User talk:68.224.247.234

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Physics, revisited

Greetings. As those below, I urge you to create a user account adn contribute to the recent discussions around Physics before you continue adding major changes to the article. Many editors do not agree with your changes and will revert them. The page is currently under survailance due to edit wars, a consensus revision is trying to be kept for now, and semiprotection is taken under account. If you discussed your proposed changes with others, they would be more valuable, and could last. Karol 13:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Physics

You are violating all the rules and regulations of wikipedia. you haven't yet created an account. Still remaining as an anonymos user, you are editing too much in Physics main page with out discussions. There are too many wikipedians who are synthesising the iedas only after great discussions. But you are expressing your own ideas and editing each and evey portion without any consideration. This will be considered as vandalism and your IP address will be blocked from further editing. Before making such changes, you must create an account and you have to discuss with existing wikipedians atleast. you can put messages for me on my talk page. Insvik 07:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics Main Page

How dare you are? What are you doing with wikipedia? You may or may not be a physicist, but what are you doing now a days. You are changing the whole page without any talk. You are presenting your own ideas and remains anon. You are identified by your IP address. If you go on editing like this, your IP address will be blocked. You may be a new user. If you are a new you user, you have to create your own account and have to follow the style of wikipedia. You have to put your ideas in discussion page. Hoping that you will accept the terms and conditions of wiki, ... Austin Maxwell 07:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits are cutting off pages

Some of your edits have been cutting off long articles (see for example this edit of yours). This is probably because of this problem described below:

Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it.

Please try and avoid switching tabs in Firefox while editing, as this seems to cause the problem. --Fastfission 00:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming I'm reading the (poorly-worded) warning correctly, it seems like the Google toolbar is the problem. I have been using Firefox all along, and have no problems with cutting off long pages.--Srleffler 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatically questionable physics intro

Can you please let me know what your source for this is? Irrespective of whether it needs to be listed in the article or not I am very interested in what dictionary uses wording that clearly doesn't make sense. Thanks. SFC9394 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply - I will have a close look at the situation and comment fully in due course. As to your "snickering" comment - I would advise you to have a look at the history tab - I made no comment on 3RR or any reversion limits (or peoples inability to revert again) - so please direct any comments you may have to the correct editors in future - I don't appreciate people making false accusations against other editors or calling into question their conduct when that call is baseless. SFC9394 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted - mistakes happen. However you called my conduct "nor proper of a Wikipedian" - I have been here for a year and try to be a good wikipedian, so I didn't really appreciate having that called on me - hence my response. SFC9394 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Snickering

Actually, Nevada, it was a polite warning since you seem keen on edit-warring. Edit-warring is not amusing nor proper conduct of a Wikipedian. •Jim62sch• 23:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


I'd say it was pretty obvious that consensus was against "treats of", wouldn't you? Of course, it's rather irrelevant now as the entire intro was a copyvio.
Note too, that I did not revert == Classical, Quantum, and Modern physics ==, although your edits were not truly factual: "it generally became evident to the physical community that it would be preferable for every known description of nature to be "quantized" is not entirely true and smacks of a pro-QM POV that was not embraced by the entire scientific community. Additionally, relativity and quantum mechanics are not wholly compatible, which is something GUT, string theory and M-theory have tried/are trying to resolve. •Jim62sch• 10:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia practices

Hi, it's apparent that you've taken a liking to Wikipedia, and your contribution is valuable. I'd like to recommend, though, that you get a username for yourself (see WP:REG for some good reasons) and also learn to use the "Show preview" button, to consolidate your edits into fewer entries in the history. And if you haven't already, I'd also recommend taking a look at WP:PAG. Thanks. --Serapio 05:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page User:Kasparov on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Shane (talk/contrib) 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was just making suggestions for this person's user page. --68.224.247.234 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that you are engaging in an edit war on Albert Einstein; so I want to be sure you are aware of the three-revert rule. --teb728 22:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in an edit war. I showed a lot of evidence for Einstein's contributions to cosmology. --68.224.247.234 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style

Although it may seem elegant to use an Einsteinian epigram to describe the topic of an article, it doesn't match our "house style". Please refrain from doing that in the future. Thank you. DS 00:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. –Joke 02:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't constant reverting. I proposed a compromise and used this to edit the page. --68.224.247.234 02:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics main page

Please dont gofor reversion. You can improve the present article. The page to which you are trying to revert is a totally confusing one. Compare with the pages of Chemistry, biology etc. Then it will become clear to you that a systematisation is necessary in the Physics page. Phusis 20:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again Phusis

Dear 68.224.247.234, I dont like edit wars. There were many problems in the previously existing page. One major conflict was the place of pictures. Now I have provided different subdisciplines of physics. Anybody can put approrpiate pictures at appropriate sections. Previously there was only one head to place the picture. Then there started debate of the scale of picture, its coverage in the subject etc. For your kind information, I am a post graduate in Physics. I have a long experience in research field, especially in advanced Optics. I wish the better quality of the Physics page, the subject that I love most. Hoping your support, .. Phusis 20:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Once again Phusis

Dear 68.224.247.234, the Physics page must be a comprehensive one since it has too many subdisciplines. I am not against your contributions. But it needs proper place. You can go for your older version , copy it and paste it in the appropriate position in the new article. I have only added subdisciplines of physics. The sections like central theories and related fields are there. Please try to understand. If you are not able to do it yourself I can do it for you according to your suggestions. Please reply. Phusis 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank You for your kindness and cooperation. Please make necessary corrections in the definition where you find some errors. The definition is not mine. I just rearranged those existed before. Once again thanking you.. Phusis 21:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==

It was happy to see that the page gradually getting hold as an organized one. You reverted it.

[edit] ==

It will be better if you divide the topics in the central theories into the differnt branches, and then remove the headline central theories.

[edit] Regarding your edits to Physics

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Physics article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 21:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that some of this info. was copyvio as this data was originally added by a different user last week. I apologize for my inclusion of the material. I supported its inclusion without the knowledge of its status. --68.224.247.234 21:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to create a user account, if you want to make "big" edits to the physics article. This article has seen a lot of "thrash" lately, as competing anonymous editors each try to enforce their vision on it. As a result, you may find it more difficult to make your edits "stick". Users editing from a single username have greater credibility, because other editors can get to "know" you and recognize your work. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more info on why you might want to create an account.--Srleffler 01:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)