| Revision as of 16:10, 2 December 2013 editStorye book (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,447 edits →Alexandrov Ensemble: clarification← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:04, 3 December 2013 edit undoSCZenz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,321 edits clean up archiving systemNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom. I'll respond on your talk page, unless you request otherwise. | 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 ] 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. ] (]) | |||
| 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? ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation == | |||
| I was looking through the coaches at ] 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, -- ''''']'''''/]|]\ 07:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Heim theory== | |||
| Would you be willing to help improve ]? It seems that this article is suffering from under-exposure and to much POV.--<span style="background:saddlebrown; color:red;font-size:small;;font-family:Arial;">]</span><span style="background:darkgreen; color:white;font-size:small;;font-family:Arial;"> ]</span> 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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==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) | |||
| == 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) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==High-importance physics articles== | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason: | |||
| <center>''Primarily Opinion-based. According to me, string theory is important, but according to someone else, LQG is important. This entire article is stupid. Most of the pages in the catgegory are empty, very few people actually use this.''</center> | |||
| Under the ], 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 ] 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 ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-reason-notice --> ] (]) 04:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ...... | |||
| ==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, 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 ]. 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 -->] (]) 00:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
Revision as of 13:04, 3 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.
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)