Revision as of 14:34, 22 October 2009 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 16.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:32, 23 October 2009 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 16.Next edit → | ||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
:: All the best <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | :: All the best <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::I obviously missed something, but it's not hard to guess what it is. Congratulations! I wouldn't mind another one myself, actually. ] ] 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | :::I obviously missed something, but it's not hard to guess what it is. Congratulations! I wouldn't mind another one myself, actually. ] ] 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
== ] == | |||
Thoughts on the page ]. Not sure what to make of it. Spam? Could be nothing. New pages in this subject matter bring out the skeptic in me. ;) thanks--] (]) 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Speed of light == | |||
I see you've been sucked into the SoL morass, or at least commented on it. There is a lot of confusion there. I don't think it is really so complex: I've just said which attempts to explain what I think is going on. | |||
You said: (]) ''measuring the speed of light with a meter stick is a tautology'' - no, it isn't (well not really), and several people seem to have made this mistake. Hopefully makes it clear, but to belabour it in this context: once you've defined the speed of light, you can measure the metre. If you define the metre, you can measure the speed of light (assuming you know the second, in both cases). | |||
You said: ''Would it not make sense to add one sentence to speed of light to indicate that as of 1983, the speed of light is known so accurately, and believe to be so invariant (in a vacuum, in an inertial frame) that is it use to define the length of a meter?'' - that is what I thought. I've done it , maybe it will last. | |||
DT said: ''I had such a hard job trying to persuade some people on the talk page that the new SI speed of light was in fact a tautology. And it is surely a tautology''. He is wrong. But I don't think anyone has made a very good ob of pointing out why (before me, of course :-). | |||
DT is fond of quoting ''One then does not need to perform any experiment to prove the constancy of the speed of light: it is built into the definition of the units and so has become a tautology.'' Note that this is *not* the same thing as DT is saying above: this quote does *not* ssay that the definition is a tautology: it says that saying the SoL is constant is a tautology. That is true, but uninteresting, in the same way as saying that the metre was constant before was a tautology. | |||
] (]) 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Happy {{BASEPAGENAME}}'s Day! == | |||
{| style="border: 2px ridge #4682B4; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background-color: #EAF5FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 8px; text-align: center;" | |||
|] | |||
|style="padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 10px; font-family: Comic Sans MS, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;"| | |||
''']''' has been identified as an '''''Awesome Wikipedian''''',<br /> | |||
and therefore, I've officially declared today as ]!<br /> | |||
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,<br /> | |||
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear {{BASEPAGENAME}}! | |||
Peace,<br />]<br />00:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
<small>A record of your Day will always be kept ].</small> | |||
|} | |||
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see ] and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Cheers to that! ] (]) 01:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you very much!!! ] <sup>]</sup> 01:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Not! == | == Not! == |
Revision as of 14:32, 23 October 2009
This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
Please leave a new message.
|
Congratulations
- Congrats! Majorly talk 01:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed; congrats and best of luck. –Juliancolton | 01:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Until It Sleeps 01:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Major congrats! Anti-Nationalist (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think you get a week of paternity leave. It's in the admin contract. See you back here soon. :P MastCell 02:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Take as much time as you can with your new addition because the years go by fast. The little tyke will be borrowing your credit card and staying out past curfew before you know it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent news, congratulations! Now focus on fun with the family, as Boris wisely says. Time flies! . . dave souza, talk 08:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, all! Jehochman 14:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations! 8lb 9oz is a big little guy. All the best to the mom. Finell (Talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, he's a moose. Jehochman 17:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Big time congratulations! All the best, nothing in the world compares -...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Life will never be the same :) Kafka Liz (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're in for some fun times. Good luck. :) Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations from me too. You will be very familar with nappies in the next months, perhalps too familiar. Good luck with it! Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Life will never be the same :) Kafka Liz (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Big time congratulations! All the best, nothing in the world compares -...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, he's a moose. Jehochman 17:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Wonderful new, enjoy! I wish you and your family the best in everything. --CrohnieGal 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- All the best Verbal chat 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I obviously missed something, but it's not hard to guess what it is. Congratulations! I wouldn't mind another one myself, actually. Hans Adler 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- All the best Verbal chat 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Not!
With regard to your edit summary here; things will not be normal for you for at least 18 years. Congratulations. MBisanz 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's quite true Jman, but congrats! — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Jacurek and the IP
Hi, Jehochman. I don't know if you've gotten a chance to review the question about Jacurek's possible socking and the IP whose edits on the Holocaust topic I'd mentioned earlier, but I guess I should withdraw my concerns about him. The IP I was talking about registered as Sourcelat0r and came to my page to discuss his edits, clarifying that I misread his comments on the Jedwabne talk page as a Holocaust revisionist interpretation. We've clarified the issue here , and he has my apologies. Sourcelat0r did not come across the way Jacurek did, despite the notable overlap in article interest I'd noted earlier, and I should say that I don't think it was him. Thanks for looking into my SPI question earlier.
Best, Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Note however that A-N/PU has adamantly refused to apologize to Jacurek for calling him a Holocaust revisionist and accusing him of sockpuppetting, even after he found out he was completely wrong, and perhaps more disturbingly, even after he apologized to the anon IP that made the edits.radek (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Problem with Daedalus969
Thanks for warning Daedalus969. Should I do anything else or should I leave things as they are now that you're aware of the problem? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Save the diff of my warning. If there are further problems, show that diff to any administrator. Jehochman 14:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Carljung
Is the IP user 24.187.199.178, on ANI about Ckatz, a sock? Ckatz reply on ANI seems to suggest it, could you go there and reply? Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please ask User:Hersfold and show him this thread. Hersfold ran a checkuser. Normally we protect IP privacy, though that protection can be voided if the IP is engaged in mischief. Jehochman 15:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Shallow analysis
Your admonishment said this was original research. This is incorrect, it is entirely backed up by the provided reference on that page - please correct this. Thanks.
- Had another look at this edit, recast to remove synth, didn't spot it before cut and paste - also changed the title of the section, as that too must be viewed as synth. HarryAlffa (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPA. Hmm. Actual lies and deceit?
If I may quote Misplaced Pages:Civil#Identifying_incivility, 2. Other uncivil behaviors c)lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information
It would appear clear that this is exactly what Ckatz & Ruslik have done.
In the ANI, what is to be done about their removal of cited material? What reassurances can you give that this won't happen again? What of the other issues raised there? Ckatz accusation of harassment for which there is no evidence provided, or to be found - I looked, perhaps you will be more skilled than I and find the obvious evidence for this harassment.
I trust that you will re-evaluate your judgement of this situation with deeper analysis, re-open the ANI, and address Ckatz & Ruslik vis-à-vis WP:Civil. Thank you.
HarryAlffa (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not likely. You had best disengage from this conflict. Jehochman 13:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm impressed! You are a quick thinker! An evaluating, deep analysis in under 4 minutes of all the evidence provided in the ANI! I will waste no more of my, or your, time. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I've been watching that thread for several days. It's not like you can suddenly convince me to change my view by posting half a dozen lines of commentary on my talk page. I've been deliberating on whether to block you for a month or indefinitely. You've been around since 2007 and seem to have some capacity for making useful edits, so I decided not to block you at all. I am really hoping you'll try much harder to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jehochman 14:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Teach me
You are a smart guy, I'm a reasonably smart guy. Maybe I'm overlooking something without realising it.
Here is the edit I made to the Aurora (astronomy) article
- Auroras are the result of the emissions of photons in the Earth's upper atmosphere, above 80 km (50 miles), from ionized nitrogen atoms regaining an electron, and oxygen and nitrogen atoms returning from an excited state to ground state. They are ionized or excited by the collision of solar wind particles being funnelled down, and accelerated along, the Earth's magnetic field lines; excitation energy is lost by the emission of a photon of light, or by collision with another atom or molecule.
- oxygen emissions
- Green or brownish-red, depending on the amount of energy absorbed.
- nitrogen emissions
- Blue or red. Blue if the atom regains an electron after it has been ionized. Red if returning to ground state from an excited state.
- Oxygen is a little unusual in terms of it's return to ground state, it can take three quarters of a second to emit green light, and up to two minutes to emit red. Collisions with other atoms or molecules will absorb the excitation energy and prevent emission. The very top of the atmosphere is both a higher percentage of oxygen, and so thin that such collisions are rare enough to allow time for oxygen to emit red. Collisions become more frequent progressing down into the atmosphere, so that red emissions don't have time to happen, and eventually even green light emissions are prevented.
- This is why there is a colour differential with altitude, high altitude oxygen red dominates, then oxygen green and nitrogen blue/red, then finally nitrogen blue/red when collisions prevent oxygen from emitting anything.
- Auroras are mostly only visible when a coronal mass ejection, or similar events, fires plasma, and also magnetic field, from the surface of the Sun toward the Earth. The relatively high density of material means a higher intensity of Aurora, and the snapping of some field lines of the Earth's own magnetic field, and their subsequent reconnect, funnels and accelerates the charged particles down in a large circle around the Earth's poles. Seen from space, these fiery curtains form a thin ring in the shape of a monks tonsure, or man's bald spot.
Referenced? The only link (web link, not reference) that you managed to insert is this one, which, however, contains almost no useful information. So, your version is uncited and contains serious errors and omissions. You removed a lot of useful information about auroral emissions, and you are trying to use a confusing terminology, which you invented yourself.
— Ruslik
Which I picked out these points
- only one reference
- "contains almost no useful information"
- "removed a lot of useful information about auroral emissions"
- I am guilty of neologism
How do you think I should have described these points in Ruslik's comment? HarryAlffa (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have no feelings on the initial content dispute. That's something I looked at, and could not figure out who was right. Your subsequent interactions were not particularly helpful. If you'd like my help mediating the content dispute, please start a discussion on the article talk page, and issue invitations to the relevant parties. I'll be glad to help. I've written a top importance, featured astronomy article. My opinions are not entirely ignorant. Jehochman 19:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
RFA spam
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
- All editors are reminded to be civil at all times and seek consensus where possible, and encouraged pursue dispute resolution when necessary.
- Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned for his conduct in this dispute, and placed under a general probation for one year, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if Brews ohare fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages or general editing and behavioral guidelines, policies, and expectations, despite warnings.
- David Tombe (talk · contribs) is also warned for his conduct in this dispute and during the course of the arbitration case, and is placed under the same general probation but for an indefinite duration. David Tombe may not appeal his probation for one year, and is limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
- Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
- Violations of the topic bans or general sanctions may be enforced by blocks of up to a week in length for repeated violations, to increase to one year after the third block. All blocks and other sanctions applied should be logged on the case page here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Thanks for comming to the conclution and closing the ARE case. And I can assure you that if you run checkuser there is no blocks or restrictions on whatever eventually found. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome. If there was a former account, just make sure not to use it concurrently (at the same time) as the new one. If the account is retired, please keep it retired. Then you have much less chance of any problem. If you are attacked or provoked by other editors, please ask me or another administrator for help. It is much better to stop a problem before it happens, than to have to try to untangle the mess of accusations and counter-accusations after a fight begins. If you are right, there is no benefit in getting into a fight. Jehochman 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)