Welcome!

Hello, JonathanD, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  Regards, Accurizer 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article Big Wow theory for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Big Wow theory satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wow theory. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Big Wow theory during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Regards, Accurizer 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JonathanD, I just wanted to say thank you for your well-reasoned contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wow theory and Talk:Big Wow theory. Regards, Accurizer 12:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan, please respond to my comment on Talk:Planck scale and/or adjust the text accordingly (or I can do it, if you want). Yevgeny Kats 21:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the idea of the Universe beginning with size at the Planck Scale - Here we go: I have conducted considerable research, and the story goes like this. For most of the last 40-50 years, the idea that the universe began with a size near the Planck length has been a central assumption of cosmology. This assumption has been the basis of many theories and equations, rather than the result of same. Perhaps the central equation justifying this assumption has been the relation setting the Schwartzchild radius equal to the Compton length, as they are roughly equal at the Planck scale. I am uncertain whether it was Planck or Hubble, who first voiced this view, but it quickly became a part of the standard Big Bang theory. More recent theories have called this assumption into question, but it is still a popular view among cosmologists and theoretical physicists, as it is so convenient in explaining the convergence of force magnitudes. Supersymmetry, universe on a wall theories, and some inflationary scenarios posit that the unification of forces may happen at a larger distance scale, typically near the electroweak boundary, which would allow for the possibility that the universe could be significantly larger at its inception, but there is no proof of this. I did a search on arxiv.org for papers containing the words Planck Scale and I came up with a lot more info. BTW - the majority of those papers employed the usage of Planck scale as a distance measurement, and not one of energy. Especially helpful is the following paper, which seems to explicitly state that my assumption is correct, or is widely believed in Physics today. "In the latest approaches such as Quantum Strings (or M-theory) or Quntum Gravity theories, it is generally accepted that the Planck Scale defines a minimum scale for the universe" (Several references cited here). physics/0509026 Is that good enough for you? I have a bunch more, if you still have questions, or dispute my orginal wording. I note it's been changed already, but no harm is done. I may elect to restore the reference, however, if it has been deleted entirely, as I believe my claim is proven factual. JonathanD 21:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan,

I will take a look at the articles that you referenced. For now, I encourage you not to abandon the project, it seems to me that you have much to offer here. There is an established dispute resolution policy in Wikipedia, you can read about it at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. However, I'm not advocating that you try a formal approach just yet – it seems somewhat early for that. I suggest that you try to disengage from the articles for a short while and take a long-term view of them. Obviously, there is no deadline here. In the mean time, perhaps consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics or one of its subprojects. There are a lot of areas where you could help! I hope this advice is helpful. I'll get back to you soon. Regards, Accurizer 12:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JonathanD, welcome back! I hope you enjoy your participation in the project this time around! Regards, Accurizer 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to interfere with your cleanup at CDT. --Pjacobi 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Alternative Cosmology Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix_talk 23:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a tag, indicating that the article needs rewriting. Corvus cornix_talk 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JonathanD,

Let me explain my general issues with the "rationale" section of the ACG article; I admit I was pressed for time when I looked at it, and so put in a lot more time tagging things than explaining the tags.

1. The big issue is that I feel it's original research, in which you have used your own reasoning and synthesized multiple sources in order to establish the notability of the ACG's areas of interest. Unfortunately, this kind of synthesis is not allowed on Wikipedia.
2. Even if it were, establishing the notability of the things the ACG studies does not inherently establish its notability.
3. It appears to me that you've overreached what New Scientist and Scientific American actually said in order to make your case.
4. The language is still somewhat biased, and trying to make a point rather than state facts, e.g. the sentence "Unfortunately, the issues do not end there."

Also, in regard to the sentence, "One of the ACG's members, Philip Mannheim, has recently published and presented a conformal theory[5] of Quantum gravity which would resolve this discrepancy,[citation needed] but it has thus far received little attention from the mainstream." I know you provided a citation to the existence of the theory; I am specifically asking for a reliable source which states that the theory actually resolves the discrepency in question.

You are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, without the "rationale" section, there may not be enough material to establish that ACG is notable. On the other, the "rationale" section requires synthesis of sources not directly relating to ACG. This may simply mean that the ACG hasn't yet had enough impact to warrant a Wikipedia article. The question is not whether it's in the mainstream or not, but rather whether there are substantial reliable third-party sources establishing its importance. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JonothanD. Regarding your comments on planck scale, my experience is that "planck scale" is almost always used to refer to the energy scale, whereas "plank length" is used to refer to the distance. It might be different in other fields, though. The right approach to balancing the article is to appeal to sources rather than to personal experience. Do you feel you've provided sources that imply the article is wrong? (I haven't looked at it yet, FYI.) -- SCZenz (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and elsewhere on the same topic. I suggest you urgently review wikipedia's civility policy, and pay particular attention to the fact that you are required to assume good faith. After reading those I then suggest you remove, strike and refactor parts of your comments. Accusations of bad faith ("I guess you wanted to sweep it under the carpet, rather than being civilized enough to request deletion") and incivility are unwarrented in this case. Simply revert the redirect if you so feel and start a discussion on the talk page and WP:FTN (where you should also tone down your accusations). Thanks, Verbal chat 16:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]