New stuff at the bottom, please. Archive 1

My edits are valid grammatical and typographical corrections. See the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. What's your problem?? Kindly quit reverting, and don't make false accusations of vandalism, or you'll be reported to Rfc. - MPF 15:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Polar Bear - MPF 22:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WAS - many thanks for the notes and clarification. I agree that some of my copyediting like the linespace removals was optional (I conversely find that editing is easier without them!), but most of it was repairing other peoples' sloppy typing, e.g. putting references at the start of new sentences:

[1] In fact because ...

instead of at the end of the sentence they apply to; putting punctuation inside quotes when it should be outside (Owen didn't coin the term "dinosaurfullstop", he coined the term "dinosaur"); and dealing with unspaced mdashes (a nightmare for editors as they "fragment" when mouse-highlighted, leaving the ampersand and semi-colon attached to the adjacent words). I didn't remove any references at Polar Bear (tho' I have removed many spam links from other articles!), I just moved some to what I felt was a more logical position in the paragraph (e.g. the list of populations, it is now in the preamble "Other scientists [2] recognize six distinct", instead of at the end of the list of populations (which was previously a funny mix of list and prose). The reason I combined 'Sources' and 'External links' into the one header was to shorten the over-long TOC a bit; I can put it back if you like. The details I added on food and breeding were from a combination of 2 books and some of the links already in the Sources/Ext links - it makes it a bit difficult to know what referencing to add; equally, it is all what I'd regard as "common knowledge", info that you'll find in almost every source about the species going back over a long period. Generally, I only think it necessary to add citations for information that might not be widely available, e.g. recent information that hasn't appeared in popular reference books yet.

On caps for species common names, this has been extensively discussed on the WP:TOL talk page (look its list of archives); there has been a repeated though small majority in favour of caps (following the example of most field guides, which are where most people become familiar with species). Both are acceptable for articles (titles and text); overall, all birds and most mammals use caps, about half of plants do, while most fish and insects use lower case. But it is best to be consistent within a single article, so as the title is Polar Bear (not polar bear), consistency requires it to be Polar Bear throughout the article.

PS I know all about coping with vandalism on wikipedia, I've been at it for nearly 2 years :-) - MPF 17:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WAS - many thanks again, great that all's solved happily! I know what you mean about being protective of pages, I check everything that gets added to any pages about conifers very closely (just about to do so now :-) - MPF 20:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WAS, thanks so much for reverting those ridiculous edits on the Entropy page. Is there some way to prevent this kind of ridiculous editing in the future? The same guy totally messed up the Arrow of Time article (I reverted that) - he seems to mean well but... These are nontrivial subjects that should probably not have fundamental changes made to them by individuals without formal training in the subject matter. Heck, I don't even remember enough of my physics classes to edit this stuff without looking it up in a book! - JustinWick 18:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress WAS 4.250 12:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its fine you think my edits are ridiculous - but did you guys actually go and *look* it up in a book before you reverted my changes? E=mc^2 is most definately an approximation - have you heard of relativity? I'm editing these pages to match current theory, and current knowlege - as is the entire point of wikipedia. I am most definately *NOT* trying to match text books, or in any way parallel the idiotic way our society goes about teaching us science. E=mc^2 only works when the velocity of an object is near 0. What is so hard about understanding that? Fresheneesz 20:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You say "E=mc^2 only works when the velocity of an object is near 0." Provide a source and we'll talk. WAS 4.250 12:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Max Plank apparently said so: [3], tell me - is the m in that equation relatvistic mass? Because if it is, that needs to be explained on that page and a link to relativistic mass given. Fresheneesz 18:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In relativity, m *ALWAYS* means relativistic mass. m0 is "rest mass" - a very different, but related quantity. I do agree with Fresheneesz that this is an integral part of the equation, and should be mentioned in the article. I will effect alterations to that effect. - JustinWick 05:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be discussing this on someone else's talk page, but I can't let this go. No, m is rest mass. "Relativistic mass" is an old concept, now rarely used; when the formulas are written correctly, there's no need of the concept. The problem with Fresheneesz's edits is that the E in E=mc² is the rest energy; that is, the energy in the object's frame. So there's no "v" around (or it's zero). Thus E=mc² is exact (to the extent that special relativity itself is exact). --Trovatore 16:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did some reading last night about this, and I was totally wrong about that... I asked someone else about this who was in the same degree program about this before, but we'd both learned out of the same ancient textbooks. I stand happily corrected :) - JustinWick 17:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd happily stand corrected if adequate sources where provided. I hate this arguing. But the subject in question is the meaning of the "m" in Einstein's "E=mc squared" and the sources provided AGREE that the equation when written ("outdated") meant relativistic mass. That it is also true when velocity equals zero is a subset. Please read the source I provided above. Dumbing it down for students doesn't change the meaning of the equation. WAS 4.250 17:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are good sources and there are bad sources. The author of the piece you referenced doesn't know what he's talking about. Please read this. Changes to the article to reflect knowledge contained in it but not in the wikipedia article MIGHT be appropriate, and probably ARE, if done in the right way. I myself am much better at facts than the best way to present those facts. Maybe the talk page of the article would be a good place to suggest additions to the article to present what you discover at the source I just suggested you read. But make sure you understand something before you jump in and change stuff. Saying you don't believe in entropy and making changes to the entropy article seems, well, vandal-like... WAS 4.250 21:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I don't understand enropy. I said I don't understand it fully - and i doubt many chemists do either. Its a difficult subject. I edit things I *do* understand, and I am most definately correct in the relationship between free energy and entropy.

- secondly, your constant crying for sources is getting ridiculous - a source is not what makes something correct. I would urge you to think about what *is* and what *isn't* correct before you revert an edit. When I see edits I don't understand - I ignore them, because I can't say whether its right or wrong. I'll only corect something in cases where i'm sure i'm right.

- I think your statement "A little knowlege is a dangerous thing" is a horrible outlook, and completely contrary to the ideas on which wikipedia is based. The point of Wikipedia is not to put people through the rigamarole we went through in school, but to teach the full depth of a concept - with all its knowlege in full view.

- all that said, If you want me to take the m in E=mc^2 as relativistic mass - I will note that on the page myself. If you want me to take m as rest mass (as it should be - agreed upon by most physicists - see the page for rest mass, its the same page as relativistic mass), then I will reinstate my approximation claim. So please choose what you want. Fresheneesz 01:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook (see Wikibooks for that). It's supposed to be a good starting point for a subject, not an authoritative text on anything specific. It's a fantastic resource, but you have to understand that expedience, conciseness, and the expected audience levels necessitate certain approaches to material. - JustinWick 05:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that wikipedia isn't a textbook - it still needs to contain truthful, non-misleading information. If we make the information understandable but *incorrect* or *misleading* - that is worse than a correct but hard to understand explanation. Fresheneesz 18:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Internet troll. WAS 4.250 01:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion at Talk:Relativistic mass. WAS 4.250 17:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WAS. I would like to ask you to put an edit summary when you edit. And thank you for your patience with Fresheneesz. The user is new and is still learning how to deal with things here. Enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And one more remark. According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Headings, one should avoid using capitals in the middle of section headings, but use them only at the beginning of heading and in proper names. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We both want what is best for wikipedia. Neither of us wants to argue/fight/revert-war. Let's find some third party that we agree knows physics to settle this. I'm trying to have less to do with wikipedia these days. I'm easy with regard to how stuff is displayed. Help me feel comfortable with editing less ... THANK YOU !!!! WAS 4.250 23:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't want to get into a revert war. That's why I haven't reverted anything. But I do think something needs to be done about this situation. We can ask a third person to come in. Some physics guys I know and trust here are User:CSTAR, User:CYD. Do you know them? Or suggest someone? As far as disengaging yourself from WP, well, someone will have to stick around to defend relativistic mass, right? Who, if not you? -lethe ^talk 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics -lethe ^talk 00:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming, Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it Soldiers are cutting us down Should have been done long ago. What if you knew her And found her dead on the ground How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it Soldiers are cutting us down Should have been done long ago. What if you knew her And found her dead on the ground How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming, Four dead in Ohio.

4.250.33.20 03:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why did you conflate/remove the second paragraph from Asian Flu? The resulting revision seems to be rather difficult to read and somewhat ungrammatical in comparison, and while the parenthetical comments on the HxNx notation are also in the Avian influenza article I don't think it's redundant to include them here. Ziggurat 22:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! Normally I would just switch it myself, but I prefer to ask when I'm unclear about the reasons for the change, exactly to circumvent the possibility of acrimony. I don't do revert wars either! (and I'm a reformed sourcer myself - all my old contributions aren't referenced very well, but I'm trying now.) Cheers, Ziggurat 05:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The recently nominated article Dinosaur, is in need of a major revamp. And you're, to put it bluntly, not helping!! Have you read the failed FA submission? One of the reasons for it being denied is because of all the quotes & links on all the paragraphs, of which, you have put a lot on. Also, the article is about dinosaurs, not merely the dino bird connection, yet on every paragraph, sentence even, the words feathers, avian & bird appear! I would applaud you if you created an article solely on the Dino Bird Connection, putting all the links there, instead of crowding the Dinosaur article with them. Another example of un needed quotes was your most recent one, in which you quote a quote by the mysterious Myer, yet make no attempt to explain who the heck he is, what he does or what he has to do with anything. But at the end, you add yet another link, the reason why the article was denied FA status. I know you're only trying to help, but the article could look so much better without having to use all those links & quotes. Tomorrow or the next day, I'm going to delete all the links & quotes, putting the most interesting ones under the external link section, unless there is a major outcry not to do so. It would be great if you could help & not make this into another "Bone Wars".

Sincery, Spawn Man 03:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please reply here, my talk page or on the dinsaur talk page....

Here is an example of my frustrations: Biomechanics has given insight into how fast dinosaurs could run [4] [5], whether diplodocids could create sonic booms by snapping their tails like a whip [6], whether giant theropods had to slow down to avoid fatal belly flops [7], and if sauropods could float [8].

There are 5 links in this two line section! This is just crazy!!! Crazy I tell you, Crazy!! Spawn Man 03:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really, just not putting anymore useless quotes on the article. Besides, I have found a solution to our problemo; Foot notes! This way all the links need not be deleted, but merely conveyed to the notes section. Amazing huh? Spawn Man 02:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foot noting done after 4 hours work... I definitely deserve a medal... Bye... Spawn Man 04:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't actually have to give me one however, but I will graciously accept your award & will consider you as a close ally... Spawn Man 21:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Do you have any ideas on how we can further improve the Dinosaur article? We could collaberate & together get it to the main page. I just finished adding to the In popular culture section. The only sections which need real work on them are the Avian Dinosaur connection section & the History of dicovery section. Any ideas? Spawn Man 03:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: (I know, I've lumped you in with helping me) Have you noticed what's missing from the article? How dinosaurs become fossils! I'm gonna put a short section under the fields of study heading, explaining how they become fossilized etc etc. Spawn Man 04:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post the entire transcript of the CNN segment, as this is most likely a copyright violation. A link will do. Thanks. Gamaliel 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just reverting back to your version over and over again, why don't we finish discussing this on the talk page first? The version you keep leaving it as is, whatever you think about the emphasis on text length, simply not comprehensible. It moves from saying that works are copyrighted to saying that this page is about fair use, without describing in the slightest what the two have to do with one another. If you look at the talk page you'll see I've suggested an alternative wording. Insteading of just deleting, why don't you work with me to come up with a better wording which does the same work. --Fastfission 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The question is what is appropriate for the introduction. The page of course discusses all four points of fair use. Accuracy for such a page can be achieved only to the degree which is comprehensible to the average Wikipedian. If the problem is in absolute statements, I'm happy to use qualifiers ("In most cases," "Often this means," "In general," etc.). But let's work on getting something which is both accurate and reads well. Because a policy which is hard to make sense of is worse than one which is not accurate — at least in the latter category you'll get consistent results, which can be systematically corrected. At least, that's my view on it. I'm happy to act as an intermediary with you on this. --Fastfission 04:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in full agreement with everything you just said. WAS 4.250 13:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for starting the Artemis (brothel) article, that was indeed missing. I hope you don't mind that I changed it a bit and added some information. Cheers, AxelBoldt 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to the operation on a woman to reattach her face can be found here Sorry not to have done a search first. Quiensabe 2005-12-11 15:21 UTC

The Australian case is less well known than the Indian one, as the woman involved remained anonymous. It got some media coverage because of Face/Off being at the box office. The Indian woman, Sandeep Kaur, appeared on a documentary on the Discovery Channel.

Quiensabe 2005-12-11 17:12 UTC

"the article could use some spiffing up" <-- I am going to be continuing to move all external links from the main text and replacing them with citations to the references list according to Wikipedia:footnotes. I will be reviewing all commercial links. A commercial link that sends me to an advertisement page will be removed without much comment -removed commercial link- is all I'm likely to say. In my view, a link to a commercial website should be justified on the talk page before adding it to the article. --JWSchmidt 22:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having second thoughts about the "all". Maybe there is a natural division in the H5N1 article between the top part which should change less rapidly and the bottom part which seems to be a dumping ground for the "news report of the day". Numbered references make sense for the more stable part of the article while in-text external links may be best for parts that will change week to week. --JWSchmidt 03:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A man after my own heart! I go further and find excuses to not "improve" even the stable links. But your distiction actually makes sense. Mine ... well, I know I'm just being lazy. WAS 4.250 03:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued on my talk page to prevent break-up. JRM · Talk 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol. About the reverting, just don't want to see a edit war start. I think the current version says everything in a short manner and some parts of your edit are slightly pov. If you really feel strongly, you can discuss on talk. But sorry for any problems, still good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I make a request? could you please vote for my FAC, Dinosaur here:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dinosaur? It would mean so much to me & I would definitely return the favour if you need anything voted on. I've come so far, but I just want to make sure as voting can turn sour at any moment? You have also made numerous contributions to the article, so it is much mine as it is yours. Don't feel pressured, but thanks anyway... Spawn Man 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time... BTW, Thanks for the gastroliths link, bt do you have any printed references to it such as an encyclopedia or from a magazine? If you got the story from a amgazine, could you leave the article's author, title, date & volume, as well as page & of course the mag, on my talk? Thanks, Spawn Man 03:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent idea. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]