS, so I would appreciate it if you could either use more precise language or revert to the way it was. Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Real Physical Models
Thanks for your message and commentary. I only hope that interested people like you will acquire a few neodymium magnets and try to assemble up to what would be 10Ne20 and see what the models tell you. The magnets continue to collect (very forcefully) but the logic of the series expansion numbers is simpler to understand with the checkerboard logic protocol. My modified Nuclide chart doesn't provide much data for the 8th level construction details except to note that every element has 2 categories of nuclides and that in each element the even neutron number category is more stable (with some irregularities. So if you'll make that test, maybe I can change your conception of the 2He4 nucleus. And Thanks.WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)PS 66 is just a young squirt why I'm old enough to be a fervent Isaac Asimov reader.WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm curious enough to be interested in what your point is, but I don't know enough nuclear physics to have the concept. I remember going to a talk Pauling gave at UCSD on a "sphereon model" (? I think it was) that argued that alpha particles significantly retain their identity in at least some nuclei.  I guess the Ne was 5-alpha's.  Anyhow, I have almost no idea what you are talking about, so don't get your hopes up....  Have you got the article somewhere in your user space where I can see it?  (I think that tends to be permitted when it is not abusively excessive.  I believe you can get a copy of a deleted article e-mailed to you if you want it.)
 * Asimov was my favorite after Clarke, maybe tied with Stanislaw Lem. Good minds, all.  Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 :(UTC)The deleted article that I'm trying to promote under the category Real Physical Models is what I submitted together with a picture in Talk Nuclear Model. WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RE Pauling I hope he said that Alpha particles constitute the core of the nucleus around which additional deuterons and excess neutrons are accumulated. Thus 6 Carbon consists of 2 alpha plus 2 deuteron particles and if you use the magnets to try to make 4Be9 you'll find that the magnets wont bond 2 other magnets side by side but only 2 other magnets that are end bonded to each other. The implication being that 4Be8 consists in one alpha particle end bonded to another. WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as storytelling capability in science matters I like Clarke and Michener, but I think you underestimate the capability of Asimov to supply scientific (and mathematical) information to readers. And I thought that's what Wikipedia was all about, particularly since they're against original thinking. WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How about you and your cohorts there at Caltech building and checking out the indications of stability of the models relative to the available nuclear data and saying "Gee this points out where additional study and data checking might improve our concepts about this subject matter." And then you could blame for having an original idea. Would that be legal? It only took about 5 years to build the models and my curiosity as to the correlation between their symmetry indications and and the nuclear data stability indications still exists. Regards WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

PS And I do have a copyrighted article and a copyright on the "structural models", but I'm afraid I cant prove or contribute anything mathematical because I'm only an Engineer. WFPMWFPM (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UT)

That's all right. I once drove over 1000 miles (round trip) to show a person my models to see what he thought and he said that it couldn't be right because it's supposedly impossible for nucleons to come in contact with each other. But I still think the models point out things like that there ought to be stable EE isotopes more massive than OE83Bi209 because I can build models of them and I cant find any theory that they cant exist. And I get agravated when I read that not only there isn't any but also that there cant be any. So thanks and lots of luck and keep it up on Wikipedia. WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-formatting fixed, I think Wwheaton (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory
I just wanted to mention to you that now we maybe have permission to discuss alternate theories as to how the universe got started besides that it was created out of nothing. Do you think it worthwhile to pursue that? I've got ideas. Regards WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)PS I appreciate your info re ISS time lag factor had no idea it was so small.WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) == Oh yes and about this idea that the space continuum expansion factor is added to the c velocity factor in deterimining the size of the universe: Are you up on that? .WFPMWFPM (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * = I've been thinking about your "escaping" theory and note that according to the E=Mcsquared and the SR mass expansion theories the Mass of the escapees would be expanding to infinity as they approached the velocity of light. This casts doubt on their ability to constantly accelerate, as well as for the suns of the Universe to be expanding at c velocity, as I added in my Talk Page. Do you have any comment on this?. WFPMWFPM (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * " I also added a Catch Up section which more or less says the same thing. WFPMWFPM (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphan Asteroids
Responding to --


 * Could some people from this wikiproject please watchlist these, as I am currently the only person watching them! Also,I hope to be able to continue this work in a few weeks, and I expect that the early stuff will include a lot of asteroids, etc.  Can I ask if I am able to continue trying to offload these onto you?  Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For talk:WikiProject Astronomy I have signed on to watch the following:


 * 10004 Igormakarov
 * 10007 Malytheatre
 * 10009 Hirosetanso
 * 10021 Henja
 * 10024 Marthahazen
 * 10029 Hiramperkins
 * 10034 Birlan

with the thought that I will keep track of "interested editors", who make substantive non-minor changes to their articles, and solicit them to be watchers if any get too frisky. My hope is that this will be a very boring task. Wwheaton (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Granat
Thank you so much for doing that! I really appreciate it, please feel free (and by that I mean I want you to :P) to update/correct any info. As you correctly guessed I don't have any expert knowledge at all (20 year old literature undergrad) but I've always been fascinated with astronomy to the point that I built my own reflector. Anyway, the content from the instrument section came from HEASARC and was basically copy/pasted since their content is PD. I had realized that the information they have had some problems, and in a few cases when writing the lead and filling in the infobox I found information there that was contradicted by the Russian sources (written in English) I used. When that happened I always gave precedence to the Russian papers. Unfortunately though, I was forced to rely to a great extent on HEASARC because there simply aren’t many English sources about Granat available online (I live in brazil, and the grand total of books about soviet satellites in the libraries I have access to is probably 0..). I was particularly frustrated at not being able to use the IKI website in Russian which appears to be full of useful information, and is certainly a lot more reliable. So yes, if you can go over the article in more detail or know another astronomer who could, I would be most grateful! Acer (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, If you could get other astronomers to contribute, even if just to proofread, that would be fantastic. Feel free to point them my way if you need somebody to teach them the basics or to properly format any content contribuitions they make. Also, thanks for dropping NASA a note, I feel its really important that reference sites get their facts right since in many cases they're the only sources people have access to. (as another exemple of incomplete information there, I'm quite positive that Granat had 8 instruments instead of 7, by using automated translation I found mention in some russian papers of a "KS-18M" device. I never added it in since I didnt trust myself to make sense of autotranslated technical text) I truly hope that your message forces them to review that page, especially since it came from a professional astronomer Acer (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

By 'Center', I meant Center of Mass
It's my fault, I didn't make that clear, I guess. When I said 'The Center', I definitely meant the Center of Mass. So the question is - does the Cosmos have a Center of Mass, like everything else?

It sure used to have a Center of Mass. According to the Big Bang Theory, the Cosmos was once a Singularity. But didn't this Singularity, representing the Cosmos, didn't it have a Center of Mass?

Or imagine a short time after the Big Bang, with everything in the Universe flying away from everything else.. didn't it have a Center of Mass then?

A Center, from which everything was leaving. By suggesting the Cosmos has a Center of Mass, just like everything else, I do not feel I am stepping outside of the bounds of Science. I rather think my suggestion has some merit, and should be allowed as a 'possibility', at least.

It's my fault too that I came across, to you, as 'hostile', it was certainly not my intent. I know exactly what it was that 'irked' me. I laid out my Cosmology to you, and you responded by questioning me on the Surface of a Sphere.

And I still maintain the surface of a Shere, or any part of the surface, assuming that surface is a real, three dimensional object, has a Center of Mass. If, of course, the 'Surface' is a mere 2 dimensional illustration, that would make finding its C of M difficult.

I am also maintaining that the Cosmos still has a Center of Mass, that it came with one and that it didn't lose it. And that we are in a Big Crunch situation, and that a Singularity has evolved there, at the Center (of Mass) of the Cosmos, since the beginning of Time.

I would very much appreciate a mention of my Theory - which follows naturally from all the known laws of Science - depends on them, really, in Wiki, somewhere. I believe Science needs to know. Please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Teleology
Thanks for the input and now I know about Teleology and must be a metaphysicist. But being an Engineer, I cant think of any compelling reason to worry about why water was designed to run downhill. And as for the Big Bang theory I'd rather think the water was uphill in the first place. And as for dark matter/energy, how about a little more research and verification re the stability of the neutron in free space? Regards WFPMWFPM (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont have anything against neutrons in the sun or n+p capture gammas. What I need in the Central Whirlpool scenario concept is a way for accumulating atomic structures to get rid of excess angular momentum, And I think that might be done by changing some of the neutrons into protons that have something (an electron whip tail?) That can get rid of the radiation particles that you call gamma rays. And we could call the research "The negatively charged universe?" and think about Newton's first rule of Philosophy. And my apologies to Hans Bethe and Regards, WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Center of Mass & cosmology -- continued
Hi,me again. In response to your message to me, it does seem to me that the Cosmos certainly started out as a finite body - a singularity, according to accepted understanding - if I'm not mistaken. It still must have been finite shortly after the Big Bang, I'm inclined to believe.

My first question, therefore, would be - at what time did the Cosmos 'go infinite', or did it? How does one 'go infinite', anyhow? Is it a sudden thing, or does it occur only slowly.

I prefer to think the Cosmos is finite, with a Center of Mass like every other finite thing. I am not interested in 'winning' any 'arguments', but I always appreciate any opportunity to explain my side.

My second and last question to you is, 'Do you think there is room for my theory, that there is indeed, a Black Hole at the Center of the Universe, in Wiki - anywhere?

Maybe, I thought, it could serve as an example of 'Fringe Science' - a Theory, that while it conforms to the Laws of Physics, actually depends on them, could never hope to compete with the established 'Heavyweights', The Big Bang, for example - the mirror image of which - this is. 72.39.252.217 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Any place in Wiki for my Theory?
Hi, it's me again. Thank you for your last reply. It does seem to me that the Cosmos started out 'finite', according to accepted Theory, when it was just a singularity. I think it was still finite some time after the Big Bang. I think it's still finite.

I'm not interested in 'winning' any 'arguments', but I always appreciate an opportunity to present my side.

Is there any place for my Theory? I thought, maybe in 'Fringe Science', it could be briefly presented as a Theory which, tho' it conforms with Gravity and all the other Laws of Physics, could never hope to compete with the established 'Heavies', the Big Bang, or 'String Theory', for example.

If, however, there is no room for 'The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe', in Wiki, please tell me so that we can move on. 72.39.252.217 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a 'no'.
In light of what you have told me, I'll have to take that as a 'no' to my theory, 'The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe.'

I think it's sad, that in an encyclopedia that claims to hold 'the sum' of the world's knowledge, that this particular piece of 'knowledge', should be repressed.

However, I must stand by your decision - sorry for having wasted your time so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dauphinee = DavidYork71 ??
I thought so, but so far I am unconvinced. Watching, however, and it's good to know I am not the only one aware of this! -- Rodhull andemu  22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re WarOnRugs = pretty transparent, from here. Same use of dodgy sources, same addition of LGBT project. No doubt at all. I'm here 20/24 or so at present so will usually catch things pretty quickly. -- Rodhull andemu  18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Secret handshake
Thanks for your message! It is nice to know that I am not the only one who is like that!! If I may ask, which denomination do you attend? My family has been Presbyterian since before my ancestors settled Ireland from Scotland in the 17th century. Despite my own ambivalence on the topic, I find centuries of familial tradition to be a powerful allure. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied
Hi, sorry for the late reply, but I've replied on my talk page. Khu kri 10:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Much Appreciated!
Hello! Thank you for your comment on my talk page. The video you showed to me was extremely interesting. As you noticed, i am very interested in physics and astronomy to which you have a very impressive background. :] If you're interested in any topic in particular, i'd love to take a look. I appologize for not responding quickly. I'm on wikipedia nearly every day but i'm not logged on as often. Best, John Taftgod (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke
User:DavidYork71 is not going to go away, so I have semi-protected the article for a week. That only leaves his new accounts, which can be blocked on sight. He will run out of steam before we do. -- Rodhull andemu  03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome
I have yet to meet any scientist, involved in the LHC or otherwise, with the slightest concern about the LHC causing disasters. A few people seem glad that the LSAG is doing its very conservative report, just so we can be sure, but most see it entirely as an exercise in explaining to the public why there's no cause for concern. Admittedly, we don't always do public relations as well as I wish we did, but I think the report is a step in the right direction.

If you're interested in quantum field theory, I highly recommend this textbook, which gets across many of the key concepts at the upper-division undergraduate level. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

LHC
Hi, I noticed that you copied the "legal challenge" section to the "Safety of the LHC" article. I suggest that the section either be removed from the "Safety of the LHC" article, or that the "Legal challenge" section in the "LHC" article be merged with the "Operational safety" section. Either way is fine with me. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seemed to me the legal information needs to be retained in the safety article, as it is so closely related to the safety subject. Yet I also think it is useful to keep the bare status of the legal challenge in the LHC article while it remains current.  Personally, I am mostly opposed to loading the main article with all the details, (imaginary...) risk scenarios, fault-tree analyses, legal motions and counter motions, and references without end.
 * I agree one section is enough in the LHC article, and intended to merge it all into one there, but I ran out of time. Also, it seemed to me "Operational safety" is not such a good section title, as it sounds like concerns about workers getting run over by a fork-lift, something small-scale and local. I didn't want to make it too sensational, but also not quite so mundane sounding, and gave up in the event.  At the moment the best I come up with is "Planetary safety concerns".  Best, Wwheaton (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I support the merge in the LHC article. Also, I think just "Safety" would be fine for the heading, or maybe "Safety reports and reviews" or "Safety assessments". I don't like "Planetary safety concerns" as it puts undue weight on the "concerns" and there are also local safety aspects such as environmental impacts, radiation, etc. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a message on Khukri's talk page. I accept that I can not compete with the lot of you.  If you force me to concede, without a functional dispute resolution process I guess I may not have much choice.  --Jtankers (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

X-ray binary
Hello. Saw your edit on the that page. I guess I need to site the "Massive X-ray binaries". Sorry about that. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I only wrote it because the AJ papers I read states that Supergiant Fast X-ray Transients are a subgroup of Supergiant X-ray binary and Be/X-ray binary is a subgroup of Massive X-ray binary.  And Massive X-ray binary is a subgroup of HMXB.  If it is not an issue, I can put it back the way I first wrote it when I find the papers to site that.  Thanks, Marasama (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics Poll
There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How now?
you were right i was busy w/ end of year stuff, i havent been on wiki in so long! I am now doing research on microfinance for a Model United Nations Conference, I am helping to wright the briefing paper. its tuff! I am also busy learning about Casmir's force and how vacums work. If casmir's force works here with virtual particle popping in and out of existence wud particles here pop into existance in another dimention that the virtual particles are supposedly found in and make up casmirs force ther?! Have a great summer --Jos h   00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

HEAO-3
I saw you on the interstellar travel discussion page. You wrote about HEAO-3 too. I worked on that in Ed Stone's lab. Were you there too? DonPMitchell (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorta, I was at JPL with Bud Jacobson's group on the Ge spectrometer, C-1. I'd love it if you could beef up the discussion of the C-3 experiment (or point me to some easily accessible references I could read and comprehend myself in a short time).  I'm working on Spitzer Space Telescope at Caltech now.  Were you a student or postdoc there?  What are you doing now? Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You might find this interesting.
Hi Bill, Just found this which I thought you might personally find this interesting, outside of our shenanigans on the LHC articles. It's a 2 hour interview with nobel laureates, including Carlo Rubbia, David Gross, Hooft, Veltman, George Smoot and a few others and their thoughts on the LHC. There are also some discussions about the LHC safety and Wagner. cheers Khu kri 09:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm interested. Don't know where I'll find two hours, but send me the link (? I don't see it above?) and thanks.  Bill Wwheaton (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn, sry I thought I'd included the link. http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=36712
 * Enjoy Khu kri 09:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope everything is OK, and see you when you get back. Khu kri 07:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I expect all will be well. Wwheaton (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I am back, more or less. Thanks again. Wwheaton (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, hope all is well? Khu kri 06:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had my first encounter with back surgery, three weeks in the hospital (only expected 4-5 days). Results appear promising, but it will be a while before I really know for sure.  This is just another chapter of a lifelong orthopedic saga (diastrophic dysplasia), mostly just a big nuisance. -- Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

of Casmir effect and romantic piano music
Hi bill hope ur back 'll be ok. Thanks for the book recommendation ill start on that after i finish a book on einstiens most important theories. I love the concerto too. I got in an AP History class this year! 1st test on summer reading average D but I got a C! On hte scale thats an A - A+. Sorry i havent exactly kept in touch end of school was hectic. I worked over the summer too so not much time spent on computer. Tell me more about the place u work at as a teacher, Caltech is it, I might go there fr college. My best regards J<font style="background:#FFF0A0;color:#80C000">o<font style="color:#C08000">s <font style="color:#C00000">h  <font style="color:#2820F0"> 00:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a sophomore in High School Bill. I would love to apply to Caltech for thier astronomy program! I want to go to Yale but that might not happen. So yeah im syched about the idea.... How bout u Bill how r u doin these days???????? <font style="background:#FFF090;color:#00C000">J<font style="background:#FFF0A0;color:#80C000">o<font style="color:#C08000">s <font style="color:#C00000">h  <font style="color:#2820F0"> 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11341134a (talk • contribs)

Large Hadron Collider‎
This is much better. Thank you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the mention(s) of String Theory. (I am a String Theorist.) — Orion11M87 (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, Brian Greene wrote the best article on the LHC. Also it was outstanding that the fact it was published in the New York Times, so a lot of people got an excellent insight. On the Superstring theory, one of the biggest difficulties are that there are lot of possibilities in what ways strings can vibrate, which makes it even harder after the fact that they work in the Calabi–Yau manifold dimensions (which are sometimes very difficult for many people). So I have been thinking on to really revolutionize it in having more physicists on board and making high-efficiency collaborations possible. One of the main problems are that it has a long learning curve, and the physicist's collaboration on it is not so state of the art. About 2 years ago, I seriously started looking on to the idea of having special operating system of science for learning, and for scientists to share ideas and equations in realtime. I have started working on its architecture and interface. I am hoping on developer release in late 2009. So it will be finally great to have a science dedicated operating system, short learning curve (advanced realtime interactive architecture), and very high productivity with science and math. I have been looking forward on visiting JPL, so will meet you there. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will be writing an email to you, and my apologies for not replying in a timely manner (I have been very busy and hadn't had much time on the computer). Thanks and cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually want to be at JPL/Caltech right now, but in the time I have, I have to wait until 2009. I hope everything is fine there, after the surgery. — Orion11M87 (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you review the Quark article?
I've seen that you're listed as an active participant in WikiProject physics, and particle physics is listed among your areas of interest. The article Quark is currently a featured article candidate. Could you please review it and express your comments at the nomination page and/or the talk page of the article? Thanks in advance, <span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF; border: thin solid black"> A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  16:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wheaton
For mentioning the talk mistake. It was hardly something important, and I'm sure anything that got deleted was an accident. It is now restored to the talk page. Eebster the Great (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rindler and speed of light
I dont know if you had an answer to your question at Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity. As I had a copy of Rindler's book to hand I looked it up. Robinhw (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Current Vandalism in Progress
I am really appalled that you do not comment on Verbal's vandalism of the discussion on the Safety of the Large Hadron Colllider. Don't you realize that he is censoring content? He has already destroyed my other contributions and blocked me from edits ... do you seriously think I'm the only one?? It is irrelevant whether you agree with my point of view or not, this person is wading through Wikipedia and deleting or destroying other people's work simply because he doesn't approve! DasV (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to comment here. If you feel my editing has been inappropriate please let me know here or on my talk, however I really don't think anything needs to be said at this point. I have been removing off topic discussion and personal attacks per WP:TALK, and asked DasV to centralise discussion on his talk page. I haven't blocked, banned, or otherwise barred DasV from sensible and on topic editing (I'm not an admin!) All the best, Verbal   chat


 * Personally I like to give the discussion on talk pages pretty wide latitude, as long as it is not abusive, which I don't think DasV's was. But the official guidelines were certainly bent, and we should pay attention to them.  So I was beginning to think that it was time to take the discussion off to our personal talk pages, as we (myself included) were beginning to repeat ourselves in a tiresome and non-constructive way. I myself would have just archived the earlier material under the "biased" heading, left the later section (from DasV's "article is a joke" post), called for further talk to be carried out on our personal pages, and later taken action to cut off the argument if it had continued much further.  So I don't think Verbal's action was really wrong.
 * You must understand, DasV, that we've had similar arguments for about a year, and it gets wearisome. User:Jtankers did an heroic job of defending the contrarian position for several months, and I thought that was at least within Wiki guidelines and pretty civilized, even though we disagreed.  (He seemed really convinced that there was a ~50% chance of disaster (which I believe over the top by a factor of probably a trillion), so I had some sympathy for his honest terror.)  Your argument seems more general, broadly dismissive of the benefits of scientific research in comparison with the costs, considering both dollars and risks.  This is a deep and difficult issue (I think) and probably worthy of an article (tho my own prejudices are clear), but huge, far broader than our LHC context allows.  Anyhow, I'm sorry if you felt censored, but ultimately it really is necessary to make serious suggestions for changes to the main article, and back those suggestions up with reliable sources.  You might want to review the archives from 2008 Jan to September to see where we've been with that.  Best, Wwheaton (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your well stated case Wwheaton. There is no point to deletion of remarks on discussion pages unless they are abusive and/or vandalism. It is nothing more than censorship of the discussion, and many many now on Wikipedia have a penchant for 'deletion'. I understand the repeated nature of the discussion at times, but the alternative is to simply regurgitate government sources. I agree that the LHC risk is minimal, and I said so; the point was that there was no admission in either article that the cost to benefit was minimal also. The discussion pages serve to document such exclusions, particularly in the case of the topic being revisited. In that sense Verbal's actions were indeed wrong, and served no purpose other than highlighting his own personal desire to eliminate any contra-Cern communications. It would have been different if I had simply changed the article unilaterally. As to the degree of risk I point to Herbert Dingle's book Science at the Crossroads, also maligned by orthodoxy and dogma, yet nevertheless prophetic regarding the possible costs for a lack of scientific understanding. Verbal might have understood this had he read the most recent object of deletion that I posted, then again censors do not read that which they do not understand or agree with. Thank you for addressing this. DasV (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

About archiving of Life Talk page
--Faustnh (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bill, thank you for your notification. Yes, I completely agree with you on the question that archival procedure of Life Talk page should be given a better treatment. I will express my opinion there.

By the way, in my last check of Wikipedia I've made a change to the article I wrote. I've made some additions I've been intended to write since some time ago, and I would like you checked it out.

Thank you and best regards.

Life
Hello Wwheaton. I just noticed the contributions you have done in Wikipedia and I realize you are in a different league than user Mitra. In the past I have had to fend off religious zealots (offended to their very soul), creationists, Intelligent Design dudes, just plain vandals and miscelaneous comming out of the wood works. I see you are looking at life from a serious physics perspective and you have the background to do so. I applaud that and look forward to learning some tricks from you; I am a cell & molecular biologist. Surely you have noticed during your ample scientific writing experience in Wikipedia of the need to quote previously published papers. Although your kernel information ratios concept is interesting, I do not believe it has been published, and I can not honestly say it is a mainstream biology concept that can be used to support the presented definition of life. Sincerely looking forward to constructive dialogue, BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wwheaton, FYI - I'm in fact in a different league. Consider me just a foolish kiddo. I've not bothered to check the talk page archive before writing that 'definition' [and when I did I've disliked 'pink unicorns' right away]. Nor have I tried to do any research in the subject in the past ten years. The idea is not original and have been present in the literature for quite a while. Really, I think, I took the idea from Harry Potter. That Rowling person is talking about the information transfer throughout the whole series. To the point of being boring in fact. --Mitra (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Wwheaton. Thank you for being logical in your arguments and for listening mine as well. I think that biologists are to high up in the food chain to define life :) And forget that chemistry and in its term physics drives all that funky cellular machienary.  I doubt they even know the notion of the thought experiment.  ;) --Mitra (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wwheaton, I know that at first it seems ridiculous and unfair that independent scientific thinking is not allowed, and it is even discouraged in Wikipedia. However, restricting the material to previously published papers (peer reviewed), helps ensure the veracity and reliability of the information presented. Remember it is an open encyclopedia and anyone has access to the edit button, whether they understand the subject or not. If all editors had a degree in science/technology/etc. it would not be such a big handicap as this population -in general- takes time to understand the Wiki rules and investigate the topic prior to editing; but reality shows that not all editors have the understanding or the intelectual honesty expected; for example, during the past I have had to delete statements claiming that fire and certain computer softwares can be considered to be alive. In this context I had a first impresion that your information theory was heading toward some kind of electronic memory and artificial life. Anyway, I apologize for my rudeness, and as a researcher, I appaud your curiosity.

Regarding the information kernel ratios, at an everyday practical level the links between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not close. When attempting to detect life, physicists and chemists are apt to be more interested in changes in entropy as a system spontaneously evolves away from its initial conditions, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. So I think that your proposed system may be an additional perspective to assist in the description of life, not to define it.

I strongly suspect that one reason biologists have not produced an oficial-looking sentence that defines life, is that we don't want to be boxed in to a pre-established concept of the many ways life manifests, or could manifest. Creating a one sentence definition, whether narrow or wide, would be either too vague or limiting. If you look around in competent literature, it is more likely that you will find descriptions or characteristics of known life, as very few will adventure to actually produce a definition. Although my cell & molecular background is on heath care (humans), I spend time reading on characteristics of life because I am very interested in the subject of astrobiology, and I keep a close eye on what they are looking for as a sign of past or present life. There are several suggestions for things to look for, and mostly they all come down to questioning the physicochemical data for an anomaly. Although thermodynamic entropy seems to be the prime "red flag" at the moment, signs of metabolism like 12-C, 13-C, 14-C incorporation ratios in gases and biomolecules, are high on the list. The good news is that none of these asume that the processes are being carried on inside a cell.

As you know, as the scientific fields expand, people become very specialized. I have not read anything about biological information ratios but I will keep an eye open and will get back to you if I do. Take care. With much respect and friendship, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: As a piece of interesant trivia, the human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs. The Van Dyke's salamander has about 70 billion base pairs. The uni-cellular amoeba dubia has 670 billion base pairs. How does DNA information relate to structural complexity? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment
( --Faustnh (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC) ) Hi Bill, you will probably know, but in case you don't, you could take a look at Knol service. It's not perfect, but it's a resource to consider. Best regards.

==== Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to WikiProject Space Colonization! I noticed you were making improvements to the ISS article. What areas of space colonization are you interested in? Wronkiew (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! This is nutty. You came to my rocket launch out in Irwindale last year. I think we've met in Ventura too. Small world! Wronkiew (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Asteroid stubs
Hi there! I would take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting or Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion asap. Dr. Blofeld, Waacstats, Grutness, et al can probably advise or help. Cheers, Pegship (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cotton gin
It looks ok to me, what were your concerns? No porn stars in it now so far as I could see. dougweller (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, two things, I guess. First, I was surprised to see that folks have been making cotton gins for 2,000 years, with no hint in the article as to how Whitney's improvements seem to have made the key difference.  I understand that the documentation from the first century CE may be a bit thin, but still, there ought to be some indication as to what the important improvements were.  Second, in Whitney's patent, lacking any textual discussion, it is not at all clear how it works.  The museum photo helps a little maybe, but both illustrations need some explanatory text to tell where and how the critical events occur.  I see there has been a lot of editing since my rather harsh criticism, but unless I have missed it, mostly on the subject of the relation to slavery and like social/historical issues.  Somehow the naive reader (such as me; coming out of California's south Central Valley I have at least separated a boll or two by hand, and seen people in the fields hand-picking back in the mid-50s) ought to come out of the article with some clarity about the problems involving seeds and fibers and the bolls' covering, that Whitney's gin addressed successfully, in a way that seems to have revolutionized the industry.  The patent illustration at least should have some text in the accompanying caption explaining where the raw bolls are put in, exactly where and how the actual separation occurs, and where the seeds and separated fiber are collected.   (? Are the boll-covering shells removed by hand first?  Must be I guess, but they are brittle once the cotton is dried [nowadays I believe this is done by treating the field when it is green with some kind of chemical I think, then letting it dry out? But what about in 1790?] and tend to break into fragments I think, so that step must be tedious and delicate.  Probably happened in the field, while picking?)  It looks in the patent diagram like important things happen at two places, at least, but what those are, and how, is mysterious.  The museum photo helps a little, but I think it does not correspond one-to-one to the patent image, and it still does not really make it obvious.
 * I confess I have only studied the article for a few minutes, but I was struck by how little clear explanation there was about the actual mechanical issues and how Whitney's improvements solved them. My impression is there has been little done about this since my (bad-tempered—apologies) rant. The social impacts are obviously of huge importance, but the central mystery of the "gin in itself" remains obscure, and almost unexplained. Wwheaton (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points. So many articles on my list to work on! And this isn't my field, but the archaeology of it, I will try to find time to look into that. Thanks for the detailed explanation. dougweller (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, me either obviously. I suspect experts in the technology are rare, all died a century ago. We do the best we can.  Sorry to be a troublemaker.  I'm a physicist myself.  Several of the earlier contributors to the talk page at least seem to know something about cotton.  Cheers,  Wwheaton (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Asteroids
Hello, Wwheaton. Thanks for mentioning that on my talk page. To answer some of your questions, I believe that there are somewhere between 13,000 and 15,000 asteroid articles on Wikipedia at the moment. I am uncertain of the exact number as I only created about a tenth of those asteroid articles. Most were created by User:ClueBot II before I came along and filled in some holes. Others have been created by different individuals over times. As for why I missed so many articles, that is because I used many different pages to get links for the asteroids. I initially used pages such as List of named minor planets (A-C), then went on to Meanings of minor planet names and later used List of asteroids. Sorry about any redlinks that I missed. I could go and create them, but I haven't done any asteroid article created for nearly a year partially due to the (apparently mistaken) belief that I had gotten all the named asteroids as well as the whole notability controversy on the astronomical objects wikiproject. I like the look of your table and think it is a good idea. One question that I have is if you intend to create the table to supplement the articles or to delete or merge the articles to the table. I would suggest keeping the articles and then having a table with minimal information to keep it neat with more specific information on the articles on the asteroids themselves. If you would like, I can go ahead and create the articles of the asteroid redlinks or if you would rather have me wait until the question of asteroid notability is solved, I understand that as well. Once again, thank you for contacting me regarding these new developments. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Usernames
I almost blocked you per our policy of 'no celebrity names' - but hey, it is your name, so okay.

You're doing some damn good stuff; keep at it. DS (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Greeting
Dear Wweaton, I was checking on a vandalism on article Omid and suddenly read your message to an IP user and I was overwhelmed. It is great to know people like you. By the way, I noticed that you are interested in Physics and space. There is a funny article about space that would like to send you if you are interested. I will email it to you. Have a great week. Kind regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Soddy
Thanks for the interesting input on the Soddy articles. Your new finding was another good information link to have http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12zencey.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion

If you have not seen this very short video you may find it interesting. M. King Hubbert who I am sure you know of, made use of Soddy's work. Soddy did not take things a step further as Hubbert and friends did, but his work pointed in somewhat the same direction... Hubbert on peak oil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY&feature=channel_page - Regards skip sievert (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do not know anything, actually, especially about economics, and especially about money or banking.  I do have a slight understanding of thermodynamics and entropy, and have just begun to pay attention to Soddy's ideas, but I have to think about them, maybe for a long time. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My apparent edit
Didn't edit the Mass Driver page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.155.66 (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mass Driver
I have just read your help me mesage on Mass Driver 1 page. I am not an expert wikipedian and I do not really know how to help, but I want you to know that I sympathise with you and I have a few general suggestions:

1. List the things that you think ought to be on the page, from your point of view. That has to be reconciled with what ought to be on the page from the point of view of us users. Our view should be paramount as wiki should be there to answer our questions, but then again, we do not neccesarily know what there is to be known, whereas you do.

2. List some sources of information that others could use. Even if they are obscure books, so long as you give proper references, it is up to us to look into them and decide what we want.

3. You are absolutely right that you should not write the page yourself, but provided you make it clear who you are, you are reasonably OK putting a few notes down and I support this.

4. I will jot down a list of things that I mgiht expect to see on this page too, to inspire others. Thanks for being there anyway. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was slightly involved (I designed the capacitive discharge circuits that powered the drive magnets), and have been hoping to get more info from some of the others, but without much luck.  Kevin Fine took lots of pictures, Eric Drexler was around, Gerry O'Neill's book mentioned it in some of the later editions, and there are probably lots of design notes and details in his personal papers at the Space Studies Institute, and Henry's papers would also be a good place to look.  The problem is human time: Gerry is dead, Henry is 85 or so, I am up to my neck in Spitzer Space Telescope stuff in Pasadena, etc, etc.  I would like to see some details about the design: a good line drawing of the overall layout, a diagram of the "bucket", information on the drive coils (number of turns, inductance L, wire size (it was large Cu stuff the Magnet Lab had around, maybe 2x3 mm or so in cross section), the theoretical vs obtained performance, etc.  This was practically the first thing I did for Wikipedia, and my memory is fading fast! I will put a copy of this on the article talk page, and maybe draw in some interest.   Wwheaton (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bevatron
Hi, I seem to be edging towards an edit war with an IP User:79.166.105.190 editor over that Georgios Giolvas edit you also reverted. Am I proceeding correctly? Any advice? Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. My first piece of advice is to make sure you don't revert more than three times, or you'll be hit with WP:3R regardless of whether you're right or not. :-/ If he continues to revert, possible bring it up under 3R, or take it to the admin notice board? Or possibly the Reliable Sources Notice Board... I'm not really sure where is best, as my previous experience with official processes to sanction editors has lead me to conclude that they're a lot of talk and little else. But maybe I'm just a cynic. ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will take due care about 3RR, this is as close as I've been, or ever expect to be. Maybe I'll try reason on his talk page before going to any of the WikiCops.  I am right, I hope, that a web page in Greek is really not satisfactory as a source?  No idea how credible the claim may be.  Wwheaton (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like it's all going well. Cheers! --Falcorian (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A request for Bill Wheaton and colleagues
Hi Bill Wheaton. I see that you are a physicist and astronomer. You got my attention with your wikipedia page on particle accelerators. It was very well written. Accelerators are a recent interest of mine, as is particle physics as a whole. I was wondering if you could read a wikipedia entry that I have been working on and maybe make some constructive critisms. Here is the title of the article, and, I hope, the internal link for it: The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?. The article is about the book with that title. You might be familiar with it. The intention of this project has turned out to be twofold. One is to give a summary of the chapters focusing through the lens of making this book and article interesting to the general reader. The second intention is to impart an understanding of particle physics based on this book. It is written by Leon Lederman who is a Nobel Prize in Physics laureate for his work with neutrinos. Obviously this has not been his only accomplishment. He has been right there on the leading edge of particle physics. I see also that you are a participant of WikiProject Physics. Perhaps you could get some of your fellow members in WikiProject physics to look it over as well. It would be much appreciated. Also I must add that it is not quite complete - but it is almost finished. However, now might be a good time for some feedback - I guess any feedback from physicist community on the article's talk page would be welcome. Thanks in advance. Hope to hear from you. Ti-30X (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is probably three quarters done, not eally almost finished. I want to add more to Chapter 4 and Chapter 9. Ti-30X (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to end from begining, to preserve chrono ordering. Wwheaton (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit on Template:Welcomeh
Hi Wwheaton. You might not have realized this, but your this edit to Template:Welcomeh was undesirable for the template's true function. I've reverted the edit now. Please be careful in your future edits. Thanks. Leave  Sleaves  17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, no, I was unaware that I had edited it at all. I found a mangled welcomeh instance on a talk page, and tried to fix it, but must have edited the template page itself somehow.  Sorry 'bout that. Wwheaton (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Matter
Thank you Ww

I helps a bit...

Can you maybe introduce me to someone who spesializes in Electrical engineering (Power)?

Regards CJ--Kroucacj (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Our discussion on interstellar travel
I wanted to know if you had wanted to comment on my talk page when you had left a message, you said you would keep it watchlisted (I added a bit too) The snare (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Chipembere
Hi,

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I have been making sections on various characters from Malawi history and adding to them as I find out more -- a fascinating subject, for me, anyway, as I grew up in Nyasaland. There is surprisingly little material on Henry Chip, still less on Catherine. The best general source is Colin Baker, who has published a lot on the period -- a whole series of books which you can no doubt find referred to on the web. Among them is one on Henry Chip -- the "Missing Years". I was recently in Rhodes House, Oxford, doing some historical research, but all they have is one letter from Henry to his supporters.

There is actually a guy at Cal Tech in Pasadena who once wrote quite a lot on the subject -- Edwin Munger, who knew Chip's nemesis, Dr Banda. I e-mailed him a while ago asking to see some private papers apparently in his possession (I am nearby, in LA), but he didn't reply.

Sorry I can't really help on Catherine. I'm not aware of anything other than passing references to her existence, with no detail. Let me know, though, if I can help with anything else in the general subject area -- I have a reasonably good collection of assorted books and documents.

Oliver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivercorlett (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Integral field spectrograph
I would suggest that you keep it as a subpage of your account, without categories, until it meets WP:N. Otherwise it is likely to be deleted again. Given the topic, you should be able to get two references from technical journals or news sources. I'll also add that the number of Google hits does not establish notability. Check out cite journal or cite new for including the formatted references. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Paulkint
See what I meant about the original research:. Since there is no source, the info cannot be verified by others and very likely contains mistakes. Do we really need this? Offliner (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Chauncy Maples
Thank you for your work on dividing the article: it looks much better now.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again, this matter has got messed up as far as I can see. What you did in July has been edited by myself to remove more duplication (though the length of the articles in itself makes changes more complex). After that the original editor Anments has reverted what I did and it is not possible for me to work on it again this week. His/her view is I suppose that it was an excellent piece of work so change makes it worse (I only guess that since I got no reply to a message). The article titles which only differ by "SS " need to be supplemented by hatnotes and an Infobox Ship on one and an Infobox Person on the other perhaps. What is on the Talk pages has stayed the may I did it but the articles have not. No hurry, and please don't feel an obligation.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, everything you have done has meant clarity and coherence are much better and I am very grateful. I would have returned to it eventually but could not just now. There is an essay-like quality and perhaps three articles (1) clergyman (2) ship (3) early Christian missions in Nyasaland are possible that is more than I can undertake. I find it useful to wander off into unfamiliar subjects sometimes, otherwise editing can feel rather boring and onerous. I have even made slight contributions to the history of science e.g George Sarton and a few others. Thank you again.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Bunsen
The last few days have been very busy on the this article: perhaps you could have a look.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Supermassive black hole
From your user page it says you are a physicts and a astronomer. Then just tell me that does supermassive black hole have a lower density? I have read on the article such thing. Please answer it on my talk page. --Extra999 (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now understood. Thanks. --Extra999 (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Hi Will, Hope you are doing good? Thought you might like this. Take care <font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu <font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Saw that, it was also in yesterday's NY Times. Thought it was hilarious, but the two authors seem to be reputable guys, so I better not laugh too loud.  And I do believe that the universe will surprise us in almost every possible way, after all.  Thanks for patrolling the LHC article this past year BTW.  I am still slowly recovering from back operations in July 2008, and scrambling to catch up at work, so have to curb my impulses to pontificate on Wikipedia.  I gather you guys are about ready to start circulating beam again—what a huge job that "incident" has been.  Hope all the loopholes have been successfully closed, and  good luck!  Cheers,  Bill Wwheaton (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Alot of testing going on and the whole machine is now cooled down to within a couple of Kelvin of operating temperature. I've not seen any exact start up dates yet, but it will be within the next month and then hopefully it'll just be sit and watch it all go like clock work. First time it started up there was so much excitement, to be honest this time there is a palpable sense of nervousness. For a 6 billion dollar machine to start up the way it did the last time was damned near a miracle and for it to all come to an anti climax a week later was gutting. This time everyone is approaching it with a certain amount of realism, we want to bounce around the room but .......... anyways, watch this space. Take care <font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu <font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Rodger Doxsey
Hi, I got the year of birth from the Discover magazine blog, but I'm happy to wait for a more detailed reference. --Canley (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Found a reference for his full birth date from the New York Times. Also added an infobox and a public domain image, and his full name from his doctoral thesis. --Canley (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Need for help
I have created a portal named star and I need help from you for making it good. -- Extra999 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then can you suggest a helful user and is good in astronomy. -- Extra999 (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have posted. Thanks !!! -- Extra999 (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Forbidden Planet
In reference to your recent edit to Forbidden Planet, please consider that WP:FICT guidelines (WP:FILMPLOT) advise 400-700 words for a plot summary, and in that article we are now at 729 words (per a real quick wc) for the plot summary. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC4.
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Debate on the "Purpose" section
Hi Wwheaton, I saw your latest edits and I really appreciate your effort to put the debate on a productive track. Unfortunately this week I am quite busy with other stuff so I cannot guarantee a quick reaction. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Wwheaton! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Edward J. Lofgren -
 * 2) Edward C. Stone -

Paulkint, again
is active at again. I reverted one attempted change a few days ago due to it removing references and muddying the example. I'm holding off on examining his most recent change. Would you be willing to take a look? I want to avoid doing anything that could come across as edit-warring or article-ownership, so a second opinion would be handy. The difficulty is that as near as I can tell, he's a single-purpose account relentlessly pushing one viewpoint on that article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your removal is clearly based on personal animosity since my contribution was only made clearer the magnitude of the energy and you do not dispute the accuracy of my edit. Yes I have had one viewpoint: to correct much of the falacious or false information in the "Interstellar Travel" article. Obviously that it not going to be permitted.User: paulkint —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Safety of the LHC
Hi Wwheaton, could you please keep an eye on the "Safety of the LHC" article? It's being modified by one "Oldnoah", but it's time to go to bed for me... Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi William, could you please moderate Ptrslv72, whose intentions might be good, but who is somewhat ignorant of physics. I've just posted a response to his response in the User Talk page of Oldnoah. Thanks! As I recall, we had a few interesting chats a while back, too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldnoah (talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I will do the best I can to keep the discussion friendly and helpful, but am not enough of an expert myself to do much more than speak soothing nothings. As I said a month ago, I believe the probability P of disaster cannot reasonably be claimed to be truly (exactly) 0.0, though I think it is very very small, <10 -12, I guess. I also think only bona fide experts are qualified to estimate the limits on the range of P, given that it must satisfy 0.0 < P < 1.0. It seems crucial to me (and a bigger issue than just the LHC, ultimately, as such problems will inevitably come up again and again in other fields of scientific research, with the danger of disasters on one hand, and the danger of halting scientific progress on the other) that we learn to accept such difficult realities, and then deal with (a) trying to understand what P could reasonably be, and (b) what value is acceptable in a broad analysis of likely costs and benefits to society as a whole.

Ptrslv72 (talk) may be "somewhat ignorant" of physics, but we all are, and he clearly knows much more of the current state of the subject than I. (My theoretical particle physics education more or less peaked around 1967, when I took my PhD qualifying exams at UCSD; I worked on some experiments at BNL/AGS & LBL after that, but got out of the field in 1969, just before the big breakthroughs.) I think you Oldnoah (talk), probably know at least as much as I do, and I appreciated our interactions a year or two ago, that helped me to get up to speed a little on the subject. As I say I cannot do much during the next fortnight; I hope I will be more available after that. All the best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill, for your input. I also agree that P > 0, and P < 1 with our current state of knowledge. However, I am unable to calculate a probability. I suspect you have a 'gut feeling' that you believe it is as small as you report. I don't do that, because a 'gut feeling' is exactly that, a feeling not based on reasoned calculation. I don't know how to do a calculation, and I don't know of anyone who reliably does. Ergo, I would agree that one should therefore simply split the difference. I'm not the only one who uses that method as the 'best guess'. That is because, I suppose, that if we do Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC, that is something that does not happen in nature except possibly in the deep reaches of intergalactic space when an occasional Pb cosmic ray runs head-on into another Pb cosmic ray at COM equivalent energies to the LHC. Since we don't have prior factual evidence from nature to rely upon, we instead have to rely upon guesswork. I find it interesting that Ptrslv72 seems to be taking a hostile tone, yet he was ignorant of the recent LHC data?! One would think that if he is going to be a 'guardian of the gate' he would at least have already been apprised of the recent CMS data (which I inserted into the article because it is quite interesting, I believe, as being the FIRST data from 'new physics' of the machine.) ~Oldnoah
 * How to estimate a reasonable range for P seems a difficult problem. My gut feeling was based on multiplying various factors out in the tree of possibilities to get contingent probabilities, and then adding those, in a very rough and ready way.  Some of the probabilities can be computed more or less reliably, eg the life of neutron stars against ultra HE cosmic ray-produced black holes, given a reasonable estimate for the possible BH production cross section; or the characteristic growth time (exponential  tau, I presume) for a BH orbiting in the Earth. But I do not have the expertise to do any of this right, and I think only a very few (tiny fraction, modest number of) people really do.  One thing I think we should not do is simply take an arithmetic average of people's gut feelings (being dominated by a few large estimates).  A geometric average seems more reasonable to me (more scale invariant), but still must be cut off below to avoid domination by absurdly small estimates.  We do many things in science that have never been done before, and we clearly need to be cautious about reasonable possibilities, yet if we do not develop some methodology for dealing with these matters, where 0 < P << 1, we will eventually be paralyzed by fear, which I think would be very dangerous in its own right (as well as no fun at all!)  I sometimes wonder: if all natural causes of death were conquered, would people simply stay in bed all the time, to avoid all risk?  Yuk! Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oldnoah, how ironic that, of all people, you should call somebody else "ignorant of physics". Of course I know the CMS article (check the timestamps, I mentioned it on the talk page of the Safety article well before you did it on your own talk page). The point is, I am also able to read plain English, so I know that the CMS article has nothing to do with strangelet production at the LHC. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Away
I will be away for a week, with little or no computer access. I expect to return March 5. Wwheaton (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Atom smashers
While I certainly agree that professionals and academics in the field of physics don't like the term "atom smasher", it is still a widely used term. See Talk:Particle accelerator for more sources; hundreds of others could be provided. It may not be the preferred scientific term, but it is still used. This is a general encyclopedia, not a textbook or technical manual, so the terminology we use is not restricted to what the academic world would prefer. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Terminology should still be correct. It is the responsibility of professionals and academics to guide sloppy usage towards accuracy without being too obnoxious.  And even a "general encyclopedia", especially one that aspires to make "all knowledge" available to all, needs to be correct.  It is inherently an academic exercise, after all.  The term atom smashers was a journalistic vogue that went out of date with the Cosmotron, when fundamental physics advanced from nuclear physics to elementary particle physics, nearly 60 years ago.  No doubt the term is still misused thousands of times, as it was once very popular, but it is still inappropriate, and potentially confusing.  We are under no obligation to perpetuate it.  The lead as I left it explained this accurately and needs to be restored, which I have now done, except for changing "1950s" to "1960s" (to be generous).


 * So, I request that you obtain consensus on the article talk page, and on the physics project page, before reverting. Thanks!  Wwheaton (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We do use the correct terminology. Hence the title of the article. But it's untrue to say "atom smasher" isn't used; like it or not, it is. And the sources provided demonstrate that - they are from the last ten years. That's not a matter for debate, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. If it cites reliable sources, it's in. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That closed the door on that debate then. I understand Bill's argument though Kafziel has stated "if it's reliably sourced it's in" is maybe a tad too black and white, as the source has to be in context. I for one have no problems with it being in the article, but I am surprised that is of such importance that it is in the lede. The lede should lay out the structure of the article and it's context, and I don't see the terminology of Atom Smasher as a defining point for the article or particle accelerators in general. Reading through the article it jumps straight from the lede to it's uses and types of accelerators, whereas the article could be served by moving the History section up and expanding on the development of accelerators from their infancy to things like the LHC, Tevatron and maybe in the future CLIC, this in my opinion would be the perfect position to include the section to show how technology and terminology has developed. Regards <font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu <font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri 07:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

New from WFPM
Hi! I've had a brainstorm since I last talked with you about an atomic fusion device consisting of a Boiler containing Lithium fuel and a helium heat transfer medium, and equipped with a number of your atom smashing (accelerator) devices to fuse the lithium to fast helium particles. We could shape it like a Chianti bottle and put a hydrogen fuel cell recovery system in at the top and then we would be in business. We would, of course, give credit for the discovery to Cockcroft and Walton, but there ought to be enough room in the technology for a patent or two. So what do you think? You can be the Scientist and I'll be the Engineer.WFPM (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes! And we can put a pebble bed heating system under the Chianti bottle and use Berkeley's and even Cal Tech's garbage as a heating fuel source. That would probable sell the idea.WFPM (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You might also note that in the Nuclear model article someone has introduced a category of model that he named the Linus Pauling Close-Packed Spheron model. And since you mentioned that to me one time I thought you might want to contribute something to that.WFPM (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've been too busy to think much about this. The problem I would worry about is that if the target temperature is much lower than the beam energy (which it must be unless the target is confined without touching the container), then unless the fusion cross section is about as large as the cross section for elastic (mostly Coulomb) scattering, then beam will simply heat the target and quickly lose energy itself, cooling to the point that Li/He fusion is impossible.  That needs a calculation to see if the fusion rate on the first collision could be high enough to give a net energy release compared to the loss due to scattering.  I am not prepared to undertake it myself at the moment, but I am pretty sure it has been done, and that the results were not promising.  Remember that if the target is dense and thick enough for a good fusion probability, and the temperature of the target becomes anything like the 108 K (~10 keV) needed for fusion, then the pressure must be enormous and you effectively have a hydrogen bomb fireball in your bottle.  Probably some of the texts (? maybe Introduction to Fusion Energy, J. Reece Roth, 1986, Ibis Publishing ?) on fusion energy would outline this calculation, well enough that you could try to verify it yourself?  These was also an interesting article in Science, by Rostocker, Binderbaur, and Monkhorst, "Colliding Beam Fusion Reactor", Vol 278, p 1419, 21 Nov 1997 that might be relevant.  Rosktocker was one of the old-time pioneers, and should know the major pitfalls and dead-ends in this business (as I, alas, really do not).  I did attend a talk by Pauling around 1967, on his spheron model, which I barely understood; I think that would not alter the basic problems and issues, though it must affect the cross-sections that go into it. Good luck anyhow!  Wwheaton (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you're technically way over my head. But I'm pretty sure that Cockcroft and Walton didn't have have a too complicated supply of 3Li when they made the discovery. But as an practical matter, you may be right. And I'm not talking about a completely Nuclear Fusion facility, just a souped up lithium containing boiler, that would at least have enough nuclear fusion activity to merit trying to study and try to improve the technology as a beginning. Do you know what happens if 3Li is put into the thermal neutron flux section of a LWR? I know it's pretty transparent but isn't there some amount of reaction? And no fast neutrons! That would definitely be a plus.WFPM (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Also, in my boiler I could argue that the target atom was confined within the liquid and yet would still be practically stationary with respect to the velocity of the approaching proton. All I have to do is to get it out of the accelerator to a nearby location to the liquid 3Li surface, and I consider that to be an Engineering problem.WFPM (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you're interested in Telescopes, you might want to join the discussion in Talk:Photon about the existence of a pilot wave that tells the photon where to go. I'm trying to use an image of the Whirlpool galaxy to argue in favor of direct propagation of photons as a means of explaining the incredible details of the image and I'm sure you could contribute to that.WFPM (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I guess I blanked out and was thinking of the D+3He -> p+4He reaction, so I'm not quite sure what reaction you are talking about. Are you thinking of


 * 6Li + n + 2H -> 4He + 3H + 2H -> 24He + n ?


 * Anyhow, current reactors (eg, JET) already achieve many megawatts of fusion power output, only still less than the necessary power input. Accelerators are probably the best way to study the microscopic details (cross sections for the reactions vs energy & angles), only the cross sections are very low (& therefore hard to measure, I think) at the low energies (10-100 keV) of interest. Anyhow, I think quite low voltage accelerators are all you need.  Sorry I don't have more time to ponder all this now.  I don't think there is any problem with QM and the beautiful M51 image; pure classical E-M wave theory is good enough for radio astronomy imaging down to micro-arc-seconds, and routine these days using intercontinental baselines. But EM is maybe still a helpful way to think about QM, because the photon wave function is exactly the EM field I think, and "photons are just like electrons" [quoth Feynman] in QM (except for spin/statistics).  Wwheaton (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm just thinking OE3Li7 + p to EE4Be8 to 2 x EE2He4 + Energy. I threw in the question of (OO3Li6 + OE3Li7) + n because in that case the OE3Li7 would eventually get to OO3Li8 and eventually change to EE4Be8 and would thus allow energy extraction from a LWR. And I keep thinking about it as an Engineering project where I want to extract fusion energy from 3Li. And in the boiler Li the waste kinetic energy would help heat the fuel, so I should have a net gain if any of it got fused. It sounds to me that they're having the same problem as I did when I was trying to design a pile type Ni-Cd battery for Laser Power applications, namely lack of efficiency. I'm trying to be be sneeky, and let my Energy Process take a free ride on a more conventional system.WFPM (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Whirlpool image is not only beautiful but informative. The details of the image argue for "line of sight" propagation, and show the transparency of the medium. And what we're watching is what I call a phase 2 + 3 process of accumulation of matter (2:Nucleons into Atoms)and (3:matter into a black hole). Now all we need to know is (1:how the nucleons were created in the first place), and of course Why????. But I can see some guy telling me "No your not watching the end of the process but rather the beginning, and you would understand it better if you were on the other side of the energy passageway keyhole." And could I dispute with him on that? How about the Andromeda galaxy? Is it contracting or expanding?WFPM (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said, I think your problem will be that the beam particles will mostly scatter (just two positive charged particles repelling one another, and bouncing off) before they get within the range of the strong force where they might fuse. That would heat the target, I think to the point where it will melt/vaporize before significant energy is released.  As I say, it takes a calculation & depends on the cross-sections.  Wwheaton (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem I thought that Crockcroft and Walton had discovered and overcome. I could still utilize any vaporization waste energy. But like you say it would have to work and have some efficiency. And they got credit for doing it. Cest la Vie.WFPM (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC) ---:Another question about interplanetory communications. The fundamental question is whether it is electromagnetic particles or a modulated wave type of transmission. Of course I think it must be particles, since I cant see how you could send the structure of the wave that you want to modulate. And what type of antenna? I studied the Yagi and the Parabolic in the navy. Maybe a link? and Thanks.WFPM (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, per quantum mechanics, light is neither a particle nor a wave, but has some properties of both. At radio frequencies, the wave picture is almost always the relevant one, as the photon energies are ~1e-5 eV (~1e-17 erg) or less, and we only observe large numbers of (coherent) photons together, like a water wave in the ocean.  So I think your Navy experience is appropriate.  Parabolic (with diameter D >> wavelength λ) is most directional if you want a narrow beam, but at lower frequencies a Yagi is cheaper than a huge dish.  It's a practical, economic, question I guess.  Wwheaton (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes but waves in the ocean have a medium of conveyance. And I just got arguing about that in gravity waves which I called waves of a nonexistent medium. So I'll stick with particles and am promoting a "Planck particle", which allows a photon to be a radiation's frequency number stream of planck particles which are crowded into a wavelength's distance of the stream. I got a preliminary estimate of the mass of the particle at 1.32e-47 grams but that could stand scrutiny, But at least I don't have to worry about the matter of the wave medium, and still have a line of sight capability of transmission. Is that what they're using from Mars.WFPM (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck, but I think you are beating a dead horse. Maxwell's E-M eqns are indisputable, and predict waves.  That is all that's needed for low frequency behavior. Wwheaton (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like your talking about Marconi antenna tranasmissions, But then you have electrons going at the bottom and a a theoretical wave radiating laterally off in all the horizontal directions, and the electrons have the problem of getting rid of energy at the top, where it has to decellerate. Why cant that be materialized into the emission of a stream of planck particles, likewise in all directions.WFPM (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The electrons oscillate back and radiate a wave as Maxwell described. The oscillating E & B fields carry energy away at the speed of light, just as the Navy taught.  The wave is composed of discrete packets of energy hν, but the packets propagate as a wave until they interact according to the quantum mechanical rules.  Then you have to go to the interpretations of quantum mechanics, which is still not really well understood, and controversial.  If you enter there, I wish you well (do not abandon hope), but the argument has been on for many decades, so the ground is well plowed.  Meanwhile, we do the calculations with waves and particles, as appropriate, and the answers come out right, checked to ~12 digits in some key cases.  Do think about the deeper issues, but don't let that stop you from doing the calculations as Maxwell, relativity, & QM (= QED) teach us, they work.  But I don't have the skill to do QED, you'll have to talk to smarter guys for that.  Wwheaton (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

But you know about the methods of intelligence conveyance within a transmission, which is not my forte. Is it dot-dash or FM or what? And the center fed half wave antennas can also be tied into the concept and I'd have to dream up a sophisticated explanation of the wave guide properties of the Yagi. But like in the Spitzer data transmission problem, how do you cram all that information into the transmission package.WFPM (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Me too on QED, except that I believe that an electron "is where it is" like I said in Talk:Atomic theory.
 * Mostly FM I think, though phase modulation (shifting phase of carrier for each bit or character) may also be common. Modems cram a lot of bits per sec into a telephone voice channel, and I think clever phase modulation is used there.  You want the bit stream to look random (50% 1's & 0's) like noise, so each carries maximum surprise -> maximum info.  Then add some redundancy in a controlled way for error correction.
 * Read Feynman's Lecture's  (first chapters of vol 3, or appendix of vol 1) to get excellent explanation of the shocking core facts of QM. You just have to know and accept those facts. Wwheaton (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I can live with that, because I'm down into a small enough particle and spacial distance such that I can do practically anything with a particle stream that you can do with a wave, plus I don't have to worry about the medium of the carrier. If you want Phase modulation, I'll just subdivide the spacial distance further and control the distance between a particle or between groups of particles. And that's the only way that I can imagine for the light image details like in the Whirlpool Galaxy to get from there to here without loss of detail. Because after all, I don't think it has a sophisticated technique of detail communication, but rather is just doin' what comes naturally.WFPM (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC) I had to study Fourier analysis as part of my EE curriculum. So maybe there's a use for it after all.WFPM (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Reading the article on Feynman I am reminded that my Calculus professor at the time was doing his doctoral thesis about the vibration of a drumhead. And note where he says that it"s mostly about particles in space plus a bunch of details. WFPM 15:16, 7 May 2010


 * I really do recommend the Feynman Lectures (Addison Wesley, 1963 I think) for you (and everyone); they are records of his beginning physics course at Caltech, but have been recommended for graduate students preparing for their qualifying exams, as they are accessible but deeply insightful. I should reread them myself.  The introductory material on QM is at the beginning of the 3rd volume, but reproduced at the end of the first, being "easy" but profound. Anyway, just vol 1 is the place to start, although vol 2 covers E-M theory.  One of his memorable quotes is "electrons are just like light!", as far as the essential wave/particle duality goes.  Wwheaton (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got it and read some along with his Alamo lore. And I would agree about the similarities of light to electrons, except that we've got the Fourier and polarity factors with the photon, and the skin effect and standing wave factors with the electron, and Feynman's verbal generalizations about those similarities makes me want to get up and interrupt the class discussion. And I like the old IBM generalization about the computer's explanation being a battery and ground situation and then marching on toward a lot of interesting details, while at the same time keeping you with a feet on the ground conceptual position. And I understood most of that. But Feynman's discussion about summing the multiplicity of light paths without having a concept of a basic light particle like the planck particle makes me wonder if I'm not ahead of him rather than behind him. And I don't like events that occur during a zero time interval, because as Asimov pointed out all events are actions within a scenery situation during a maybe small, but not zero or negative time interval, and the permutation of the possibilities related to that lead up to large numbers, and he was writing about the Skewes number. So I'm trying IBM's method and floundering around hoping for the best. And I thank you for listening.WFPM (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Note how with 2-slit experiment with light, we see interference pattern on screen, and how we see darkness at interference minima; how dark minima get brighter if we block one slit, and how all this remains true even if we lower intensity until only one photon can go through at a time (although we then have to run experiment, counting hits, until we get enough to see the interference pattern).  Kind of weird particles, no? Wwheaton (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I keep thinking about the merging of two particle streams, and how we could get frequency doubling. and don't believe in one photon at a time, since in the receiving process were merely tapping the stream. And of course with only one slit you've got the Huyhgen's distribution factor related to light's turning around corners, about which I don't know all the details. But I still don't have to worry about the wave carrier medium, which they leave out of the discussion. It's kind of like talking about ghosts even if you don't believe in ghosts.WFPM (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, once again
Hello, how are you? Just to remind you about the star portal. I have completed it. I also present you:

--Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 12:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the star; I had no idea. I'll check out the star portal.  Wwheaton (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I made my guestbook. Please sign there. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 09:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for signing. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 15:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:International_Space_Station
Thought this discussion might be of interest to you. Aalox (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Awesome Wikipedian
Good thoughts, dear. But are you going to end up your career. --Extra999 (Contact me +  contribs) 05:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, better. I will help improve your userpages and all, if you want. Just give me a green light. --Extra999 (Contact me +  contribs) 05:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yikes! That is very kind, and probably needed, but what if I don't like it?  I obviously have not put much time & effort into it, so anything you did would probably be a big improvement.  So I guess if you want to try it, I'm likely to be grateful, possibly with slight modifications we could discuss.
 * Re. my career, the money for the Spitzer Space Telescope cryo mission (I'm working on the 70um part of MIPS) runs out 30 September (what with LHe exhaustion in May 2009), and I am scrambling to do as much as I can before that deadline. But a worse issue is that I have a congenital skeletal condition ("diastrophic dysplasia", five artificial joints—I'm a featured example in Betty Adelson's book "The Lives of Dwarfs") that is catching up with me lately (back problems), so that I am far more disabled lately than ever before, and cannot really see how I can carry my weight at Caltech beyond that date.
 * Since it looks like we are friends, can you tell me a little about yourself? I see you are Indian.  There is more about me here. I spent a year teaching in (then) Tanganyika in 1962-63, at a school for refugees, but I never got further east.  Are you a student?  I am currently tutoring a Sri Lankan high school student here physics one night a week.  And I am reading a book to my wife ("Three Cups of Tea") about Greg Mortenson's efforts to build schools in the poor villages of the Karakoram near K2.  But that is on the opposite side of India from Bihar.  Are you near Darjeeling perhaps?
 * And thanks, of course! Bill Wwheaton (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct, I am a Indian, a student too, living in Patna, a million city and the capital of Bihar, Darjeeling lies in West Bengal. You seem to know much about India too :D I will put a sidebar like mines.. just wait --Extra999 (Contact me +  contribs) 07:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Howz this?? Should I prepare a guestbook for you?? --Extra999 (Contact me +  contribs) 10:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty nice, thanks. I have no strong feeling about the guestbook either way. Of course I like to present a friendly and welcoming face to all, but it also seems like a bit of a distraction if it is not actually useful.  Let me know how you have experienced it.  Wwheaton (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, if anyone signs I generally get a good experience because it makes you feel like you get another friendship. By the way, if you like the sidebar please put it on the the top of you userpage, talk and others. --Extra999 (Contact me +  contribs) 03:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wwheaton (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please add at the top of this page after the sidebar. --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 10:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I recognised you here --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 05:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, at that point in my life I was mainly fascinated by steam locomotives. It's a horrible scan of a good print, I have to learn how to do it better. BTW, why don't you communicate by e-mail via wwheaton.com, as it's really more convenient than conversing here.  Thanks -- Wwheaton (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to converse each other with different email sites, as my in orkut, nor i know how to use outlook. At the site it was written bill wwheaton has died?? and your nationality?? --Extra 999 (Contact me  +  contribs) 09:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bill Wheaton was my dad, died in 2002 at age 84, alas. Read the family history (front page) for all that.  Our names are almost the same, except I have the middle name "Ashley".  Then this is my own page, with some links and connection info.  My e-mail is bill@wwheaton.com, and that should work for you.  I use the Thunderbird mailer (free software, runs on almost all computers used nowadays) myself, but any mail program should reach me OK.  Wwheaton (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tks, I have downloaded but how to send emails. --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 12:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. If it's Thunderbird, run the program, get up your inbox window, and click on the "Write" icon at the upper left.  That should give you a message window, with a panel above, to type my address into, and a big window area below for your message.  You can set your preferences (explore the various menus along the very top) to put any addresses you send to into your address book automatically, so you will not have to type them in each time.  "Be bold!"....  :) Wwheaton (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Better..but where's the button or something alike to have a final "send" option. --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Upper left corner of the Compose window, for Thunderbird. Wwheaton (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is sending an error message:

Sending of message failed. The message could not be sent using SMTP server smtp.gmail.com for an unknown reason. Please verify that your SMTP server settings are correct and try again, or contact your network administrator. --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 03:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, no idea. Have you used gmail before?  I hope I have not led you on a wild-goose chase with Thunderbird, but it seems like Orkut has problems in the US.  Maybe we should just fall back to messaging here until/unless you can send regular e-mail somehow.  It may be a problem with your gmail setup if you have not used that before.  Wikipedia talk is not as convenient, but it's possible.  Do you have an e-mail address?  I could try sending to you if you like, and see if that works. Wwheaton (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, i have used gmail before. I am also having an email address: Sawarnik123@gmail.com. I posted this problem here.

Why don't you come now? --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 08:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Childhood's End

 * Will, in case you missed I replied to you one or two days ago. I know that you are busy, so you may not have seen it.Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Malalai Joya
Thanks for the correction - I was in a hurry. I try to keep up on the news about her, especially concerning the scheduled parliamentary elections this year.--JanDeFietser (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Gamma spectroscopy
Hi, I saw your post to Talk:Gamma_spectroscopy. I'm a physics grad student and stumbled across the talk page while writing-up lab instructions for a nuclear spectroscopy experiment for my department's undergrad advanced lab class. I was thinking about making a few minor edits, but I agree with you that the topic could use a bigger reworking and I liked the breakdown you suggested between the two nearly parallel articles on the topic. I've never done any large editing for wiki, but I think that this summer might be a good time to get into it since I might have a bit of extra time. I think I could write up some of the new topics you suggested, but I'd ask for your guidance/critiques since I'm knew to editing and I'm also learning about the topic for the first time myself. Catfisherguy 08:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfisherguy (talk • contribs)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Entropy
 Chzz  ► 06:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

IPBE removed
Hello, Wwheaton. Just so you know, I've removed your IP Block Exemption as it appears it is no longer necessary; the block that was previously affecting your account has since expired. Should you still have difficulty editing, please let me know or post an unblock request as before. Happy editing! <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Chipembere
Hello, Sorry if I have this wrong, My intereactions on Wiki havent been people to people.

Im still new at this. Thanks for your feedback. My interest has been to increase the information on Malawi on Wiki. Particualry content on women that often are in danger of being 'left out' of history albeit playing vital and significant roles!

I am relatively new to adding contributions on Wiki so Im learning as I go along... as a result, I dont have any idea about the permissions for the photos, but they would be a great addition. If I found out anything Ill let you know...Thanks.

~ Tinga —Preceding unsigned comment added by MsTingaK (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Human spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

where Dr Edward Anti Teller lives
Steigman1976 was very useful, as you can see. Thank you. Do you have any others? Uncle G (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 15

WikiProject Space Colonization activity
Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Space Colonization. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, we would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space Colonization at 16:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Space reorganization
Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:


 * 1) Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
 * 2) Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.

If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 0

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Extra999 (talk) at 04:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC).


 * You are welcome. Like you, basically now I'm semi-retired from Wikip. -- Extra   999  (Contact me  +  contribs) 04:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 2

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Overlord section?
How would you feel about writing a few paragraphs or a section on the Overlords and their planetary system, based on chapter 12 of Childhood's End? It would be interesting to mention its distance from Earth, time dilation and space flight (stardrive) and other aspects that would inform the reader about the Overlords and their technology, homeworld, etc. Aside from the novel as a primary source, there does appear to be at least one secondary source that talks about the physics of Childhood's End. Unfortunately, I don't have access to it. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do that, time and energy permitting. I originally learned about relativity from one of Clarke's non-fiction books, probably 'The Exploration of Space'.  I have a signed, 1956 copy of that (which I think does still have its paper cover).  I also have an original edition of 'Interplanetary Flight', which helped teach me calculus when I was a kid.
 * I had a question a year or two ago on the Childhood's End talk page about sourcing. Another editor had put some material into the plot section that I thought was really in direct conflict with the text.  It seemed to me that the original text ought to be a reliable source for itself (?! since anyone can go look), without triggering OR issues, but the point was raised, and I never got around to fixing the article.  I do not have time (or interest) to be an expert on WikiLaw, and was inhibited from diving into it.  I'm getting a bit frail here, but do have a little more time since I retired in September.  Do you have any wisdom on that OR & sourcing issue?  I've noticed that some editors and admins are fiercely protective about such issues even when they have little interest or expertise about the actual subject at hand.  This seems to happen in literature, etc, more than in "hard science" (where if something is "obviously correct" by consensus, people seem to be more relaxed about sources).  I don't want to waste time and energy in a conflict like that.  Wwheaton (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. There won't be any conflict, and we have sources to support the material.  Would you feel comfortable working in my user space at User:Viriditas/Childhood's End?  If you have any ideas, share them with me and I'll find supporting sources.  In fact, why don't I do that first and then show you?  Would that be better for you? Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. My habit has been to work directly in the article space, with incremental edits of moderate size.  But I'd be delighted to collaborate with you any way you would like to do it.  I will reread the current article and collect my brains about it, I have not studied the current state for a while.  You can be working at it in the meanwhile.  I would not mind working in your or my user space.  I suppose to avoid edit conflicts we might want to work on separate files.  Are you also in California?  I guess we are on the same side of the planet?
 * Having some support of other editors to help keep toil from disappearing in a stupid conflict is energizing, I must say.
 * BTW, we seem to have lost the talk archive after your edit in Dec 2010. It could be recovered using the history facility, but I don't know how to get at the original wikitext.  I think it has to be out there somewhere, but I'm not experienced enough to know where.  Can we get it back? It could be helpful in addressing other concerns, and it is probably a good idea to give a heads-up to historic editors (even though that may be asking for trouble...  :)  )  Thanks very much for your interest in this.  ACC is sort of my spiritual father in some sense, and CE was the work that really caught my attention, and probably changed my life, so I am eager to give back to him. Wwheaton (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, as the Australians are fond of saying. We could all learn something from them, I think.  I am in Hawaii, but I travel back and forth to California.  Is there something wrong with the talk archive over at Talk:Childhood's End/Archive 1?  I am very excited to see your additions to the article. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I could not see any archive link there, and when I brought up the Dec 26 version, which does show an Archive 1, it only seems to contain boilerplate about how to archive, etc. I wanted to look up that discussion where I had the OR problem. I can do it from the history page, no big deal.  Wwheaton (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I looked at it (I thought it in much better shape than when I last peeked in) and did a few revisions. See what you think, make suggestions or change it yourself of course. There were some complaints a year or two ago that the plot summary was too long. It is shorter now, but I have no idea what is the right length. I am wondering if the peripheral biographical info on ACC should be moved over into his article, and correspondingly shortened here, though that was interesting to me. The ACC article has been a battleground in the past, I'm not sure what is there now.... Wwheaton (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The plot section is ~843 words, which is a good size. Nice work!  The bio info is generally best practice; when we describe the development of a work of art, in this case a  novel, we discuss the work of the author during this period.  If you have specific concerns, please raise them and I'll be happy to address them or consider your proposal.  I'm just not clear what you have in mind.  BTW, when you say that the children are the "penultimate form of human evolution" does that imply that the Overmind is the last?  Remember, at this stage, they are no longer human, and that point is made several times.  Or am I missing something? Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Re "penultimate" etc, either is fine really.  I was thinking of the Overmind as the end point in my choice of word, but "last" may be clearer, especially as we will have readers who are not very familiar with English.  I suppose I imagine the children were still physically, superficially, human despite their empty facial affect.  Of course Karellen or Rashaverak had explicitly stated they were "no longer human" much earlier, even before the tsunami.  I thought the biographical material was good and interesting, except for two sentences not very germane to CE: "Clarke enrolled at King's College London .... editor for Science Abstracts."  Perhaps those should be moved to the ACC article.  (I think all of the bio info should be incorporated into the ACC article as well, if it is not there already.)  Are the links to time dilation and special relativity sufficient for the physics explanation you wanted?  Strictly speaking I suppose references outside Wikipedia would be better, but we would need to find something that is easily available, "reliable", permanent, and at an elementary, tutorial level. There should be good ones in the relativity articles, but I have not looked around yet. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will leave the decision to use "penultimate" to you. As for the biographical material, it is standard practice to describe the work of the author in the historical context of their life.  If you look at the GA and FA articles on works of art, this will become clear.  This is also how it is discussed in the sources.  But you ask, how is it relevant?  Clarke wrote the original short story in 1946 before attending college and receiving his degree.  You may then say, "Well, yes, but why all the detail about the BIS and Science Abstracts?  I will then respond with, Clarke's experience in college and in BIS during this time grounded his fiction in science, and influenced the development of his space exploration narrative, using fiction to explore ideas and scenarios only hinted at academia at the time.  At the same time, his work as assistant editor for Science Abstracts forced him to hone his writing skills, even while "Guardian Angel" was rejected and rewritten by another writer.  So we can see that he was still learning, and still wondering whether writing would be his professional career, and this decision wasn't made until 1951, just after the success of The Exploration of Space.  This information gives the reader an encyclopedic insight into the development of the novel.  I believe there are additional sources that support the inclusion of the bio material as well, and I will attempt to hunt them down for you as time permits.  If you still say, "Well, yes, but this isn't clear to the reader", I will be happy to make adjustments or remove material. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I really have no serious objection to this, but I still think it peripheral. Clarke's involvement with space, science, and writing goes far back, at least to his connection with Haldane in the 1930s, and with the British Interplanetary Society.  All of his experience feeds into his unique world view and cosmic outlook, which is the soil from which CE grew.  For a significant writer with so many important works, I would not put everything everywhere.  But that is a judgment call, and I do consider CE his most important work.  Best,  Wwheaton (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is important, but there is always room for improvement. Make whatever changes you think are best.  I can always revisit the issue in the future.  There's a lot to do to get this to GA and FA, and I look forward to working with you. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GA & FA is a lot of work. I am normally not so ambitious, but I would be delighted if we could get it to that level.  I can't do too much, but I'm eager to support the effort with kibitzing and bit-part edits.  You lead, and I'll follow.  Cheers,  Wwheaton (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GA will be fairly easy. FA will require a bit of work.  BTW, I haven't disappeared.  I found a mother lode of sources last week and I'm going through them one at a time offline. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Radiation belt
Hi; I saw your note on the WP:Spaceflight's talk page, and noticed that you posted the same thing on four different talk pages? While I appreciate you're trying to get as many people as possible involved, I think it's better to have a single coherent discussion.. so maybe choose a location, and tell others "Please contribute to the discussion .." and provide a link.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out this issue. Yes, it's generally a problem, and this is why Wikipedia should only be relying on really good sources who are known for fact-checking (hence the guideline WP:RS). And good work on taking the initiative and contacting Dessler! His reply pretty much wraps up the issue. It looks like Lir was the subject of this request for arbitration in 2004, so in a sense he is a "known" problem. He doesn't appear to have been very active after 2004.

As for your wider concerns, I think there's a lot of people who have had exactly the same ideas. That's what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (WP:V and WP:RS in particular) are attempting to address. If you are concerned about a particular issue or questionable statement, then bringing it up on the relevant talk page, or WikiProject, is probably the best move, and other editors may be able to help. On the other hand, if you feel the policies and guidelines aren't sufficient in some way, then bringing issues up on the policy talk page is probably the way to go.

Happy editing, Mlm42 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did want to give a heads-up to all the folks related to that Van Allen article, but you are right that a centralized discussion is much better. I will put in links to the astronomy one.  Wwheaton (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Great work on uncovering the problem with the radiation belt article, and on pointing to User:Lir so others might check out some of her/his other work. And I especially appreciate you taking the time to write up a really professional explication of the issue!  Let's others get to work right away.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Re: Hi/Space exploration
Thanks! I plan to check the new updates out as soon as I get out of school for today. Unite believers, always hoping for a miraculous revival of Constellation and NASA's return to the moon and Mars. And about space exploration being outdated, I assume that it is due to the vastness of the article! Will get back to you soon, Rsteilberg (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Wwheaton,
 * As a follow-up to your comment on both Rsteilberg and my talk pages, I have started the Nautilus-X article. I thought you might be interested in enhancing the stub of this revolutionary spacecraft.
 * Xionbox₪ 11:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be great if someone directly linked to the project could enhance the article! Hopefully it may be possible to create as much enthusiasm around Nautilus-X as there was around the Apollo program. Who knows, maybe all this hype and start here on WP. Let's hope so! Xionbox₪ 13:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Wwheaton,
 * It's a great idea to send an email to Mark Holderman and David Gilman of JSC. Your email proposal is good. As you mentioned, I agree, there should be any WP:POV or WP:COI problem for technical articles, especially for brand new projects such as the Nautilus-X one. If that is okay with you, I would appreciate if you add me in copy (CC) to the email. I'll communicate you my email address and my name by sending an email to the email address on your webpage.
 * Sincerely,
 * Xionbox₪ 07:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Rocketry activity check
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Rocketry at 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Terrestrial Park Service?
Yep, we are agreed. (Tho I do like the idea of Earth as a gigantic park. ;p ) <font color="#1034A6"> TREKphiler  <font color="#1034A6">any time you're ready, Uhura 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen the "Nautilus-X" concept at all. Judging by intent, tho, it's aiming wrong (again :. We've trouble enough just getting to LEO. I've favored the proposed HLLVs (4 SRBs, 3 SSMEs, an MFT, & a payload module, or, if I had my way, 8 SRBs 8o ;p & much more payload). I do like the "DC-X" idea Jerry Pournelle mentions in A Step Farther Out (& I'm ashamed to admit I don't recall whose idea it was :( :; the book IMO should be required reading for everybody at NASA & should be beaten into every so-called "environmentalist". >( Along with a chart of population & GDP growth in Britain between 1798 (when Malthus wrote that notorious essay) & 1900. He couldn't see what was happening as he wrote; with over 200yr of experience since, what excuse do the "greens" have? :/ :/ :/ (Sorry, pet peeve. ;p )  <font color="#008000">Oscar T. Grouch  <font color="#008000">I'm in the can 23:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're probably right, technically, we are better set. Politically, there's no hope as far as I can see: the "greens" will fight it, & Congress is deeply hostile. (Unless we can persuade the greens on the Earthpark idea, which I seriously doubt. Their grasp of technical issues is so poor...& their hostility to "technology" is manifest. Which is damned odd, given their preference for PV cells... Go figure. {I can't abide the intellectual dishonesty there, so I've got a pretty strong bias. ;p})
 * You're right about exhaust velocity, but given SSP, beam-powered propulsion is the better option IMO. Which reminds me, I should have said my top choice for an Earth-based lifter is a laser, followed by a variety of linear accelerator (picture "subway to space" ;p ) up the side of, say, Everest. (Since that may be a non-starter, how about the peak in New Guinea, or somewhere in north Chile, or Kilimanjaro?) My preference for a launch site is Africa or South America, because it will encourage hi-tech, hi-pay jobs there, per breaking the Malthusian cycle. <font color="#1034A6"> TREKphiler  <font color="#1034A6">any time you're ready, Uhura 01:32 & 01:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Kilimanjaro has advantages, not least a lake close (reasonably) for spacecraft returns.
 * As for education & WP, I can't help think the "no POV" gets in the way. ;p Oh, well.
 * Happy editing, too. Keep on keepin' on. <font color="#1034A6"> TREKphiler  <font color="#1034A6">any time you're ready, Uhura 03:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The lists of Thor and Delta launches
Hi Bill. You might be interested to know that after your rant for the incompleteness of the lists (e.g. the one in the 1970s), I finally get the time to do something on them, 11 months after your comment! For now, ALL 356 Delta launches are now in the relevant lists. I am planning to complete the lists in this order: 1. All remaining Thor-Agena flights (I believe several dozens are still missing) 2. All 31 (or so) Thor-Burner flights 3. All post-1965 suborbital Thor test flights (quite a few are still missing) 4. All 30-something Japanese Delta flights (the N-I / N-II / H-I series)

Thank you for your attention!

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Strong (relative detectability) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Strong (relative detectability) 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/Strong (relative detectability) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Giant tube worm
Thank you so much for pointing this out to us by leaving a message both here and on the talk page of the article. I vaguely noticed this problem a little while ago, and I should have fixed it immediately. I had no idea that the article was about to be nominated for DYK or I would have gone ahead and made the fix immediately. Thanks so much again. Invertzoo (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

marking links as dead
In the future, when you find a dead link, please mark it as such with the dead link template instead of just commenting out the reference, as you did here. If it's hidden, no one can fix it! Even better, check if there is an archived copy at http://archive.org, and then you can use the Wayback template or the  and   parameters in a citation template. Also, if you suspect the page has just been moved and you're reluctant to use an archival copy, you can search for an exact string from the archived copy -- sometimes you can find where it's been moved that way. I've fixed that one. You did the edit 2 years ago, so if you were just a new editor then and now you know all this stuff, never mind! =) Wingman4l7 (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was fairly new two years ago, but have been almost inactive since due to some medical problems, so I've probably forgotten more than I've learned since. Anyhow, I will try to remember about the deadlink template next time I see one, and maybe have the wits to use it correctly. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem; glad I could be helpful. Take care! Wingman4l7 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:0.5em;width:20em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;margin-left: 1.5em;width: 90%;"> Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! BO &#124; Talk 10:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Who was "Kurgan" ? on the Talk:Timur page
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timur. Peaceray (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited D-type asteroid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phobos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please review this article
Hello! I have done a substantial rewrite of the Geiger-Marsden experiment article and would like to have it assessed. I submitted it for peer review but nobody took notice. Nobody ever takes notice. I am resorting to directly contacting Wikipedians with a background in physics. If you have the time, would you care to review this article, and tell me if it is worthy of being featured on the Main Page? Kurzon (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Plum Brook Reactor concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Milton Rosen
Hi, I saw your edit summary at Milton Rosen but, per Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people, unverifiable material on the pages of living (or possibly living) people must be removed. Has notice of his death been published somewhere in a third-party, reliable source (I couldn't find one with my own searching but maybe you would know where to look)? Alternatively, if you can forward the family's confirmation of his death to the Volunteer Response Team (I can help you with that if necessary), they can verify the information and add it to the biography. Canadian  Paul  00:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of suspected murder suicide incidents involving commercial aircraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musi River. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Plum Brook Reactor concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Plum Brook Reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Plum Brook Reactor


Hello, Wwheaton. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Plum Brook Reactor".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"ultra high energy cosmic rays"
Particles can't possibly hit the earth at anywhere near the speeds that the LHC creates because the red shift alone means they will have slowed down way below .99999991 c before they get here. The claim that "this happens all the time in the upper atmosphere" is totally false. Jeff Carr (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

navbox
Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,

you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KPU0/sandbox Plutonium 16:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 (talk • contribs)

Mind a quick look?
I realize this is from a long time ago, but would you mind commenting on Talk:Synchrotron_radiation? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Beryllium-8
Hello. is a bad edit. [Save] pushed twice by mistake? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)