Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 15 May 2018

ARCHIVES of Arianewiki1 Archive 2008-13 Archive 2014 Archive 2015 Archive 2016 Archive 2017 Archive 2018

List of unsolved problems in physics (Talkpage)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please

Learn the facts before trying to start edit wars. HappyWaldo (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@HappyWaldo: Please. Make sure the cite states/ supports statements. It doesn't. Australian rules football in Scotland also concurs this too. Two editors already now disagree. Me and 101.179.204.107. Stop gatekeeping. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement : Australian rules football was played overseas as early as the 1880s when teams from English and Scottish universities competed in London. <Prentis, Malcolm David. The Scots in Australia. UNSW Press, 2008. ISBN 9781921410215, p. 261.> does not cite Trove here. Also it was not: " from English and Scottish universities" which is not factual. pleas show this Prentis book wording. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyWaldo (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in physics (Talkpage) II

Hi, Can you explain your revert please? Are there any planets beyond Neptune? What is the explanation for the elongated orbits of a group of Kuiper belt objects? is a problem of astronomy, and I added that in the Astronomy section. Thanks, Yann (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks. An unsolved problem is being unable to explain an observation of an existing thing or phenomena. Moreover, there are other astronomical reasons for perturbations not some presumed missing planet. It is marginally a problem in astronomy, but we are not even sure if it requires changes in theory. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the elongated orbits are an existing phenomena, and an unsolved problem. We currently don't know what causes them. It may or may not be caused by a planet. It may not require a change in theory, but that's also the case of other problems mentioned in this page. "Marginally" is debatable, and it is not a reason not to add this to the list. It is certainly a bigger issue that the "Nature of KIC 8462852", the "Nature of Wow! signal", or the Pioneer anomaly, which was listed here until it was solved. If it is caused by a planet, it would be a major discovery. Should we add that with the "Kuiper cliff" problem? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't have any other arguments for reverting me? That's a bit short... Yann (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Sorry. Dealing with other fires. I still don't see how something that may or may not be known becomes a problem in physics. The issue must be more a problem with the laws of physics not a just "problem of physics". I.e A fifth force or dark matter, etc. Yours does not really qualify. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

How is this issue different than the the Kuiper cliff, or the Wow! signal, or the nature of KIC 8462852, all mentioned above in the same section? These are not problems with the laws of physics. Or the Pioneer anomaly, which was in this section until 2012? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Look. Some good points, but IMO none of these examples qualify. (I've removed them as current physics can explain without the need for any new theory or changing the laws of physics that we currently accept.)

As with: "Are there any planets beyond Neptune?" Possibly, but it is a failure finding it, not a problem with physics or with known physics. For: "What is the explanation for the elongated orbits of a group of Kuiper belt objects?" Who knows / it is like unknowable. But preexisting theory of gravitation and perturbation is likely without any need of new physics. Nearby approaches of stars to the Sun are known to probable perturbed comet's orbits.

Not knowing something is not a problem with our understanding of physics. Many things are yet to be discovered but that is not the fault with theory. The first article statement: "Some of the major unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result." These questions simply fail the acid test.

Secondly "The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail." Again there is no means of testing it – other than a time machine –– as our time to investigate is too short against the age of the Solar System. However, using gravitation and perturbation theory we can predict the position of the planets etc. to fair accuracy without needed any new physics to calculate it. If we do discover a new planet, the existence means we can continue to use the same law of physics to improve or model and predictions. (If dark matter exists, then this is a new influence on planetary motion, but that is a physics problem (as earlier stated in the article), but that means all astronomical explanations from small bodies to galaxies, leaving a huge article of examples.

However, and importantly, this does not change Newtonian or relativistic gravitation and perturbation theory. Nothing new is required at our present state of scientific knowledge.

I might be wrong, but you will need consensus to add these. There are many mechanisms such as an Rfc if you feel strongly about it, but you'll might have troubles getting a result in favour of inclusion. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Or the Pioneer anomaly, which was in this section until 2012?" This s "solved", as stated at the bottom of the page. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's clearer, and at least consistent. Then what about the Kuiper cliff? To me, this is a similar issue as the elongated orbits of Kuiper belt objects. Should that be removed too? Is there somewhere else a list of unsolved issues of astronomy and astrophysics (at least the important ones)?

Also you removed line breaks and a reference, which I added back. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Academic peer review

Hi Ariane, I noticed that you and Mu301 (also noted in their talkpage) are the main writers of Alpha centauri page. Would you two be interested in submitting the article for academic peer review via the WikiJournal of Science? It appears that a while back it was submitted to to an early version of the journal (then called "Second Journal of Science") though it has changes a lot since then. See articles in prep for the first issue here & further info here. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) 12:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

I have blocked you for edit warring material containing BLP violations into the Clementine Ford (writer) article. I note in particular that:

• in an earlier discussion on the talk page you were clearly aware of several editors had judged that a shorter and less problematic version of this material violated WP:BLP
• the material you added is written in a hostile way towards the subject, and is referenced to obviously totally unreliable sources such as Mark Latham's website and the Daily Mail.
• When called on this edit warring, you disruptively edited the article to remove other material (an obvious WP:POINT violation).

In light of this serious misconduct, per WP:NEWBLPBAN you are now banned from editing the Clementine Ford (writer) article for one year from today. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Arianewiki1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand the reasoning here. The earlier edit and discussion applied only to the controversy of the "Killing men" comment. Whilst the discussion had been debated as stated, this more recent action changes it. I.e. Expanded from original WP:BLP1E. This edit is clearly relevant and my edit was objective here. stating the comment " Added back the recent problems on "kill men" comment, which is still on going and relevant." I only restored a previous version then added the new additional comments and sources. (I still disagree with the sources not being, applicable. e.g. is surely a suitable cite.) :*If I'm going to be blamed, it can be only this text: "Later in May 2018, a petition by 14,000 individuals caused Ford to be removed as a speaker from a forum on domestic violence by the mental health organisation, Lifeline, in response to these remarks.. The Dailymail here only confirms that 2GB statement. (The earlier part explains the context., and as WP:SELFPUB says "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;") :*I also said: "Some commentators have expressed strong views for and against Ford's controversial strong feminist platform on this issue." The first reference supports the "strong views", the first disagrees with the action the second agrees with it. It supports the statement. In view of this, perhaps the Dailymail is questionable, but the 2GB on is legitimate. As for the removal of the text, I've followed WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. The SMH (and the Sunday Mail) is a primary source (also the woman's employer) and should not be used. I.e. . I said so here. Also Newmatilda.com fails WP:BLP and WP:BLPSPS too. (Even the first reverting editor agrees..) The deletions were not WP:POINT but removed for the same reasons as the new text in question. This comment is here and here. I honestly believe I've acting in WP:GF here and the questioned added text is from a WP:NPOV and presents the facts in a balanced and reasonable way. As for the deletions, the 2014 and 2016 are far from balance and present an unfavorable or biassed POV. As said in Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Writing style#Balance "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." I think I did that, and have shown in response here no WP:BLP violations. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Also, see below for a DS alert. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

References

Discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 TonyBallioni (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)