I undid your edit in the Quantum clock wiki page. In the case of the article, 37 is just an arbitrary number and it doesn't actually hold any significant meaning other than showing the power (magnitude) of this clock. Thank you for all of your hard work that you have put into Wikipedia. :) --Triesault (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary numbers and numerological explanations rationales
He seems also to have used it in order to calculate the number of protons in the universe through the Eddington number.
We now know today that the fine structure constant
A Ulam spiral in a 200×200 pixels picture. Please note the spiraling pattern.
and that it hasn't got an integer at the denominator of the fraction that defines it.
But still... until we don't have any physical interpretations as we had for the fine structure constant I don't think we can dismiss any theories that attempt to give an explanation to this number... in the case of the quantum clock the fact that it seems to be 37 times more precise than the atomic clock.
Please consider that 37 and 137 are both prime numbers (so there are not just "ordinary numbers"... and prime numbers show really odd and bizarre behaviours as, for example, in the Ulam Spiral.
Thanks for your time and interest in the topic, and for your contribution in wikipedia.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Popper is using the word 'apples' in no way which depends upon the actual fact that it is an 'apple', it could be a pear or banana. The fact that apples are often used for these kind of examples is neither here nor there, and is certainly not relevant to the page apple (symbolism) which is all about the religious symbolism of the apple, which is not relevant to Popper's example which is talking about falsification. Thus the pipelink is unnecessary as it directs the user to a page which has no bearing upon the original and will not serve to heighten factual understanding of the issue. I hope you agree with my logic, Reichsfürst (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that reply on my talk page, when I got to the end I had a good laugh! Do remember that falsification was principally applied to religion by Flew, Hare and Mitchell in the University Debate.
Thanks for declaring yourself available for help.
I researched [1][2] about Antony Flew, William Hare and Basil Mitchell as you suggested me and encountered eventually the "begging the question" logical fallacy.
It was astonishing to found so many pipelinks like:
in the wikipedia article.
Yes, it was nice to see that you found the whole conversation enjoyable too.
I am finding it interesting indeed as well. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Some of the philosophy pages are written quite shockingly but I'm not the one qualified to undo that being an historian myself. Reichsfürst (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree with you about the fact that some of the philosophy pages are written quite shockingly.
Anyway you don't need to undo article pages just to make a point. But discussions in the article discussion page are more than welcome.
If you would like something more challenging for your qualifications you may be interested in researching historically what was there before "The First Three Minutes".
If you feel awkward in discussing the issue publicly we could consider continuing with e-mails.
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add unsourced material to articles, or start discussions in the article using commented-out text, as you did with your edits here and here to Digital Fortress. Adding unsourced material to articles is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability and No Original Research. These are core policies known to every experienced editor, and are not "hidden". You are more than free to start a discussion on the talk page if you wish, but that burden is not mine, nor am I obligated to ask for your permission to uphold these policies, as you indicated in your note. That section is for foreign language editions of the novel, and not foreign Wikipedia articles on it, as it clearly states. Links to foreign Wikipedia articles on the novel are already given in the lefthand sidebar, just as they are in every article.
It's because you placed a neutrality banner at the top of the article. Such banners are intended to direct readers to a discussion on the talk page, which the banner explicitly says. But I don't see any discussion that you've started on the talk page. You say "maybe". Why maybe? Why put the banner there if you're not sure if you're going to discuss your concerns about the article's neutrality? Nightscream (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have agreed with your edit of today, and I have shown my support by following your revision today, with a 'token' edit, in order to leave an edit summary comment to that effect. However, I do not understand your comment. Which decision? Please clarify.
Allow der may Senior frende! Tank yu forra messaggin mee inne maye tokke peigge. Datz goodda that yu showwa supportit too meh! Yu wrotte mee yestaddey datt yu didinty anderstanda mine comment.. Imma very sorree, paisà Sir, it musta bee mine italian xcent.... donna worry mucchee aboot desicions mine friende ... I hoppa I anderstanda whatta yu wrotta to becozzy alzo your cuestionny iz obscurre too me twoo! Itte musta bee your Welsha xcent! Teik itt eezy! Cheers. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Buongiorno Maurice! Come stai? Mi piace. Devo parlati ...
(cur | prev) 10:33, May 30, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) . . (109,031 bytes) (+2) . . (→Depiction of stereotypes: I can see no problem with retaining this dablink added by the previous editor) (undo)
(cur | prev) 10:17, May 30, 2012 Maurice Carbonaro (talk | contribs) m . . (109,029 bytes) (+4) . . (→Depiction of stereotypes: Hyperlinked "(...) Italian Americans (...)". Please feel free to undo this change... motivating... if possible, your decision. Thanks.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 04:00, May 30, 2012 RepublicanJacobite (talk | contribs) . . (109,025 bytes) (+171) . . (Various fixes in infobox.) (undo)
Ecco! ... sua "decisione" ... puoi constatare! Cosa dici mai?
