User talk:Temporary Account

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Temporary Account, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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!  BlueShirts 08:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reaction Centre

I'm going write a paragraph explaining photons and quantized electron energy levels and how the excitation of an elctron to a higher energy level can be used to store energy and do work, and I'll send it to you. Can you send me feedback when it's finished. Thanks.

[edit] How light is captured during photosynthesis

Electrons are held in orbit around the nucleus of an atom. Each electron has a different orbital path. These different orbital paths are called ‘energy levels’. As the name suggests, electrons have different energies from one orbit to the next. Electrons are most stable at their lowest energy level, the orbit where the electron has the least amount of energy. This orbit is called the ‘’’ground state’’’.

Imagine balls sitting on top of different steps on a flight of stairs. The ball on the lowest step is like an electron in its ground state. If you carry the ball up the stairs to a step further up you will increase its potential energy. That basically means that if the ball where to be pushed down the stairs to the ground state it would release energy in the form of movement (kinetic energy). The electrons in an atom can have their energy level increased in a similar fashion.

Light is made up of small bundles of energy called photons. If a photon with the right amount of energy hits the atom it will raise the electron to a higher energy level, just like carrying the ball up the stairs. Just like the ball falling down the stairs and releasing energy, the electron can drop to its ground state and release energy. This is the process which is exploited by a photosynthetic reaction centre. The reaction centre is laid out in such a way that it captures the energy of the photon that hits it and turns it into a usable form.

Newtonian physics is easy to understand, quantum mechanics isn't; so why not explain quantum mechanics in terms of Newtonian physics then?! What do you think of the explanation?

Miller 23:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Image:Signature george.PNG

[edit] FAC

To be honest, I don't really mind or care about this sort of comments, however if you must do it, at least have the decency stand up behind them.

Thanks. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Thank you. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Turkish Literature FAC

Hi. I'm just leaving a message to say thanks for your vote of support in favor of Turkish literature's featured article candidacy. I appreciate it. —Saposcat 09:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bulbasaur farc

you mistakenly put the following text on the Blackadder FARC page. please put it on the Bulbasaur FARC page. rgs, Zzzzz 20:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulbasaur

After failing two FACs, this article is finally promoted to FA this weekend. 8 separate editors all voiced their comprehensive objections over this article regarding sources, comprehensiveness...etc, but none of these objections were addressed before making this into FA. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bulbasaur for a long-drawn out discussion. But here's the summary of major objections:

  • Fan page issue: this article is ALL plot summary and product information, written in a professional manner. The only information here is Bulbasaur's anime appearance, game appearance, and commerical availability. Actually one of the sources (website) is more comprehensive than this article in that aspect.
  • Sources issue: this article contains many dubious sources, and quotations taken out of context. Furthermore, commercial sites such as Amazon.com and personal or fan pages are used as sources.
  • Comprehensive issue: Even though this is about a fictional object, nothing is said about its development history, cultural impact, and other features a fictional object should have.

Thus I don't think it meets criteria 1 of FA, that it should exemplify our best work. So I am nominating Bulbasaur for removal. Temporary account 19:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulbasaur again

Hey, TA. I mostly agree with you about Bulbasaur being promoted to a Featured Article without clear consensus to do so. However, I think you should perhaps give Raul654 a bit of time to respond to your comments and suggestions. Repeatedly adding comments like "any time now . . . " to his page is only likely to make him annoyed with you or, worse, angry. Give him some time to formulate responses; I know the guy has important real-world responsibilities in addition to his capacity as Featured Article Director.

At any rate, my intention is not to chastise you or tell you to "play fair". I'm just imagining things from Raul's perspective, and if someone kept pestering me about something like this, I'd get kind of annoyed. :) As for the Bulbasaur article — It seems the article's quality is at issue, but due to the FARC requirement that an article not be nominated right after its promotion, you may want to attack this from a different angle. Have you considered Requests for Comment? If Raul refuses to cooperate or revisit his actions, this would be the next place for you to pursue some sort of action, pursuing it from an abuse-of-procedure angle than a quality-of-article one. — BrianSmithson 20:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you, your suggestions are very true. But also for any well-reasoned promotion, giving a couple paragraphs supporting the article or explianing the rationale wouldn't be so hard either. Raul shouldn't need "couple" days to "formulate" his answers. But I will just assume that he's busy now. However, I do think that the people who voiced comprehensive objections are more at loss and confused than anybody, and we really deserve some explanations. Anyways, right now I'll just wait and see. I'll look into Request for Comment. Again, thanks for advice. Temporary account 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The monotheistic FA process"

So you're saying the FA process only believes in a single god? I think you might want to choose another word. (P.S. Thanks for fighting the good fight on the Bulbasaur nom.) Andrew Levine 07:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • And we all know who's the God of FA process. He decides what's good and what's bad, and He is not to be and cannot be reasoned with. He does not give out explanations for his actions, and the common people are at loss. Temporary account 21:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, your user page hits all the right points about the FAC process. Wikipedia needs to have more people with "common sense" instead of fanboys and juveniles. BlueShirts 23:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi from Gnetwerker

Thanks for the note. The level of vitriole on the Bulbosaur FAC and the Stargate FAC discussions make me think that Wikipedia will be choked to death in a miasma of fan articles. Most of the people in the discussion have no clue, even when it is explained to them, of the difference between original research and secondary sources, and why the latter is desirable in an encyclopedia. I rarely have success in intervening, because heat, rather than light, normally prevails. But thanks for letting me know there are kindred spirits. Of course, any group of like-minded users could (I suppose) always come up with a competing process for (e.g.) WP:Articles of Quality. -- Gnetwerker 01:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Keratoconus

Thanks for your very comprehensive comments on the Keratoconus FAC. Clearly some can be actioned faster than others, but I'll get onto them. --BillC 23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your endorsement of its candidature. I see that you've recently announced that you're on wikibreak, but I thought I'd tell you that I have – finally – got round to adding to the genetics section on Keratoconus. --BillC 09:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Deever

Hi. Last week, you left some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Danny Deever/archive1. I've dealt with most of the issues you raised; would you care to have another look at the article? Shimgray | talk | 23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulbasaur FARC?

Has it been long enough now to resubmit this to FARC? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doug, how long has it been? One week or so? I know I promised to resubmit it after a few weeks, but now I think I am going to wait a couple weeks more. I have a feeling that if I resubmit it too fast, I will be labelled as WP:POINT and also Assuming Bad Faith...etc, and that most "keep" votes will be geared toward these reasons regardless if the people who cast the "keep" votes think this subpar article stinks. But I think before we resubmit this, we have a couple important things to do: First, Raul654 never really gave a satisfactory (or any) answers regarding his decision to promote this controversial aritcle despite no consensus in the FAC, and we need to somehow open him up. Then second, we need to get as many people on our side, since almost in every discourse about Bulba, there are only a few of us to answer against abunch of supporters. Anyways, even though I haven't forgotten this crappy issue, thanx for reminding me. Temporary account 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Since you were also involved in the Bulbasaur FAC, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Celestianpower. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

It was brought to my attention at my Request for bureaucratship that I hadn't apologised to you about the whole Bulbasaur incident. I now officially apologise for assuming bad faith on repeated occassions and being uncivil. I hope the whole incident can be put behind us once and for all. Esperanzial regards, --Celestianpower háblame 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)