Misplaced Pages

Metamaterial cloaking

In free time, could you please help cleaning up this article. Materialscientist (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to do it. ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

thx

Steve, thanks for this comment. I had opened this thread at WQA and was a bit susprised that (apart from even more abuse from RHB), nobody at WQA took the trouble to make a comment in any way, and then the thread found itself archived in silence. This sort of left me in a state of wondering whether perhaps I had done something wrong somewhere down the line. Anyway... things seem to have died down now, so not making needless fuss but just moving on seemed the right thing to do, so, here we are. Cheers, and thx again :-) - DVdm (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Math redirects

Please note the maths project doesn't use the redirect class; we don't put any talk page banners on redirect pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Einstein

The Manual of Style is very clear about how to handle nationality. We don't use birth nationality, we use nationality at the time the person became notable. The article say "By 1908, he was recognized as a leading scientist". He published his special theory of relativity and three other groundbreaking papers in 1905. During that period, he was a Swiss citizen. Therefore, that's what we use for nationality. Yworo (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tests of general relativity theory

I have made numerous edits to the website http://en.wikipedia.org/Tests_of_general_relativity. But, these additions keep get removed by you and another person. The only comments are the nor and syn. There is no other detail. I don't agree that either nor o syn applies. So, this site needs the NPOV tag, because it is biased. The tag is needed and will be readded. Please leave it on and I would like to start a discussion about the added material on this talk page under the provision #2 of the ongoing dispute resolution list. I need for the additions that I want to make to be critiqued on this page and then I'll make the corrections and re-edit. D c weber (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Steve Quinn: Would you please comment on table 2 at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Tests_of_general_relativity_theory ? D c weber (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Quinn,

Here is an response and edited text user talk:D c weber D c weber (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

more discussion Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Mercury_precession_-_minority_testD c weber (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
A quick question at Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Mercury_precession_-_minority_test, thnxD c weber (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. CrazyPaco (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IChemE

I wonder about your edit here. IMO, the template was an arguably useful addition? --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

From what I read this is an international organization with global coverage, and not limited to UK science and technology. The following is from their web site, About us : "IChemE is an international professional membership organisation for people who have an interest in and relevant experience in chemical engineering... IChemE is the hub for chemical, biochemical and process engineering professionals worldwide... Founded in 1922 as a professional institution for chemical and process engineers, IChemE has grown to its current status of a 30,000 international membership across more than 113 countries... IChemE actively develops and raises standards in education with the accrediting of 60 higher education establishments internationally (over half outside the UK)." --- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No dispute about the worldwide significance of IChemE -- nor of the Royal Academy of Engineering nor the Royal Society of Chemistry (nor the Royal Aeronautical Society, etc.).

In other words, I guess this was a variant of questions about the concept of "greater-than-or-equal-to" (≥)? In other words, IChemE doesn't have "Royal" in its title (but it does have a royal charter); and that doesn't make it less British. The Royal Academy of Engineering does have a royal name and a royal charter, but the name doesn't make it more or less internationally significiant. Do you see what I mean?

Your small edit caused me to re-examine what I think about learned societies in general, as compared and contrasted with international societies which happen to be located in London, New York ... or Tokyo. Yours was a parsing decision which I hadn't considered. For example, I never considered the Royal Society nor the Royal Asiatic Societies as solely British organizations as contrasted with an international entity -- not "either/or", but "and" .... No matter what you did or didn't do in the context you yourself created, you could not be wrong; but the transient pivot between here and here caused me to wonder why? Although I would not have removed the navbox which Rangoon11 added, this remains an inconsequential issue.

No need to pursue this further. I just wondered ...? --Tenmei (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that you thought the edits were helpful to you. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

JAMA

Hi Steve, good job on that one. I have tweaked it a bit here and there, hope you agree. One thing is the title of the article, I am sure it has to be moved, but I am unsure where to... First, if we keep the full title, it seems to me that "The" is an integral part of the title and the article should be moved to "The Journal of the American Medical Association". However, when I look at their website and the journal cover, I get the definite impression that, like BMJ, they feel they have outgrown their national roots and now just call the journal "JAMA", with the rest just as a subtitle. If that view is correct, the article should be moved to "JAMA". What do you think?

Another thing is "Continuing Education Opportunities for Physicians". The article says that this is another title for the journal, but I don't see that and it sounds more like a slogan to me. Can you have a look at that again? --Crusio (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. This particular article needed some work. You bring up a very interesting point pertaining to the title of the article. In the back of mind, I too had the thought that this article should be moved to "The Journal of the American Medical Association". So we are in agreement on that one. However, I did not notice that "JAMA" is by far, the most pronounced of the title, on the pages accessed throughout the web site (just try out the navigation bar on the top of the page). Therefore, based on your experience, and both our observation (in this matter) the article should probably be moved to "JAMA".

Pertaining to "Continuing Education Opportunities for Physicians", I did not directly add references supporting this claim. So your misunderstanding is my fault. Hence, I shall do so here, and in the article if necessary. It may not be necessary because I agree that this "sectionalternate title" sounds like a slogan. In any case, first, the references -

• WorldCat here, in the section entitled "Details" after "Libraries". You will also see another related title here.
• Library of Congress here you will see a bullet, 1/4 of the way down, entitled "Related titles". You will also see another related title here.
• NLM catalog here you will see a bullet entitled "Other titles". You will also see another related title here.
• National Library of Australia here, you will see a bullet entitled "Also Titled", just after "Other authors/contributors". You will also see other related titles here.

OK, so let me know what you think so far. It still does sound like a slogan. I can even link you to an issue (from 1987) with this as an actual section title.

By the way I still need to put a link in the infobox for the archives page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition, three of these references are already in the article, I just didn't think to use them as references for this part of the article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for those refs. Curious. I think it might be good to ask the opinion of a library expert: DGG. I'll post a link to this discussion on his talk to see what he thinks. BTW, the Australian record states that the current title is "JAMA" (with the rest as a subtitle) and lists "Journal of the American Medical Association" as a former title. --Crusio (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed that the references make a distinction between "Journal of the American Medical Association" and "The Journal of the American Medical Association". The second title probably includes JAMA somehow. The point is without the article "The" it is this journal, with a different ISSN published from 1883 to 1960. From 1961 on the official title includes the article "The". When JAMA became prevalent, I do not know. Not much of distinction between the old and new titles is there? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The current US practice is to do whatever the journal does, and to include the initial article if the journal uses it consistently, and Wikiproject Academic journals has adopted the rule of including the initial article. There are multiple possible complications, and an extensive body of rules and an even more extensive body of rule interpretations for dealing with them; I'd suggest we follow whatever LC does rather than deal with the complications ourselves. These are not the only possible rules, and cataloging codes used elsewhere or at earlier periods do it differently in a variety of ways. (In fact, the rules used for some special purposes in the US are slightly different from the LC rules.) The professional debates on these questions are very similar to the debates here on some details of the MOS, except that they are much more extensive and have gone on for over a century now. In the electronic period it does not much matter; for printed journals it does, because almost all medical and scientific libraries shelve journals by title, not by call number--the debates about that have gone on for a very long time also. Journals change titles frequently, , and the recent US library practice has been to consider it technically a new title if there is any change in the first few words or any significant change elsewhere. On the contrary, it has been the consistent practice here at Misplaced Pages not to needlessly increase the number of articles, and to not to make separate articles for each change of title. We have not been in existence long enough to decide whether to use the earliest, latest, or best known title. Different countries and periods have used every imaginable alternative. (One such alternative is to enter the journal under the name of the publishing body whenever possible). I'm not even going to mention here the considerations dealing with merges and splits of periodicals. I am prepared to defend or oppose any or all of these positions at any length required, for I need only use the arguments in the published debates on the subject in the many books and conferences dealing with the subject. And I know them well, for even the different branch libraries in Princeton use different rules. I was once responsible with a colleague for compiling the printed list of scientific journals, and it took a good deal of negotiation. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Larger-Dipole-FSS metamaterial-antenna-pattern.jpg

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, thanks for the heads up. I forgot that this was a non-free image. The image that I replaced it with is a totally different image here. What happened is, I chose a different image for the lead of the article entitled "Metamaterial antennas". Anyway, I will request speedy delete for this imaage, because I no longer intend to use it. Thanks for contacting me regarding this matter. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK as the author, I requested speedy deletion because it is now an orphan that will no longer be used (please see non-free image). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Categorization issues

Template:Categorization issues has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Discussion point from Wim Crusio's Talk Page

Hello Steve,

As per your comments in the change log, you did not like the discussion point that I posted in Win Crusio's talk page. I would consider would I posted as "Free Speech" and I think I raised some valid points. I think that I posted a good amount of data to support my views and I ask people to comment on what I had said and James Cantor was nice enough to made him view known. I you do not like what people say, then speak and let people hear what you have to say. Please do not remove the speech of others. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First, to see how "free speech" applies when editing Misplaced Pages, please see WP:FREE SPEECH. Free speech, per se, is not applicable to editing on Misplaced Pages. Second, on Misplaced Pages, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. This topic has satisfied general notability guidelines WP:GNG, and notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. Also, notability guidelines do not say to accuse an editor in good standing of sock puppetry. Hence, the argument pertaining to the size Crusio's biography article, and having sock puppets, whcn compared to nobel laurettes's articles, appers to be unrelated to the topic (which is Crusio's biography).

Furthermore, the argument is not based on reliable sources, is therefore WP:OR, or more precisely WP:SYN. This second point also contradicts Misplaced Pages's talk page guidelines, as well as simply being an off topic rant. According to talk page guidelines, use of talk pages are for staying on topic, and irrelevant discussions are subject to removal, and talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Based on the above, this argument does not discuss how to improve the article. In addition, I see this as a way of personally attacking wikipedia editor User:Crusio, especially when accusing him using sockpuppets - because of edits on another article, which User:Bondiveres does not agree with. See this discussion Regarding Changes to Dr. P.S. Timiras Wiki Pages.