Better late than never?
edit| Welcome!
Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing! If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page! Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages: Best of luck to you, and happy editing! |
World of Warcraft
editThanks for reverting those links. I was hesitant to do it again b/c I didn't want to start a revert war. Kudos. Aboverepine 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Stub
editHi - hope you don't mind, but I just subst'ed the stub templatre on your user page to remove the category link. That way, your user page won't turn up in a category of articles needing expansion. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
burr
edithow did you figure out who it was that added that sodomy-scandal thing? Vargob 03:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
more work than i would be willing to do, i think the whole article needs an unsourced tag to get some footnotes... i mean if that scandal is in question, why not the incest scandal with his daughter?Vargob 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
hmmm. i see. well i don't have a whole lot of knowledge on burr per se but i did just finish a book called Adams vs. Jefferson, the Tumultuous Election of 1800 where Burr was featured rather prominently because of his relationship with Jefferson and Hamilton's general antics.Vargob 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
0.999...
editRegarding my earlier edit/story to 0.999... and your comment, I helped the guy in question set up a blog, where he wrote down the same story (but from his perspective). Is that enough proof so he can put it on the wikipage himself? We assumed it would be so he's going to put it up now, but you might want to take a look so I decided to leave a message.
Were both quite new to the exact workings of wikipedia, but think this way of proving is quite easy to understand and because it ridicules the other options, quite convincing.
Morsning (Norse lingo), I just noted your bold edit of November 6, doing away with new physics under Novel interpretations on the plea of pseudoscience. Does this mean that you also consider Physica Scripta a trash-can, or was it just a trigger happy act mistaking protoscience for pseudo? In my view such reverts are only a waste of someone else's precious time. /Kurtan 11:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have no reason to doubt that Physica Scripta is a reputable journal. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. In my opinion, one not even yet published article is not enough support to be included in an article on a well-known subject such as Inertia. If this is indeed protoscience, rather than pseudoscience, then time is on your side, and eventually this theory will become notable enough that it's inclusion in the wikipedia is warranted. I see no evidence of this at this point. Tengfred 09:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Tengfred, and hi again Kurtan. Let me weigh in (a bit late maybe). Physica Scripta is indeed a refereed journal and I'm told that it is actually pretty good in some fields of physics. But in particle physics, cosmology, and related fields, it is not considered a very good journal. The reasons I know that people publish there are: (a) they can't get their article into a more reputable journal, (b) they feel obliged to by being Scandinavian, or (c) they are fringe researchers attracted by the fact that it is the Nobel prize-giving Royal Academy of Sciences that publishes it (as explained to me by one of the former editors). I once helped referee a paper for it and it was complete hogwash. --RE 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)