User talk:Phusis

I m user phusis .. I was a frequent visitor of Physics page. But there were always debates. This page cannot keep any standard. The pages of other natural sciences like chemisry and biology good enough and systematised. But Page of Physics is in a chaos. I tried my best.. But eventually found that there is no use in editing this page. Waste of time, waste of money, waste of everything. Eventhough, I am trying..

You may be against my opinions

Put your messages here

Welcome

Great to see you have talk page -- it will make dialogue much easier. Sorry if I seemed a bit gruff earlier, but being at the sharp end of warring anon edits can be very trying.

I don't know if someone has shown you these guidelines yet, but they're a good place to start:

Hello, Phusis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Welcome to wikipedia! --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics

First of all, I agree that the physics page is in constant flux. At one moment, tables are available for the central theories, but these are deleted requiring one to fill in the missing data. When the appropriate information is provided, it is deleted (by you).

You stated: Please dont revert. Make necessary changes. I haven't deleted the topics in which debate is going on. Edit was only on other parts. Please improve the quality of this article.)

These changes in the central theories section were necessary changes as per my discussion above. They were even independent of the debate related to this section which concerns inclusion or exclusion of the tables I aforementioned. The quality of this article was improved and my edits were even vindicated by the suggestion of the article in this section. These edits were reverted unfairly by a different user with the same misunderstanding that they were not in accordance with the Talk Page. The debate is on the tables, not the additional information I provided which could coexist with the tables. My edits are mindful of the ongoing debates, in fact. This page is horrific as it is constantly in flux due to unqualified users (Note that I am not discussing you here). --68.224.247.234 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I am a High-energy astrophysicist and Professor of Theoretical Physics. --68.224.247.234 20:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done as you have requested but find errors in the definition of physics. --68.224.247.234 21:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your edits, but could you please fill in more information? --68.224.247.234 06:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple user accounts

It would really help if you would stop using so many usernames and ip addresses. It makes it very hard to work with you. Note the wikipedia policy on this. There is no rule against using multiple accounts (although it is discouraged if you don't have a good reason), but if you use them to confuse people or deceive them (e.g. by making it appear that there is more support for a change than there actually is) you are violating policy. Note that Wikipedia's blocking policy prohibits disruptive editing, and that some editors and admins may consider your activities to be disruptive.

List of accounts apparently created by this individual

This list is incomplete.

This editor also frequently uses anonymous accounts, and changes ip address with every editing session.

--Srleffler 16:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]