![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Telling people that they "...should really get a clue" is not very conductive to promoting a constructive discussion. I know SBHarris started the mud slinging, but try to stay above that. I would say the same to SBHarris, but I have no reason to believe that he would respond well to such a remark. TimothyRias ( talk) 10:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, TimothyRias/Archives. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kevin Baas talk 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
you wrote "any such interpretation of that statement is pure speculation" Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Timothy
I recently read your Black Hole article and being a non physics bod I was plesently surprised I could understand most of it. You have a real talent in explaining extremely compicated concepts in way that is easily understood. Spurred on by your article I dived into one about the theory of relativity and was disapointed to find it lacking in any real substance, I don't really feel I understand Einstien's theory any better, except in a superficial level.
I was hoping to ask you if you have written any books I could read or if you ever lecture any where, except I notice from your Wiki page that you wish your identity to remain anonimous, which I totaly understand.
Let it be known I will be scouring Wikipeadia for your articles, indeed if you could point me in there direction I would be most greatful.
Thank you very much
BPB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluepolobrighton ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello; I think torsion tensors are not what people mean, generally, when they talk about "torsion fields", so I have started a discussion to move this back to Torsion field. Here is the discussion; please take a look: Talk:Torsion_field_(pseudoscience)#Requested_move. Also, please make sure that when you move an article you remember to move the subpages of the article as well. You didn't do that in this case. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Physics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 02:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your wise edits and comments on matrix. Paolo.dL ( talk) 16:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tim,
Thank you for grading the article "Metric System". I woudl obviously like to improve it, but I do not knwo which areas need attenetion. I would very much appreciate it if you would leave some comments on its /Talk page.
Groete Martinvl ( talk) 08:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, all that needs to be done to fix the definition is to remove the sentence, "Computing the array requires selecting a basis for the tensor." ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 10:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Timothy, are you interested in working together on dimension? It is a topic both appealing to the larger public, but also holds the promise of an appealing topic for advanced readers. Finally, it is a meeting point of various domains, maths, physics, philosophy(?), and beyond. We might aim for GA level to begin with. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 16:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Tim, Thank you for reading and commenting on the article discrete Green's theorem. I saw that you added there "Dubious" in the line: "In spite of the theorem's simplicity and elegancy, it was first introduced to the mathematical society only by the early century". Please refer to the discussion regarding this theorem. Although some argue about the significance of the theorem, all agree that it was formulated by the early century. Please correct me if I am mistaken. In case you were convinced, please consider removing your "dubious" remark. Best wishes, -- amiruchka ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
There is a dispute at the page "an exceptionally simple ...". In my opinion there is scientryst and another editor who are trying to make the article state that the theory is much better than it is. I saw you wrote on that page once, so if you are interested go look at the talk page. The page is currently protected by the too many reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.55.28 ( talk) 17:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Black hole#Replacement image.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 05:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank You For Your Recent Edit In The Speed_of_light#Upper_limit_on_speeds Article re The "Costella" Reference As "not a WP:RS" - No Problem Whatsoever - FWIW - Seems This Particular Reference Also Appeared In Neutrino#Speed (added by " User:DrJohnPCostella") - I've Edited This Out With The Edit Summary -> "not a WP:RS" - Hope This Applies Here Also - Please Let Me Know If Otherwise Of Course - Thanks Again - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar. -- Meno25 ( talk) 07:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a section here[ [1]] you may be interested in. 이방인 얼라이언스 ( talk) 11:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I wondered if you would care to discuss tensor densities with me, as it seems we have two different viewpoints on the subject. I am quite new to Wikipedia, so I have no idea where we best talk about it, as you correctly pointed out the article page isn't the correct place to do so. Cretu ( talk) 15:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I've tried to build on your comment. If you can keep an eye on this section until it's resolved I'd really appreciate it, because it needs specialist physicist input to end up with text that is technically accurate. FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear TimothyRias: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 December 2011/String theory.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, bobrayner, at their talk page. MedcabBot ( talk) 15:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You recently contributed to the Higgs boson article.
Now that the article is stable, relatively consistent, comprehensive, easy to read, and balanced, I wondered what more you think it needs to get to Good Article quality? It would be nice to get it there as it's a "top importance" article in its field, and the Higgs boson is of considerable popular interest.
I've summed up the points I can think of on its talk page and linked a few others to the post. Thorough review, fixes, and comments appreciated, and - shall we go for it :)
GA criteria are here.