| Revision as of 23:26, 28 August 2005 editDirectorstratton (talk | contribs)980 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:36, 16 January 2022 edit undoMeters (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers172,174 edits Undid revision 1066081862 by Aca1291 (talk) what are you doing? The user is allowed to archive his talk pageTags: Replaced Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom. | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| * ] | |||
| Hello, and ] to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also ]. | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! By the way, please be sure to ] and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the ], add a question to the ] or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! | |||
| == Particles == | |||
| Good work. I see that you and Xerxes have pretty much done the clean up that I thought I would do. I'd begun to remove the totally unnecessary pages on every antiparticle. Thanks for pitching in and especially for redoing the particle template. ] 13:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Crap == | |||
| I don't edit science articles on purpose. It just makes me mad. Come to think of it, almost everything on wikipedia anymore just makes me mad. ] 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == particle classification == | |||
| The category "subatomic particles" is catch-all: analogy is to the main data tables in the particle data book (although there is no need to be so inclusive). The categories "fermion" and "boson" I believe are useless categorizations and should be removed. Particles can be in more than one category. | |||
| It's not totally clear to me whether one should go for a lepton/hadron classification or a elementary/composite classification. The 1st has the advantage that it already exists, and although there are particles which may not be either, the spillover can always be acccomodated into "subatomic particles". The 2nd makes more sense within the standard model (or its extensions), and with the article that you are writing/have written. The composite category can easily be subdivided into things like "hadron", "nuclear isotopes" etc. | |||
| I was wondering whether this discussion should be initiated in the wikiproject: particles, but that seems to have been started by some undergrads, and is anyway defunct. If you and one or two others are willing to revive it in order to put this discussion on record, then it may be useful. --] 09:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Black hole electron == | |||
| I just want to assure you that objections are unlikely, at least before we see what you do with it. The person most likely to object is Don, whose original research resulted in the creation of the ] page, and he has been very cooperative. | |||
| I personally want to see what you can do with that page. ''']'''. That page needs it. --] | ] 22:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| thought I'd extend my welcome as well. The main physics project page is at ] although what you really want to watch (and participate in) is the discussion at ]. Note also that ] is also often highly relevant, and, as mathematics is a somewhat older project on WP, has a lot more activity/participation. Anyway, welcome! If you have questions, concerns, comments, uncertainty, complaints, etc. or find yourself irratated at some person or WP process, or ettiquette, please, don't hestitate to ask me or (better yet) voice them on the project talk pages. ] 22:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == As of 2005 == | |||
| Inserting "as of" links is - as far as I know - not an "official" Misplaced Pages policy, only a recommendation. Still, it is a systematic way of "currency tracking", and it is useful as such, although I would agree it is much more useful for more obscure pages that are not likely to be updated quickly after the facts change. ] 21:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. ] article says: "], string theory is unverified." This may also sound silly; if someone managed to prove that string theory is correct (or wrong) - well, to put it mildly, people would notice... ] 22:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Precisely. I can't imagine a scenario like: "Bang! String theory is now (dis)proved." Even if such a thing was within reach of today's physics, it would probably take a '''decade''' to decide one way or the other. String theory article going without an update for 10 years? I don't know... :) ] 22:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Kaons == | |||
| Certainly the lifetimes should be attributed only to K-long and K-short. The remainder are errors. Please feel free to correct. ] 06:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Sidam == | |||
| Hi, SCZenz. You, I and others have had to revert ]'s soliloquies many times. I'm not sure whether to classify him as a vandal or just someone who doesn't get the point of Misplaced Pages. I think it's about time we raised this issue on ]. This is the best way I can think of to bring this problem to wider attention. If I submit a complaint, would you be willing to countersign it? --] 19:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Neutralinos etc. == | |||
| With regard to neutralinos you have a good point. Rather than simply omitting any reference to them, however, I think a brief statement distinguishing the two would be better, as the name certainly invites confusion. You might want to try to craft it as a sort of see also. It wouldn't be strictly a disambiguation, but along the same lines. | |||
| With regard to the fourth generation point, I have read juried articles on neutrino mass that address that question. I'm sorry that I do not have references at hand, as I am writing from memory. In any case, it pretty much follows from the standard model itself that this is where you would look. | |||
| With regard to quantum gravity, many computer models have already looked at neutrinos as dark matter candidates (and rejected them) and the statement speaks for itself to some extent. | |||
| Apologies if I missed anything. ] 00:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == SLAC == | |||
| If you make SLAC a redir, you need to put a disambig notice on the destination page, and you need to create ]. Thanks. ] 18:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, for one, redlinks encourage growth, but the main reason I stuck in the ] was that I kept seeing references to SLACs on the discussion boards at the ], but when I looked up SLAC there was no mention of that meaning. As it stood, even without the article it still answered my question. I could have written a stub, but it would have had little more information than the dab page did. When people see bluelinks they tend to assume that there's an article there, when people see redlinks they realise that there is a need for articles, and if they know about the subject they may create the article. I don't have a problem with SLAC redirectin to the ] (since the vast majority of google hits go there), but I think the existence of other meanings is useful information. ] 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. ] 20:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thanks; although you may need a posse to turn me into an admin. :) ] 00:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==LBL copyright info== | |||
| Technically LBL's copyright info means that it most likely cannot be used on Misplaced Pages under a "complying" license -- i.e., by their given terms -- because we no longer use licenses on Misplaced Pages which could not be exported under the GDFL (which does not prohibit non-educational, for-profit usage). The major exception to this is our use of "]" images, though, which is how this category of images could be used under specific circumstances (i.e., if there are no "free" substitute images, if the image we use is low-res, and if we specifically credit them so that other people could find them to license it). I'll put a note about that on the page. --] 14:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I think the current policy is a little contradictory (we won't allow images licensed for only educational use, but will allow images which are used completely without the permission of the copyright holder altogether), but it's what we've got for now. If you ''can'' take hi-res pictures of lab equipment and license them under a free license, it ''would'' be a tremendous addition to the world of "free culture". But you might have to make sure that wouldn't be violating any of the policies of the UC (which could be pretty strict, if I recall from my time as an employee there) or the lab itself. --] 17:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::The best thing for photos of professors is talks of some sort... then you can pretend to be one of the crowd! (I got a really bad one of philosopher ] that way when I was at Berkeley.. it's awful, but honestly it's what he looks like these days!). Otherwise it's pretty obvious when the one photo you asked for ends up being the best-known one online... --] 02:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==You're a crazy guy== | |||
| In two months you've almost caught up to the number of edits that I have done in a year (although probably 20% of my edits are anons due to laziness). I thought graduate students were supposed to be busy? ] 23:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:36, 16 January 2022
Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom.