User talk:Mgmirkin

Archives

Welcome!

Hello, Mgmirkin, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing!

- Seidenstud 01:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge process

The typical thing to do is to tag the two articles with either {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} (if it's clear which title is preferable, or if one article has much more in it than the other), or {{merge}} if neither does. This will make it clear to editors watching that page that a merge discussion should happen. If you propose a merge and no one seems to care one way or another, you can take it as permission to be WP:BOLD and do what you want to. The merge process is very informal.. but that's the way it should be, since merges are reversible and don't require administrator action. It's just one kind of editing. Mango juice^talk 11:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay, I think. But if nobody's watching the article(s) and nobody comments in the talk pages for quite a while, and you're not really sure on something like namespace? I guess I'm just wondering if there's someplace one could go if one's not really sure about something and wants input but hasn't gotten any from the "Talk Page" process mentioned above? I think if it was just me, I'd probably re-namespace it to Protoplanetary Nebula M2-9, redirect from Planetary Nebula M2-9, merge from Wings of a Butterfly Nebula -> Protoplanetary Nebula M2-9, and re-do redirects that pointed to Planetary Nebula M2-9 to point to the newer Protoplanetary Nebula M2-9. I just hate to mess with the namespace when I'm not 100% sure. Partly 'cause I don't know whether M2-9 is a planetary or protoplanetary nebula, and I don't know which takes precedent M2-9 or Wings of a Butterfly Nebula namespace. Maybe I'll do a little more research while I wait for folks to weigh in. And if folks haven't weighed in, in a timely manner, I'll Be Bold. Mgmirkin 01:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've decided to Be Bold and merge Wings of a Butterfly Nebula into -> Planetary Nebula M2-9. Hoepfully this is sufficiently non-controversial. It'll help to simplify editing, if nothing else. So things don't have to get edited in 2 places. Still not sure on the namespace. And I think there should be a disambiguation page for "Butterfly Nebula" since both Planetary Nebula M2-9 and Little Dumbbell Nebula both have claim to that namespace notably in a few online resources/abstracts/papers. But that's a wholly seaparate issue... Mgmirkin 02:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, apparently I've Been Very Bold. I've merged Wings of a Butterfly Nebula into Planetary Nebula M2-9. I've redirected Butterfly Nebula -> Planetary Nebula M2-9. I've created a Butterfly Nebula (disambiguation) page. I've used the { { Redirect | Butterfly Nebula } } tag on Planetary Nebula M2-9 to let people know I've redirected traffic there, and to give access to the disambiguation page, which includes: Planetary Nebula M2-9, Little Dumbbell Nebula and NGC 6302. Took out reference to NGC 4567 from Planetary Nebula M2-9, since the reference isn't correct, instead referring to the Butterfly Galaxies not the Wings of a Butterfly Nebula. Busy evening. Big headache, literally. Gonna' go now. Hopefully non-controversial edits, hopefully improves the namespace. Mgmirkin 03:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like good work; I doubt it'll be controversial. Mango juice^talk 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mango juice^talk, hopefully all the cleanup and disambiguation will be handy to the community. Cheers! Mgmirkin 16:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma instabilities

Are your plasma instability article requests valid? Some of the names sound rather fishy to me. Maliz 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the additions are valid; I am mistaken. Maliz 16:14, 7 November 2006 (copied from note on page history for this talk page. Mgmirkin 17:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm, I had a new msg, but when I got here it was gone. Copied/pasted from the revision history, for posterity. Figured I might as well respond. As I pointed out in the request page for particle physics articles: see Instability. I requested articles specifically on instabilities listed on that page that did not yet appear to have articles specifically pertaining to them in the namespace. Though, I admit there might be sub-articles that deal with them? I kind of not-quite-wholesale copied the names from the Instability article. So, I'm going off of the veracity of that article in requesting that the various instabilities be defined for those of us who wish to know exactly what each instability entails. I have a fairly good understanding of what as sausage instability is (the plasma begins to pinch off and eventually to bead leading it to look sausage-like and then bead-like [string-of-pearls configuration of toroids or stacked toroids, known as a Peratt instability]). I'm just interested in understanding what the rest of the instabilities listed on that page entail. To expand my knowledge adn that of others who find the article(s) useful. And I'm hoping that as articles are created they'll be linked to from the Instability article, so that poeple can easily find them by looking up Instability and then clicking over to the definitions of the different instabilities. Hope that clears up my intentions. Cheers! Mgmirkin 17:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry. I thought that some of the names like sausage and firehose and bump-in-tail and flute and chute sounded too quirky to be actual technical terms. Maliz 19:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) I know, they do sound a bit off. I guess plasma physicists have both an imagination and possibly a sense of humor. {?} Hehe. I was rather amused by some of the names too. Part of why I want to know what they actually mean. Anywho, no worries. Mgmirkin 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism/spam...

Open letter to ANONYMOUS USER (IP 71.57.90.96) To whom it may concern: Please stop vandalizing others' wiki projects, and please stop spamming "user password change request e-mails" to my inbox from here and other wiki projects. It is quite irritating and has been forwarded/reported to Wikipedia admin. You need to grow up, move on, and not involve me in whatever fight you have with others. As far as I know, I don't know you, and have never had dealings with you. If you're trying to get at another user through me, it won't work, and I don't care, so please stop. It's just bad form, accomplishes nothing and wastes both your time and mine. That said, as long as you stop with childish things like vandalism and hack/spam/annoyance attempts, I hold no ill will against you. Not sure what this was about. Feel free to TELL me, if there is some issue you wish to discuss. I'm sure we can talk it out civilly without the online version of violence (vandalism/spam letter bombs, etc.). Thanks. ~"The Establishment" Mgmirkin 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment situation

As you probably know, User:ScienceApologist has claimed that that IP address was his but is now "compromised." Honestly, I can't for the life of me figure out how an IP address would become compromised -- an account, yes, by someone stealing the password, but unless his home computer was hacked, I can't understand this. What you should do is to file a checkuser request explaining the situation. When you've started one, let me know a link to it, because I'd like to add my own comments. Mango juice^talk 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the moment I'll accept ScienceApologist's explanation that it "wasn't him." On the grounds that it may have been through either a shared machine at an educational institution (say a computer lab or library) which others may have had access to. Or the IP may have been through a proxy server which multiple users could have been routed through. However, I wonder about the "proxy server" explanation slightly as if these were IP's randomly allocated to different users, they would likely NOT share an affiliation with Wikipedia, and even if they did, would not share an affiliation with SA or Ian. So, in some regards, it's still a little fishy. Ian has disabled the feature on his wiki that allowed for spamming after yet a 3rd or 4th event happened. Still, it seems like whoever was utilizing those IP's had a distinct association with and/or dislike for Ian, so it wasn't just random vandalism, I don't think... Though it may have been, as SA says, someone he knew (student or friend?) acting out?
I know Ian filed a complaint on wikipedia. I gave what info I had. SA denied it was him. I listed the majority of IP's used in the attacks. Though later attacks apparently went through proxies or zombie machines and seemed slightly more random. I haven't posted all of those. And don't want to get sucked up into some big WP/IP/hacking/spamming war. ;o] Also can't tell if later attacks were from the same perpetrator or simply copycats employing the same tactic. I've tried to remove references to the event from the couple places I mentioned it, to avoid copycat-ism... Mgmirkin 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me know if it is still going on. I can only guide you, I feel I can't take any administrative action here myself. Mango juice^talk 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Archived

Page was getting too long. Archived a large swath of it. Available from the Archive box @ top. Kept a couple tidbits I still found interesting or still-current. Most of the rest was superfluous. Mgmirkin (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect Talk:166P/NEAT 2001 T4

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:166P/NEAT 2001 T4, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:166P/NEAT 2001 T4 is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:166P/NEAT 2001 T4, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not precisely sure what this was in reference to, as I've not logged into WP for a quite some time. I assume the redirect was probably from 166P/NEAT 2001 T4 (the technical name of Comet NEAT) to the more common name of the comet 166P/NEAT. Not as implausible a redirect as some might think. C'est la vie. If I was the one who put it in, it's probably because I looked up the technical name, came to find info on it, found no article under that name, did a search and found its common and slightly shorter name. So, a redirect might have been put in to take people from the technical name to the abbreviated version to skip the "blindly searching around" step. Mgmirkin (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User talk:Mgmirkin/Electrogravity

User talk:Mgmirkin/Electrogravity, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Mgmirkin/Electrogravity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Mgmirkin/Electrogravity during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Armour and plasma instabilities

Hi - not sure if you're still around ... I've updated your links on Reactive armour and commented on the Discussion page.

I am sceptical of its feasibility - energy densities ... actually tempted to delete it as fiction !

If you are into plasma instabilities, you may be able to understand [1] from [2] and [3]

From your Gaurdian link (well New Scientist originally) - 'If you get enough current into the copper, you can heat it up and start pinching it in certain regions, making it unstable. The thin copper jet would be flattened and broadened out and so would be unable to cut through.'

However all technical discussion is very sketchy, and there seems to be an undercurrent of 'Give us research money and we might discover a miracle supercapacitor'

How much energy is needed?
The Powerpoint says
7.62mm sniper round = 4000 Joules of energy (would move a man at 1mph !)
RPG7 round has 347% of the energy areal density of a 120mm APFSDS

Scaling the areas (120x120)/(7.62x7.62) = 248x
4000J * 248 * 347% = 3440000 J
So, 3 MegaJoules.

The biggest capacitors I know are for Car Audio.
eg http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/314432.pdf
The biggest weigh a kilogram, and store < 10 Joules in almost a litre of volume.

I really have little faith that technology will bring the energy density down by 1000x.
It might be best to move 'Electric Armour' from the main topic to its discussion page.
Feel free !

Cheers ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.93.171 (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsed power? Capacitor#Pulsed_power_and_weapons? Marx generator That's the type of application it's for, methinks. Things like the Z_machine, etc. So, maybe not quite as infeasible as you say...

Though, whether a capacitor bank large enough to power such a system will fit in an APC or other vehicle, I don't know. Likewise whether it would be a one-shot or have some kind of repeatability? Mgmirkin (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on WikiProject Proposal on my holding page

Hello. I've commented on your Plasma Frontier blog before. I would value any feedback you have about a possible WikiProject I am planning. Cheers. DJ Barney (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, haven't been active on WP much of late. Perhaps see: http://plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com ? I think the site's owner welcomes well-intentioned help, though I don't think he's gotten many folks signed up to help? I've been meaning to, but just never seem to have the time anymore. Mgmirkin (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]