Talk:Nathan Seiberg

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

‹See TfM›

Physics: Biographies Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Important physicist

Please don't be silly with the threats that you will erase this article. Nathan Seiberg is a top theoretical physicist of this world and all the data listed on the page are reliable and easily verifiable by a single Google search. --Lumidek (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The proposed deletion was utterly idiotic. I've added a reference to prevent any more BLP crusaders from attempting to delete the article without even attempting to observe WP:BEFORE. More references would be helpful. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Slawomir. The first line of defense against know-nothings that I saw now was natural: adding some awards with references could make the job. --Lumidek (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I agree that Seiberg is noteworthy, and I had not read the WP:PROF guideline. I was just looking at the lack of references. Debbie W. 20:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwainwr123 (talk • contribs)

Dear Debbie, if there's a human behind your account, I think it would be useful to redirect this activity selectively to articles that contain something potentially controversial and unreferenced (something that you can verify by a Google search is controversial and not easily provable by sources), not just any technical statement that is unreferenced (something that you don't know how to find on the Internet or literature but others do).--Lumidek (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nathan Seiberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]