User talk:NeilUK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Energy_is_a_unifying_concept

This would probably be better in the wikibooks Physics textbook. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • If you want to start a discussion of content, start it in the article's talk (discussion) page. Those who watch the article also get notified of changes in the talk page. Skysmith 10:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I was actually wanting to start a discussion with a well-meaning new wikipedian about where his expertise and interest could best find a home. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, was not referring to you but the NeilUK and his former Energy article fork. - Skysmith 09:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics

Thank you for your message. I just saw the contents of this article as being more appropriate to Wikibooks than Wikipedia, and if you prefer to write in this way, then that would be a better environment for you to work in. Wikipedia has a less didactic style, but it's a more mature project. On the other hand, Wikibooks looks (to me at least) to be more flexible with regards to style and content.

Which would suit you better is something that only you can decide! But I have great respect for the evident expertise and passion you have for your subject, and hope that you find a niche that you can happily call your own, because you'd certainly be a valuable addition to the community. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity Probe B

Not too sure about your last edit to this one; we don't say that, for example 'Apollo 11 is a mission to the Moon (flight 1969, data analysis 1969 - present)'. It seems neater just to have the flight, and then a note about ongoing initial analysis in the heading. What do you think? If you feel strongly otherwise I will leave it to you. Chrislintott 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure your analogy is valid, the GPB flight had the sole purpose of getting the data, which was useless until the analysis had finished, planned April/07 (OK, so they have slipped). Appollo had multiple purposes, for most people the flight was the main one, analysis of the rock samples and data perhaps continues, but the layperson would say it had finished. In a sense, my edit was a little provocative, because it directly challenges what the lay person thinks is the scope of a space mission, or any "big science" project. Building the accelerator or telescope is half the battle, getting meaningful data and conclusions continues for years. Even then, the telescope or acceletator continues on for years, and analysis and data gathering overlap and iterate as new things are discovered. OTOH, GPB was a one-shot, the He has run out, the data gathering phase has finished, now the analysis phase runs. I would like the data analysis phase to stay reasonably prominent, so that a browsing user who happens upon the article gets the message within a couple of sentences, and doesn't go away thinking that silence about the result is because of a failed mission, dumb scientists, or lazy Wiki editors. Fortunately for us, unfortunately for science, this is not a hot-topic article, so there won't be too many people scrapping over this one. I am happy for you to move data analysis round a little, but would prefer you to keep it prominent, and worded as a planned part of the mission. Maybe I should copy this to the discussion page? NeilUK 09:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I know where you're coming from. If only we could persuade funding agencies to pay for data anlaysis properly too that would help. I've rewritten the first sentence to smooth the edges a little. See what you think. (By the way, if you sign your posts with four tildas (~) then your name and the date will appear). Chrislintott 08:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed someone else copyedited it - hope you saw my version. Feel free to tinker away again if you can be bothered. Chrislintott 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)