User talk:RockMagnetist/Archive 8

< Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  ... (up to 100)

WP:Co-op

Hey RockMagnetist, this is Jethro, a fellow host at the Teahouse. With a small team, I'm piloting a new mentorship space on Wikipedia called The Co-op. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring 1 or 2 editors during our pilot in December. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching specific skills based on what an editor wants to do or accomplish, and it's not some huge commitment to teach comprehensively about Wikipedia. Your experience helping new editors out is evident, and being able to discuss the bigger picture like you did here is definitely valuable. If you're interested, please sign up here and we'll keep you posted when we have an actual interface to work with. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have, of course, so let me know if there's anything about the space you'd like to know more about. Much like the Teahouse, the only way we'll know if our project is useful is if we can get folks to help teach. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Sorry for the slow reply. I'm really busy in real life for the next month, and I don't want the commitment of mentorship. The nice thing about the Teahouse is that I can help out whenever I have a little time. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for getting back to me. :) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Spin magnetic moment

Hi RockMagnetist! I've seen your edits to spin magnetic moment re the history of the concept. I want to ask you if can add more details regarding this aspect, based perhaps on a book like The story of spin (1997) by Sin-Itiro Tomonaga?--193.231.19.53 (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reading suggestion - it looks interesting. I haven't had much time to devote to Wikipedia recently; if you're eager to see this material added, your best bet is to do it yourself. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:UsesSecondParam

Category:UsesSecondParam, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

See recent Talk

…at the List of important publications in theoretical computer science article. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of female scientists before the 21st century/missing articles

Hi. I've removed Morgan Dee Voon as she is now residing in Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. If anyone can prove that she really existed, she can easily be restored. Peridon (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

O.k., thanks. I generate that list automatically every now and then, so I'll have to come up with an appropriate search term! RockMagnetist(talk) 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the list. Since the article Morgan Dee Voon no longer exists, she's not in it. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Magnetic moment measurement

Hi, RockMagnetist! I've noticed your contributions to topics related to magnetism. Do you know some info about methods to measure the quantity magnetic moment which is lacking from article?--5.15.42.198 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I sure do! at Talk:Magnetic_moment#Measurement, I suggested writing a summary of Magnetometer#Laboratory magnetometers because most laboratory magnetometers measure magnetic moment. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Dip reader

For no great reason, the question occurred to me, is there an Android app that easily reads the magnetic dip angle? Then I saw your watchlist. Ah, right, there's a friendly Wikipedian who's in the business and might have an actual reason to know. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: Sorry for the slow reply - I was on vacation. I don't do much field work myself, but I did find an app called Strike and Dip. The description includes the statement "Magnetic field data can also be recorded." RockMagnetist(talk) 16:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I put the delay to use, deciding that "Strike and Dip" was a bit overwhelming, being made for someone who has actually studied geology. Instead I found a crude little "Field Sensor" app which has no documentation. It displays microteslas in L/R, Fore/Aft, and Vertical components, though without a level. It also shows a quantity called "Phi" which appears to be indeed the dip angle, at least when I properly line up the phone with the indicated mag north. It's adequate for idle curiosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)‎

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

GM food RfC close

Hi. I am a little surprised that you decided to do the close. You referenced the request for a close at AN; we specifically asked for a 3 admin close. Would you please consider withdrawing your close? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In my judgement, a request for a 3 admin close request is irregular. I don't think it is in the guidelines and I think it is rarely used, for good reason - there is already plenty for admins to do without tripling up on RfC closures. If I were to withdraw my close and you insisted on 3 admins, you may be waiting a long time. In any case, it doesn't require 3 admins to recognize an RfC as ill-defined.

Really, I think I am doing you a favor. If, instead of fighting endlessly over a particular wording, you were to look for a wording that most editors agree is supported by the sources, you wouldn't have to spend so much time on the talk page and you'd probably have a better article. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I asked for an admin close on purpose. Another even more experienced editor strengthened that to a request for a 3 admin close, and that was wise so I supported it. You are not an admin, and are one person. Not what we were looking for - these articles are very controversial (as you saw we had essentially the same RfC just a couple of years ago.) A strong and clear close that could endure would be better. There is WP:NODEADLINE so there is no problem waiting for a solid close. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am an admin - look at my user rights management in the menu on the left. What sort of result were you hoping for? As this RfC is structured, editors can only vote for all of the sources or none of them. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

ah sorry for making that mistake about your bit. well one out of three is not bad. the RfC is titled: ""The scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food." That is a version of the "scientific consensus statement". The RfC then says, "In 2013 we had an RfC, here, that upheld challenges to the scientific consensus statement below (presented with its full paragraph):" It then shows the full paragraph, the first sentence of which is: "A broad scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food." It then says "That statement undergoes constant challenge, so it is perhaps time to review it again. The question: Do the sources support the content?" The "content" being asked about, and that everyone responded to, is the scientific consensus statement - the first sentence of the paragraph.

I realize that it is hard to parse the responses since many are so long and there were so many replies. There are activists who give strong opinions and at great length and that creates a lot of noise, I know.

And yes, I amended the sentence a few days into the RfC and as noted there, notified everybody who had !voted. Only one !vote changed b/c of the amendment (to !support) and that is clearly shown in that user's !vote (Bluerasberry's) I think the result is clear if you keep PSCI in mind but the closer has to make up their own mind. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: You said, "There are activists who give strong opinions and at great length and that creates a lot of noise..." Please refrain from personal attacks. Need I keep reminding you to stop with the ad hominems? Focus on content not editors as you often advise those who accuse you.David Tornheim (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

what i wrote is an accurate description, not a personal attack. the bulk of the text in the survey and discussion of the RfC is from maybe three editors. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Some of the respondents (such as @Tsavage) seem to have views that are not very far from yours, and have proposed alternative wordings that sound more encyclopedic and convey similar information (for example, this one). There is never just one way of saying something. "Broad consensus" is a bit vague - why don't you try coming up with a more precise statement and try it on the other editors? RockMagnetist(talk) 04:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the close, and for talking here. We of course will get back to work on the talk page; I'm still considering whether to ask to have the close overturned but I appreciate you talking. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. A challenge to my close would be one way to get 3 admins to look at this discussion! RockMagnetist(talk) 15:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I wanted you to both be aware that following the closer's thoughtful observations, that incorporated/proposed a revised "scientific consensus" sentence that I believe is more WP:NPOV and considers all the literature, not just the GMO advocacy literature. (here) I would also like to note that Tsavage later reassessed the AAAS source as advocacy. David Tornheim (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The AAAS is advocacy" in the same sense that Anti-GMO activists are "advocates" -- that is the kind of arguments that were made, that you found add up to "no consensus", RockMagnetist. And here is the kind of activist canvassing behavior we have to deal with in the GMO suite following your close:
  • dif
  • dif
  • dif
  • dif
  • dif
  • and a rush to go around immediately changing article content here and here and here. (long exhale) Each of which I just reverted.

• • David Tornheim, the close does not mean "all hell breaks loose". It means we talk about about where we go from here. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, my closing statement implied that a fairly small shift in the balance should be enough for consensus, with due weight still strongly favoring the view that these foods are safe. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That change would get ~maybe~ one more editor to move. one very voluminously talking editor, but one. argh. a change of one !vote should not be the difference between consensus and no consensus. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

not too late to reconsider my initial request.... :) Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It is also not too late to try my suggestion of coming up with an alternative wording. The current version of the paragraph headed by the "consensus" sentence looks more encyclopedic than the one that you used in the RfC: instead of quoting various scientific associations, it addresses the factors that determine food safety. More of this kind of detail would be harder to challenge and would be more useful to any reader who is trying to make an informed decision. It's not really a question of one vote. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

May I ask a question here? What if the RfC is being interpreted as "keep things as they are", "no consensus for change"? Would this be incorrect? petrarchan47คุก 08:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The formal decision is, in effect, "this RfC never happened." But I also recommended that editors try to find consensus on a better wording. As I said above, "my closing statement implied that a fairly small shift in the balance should be enough for consensus, with due weight still strongly favoring the view that these foods are safe." RockMagnetist(talk) 15:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to spell this out (again). One last question, if you don't mind. What would you suggest in the case where something like this is gridlocked? This issue could hardly be more contentious. In my experience on the page, even the slightest, most mundane edits have been disallowed and more than a couple of editors have noted that there are ownership issues coupled with other problems (some have suggested there is intentional disruption of editing via talk page rambling and misuse of PAGs). For instance, I have tried to add a mention of the percentage of Americans who favor GM labeling to the labeling section of the controversy coverage. This was disallowed due to WP:SYNC. This is just one example, but I don't think I would be alone in saying that there is no reason to hope we will attain a more balanced, source-based presentation using the talk page process. It is my belief that this particular issue will need some sort of special intervention. If I am correct, what avenue would be suggested? petrarchan47คุก 20:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Two relevant talk page sections for context and support for above: on Fringe, on improving GMO section per RfC petrarchan47คุก 21:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Alas, there is no magic bullet for gridlock; but if I were working on these pages, I would try to achieve balance in Genetically modified food controversies, where there is room to lay out the controversies in detail, and then aim for a balanced summary in Genetically modified food#Controversies. You might need to create some subsections in the latter to deal with issues like labeling. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

labelling is already covered in the controversies article. Jytdog (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'm just talking about summarizing it in Genetically modified food#Controversies. However, that's just a suggestion - I'm not going to jump into the fray. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Colles

Thanks for helping out at WP:AfD, but there is an issue about the closure format: the "subst:afd top" template is added above the section header with the AfD discussion title. I fixed it at the abovementioned discussion, please check the page history to see the difference. Kraxler (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I see I made the same mistake with Pandemonium Dorsa. I haven't done these closes in a while. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Why was the Eugene Law page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.54.75 (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Random delete of page

Why was the Eugene Law page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.54.75 (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not random at all. It was the result of a deletion debate. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Biochronology

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

[1]: I've done so in the past, and it doesn't seem to change anyone's minds. Either you "believe" that everything is science, and therefore anything you believe is wrong is "pseudoscience", or you don't. This says that "pseudoscience was sometimes offered along with faith healing", i.e., that the faith healing part was not the pseudoscience part. This source distinguishes between pseudoscience and paranormal. There are many more like it. It's just not worth time to copy them.

It might be interesting to turn this source into an article on how non-scientific things differ from pseudoscientific things. It'd be a more broadly interesting choice for WP:DYK than the usual run of BLPs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I do think it would be worth your while including them in the existing discussion. I'm starting to get some traction with this idea of looking at sources. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your constructive merge into chirality (physics), today. A salutary step! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi RockMagnetist, I was wondering if you would consider adopting me. I believe I have the basics of Wikipedia-ing down, as well as some experience in some of the more intermediate areas, but could really do with some proper mentoring to get everything up to scratch. If possible, I'd also like to be mentored towards my future ambition of becoming an administrator. Thanks :) samtar ^(msg) 09:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: I am honored by your interest in having me as a mentor. I am willing to consider it, but we should talk first about what I can offer. Although I'm an admin, I'm not all that interested in adminship. Before I was nominated, I didn't think about being an admin - not even once. I help out a bit with closing AfDs and other discussions, but mostly I hang out in articles, wikiprojects and their talk pages. My strength is my knowledge of what makes good content. Articles I create don't end up in AfDs, and my additions to articles tend to remain unchanged for years. And I know plenty about Wikipedia policy. Those are the things I can help you with. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

To me, these are all important. If you'd be willing to mentor me, I'd honestly like to cover everything from AfDs to good article content to Wikipedia policies. I did specifically seek you out because of the minor incident regarding an AfD closure, as I feel I'd learn more from a seasoned editor who thinks I mucked up a little over one who thinks I've been doing 'just fine'. I'd consider it a privilege if you'd take me up on the offer. samtar ^(msg) 17:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

O.k., I'm willing to give it a go. I will say one thing related to becoming an admin that you might find useful. Check out this RfA. The editor had 24,000 edits with lots of helpful stuff in areas like vandalism reversion, and had managed not to offend anyone, but about 45% of their edits were in user talk space (like you). It went south fast. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

So, what would you like help with? RockMagnetist(talk) 18:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I've read that RfA and its a little disconcerting, so perhaps focusing on creation/article-space activities would be a good place to start? You might prefer creating a sub-page to prevent this conversation taking up your talk page. samtar ^(msg) 07:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I have started one here. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Concepts in physics

Hi. I see that you have been removing Category:Concepts in physics from articles, with the comment "non-defining". Do you intend to propose deletion of this category? If not, I will probably revert you. It seems to me that the rationale is going to have to apply to pretty much every article in the category, by its nature. If you want to argue that the category shouldn't exist, that is a discussion to which I'm open.--Srleffler (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You might want to look at this CfD. I argued that the "Concepts in X" categories were inherently vague, as were the arguments in favor of keeping them; but I couldn't quite pin a specific deletion criterion on them. Eventually I proposed that the container category be deleted and the "Concepts in X" left to editors in the various subjects to clean up. Indeed, the only point of consensus was that the categories need cleaning up. So for now I'm cleaning, and trying to do it in good faith. That means that I take Wikipedia:Defining into account and try to determine the characteristics "that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." In the process I am removing lots of other non-defining categories, and sometimes having trouble finding defining characteristics that actually have categories in Wikipedia. If, after the cleaning, there is nothing left, then I would indeed propose deletion of the category. To me it seems unlikely that "concepts" can be a defining characteristic for anything - just look at the article concepts and try to figure out how to apply it. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Great. I just wanted to make sure that you had a broader plan and weren't just removing individual articles from the category without consideration of the category's overall function.--Srleffler (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Homo naledi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Homo naledi. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"How do you know none of the categories were deleted?"

Hi RockMagnetis, (Sorry I only saw your question today — I need pinging in most cases since I try to avoid talk pages as much as I can)

In answer to your question at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_3#Category:Terminology;

When I looked at the user profile in question the number of Deleted edits showed zero, which seemed unusually low for the large number of Total edits. Of course when I checked the same page today it was no longer a zero. This state of unreliable stastistics at Wikipeida is most unfortunate, and I am at my wits end trying to figure out how to convince others that this is an issue that needs to be addressed urgently. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: It was kind of you to get back to me, even after the closing of the debate. I was a bit skeptical of the zero deletes, and unsure of the implications for the trustworthiness of the editor. I think many of my (far fewer) deleted edits were tagging or cleanup of pages (created by other people) that were being considered for deletion. As for the number of edits of category pages, I came across another editor recently with over 25,000; this person had been rushing around adding a navbox to hundreds of inappropriate articles and category pages, leaving WikiProject Geology with the task of cleaning it up. All in all, it seems better to avoid ad hominem arguments, even if they compliment the person. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Experiment

RockMagnetist, have I ever suggested that you might find the article Experiment of interest for editing? Generally, I'm concerned about the perception that science is always systematic that experiments are always controlled and systematic tests of hypotheses. Sometimes that are that, yes. But they can also be disorganized, at times, and sometimes not at all about hypothesis testing, but, rather, about exploration or just about seeing what will happen if something is tried. Scientists do this sort of thing all time, without always working with an hypothesis. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom: You haven't, and up to now I have never looked at it; but it's a vital article and therefore worth spending time on. It seems that you are discussing the lead at present; I'll stay away from that for now, but look at the rest of the article. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox artist discography2

I like the more stripped-back look of the replacement infobox you've done for discographies to bring it more in line with policy. My only comment on it is that is simply says "Studio", "Live", "Compilation" and "Video", which begs the question "Studio" etc what? I would suggest that it should be "Studio albums" etc. This is particularly noticeable where it lists "Video" and then immediately after "Music videos". Seems somewhat jarring to me. -- 46.254.186.36 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The template it replaces, {{Infobox artist discography}}, used "Studio albums" way back in 2007, and then someone changed it. I'll wait for the dust to settle around this latest change and then consider the labels. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:American Geophysical Union publications

Category:American Geophysical Union publications, which you created, has been nominated for upmerging to Category:American Geophysical Union. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

I am sure you have read WP:BRD. You do not have a consensus to change the template. I will be in a position to discuss this fully on the talk page in 2 days. There was no discussion to change, so you can WAIT a short period for the full discussion. – SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: You have broken the three-revert rule. If you self-revert immediately, I won't take action. I made a reasonable effort to discuss the changes and they are based on the Manual of Style - all you have done is challenge the process. You are the one that can wait. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Acceleration of gravity on stationary objects

I loved your explanation to the question of acceleration of stationary objects, but am puzzled at how to apply it at latitudes near the north & south poles? Thanks! - HSPhysicsTeacherHSPhysicsTeacher (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC) How does gravity "accellerate" a stationary object on the surface of the Earth, as is stated in the first sentence of the article? 71.46.106.61 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC) The object is going around in a circle with the earth's surface instead of going in a straight line. That requires acceleration. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Good question. At the poles, gravity would accelerate an object if it weren't for the ground pushing back. Actually, even at the Equator, most of the gravitational force is countered by the ground; only a small portion goes into circular motion. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I was not logged in

Hi, RockMagnetist. Thanks for the welcome message, good to see you are not one that bites newbies ;-) ... But I not new, just somehow edited without even noticing that I was not logged in, which is very, as normally that is a reminder alerting users in such cases. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rui Gabriel Correia. I do wonder how many of the IPs I welcome are in the same situation. I stay logged in for a month at a time, so it is very rare for me to use my IP, but I have used it enough to have a message or two on it. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly broken template

I fear that your edit to a template may be the cause of a problem reported at WP:HD#Expression error: Unexpected. If it isn't, I apologise for the suggestion. As the template is protected I can't test my theory by temporarily reverting your edit. I guess it's probably just a question of where the tags go? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Earths magnetic poles

Thank you for responding about my "corrections" ... I still must attest to the magnetic poles are opposite to geographic poles... The magnetic field of the North geo pole is actually SOUTH magnetic pole.. As a magnetic pole is in relation to current direction of the magnetic field... Current flowing IN at north geo pole and exits at South geo pole giving the North geo pole a SOUTH MAGNET pole and vice versa Trevorhulette (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Trevorhulette, the North Magnetic Pole is the south pole of a magnet. In other words, with the capital letters it refers to the pole to the north of us; but considered as a magnet it is a south pole (lowercase). The north pole on a magnet is defined as the end that points to the North Magnetic Pole. As I recommended in the edit summaries, you need to look at the citations in this article - for example, this one. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

IP inadvertently blocked indefinitely

50.160.221.147 (talk · contribs)

Hello RockMagnetist, this IP was blocked about a month ago. As much as I'd hate to see them start up their activities again, hopefully they've got it out of their system. Thanks for helping keep WP tidy. Dawnseeker2000 03:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: This doesn't seem to fall under any of the reasons for unblocking. This IP did nothing but vandalism, so I don't see any benefit to unblocking unless they appeal the block and commit to better behavior. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Filmography

Thank you very much for your advice on help desk regarding filmography84.92.84.254 (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! RockMagnetist(talk) 20:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Math and physics help

Hi RockMagnetist (and any interested talk-page stalkers ;-),

One of the new devs is working on math/LaTeX in VisualEditor. Would you mind helping her with some testing work? I think it's mostly UI work at the moment. All you need to do is to click here: http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Equation?veaction=edit and see if you can figure out how to change a formula that's there and/or add a new one. I'm specifically asking for your help because you haven't spent a lot of time in VisualEditor, and I think that she wants feedbak from some editors who don't know VisualEditor very well.

(That link takes you to a test wiki, so if you want to save something and don't want your IP address exposed, then you'll need to create a new account. Please use a unique password. It doesn't have to be a strong password, but it should be a password that is not used on any other website, including your Wikipedia password. This is the Beta Cluster, aka where the devs upload their new patches first, which means there's a very small but real chance that something involving basic security could break at any second. Thus it's important that you not re-use a password that is used on any real site. There's no connection between your account there and anywhere else; it's not in the WP:SUL system.)

You can leave feedback (really, anything that you want to say is helpful at this stage) at WP:VEF, directly at the dev's talk page at mw:User talk:TChan (WMF), or in phab:T118616 and related tasks, if you'd rather post directly to Phab. Thanks for considering my request. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing: I had a quick peek at it, and mostly my impression is good. I'll try to make detailed comments when I have time. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, RockMagnetist!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		The Editor's Barnstar is awarded for the valuable contribution to the article Mineralogy. Chris Oxford (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Chris Oxford here.

Once, during the debates at Talk:Mineralogy, we agreed on the inappropriateness of the picture of Hope diamond in the article Mineralogy, and then you mentioned (absolutely correctly) that the article was way out of date and that you are going to work on this problem. The other day I looked at Mineralogy again and saw, that you really moved this article from the Paleoproterozoic Era of Science to the present times. Essential editing was done from the perspective of professional approach to the subject, what is the most important condition of all, and in my opinion, the work done over the article Mineralogy, is a valuable contribution and deserves a Barnstar, which I’m gladly placing on your page.

Regards, Chris OxfordChris Oxford (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris Oxford, for your thoughtful barnstar. There are still a couple of sections for me to do - I was too busy in real life. I'm hoping I'll find time for it in January. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)