| Revision as of 06:45, 1 September 2012 editMadmanBot (talk | contribs)67,844 edits →Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:30, 10 February 2013 edit undoWant to be Einstein (talk | contribs)28 edits →Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivityNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| ==Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== | ==Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== | ||
| ] Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin --> ] (]) 06:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC) | ] Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin --> ] (]) 06:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Why don't the electrons fall into the nucleus? == | |||
| Electrons are negatively charged and nucleus is positively charged, we also know, unlike charges attract each other. Why don't electrons come and stick to the nucleus of the atom ? Want to be Einstein (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:30, 10 February 2013
Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom. I'll respond on your talk page, unless you request otherwise.
radical alterations to the intro to quantum mechanics article
Hi,
A new editor has unilaterally made many drastic changes to the article Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics to which you have made contributions. I do not think that the changes are desirable. I do not want to start an edit war. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks. P0M (talk)
Hi there -- I discovered that you are the contributor of 
. Please can you tell me why, in that image, you have a W+ boson coupling to four quarks? Surely the W+ in the top of the diagram should couple to an antilepton and an anti-lepton neutrino? 129.67.38.139 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not the best diagram. I've known for years that this, and a lot of other things from the ATLAS article, need to be fixed. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation
I was looking through the coaches at Misplaced Pages:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that there are a lot under "reconfirmation".
Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)
If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches.
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Heim theory
Would you be willing to help improve Heim theory? It seems that this article is suffering from under-exposure and to much POV.--Novus Orator 04:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Attribution
Dear Seth, I am interested in using a photo you posted: Cathedral St.-Pierre in Geneva. Taken Sept 30 2005. Unfortunately, I don't understand what attribution is necessary because I don't know what attribution means. Please help me. thank you Harold Eberle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.43.47 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Why don't the electrons fall into the nucleus?
Electrons are negatively charged and nucleus is positively charged, we also know, unlike charges attract each other. Why don't electrons come and stick to the nucleus of the atom ? Want to be Einstein (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)