User talk:Oldnoah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Concerns regarding your recent edits

When you provide new information on wikipedia it is always a good idea to have external reliable external sources to support idea. If you don't provide any source for the additional information it will seen as original research and could be deleted. I am keeping your recent edits as it is but i put a template to inform anyone the possibility of original research until you find something that will support your claim. 116.240.150.67 (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Ice-nine fusion

An editor has nominated Ice-nine fusion, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice-nine fusion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

I am afraid I have once again reverted your edits to the Hawking radiation article, since it still doesn't appropriately cite sources for the criticism (if you claim that the black holes FAQ is an appropriate reference, how does it support your material?), and there seems to be consensus against its inclusion (as evidenced by both its repeated removal from the article and talk page comments). In particular, that Hawking radiation has never been observed and its existence is not universally accepted by scientists is already mentioned in the article lead.

As for the article Ice-nine fusion, I believe it is redundant, since the topic is adequately covered by Strangelet. (At the talk page of your IP address, I have asked you what you intended to do with the Ice-nine article; I would have advised you against creation of Ice-nine fusion.) Accordingly, I have nominated it for deletion.

Regards, Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the first user who saw my deletion nomination has voted to keep the page, so I may have been too fast. Let's see how the debate concludes (and feel free to comment there). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for reverting vandals; please remember to warn them too

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Large Hadron Collider: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldnoah for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Bm gub (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked one week and the sock indef for vote stacking. Don't sock again. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

     The "strangelet" page provides insufficient space for the topic, which is constantly edited/pared down by Bm gub et al.;
     The "ice-nine fusion" page is a disambiguation for the "ice-nine" page;
     The "ice-nine fusion" page provides much unique information not available on other Wikipedia pages, in a coherent format;
     The "ice-nine fusion" page has a term of art which might be relatively new in the lexicon [neologism], but one which is clearly readily understood and being used by professionals in the field in conversation.
     Deletion of the "ice-nine fusion" page would be a form of science censorship.

Explain this one to me like I'm a two-year-old. The 4.248.x.x user is unquestionably Oldnoah per this edit. But the link to Transcept is that he/she altered Transcept's bolding at AFD. But he/she did the same to Wyatt Riot (talk · contribs)'s comment (three edits in a row) so I'm not sure why you conclude that Transcept = Oldnoah as opposed to Oldnoah was merely attempting to make the bolding of xFD !votes consistent. Purely from this evidence, I don't agree with the conclusion that they are socks - I don't think you can draw any conclusion from it. --B (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Oldnoah's three edits as 4.248 were not all to the Transcept edit---but the first one was, and following a pattern we've all followed ourselves (edit, forget to bold, glance back later, fix it) The Oldnoah/4.248 pair do this regularly, on a similar timescale. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quark-gluon_plasma&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strangelet&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strangelet&action=history ). Transcept signs "Oldnoah-style": as ~~~~ Username A glance through three months of the New User Log reveals fewer than 1 in 50 users signing that way. Transcept's wording is very similar to Oldnoah's, and the new user enter the discussion not just to say "I like the page and want to keep it" but actually espousing a position on Oldnoah's previous edit war. I'm new to this sock-hunting business, though, so I defer to anyone more-experienced with the local standards of proof. Bm gub (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand your confusion. I in fact did go back in and edit several places in the AFD page, changing indents so that the entire page was consistent. I made notations of those edits each and every time, so if you go back and check, you will see that the changes I made were to several persons, not just "transcept". Apparently, my ISP shows up last, and you [admins] jumped to the erroneous conclusion that that ISP number meant that "transcept" was posting from my ISP, which is highly unlikely. If you go back and check the original posts, before I edited for format [BUT NOT FOR CONTENT], you will find that "Transcept" is an entirely different individual [whose identity I am unaware of], and almost certainly not from my ISP [since there are so many of them in this world of ours]. As for "transcepts" wording being "very similar", give me a break. He/she wrote one short sentence in standard English. Since I was unaware of how you folks go about hunting down "sockpuppets", I naively did that format editing [just as I've been doing format editing on numerous other articles, to give consistency to the format in the article], unaware that some admin might come in and, in haste, conclude that those parties were "sockpuppets". You will note that I was consistent with the format editing, whether it was a 'pro' [Keep] comment, or 'con' [Delete] comment. Does that mean that the "Delete" persons are my sockpuppets too? Would you please kindly unblock the block, and I will in the future refrain from editing posts for format, and simply post my comments [as I also did below the posts]. It would also be appreciated if you would place the "ice-nine fusion" page back for further comment by interested parties. Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

I have unblocked both of you based now this evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Oldnoah. Thanks for clearing things up; I apologize for the accusation. Bm gub (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldnoah, admins do not have access to anyone's IP address. The only way your IP address showed up is that you accidentally edited while logged out. It's important, not only for your privacy, but also for keeping things less confusing, that you make sure you are logged in when you edit. Look up top to see that you have the my "talk/my preferences/my watchlist/my contributions/log out" line in the upper right corner of your screen before submitting an edit - that way you will know that you are logged in and nobody will be guessing who is making an edit. --B (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Righto. I'll try to remember to log in before editing. I usually do, but sometimes I forget. I don't like to leave my password on a computer, even my own, but maybe I should. Oldnoah (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

[edit] Fear and Anger

There's already a Hal Anger stub, which I fixed your link for, by creating a Hal O. Anger redirect. The aircraft: Oh, I see, the F-18. Wups. Thanks.

By the way, I see you've run afoul of the old guilty-till-proven innocent sock-block. It's a real problem here on Wikipedia. Not that there's any fairness to it, but you can help lessen your chance of being caught up by the inquisition if you'll create a few personal details about yourself on your userpage. SBHarris 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilczek and ice-9

I took your ice-9 reference out of the Wilczek article. If you could find sources showing that he is well known for this little remark than it might be OK to keep it. However, since I know him, his work, and the relevant part of the physics community very well, I am pretty sure you won't find sufficient evidence to justify it.

I think your enthusiasm for the ice-9 analogy is probably a bit greater than its actual importance warrants, which is why you've run into some resistance on this topic. But there is one place you could legitimately add material on this, and that is the Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth page. What do you think? Dark Formal (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe Frank is well known for coining that terminology's usage for strangelet fusion, but I don't have ready references at my fingertips, so I'll leave it alone for now. It certainly was chosen by him for that 1999 SciAm Letter to give an immediate impression for what a runaway fusion scenario would entail. I'm not certain that I would have chosen that word of art [since I envision such runaway fusion would be very nearly linear initially, rather than rapid exponential, due to the requirement of excretion of charge ("eat and burp", as Sandweiss called it) following each fusion, before another fusion could commence], but after he did publish it, it became quite well discussed.

I don't believe the Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth page is particularly relevant, as almost all of that discusses risks from nature [ice ages, meteorite impacts, etc.] over which he have virtually no immediate control [excluding possible global warming, the cause of which is still debated, or whether we are simply in another little warm period like during the Viking days]. About all we can do now, for example, if we saw a large asteroid coming is the same as we're doing for that out of control satellite due to crash in a few weeks - - monitor the situation, and a few hours before impact give an estimated region of impact, which we could narrow down as it got closer. However, we've [or, more properly, our ancestors] survived every previous asteroid impact, and I don't believe any future ones could be much worse, particularly since we are a bit more advanced than were our primitive ancestors some 65 million years ago [still crawling around and hiding in the trees from the dinosaurs, no doubt]. However, I do know that page does discuss strangelet creation, and perhaps I may go in and amplify on that.

In the meanwhile, I'm waiting on CERN's report. I received an email from their LSAG [LHC Safety Assessment Group] stating that it will be at least another month before they've finished it. I doubt that it will calculate probabilities properly, if they attempt to do so. I suspect it will more likely use artful terminology like "highly speculative" or "extremely unlikely" to hide our lack of knowledge.

Also, I'm adding some good material to other articles in the nuclear field [e.g. nuclear medicine, health physics, alpha radiation, etc.], though at times I'm not certain how much to add, or whether I should start a new article for extensive amounts of material. Probably the latter.

Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

These people worried about the LHC remind me of a couple of Los Alamos people seriously suggesting an A-bomb might start fusion ignition of the nitrogen in the atmosphere. If only nature were that precarious and fusion that easy! You might want to check out Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray. Rarely (in terms of a human life, but not in terms of age of the Earth) cosmic ray particles (probably protons, as 98+ % these particles are protons, and we assume the really high energy ones are also, though without proof) comes in and hits Earth with energies 10^20 eV, or tens of joules. These are the energies associated with well-hit tennis balls, all packed into a single (probable) proton (which, of course, hits some other atom the moment it strikes the Earth's atmosphere).

By pale contrast, the LHC will produce protons and antiprotons also, and get up to 7 TeV or 7 x 10^12 eV, for a max total available energy of twice this, or 1.4 x 10^13 eV. One of these "Oh-My-God- particle" cosmic ray protons out-energizes any conceivable the LHC product by a factor of at least 10 million. So if these cosmics haven't turned us into a black hole (or whatever) by now, the LHC certainly won't. It's a violent universe out there. Far more violent than anything humans can do, or will be able to do, or quite sometime. Not in our lifetimes, for sure. SBHarris 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I have been well aware of those facts for many decades. There are two main distinctions.

In nature, the impacts are proton on Iron [on the moon]. This might be different than Lead on Lead, even if the energy is the same or greater in nature. This pertains to the strangelet argument [since charged strangelets will rapidly decelerate and come to rest, the argument below does not apply to them; unless they can be shown to be strictly neutral].

For the micro black holes (MBH) [which theory shows should be neutral], nature would produce them [IF they can be produced, and IF they don't evaporate via Hawking radiation] travelling at nearly c relative to earth. Theory shows they should be very minimally reactive at rest [because they are so tiny]. At nearly c, they would be very neutrino like [think of neutron reactivity at nearly c, compared to thermal; though it is an entirely different principle]. In other words, theory predicts that any produced by nature on earth would simply zip right on through with nary an interaction, and be extremely difficult to detect [which might account for why they haven't been found]. Conversely, the LHC would produce them [again, IF they can be produced, and IF they don't evaporate] "at rest" [they would have residual velocity, with an appreciable percentage with a velocity below 40,000 kph, i.e. escape velocity]. Thus, if they don't evaporate, they would endlessly orbit through earth, though possibly slowly growing. I've read some estimates that it would take billions of years for a single such MBH to incorporate one gram of nucleons. I tend to believe it would be far shorter, though still likely millenia. Like strangelets, the growth would be nearly linear at first, though over time [billions of years?] it would become more exponential. Production of such a particle at 1/second would not be a welcome idea.

Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

• Your comment "In nature, the impacts are proton on Iron [on the moon]" is quite flatly wrong, and I don't know where you got the idea. All cosmic-ray species (everything from protons to thorium) collide with all lunar nuclides (again, protons to thorium) at all energies. Busza et. al. explicitly do their lunar-survival calculation in terms of Z > 70 projectiles on Z > 70 targets, for the specific reason that they want results relevant to actual RHIC collisions.
• Your comment that "the LHC would produce them at rest" is also rather badly wrong---proton-proton collisions do not produce "at rest"; the proton structure functions make most collisions badly asymmetric. Typical parton collisions have their centers of mass "boosted" by a large fraction of the beam energy. (This is in marked contrast to, e.g., electron-positron colliders.)
• Finally, you assertion of the importance/common usage of Wilczek's analogy is refuted by the fact that a Google search for "ice-nine fusion" or "ice-9 fusion" yields nothing whatsoever other than your insertions of the term into Wikipedia. Really, exactly precisely nothing. No Usenet, no blogs, no news, no web pages. Bm gub (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that cosmic rays come with Z from 1 to 92 [and possibly even higher, though never detected]. I've seen many a high-Z cosmic ray track in high-Z cosmic ray searches seeking transuranic cosmic rays. I'm not trying to give a tutorial on the topic. Most all of the energetic cosmic ray impacts, with COM comparable to the LHC, are from proton on Iron [or other mid-Z on the moon's surface]. There is no evidence in any cosmic ray data that there are energetic Iron or higher cosmic rays with COM energies comparable to the LHC impacts. ZERO. The highest energy cosmic rays that have been actually directly measure are about 1E17eV, and they are all H and He. And these have 'error-bars' of several orders of magnitude at 2 standard deviations. These have a COM energy barely above the LHC at the center of the error bars. While some people might infer there are energetic high-Z particles, we have no evidence of such. The Pierre Auger high-E events are all believed to be high-E protons.

The reason I use the term "at rest" in quotes is because I am also aware of the varying energies following collision. However, some of the energies are sufficiently low that they translate to a speed of under 40,000 kph, which I call "at rest" when compared to a speed of .9999+c. I am not concerned so much about the asymetric collisions, but rather those much rarer ones which are much more directly 'head-on', particularly the Pb-Pb ones, which can produce "at rest" product, whether it be a 'fireball', a 'strangelet', or a 'MBH'.

Finally, I did not invent the term 'ice-nine fusion'. As I indicated above, I personally would not have chosen the term 'ice-nine' to describe strangelet fusion. Wilczek initially chose that term, others followed up on it. I simply followed suit. The fact that Google searches don't show the term in print is why I'm not pursuing trying to get that 'ice-nine fusion' page re-inserted, or at least not now. If others get it in print to where it's in more common usage, then perhaps that will change.

And, I note that you make no comments about the relativistic nature of MBHs in nature, compared to "at rest" at the LHC.

Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

incorrect, you must learn to use google properly and understand his algorythms of search, put 'ice-9 wilczek'and you get hundreds of hits, google has an 'inverse entropy arrow' in its search of information if you know what i mean... that is what makes it so good.. try those 2 words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Every one of those hits is quoting the same statement: "One might be concerned about an 'ice-9'-type transition ..." from a letter to Scientific American. Note the quotes. For the umpteenth time, it's a nice analogy but "ice-9 fusion" is not an identifying term for the process; it's not a term coined by Wilczek, nor one used by Wilczek, nor one used by anyone else. Just an analogy. Bm gub (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to LHC and heavy-ions: w/r/t lunar heavy-ion collisions I was still thinking of RHIC. With regards to the boost velocities of collision products: different strangelet formation models suggest either that strangelets are produced at rest (strangeness distillation from the fireball) or at/near the beam velocity (pomeron-mediated (insert handwaving) from the spectators) or at a large transverse velocity (coalescence). RHIC put the distillation idea completely to bed---the fireball is ultra-hot and short-lived, and the QGP transition doesn't cool it down in any way. There's no point speculating about it any more---we saw the transition, and it doesn't have strangelet-producing properties. Adding more energy will make it worse. The other options are (a) implausible in the extreme and (b) would produce large center-of-mass boosts.

The situation is very different for black holes, which are presumed to be created by single hard-parton collisions in pp collisions. Look at the CM boost distribution for those parton collisions---remembering that LHC isn't really a 7 TeV parton beam on a 7 TeV parton beam, it's a broadband 0-7 TeV parton beam on another 0-7 TeV parton beam, and both with Fermi-momentum-smeared transverse velocities. Fewer than 10^-4 of these collisions are momentum-matched to give a CM velocity below 11e3 m/s, and that's for BH produced at rest in the CM---not recoiling off of anything, etc. Bm gub (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Your result of 1E-4 as the fraction that are momentum-matched to give velocity less than 1E4 m/s (escape velocity, roughly equivalent to 25,000 mph, or 40,000 kph) differs significantly from the reference I had that gave 1E-1. Do you have a citable reference? It would be interesting to see the calculation from your source. I did not see the calculation from the source I used.

If your source is correct, then that would equate to a much lower number of MBH's being captured [if they don't evaporate], thus instead of a rate of 1 per 10 seconds, it would be at a rate of about 1 per 10,000 seconds, or 1 per 3 hours. This might be sufficiently low to prevent consumption of earth for millions of years, instead of decades, centuries or millenia [if MBH don't evaporate and if they can be created!].

As to the strangelet scenario, I'm not certain that what you stated is correct. Would not input of additional energy, some 30-fold more than for the RHIC, create lots more strange quarks [energy-to-mass conversion], even as much as 30-fold more? Isn't that what we're looking for in several of the proposed searches, or have we cancelled those search proposals as being wholly unrealistic without letting me know? I wonder if creation of so many more strange quarks might ease the ability for a strangelet to form, whereas at the RHIC energies the low number of strange quarks only makes for novel-type particles of only a few strange quarks (e.g. lambda).

Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

Making strange particles is only the first of many barriers to actually making strangelets. A hot fireball with equal numbers of u,d, and s quarks is not the same thing as a strangelet---any more than a hot fireball of u and d quarks is the same thing as a lead nucleus. In order to become a stable object, those quark have to cool down to the point where the phase-space for s --> u decays is totally full; otherwise the decay will occur. That means that you have to get hundreds of quarks from their fireball energies (100-1000 MeV) down to nuclear-Fermi-sea energies. It didn't happen at RHIC; it's even less likely at LHC where the initial state is even hotter. It is incorrect to say that LHC makes "more strange quarks"---RHIC made plenty of lambdas and kaons and such----but, more importantly, both LHC and RHIC make strange as well as antistrange quarks, with net strangeness zero. You have to get rid of the antiquarks somehow in order to make a stable strangelet. At RHIC, you can maybe imagine the antistrange quarks hadronizing 10-20% faster than the strange quarks, since there's a net u,d excess from the projectiles. At LHC, the net u,d excess will be more like 1%---the fireball will have nearly perfect matter/antimatter symmetry. Bm gub (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean we've cancelled all searches for strangelets? I'll let others comment before I comment further. Oldnoah (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

Enthusiasm for strangelet searches at colliders is, indeed, extremely low---they've gone off of the list of "things to list in your letter of intent" and onto the list of "things to give to a single grad student who needs a thesis topic and some analysis practice". (Astrophysical strangelet/strange star searches are different, since the production mechanism is (IMO) marginally plausible.) Keep in mind that there is no "we" who centrally decides to "cancel all searches". Anyone sitting around Brookhaven (or any of 100 RHIC universities, or 500 LHC universities) with a computer is perfectly free to do a strangelet search in the data they can access. Anyone applying to the DOE asking for money to build a strangelet search machine, on the other hand, is probably going to be turned down. Bm gub (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monopoles at LHC

Hi Oldnoah. See a comment in the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Large_Hadron_Collider#Magnetic_monopoles I apologize for never having heard of monopole searches at the LHC, but the simple fact is that in the past few years, having read numerous papers, attended numerous seminars, following the work of the major ATLAS physics analysis groups, and conducting my own research at CERN for several months now, I have never heard of monopole searches at the LHC until now, despite knowing Jim Pinfold and working at the CSR (which was recently renamed?) a few years ago. Of course, you hear about SUSY all the time so I thought that would be more appropriate and representative to be mentioned in the first paragraph. My concern was that in the first paragraph, the main areas of research should be quickly summarized - obviously one can not list every phenomenon and particle that is being sought at the LHC. Perhaps this personally offended you because of your area of research expertise? If that's the case, sorry - I did not intend anything like that. Also I think your monopole references, while impressive, are a bit of overkill.  :) One or two would suffice. Rotiro (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note I removed the CDF reference for monopole searches, but did add a Symmetry magazine reference. I've recently communicated via email with Jim Pinfold about his intended monopole searches [which were also widely featured in the lay press, where I first read of them!] he intends for the LHC, so it's in my thinking a prominent search he's promoting. I have no qualsm about adding super-symmetry searches, and only 1 reference should suffice. Personally, I believe it's highly unlikely to find a magnetic monopole by such search, as I believe they are far more massive [on the order of 1E21+ eV] than what the LHC can produce, which is why they are so rare in nature [i.e. the searches in cosmic ray debris don't turn up much, do they.]. I'm not certain what a "main area of research" should entail. I believe introduction of all exotic particles never before seen, which are reasonably theorized to possibly exist or be creatable, for which searches are intended covers much of the "main area of research". Certainly Nobel prizes will be handed out to anyone who finds such a new particle, I suspect. Oldnoah (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

Perhaps I'll quickly explain my perspective: in ATLAS, the main physics analysis groups are Higgs, SUSY, SM (Standard Model) and Exotics. Like it or not, a majority of effort is spent on developing analyses for Higgs and supersymmetry, because they seem most likely and promising. Of course there are countless other possibilities of great interest, some more exotic than others, but of course one looks for them all the same, if not all the more. That stuff, which I suppose would include monopoles and strangelets, is rolled up into the Exotics category. I am only saying that this is how it is, like it or not, and perhaps I am biased accordingly. Of course, perhaps we will see no Higgs and no SUSY, and only a bunch of other weird unexpected stuff. :) Rotiro (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Holes and Baby Universes

Hi, I am not an expert on this subject (but I am a physicist), and I think the material you added to Hawking Radiation#Black_holes_and_Baby_Universes is not established and accepted in the physics community. Therefore I have moved it to the article talk page for discussion, so that consensus can be reached. Of course the nicest thing would be that it is true, but (since nobody knows that for sure), we have to settle for it being securely linked to reliable outside references. Can you provide some of these? For a physics article they should really be primary research articles, published in refereed papers like Phys.Rev or other main line journals. It would be great if this can be established, but I am really in doubt that it can, at least not yet. I think only the primary papers are really necessary, but a reference to a less technical review or explanation (like the occasional Perspectives published in Science, say; or a good monograph or textbook from a university publisher) would be extremely helpful for those of us who are less expert.

My apologies for reverting your edit, but unless I am misinformed, this is necessary for Wiki procedures. The danger of putting forth incorrect information to the world at large is greater than the harm in a bit of delay while getting the verification right. See WP:V, especially WP:SOURCES for further guidance on this. I am putting your text in the talk page, so it can be recovered or revised if necessary, and is not lost.

Thanks, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baseless sniping at LHC

Oldnoah, your edit comments on LHC [1] were inappropriate. You don't own the LHC page and you have no standing to demand credentials from other editors, whether you think they are "art majors" or physicists or whatever; I don't recall bringing up your credentials even in the face of extremely dubious physics ideas. Mjespe1's edit was factually correct from a physics point of view. Your preferred LHC-danger-is-notable viewpoint is indeed debatable under WP:NN or WP:UNDUE, and those are the grounds under which Mjespe1 edited. This was not vandalism by any remotely-plausible definition.

You owe Mjespe1 an apology; I have left them a note saying so. Bm gub (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)