User talk:Polyamorph/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Polyamorph. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Polyamorph, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanton Prior

Is that how you wanted the map? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, change "Ceremonial county" to "shire_county" and you get the map. I also added categories and a scale line, here. If you look at it now in Google Earth or Goolge maps it gives a nice close up view of the village. I'll fix the coordinates later when I'm at a computer with Google Earth on it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean Image:StantonPriorMap.gif? I moved it down but I see that there is no license information on it. Did you get it from here? The best place to get help on the correct licence is Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and the general info is at Wikipedia:Copyrights. It's a difficult area and not one that I'm fully aware of. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kudos/Well done to you and all who edited Stanton Prior -- it's just right.Celia Kozlowski 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Glasses

Appreciate your finetunings on that page James. It is not easy to define them well is it? Rapid quenching heh? I teach P.Chem lab and in it we do an MDSC experiment on polypropyleneglycol to look at a glass transition. I wish I could describe it as 'rapid quenching' but the Tg is at -72 and my cooler wont go below -95 or so. So it takes a while to get there. My students would not call it 'rapid quenching', but the Tg is loud and clear... And no PPG does not crystallize, PEG (the other experiment) does. It is (semi)crystalline and has a Tm at +55C. nl:wikt:Gebruiker:Jcwf 152.1.193.137 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

PS Maybe we need to involve the Kauzmann paradox into this story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.193.137 (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Rapid is a relative term. I think the article still needs a lot of tweaking and as your case illustrates things aren't always necessarily black and white. Thanks for your contributions. Is PPG formed from it's liquid phase and cooled through Tg to it's solid amorphous phase? Because if so, it would appear to be fit to be described as a glass? Jdrewitt 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure below -72C or so it is a glass. At room temperature it is liquid and I suppose you could call it 'undercooled' given that very similar PEO is crystalline there. It's just that PPG has never crystallized.. (because it is atactic) so we dont know its crystalline melting point. the point I was trying to make is that the 'rapid quench' required to make it go glassy is actually a cool down that take 45 minutes or so and you dont need to worry about how 'rapidly' you quench because it cannot crystallize anyway!

Maybe the 'rapid quench' should be amended to 'sufficiently fast' or so, but that would invite discussion of fragility of glass formation and such.

nl:wikt:Gebruiker:Jcwf 152.1.193.137 17:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've found a way for it to all make sense now..let me know...the sentence after the introduction rapid melt quenching states that the quench rate should be 'sufficiently rapid'. I think that this is ok because the rate at which you quench is really dependant on the material involved.Jdrewitt 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Attenuation Coefficient page

Hi, I like your merge of Attenuation coefficient and Linear Attenuation Coefficient pages. It is much improved. I resized the plots and moved them to the right, since I could not see them well. Hope you do not object. --Jarekt 21:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Common glass properties

Your arguments about the common glass properties are very reasonable. Therefore, I started adding a table with more details on the discussion page. -- Afluegel 18:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Liquidus temperature

The surface tension in the glass properties table may be deleted, if desired, but the Liquidus temperature is so important in glass production that I reinstated it. We need to find TL for the other glasses as well, if possible. I also inserted a section about the topic in the glass discussion page. Thank you, --Afluegel (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Silica.jpg

I never deleted the image in question (see here). The image was moved to Commons and was deleted locally by another administrator. I deleted the local talk page of the image as it contained an unsigned statement from a user in a foreign language. I deleted as part of general housekeeping. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actinide → Actinoid page move

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Squids'and'Chips 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Peregrine Falcon

Hi! I reverted your recent edit to the Peregrine Falcon article, because it was incorrect. Females are indeed larger than males—typically quite markedly so. MeegsC | Talk 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you. You are of course correct, I meant to add that it is reverse sexual dimorphism and got confused by the previous anonymous users edits which swapped these round and then swapped them back again. I have put the reverse back in since this is accurate. Thanks, Polyamorph (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Those vandals do prove to be a pain... MeegsC | Talk 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal information

Can you give me a link to where they posted the information? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that was from a tv show. I see that you have decided to get unengaged from that which is probably the best thing. If however the editor follows you to other articles then let me know. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Hey, Polyamorph/Archive 1. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!-- - iDosH! talK? 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Form factor

Hi Jdrewitt,

I'm a student of physics from Slovakia and I'm confused about a Form Factor term. There is a sentence: "Form factor, is a measure of the amplitude of a wave scattered from an isolated atom which is equivalent to the scattering amplitude of an isolated atom." Please can you explain it in other words for me? I would be very thankful. Ivan --195.91.54.114 (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't write tha sentence and have in fact removed it because I don't really feel it makes any sense. The atomic form factor is a measure of the scattering intensity of a wave by a particular atom. So if a wave is incident on an atom, the measured intensity of the wave that is scattered from the atom is dependent upon the atomic form factor. As an example, x-rays scatter from the electrons that make up these atoms and hence the scattering power increases for x-rays as the number of electrons increase, hence as a function of the atomic number, Z. Neutrons on the other hand scatter from atomic nuclei and exhibit a completely random change in the scattering cross-section as a function of Z. I hope this helps. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it helps, thank you very much ;) Ivan --195.91.54.114 (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:C-class

You should undo your edits. Look here: [1]! Nergaal (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Or here Template:Grading scheme. Nergaal (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the reverts; I just assumed they were reversal of ratings, not comments. Nergaal (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics Poll

There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing Cheetsheet

That was an excellent idea. I'll change things soon (not right now, but within the week for sure). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 11:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you need a hand let me know. I don't have a massive amount of time on my hands, should be writing my thesis not editing wikipedia, but nevertheless let me know. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I've been terribly unproductive on my thesis since I've started editting Wikipedia. That's the problem with a boring thesis on a topic you simply don't care about anymore (I used to, but now I don't). Anyway, the cheetsheet was chopped into section. Lemme know what you think.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well a PhD is basically doing something very complicated in extreme detail. It does start to get a bit boring after a few years :) But I think it is ultimately worthwhile and rewarding, just doesn't feel like it right now, especially when looking for a job and realising I'm far too over qualified for pretty much anything. I have moved the talk about the cheatsheet to here. Cheers, Jdrewitt (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

TinucherianBot

All I was doing was a bot request given to me... Please see this for the discussion ... I have been asked by the WikiProject Food and drink members for the tagging of articles for the project . I gave them the entire category tree and I got it 'cleaned' by them (See this ). I have also tried my level best to remove any unwanted categories. What should I do further ???

Glass production was tagged because it was wrongly categorized under Category:Wine packaging and storage and Potassium bisulfite was categorized under Category:Food additives . This is no fault of the bot or the project members...I have stopped the bot. I request to kindly ask to unblock the bot -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't believe the articles were wrongly categorised. I think categorising every article that is even only remotely related to food and drink is what is wrong. Anyway, I have no control over blocking or unblocking the bot, that decision was made by someone else, who evidently also feel the bot is behaving destructively. The best place to discuss this ishere. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my talk page -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know I have nothing to do with edit. The reason i cared to make this note as we are having a discussion and this edit by someone may be misinterepted.Thanks -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the edit is from an anon IP who is currently vandalising the Science reference desk. I am sure they will promptly find themselves having a forced wikibreak :) Jdrewitt (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks buddy for the understanding.. Let us sort out the issues with the bot as early as possible. Please help -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Issue with TinucherianBot in Project Banner Tagging for WP:FOOD

Thank you for expressing your concerns on the recent issue Issue with TinucherianBot in Project Banner Tagging for WP:FOOD . I have make some comments at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#TinucherianBot and I am leaving this note just for your information -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 08:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a very long statement that you made but it did the job :) Your bot has been unblocked. I am glad the issue seems to have been resolved. Cheers Jdrewitt (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Stanton Drew

The stone circles are dealt with at Stanton Drew stone circles which was split from the village article a couple of years ago. There is a hatnote link at the top of the article.— Rod ^talk 11:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Ok, I missed that. Thanks. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think it would be great to post some better pix of the stone circles on that page -- I, for one, would love to see a picture that sort of illustrates the village myth about the devil turning dancers to stone with the lanes of fiddlers and the bride and groom.... Cheers et thanks, Celia Kozlowski (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note since I thought you may be interested in this disussion. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 13:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

scope of Kineau's permission

Hey, I showed him the proposal and asked him if he was okay with it. I didn't want to use anything verbose with a negative connotation. If it is alright with you, I'll ask Kineau if he is okay with my modification and I will show him the "differences between revisions" for him to click. Thanks, and hello. Sentriclecub (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, you are censoring wikipedia, if a user is unhappy with their comments, they can strike out their remarks but it is not usual to remove comments (unless they constitute vandalism). Jdrewitt (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Skygazing

I appreciate your efforts with skygazing. The best alternative would be to fix and upgrade the articles but thats not the agenda for many wikipedians. It seems like there is a concerted effort out there to undo everything i ever did to wikipedia, and while that may not be true, there is a great deal of this deletion activity. There are so many convoluted and complex rules that basically anyone can fight under a variety of platforms and win, because most of us simply cant be bothered fighting anymore. The reality doesn't seem to matter, they just want to have whatever their target is for the day removed, ie winning is everything. Discussion and argument seems futile, if it exists at all in many cases, and so I have decided that pragmatism is to move on with more important contributions to the world's net information; and protect it behind my own domains.

There IS such a thing as 'Skygazing' or 'Sky-gazing' and its NOT exclusive to astronomy, its a 24/7 process practised for millenia by every civilisation, and by myself every day!! I have a site www.sky.org.nz SKY org that is dedicated to such behaviour. I recently screened 5 movies of the pure sky lasting 24 hours in one of our country's most important art galleries, the Dunedin Public Art Gallery, with world famous composer Warwick Blair, providing the music also for 24 hours. So in truth the audience were in fact sky-gazing, on 5 movie screens. My movie opens at our National Film Archive here in our capital city of Wellington NZ in 3 weeks time, and runs for a month, and also runs as a 6 screen version next year for the Auckland Fringe Festival of the Arts at the most prestigous venue, MIC Toi Rerehiko Galatos... We previewed the work at Auckland University's Gus Fisher Gallery in april..

The answer may be for me to name a project 'Skygazing' sometime and have that in a notable gallery. I am considering that approach with some other deleted articles, due to my firm conviction that they are part of real human life and our national and international history. Truth is more than a dictionary of english words. The Pacific migrations RELIED on 24/7 SKYGAZING to navigate to my country centuries ago, and the art is undergoing a very strong resurgence, as evidenced in many publications. See the award winning best designed book Astronomy Aotearoa Astronomy Aotearoa that i contributed sky images to. my user name is paul moss.. 125.236.132.248 (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that there should be an article named 'Skygazing'. It doesn't make a lot of sense for this article to have become a redirect to amateur astronomy since, as you point out, skygazing isn't necessarily astronomy - if done in the daytime for example. There is a case to at some stage re-instate this article. However, to do so, the article would need considerable cleanup and contain numerous reliable references. Some of the issues raised by others at the AfD are indeed valid but I don't think this was reason to remove the content entirely - if the content can be improved then I see no reason why you cannot remove the redirect and reinstate the article - it would have to be good though to prevent another AfD. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that my view has been forced upward to look at all the deletion activity to my hard work and wonder about the reasons, and in turn adjust my contributions. I can only conclude that there is a 'mental set' and thats 'if in in doubt chuck it out' styles. There seems to be a sub-group of wikipedians that are rampantly cleansing the space of anything that isnt rigourously defended against such behaviour. I expect that they belive they are totally correct and appropriate, perhaps they are the new knights of truth and honour etc... but the actual truth is that there are unlimited opportunities to add, re-word, and delete parts of articles, to improve them. I have the feeling that we need to create 'blocks' of wikipedians to guard our beliefs in such articles right to exist, but I'm not about to do that. I come from a small country that doesnt have enough to build the thing and seems to have more than our fair share of surgeons, so I am backed off until i see it calm down a bit. thanks for your thoughts.. 125.238.251.89 (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC) moza/paul moss

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Polyamorph. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→