| Revision as of 16:09, 2 December 2013 editStorye book (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,447 edits Comment about edit in Alexandrov Ensemble article← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:10, 2 December 2013 edit undoStorye book (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,447 edits →Alexandrov Ensemble: clarificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
| Hi. You have left an "according to whom?" notice on the above page, and I thought you might like an explanation. I should say first that I did not add the paragraph which you are questioning, and I am not happy about it being there. | Hi. You have left an "according to whom?" notice on the above page, and I thought you might like an explanation. I should say first that I did not add the paragraph which you are questioning, and I am not happy about it being there (i.e. I support your edit). | ||
| So here is what I understand about the matter. I got the following information from current and former members of the Alexandrov Ensemble, via third parties. Since the 1950s when the Alexandrov Ensemble started touring non-Soviet countries, it has called itself the Red Army Choir outside the USSR/Russia for simplicity. Since 1989, another large but somewhat different group which had been founded later then the Ensemble started to call itself the Red Army Choir outside Russia. The problem was that the worldwide public frequently thought that the two choirs were the same, and various problems occurred, including concerns about competition. During the past 12 months there has been a court case about this in Moscow. People in Moscow tell me that the results of these cases are often not publicised. I think that the case has ended, but have not yet found anyone who knows the result. The only clue that I have seen is that someone has been making uncited edits about the use of the title "Red Army Choir" in WP articles connected with the Ensemble. All I have written here is hearsay, so I am not in a position to remove or correct those edits, although I am not happy about them. I hope that helps. --] (]) 16:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | So here is what I understand about the matter. I got the following information from current and former members of the Alexandrov Ensemble, via third parties. Since the 1950s when the Alexandrov Ensemble started touring non-Soviet countries, it has called itself the Red Army Choir outside the USSR/Russia for simplicity. Since 1989, another large but somewhat different group which had been founded later then the Ensemble started to call itself the Red Army Choir outside Russia. The problem was that the worldwide public frequently thought that the two choirs were the same, and various problems occurred, including concerns about competition. During the past 12 months there has been a court case about this in Moscow. People in Moscow tell me that the results of these cases are often not publicised. I think that the case has ended, but have not yet found anyone who knows the result. The only clue that I have seen is that someone has been making uncited edits about the use of the title "Red Army Choir" in WP articles connected with the Ensemble. All I have written here is hearsay, so I am not in a position to remove or correct those edits, although I am not happy about them. I hope that helps. --] (]) 16:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:10, 2 December 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Want to be Einstein (talk • contribs)
High-importance physics articles
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:High-importance physics articles
A tag has been placed on Category:High-importance physics articles, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Dimension10 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2013 (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, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. 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) 00:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Alexandrov Ensemble
Hi. You have left an "according to whom?" notice on the above page, and I thought you might like an explanation. I should say first that I did not add the paragraph which you are questioning, and I am not happy about it being there (i.e. I support your edit).
So here is what I understand about the matter. I got the following information from current and former members of the Alexandrov Ensemble, via third parties. Since the 1950s when the Alexandrov Ensemble started touring non-Soviet countries, it has called itself the Red Army Choir outside the USSR/Russia for simplicity. Since 1989, another large but somewhat different group which had been founded later then the Ensemble started to call itself the Red Army Choir outside Russia. The problem was that the worldwide public frequently thought that the two choirs were the same, and various problems occurred, including concerns about competition. During the past 12 months there has been a court case about this in Moscow. People in Moscow tell me that the results of these cases are often not publicised. I think that the case has ended, but have not yet found anyone who knows the result. The only clue that I have seen is that someone has been making uncited edits about the use of the title "Red Army Choir" in WP articles connected with the Ensemble. All I have written here is hearsay, so I am not in a position to remove or correct those edits, although I am not happy about them. I hope that helps. --Storye book (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)