Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:47, 7 February 2009

Welcome to my talkpage! Click here to leave me a new message at the bottom of my talk page. I will reply to my message where your leave them, unless you request that I reply on your talk page, or that you've used the wrong talk page, in which case I will move your message to the correct page and will reply there. Please use a * to indicate the start of any message. Please use an appropriate level of indentation. Use : to indent, not more *. Separate each message by one empty line above and below. I don't particularly care if you don't actually follow exactly what I just wrote above, just keep some sort of coherent structure. Headbomb

Barnstar

		The Excellent Userpage Award
		Your page is amazing! I certainly envy it.Goosemanrocks (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Woot! Copy from it all you want.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hey, what's up with the use of /b/ in your edit summaries here? I know it's your sandbox, but you're setting off alarms. Hersfold 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alarms? Anyway, I saw an I.P.'s edit be logged as a bot edit and the edit summary was /b/ and I was wondering if having /b/ as an edit summary caused the edit to be logged as a bot edit. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I granted you rollback. I suppose that you know that the rollback should be only used to revert obvious vandalism. Ruslik (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yuppers. I'll test it on my sandbox first. It's not something I plan to use much, I just find it pretty annoying to have to go through hoops to revert that sort of thing. Anyway thanks. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

hello. This is just to let you know that another user has filed a complaint about you here. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope you're willing to take our advice on board. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to ongoing incivility by Fnagaton and Greg_L, I found it necessary to bring this up again at WQA. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As demonstrated in the WQA it is found that Thunderbird2 is at fault here and is misrepresenting (lying about) the situation, again. Thunderbird2 has been warned to stop otherwise he'll be end up getting blocked.Fnagaton 03:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Quark "current" phrasing

The construction "In light of current knowledge (quarks weren't discovered at time)" doesn't make sense. Current is the present tense, but you then go on to allude to the past ("at the time"). My re-wording wasn't changing the meaning, it was just more grammatically sound. Do you know what I'm saying? —Anonymous Dissident 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense. "In light of current knowledge (quarks were not yet theorized), the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange quarks decay into up quarks." means that the explanation is modern and relies on concepts that weren't there in the time of the proposal of the Cabbibo angle. The parenthetical statement is and "on the side" explanation that does not affect the sentence. See "In light of current knowledge, the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange darks decay into up quarks." It's all present tense ("is related" is a passive voice construction, not a past-tense construction. A past tense constuction would be "was related").

Your construction however, changes the meaning and the accuracy of the sentence. "In light of the knowledge at the time (quarks were not yet theorized), the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange quarks decay into up quarks." means that you are explaining this through the eyes of someone from 1963, when quarks were not yet theorized. But this is not what you are doing, because you are relying on an explanation of the Cabibbo angle based on quarks, which could not have been possible.

Hence "In light of current knowledge". Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! My error. I see what you're saying. Knowledge as of the 21st century (current knowledge) allows us to realise that the angle is related to that probability factor. i see it now; thanks for explaining and I apologise for wasting your time. —Anonymous Dissident 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. You had me re-dig some of my limited English grammar knowledge to make sure I wasn't saying something stupid. Could've very well happened since I'm not a native speaker of English. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)