User talk:Pete.delaney
Can you unblock my account. The two names was just a blunder on my part. I use 'piet' as a pen name on the internet to avoid identity theft. I had no malicious intent. I was just publishing a physics theory. See YouTube group QuiCycle.
August 2016[edit]
Hi Piet,
Good for you trying to put up a page about this on Wikipedia.
Yes, of course you are welcome to use our images.
Am currently snowed under marking resit exams. I now have as many of these as I used to get in the main exam.
Will try to make some time to look into this though. Have been thinking we need to get into spreading the ideas and appreciate your effort on this.
Regards, John.
Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of Hi Piet, I have found the original letters from LdB, but no copy of any transfer of copyright. I am quite sure that if I provide color images (color for the double loop) of the same pictures with slight differences, such as changing c by k (perhaps better, the wave moves in the wavevector direction), that everything will be good. I can try to ask LdB about the situation, but for that I need some time too. I did find the original glossies as well, wich may be scanned to provide high resolution and excellent contrast images
Cheers, Martinyour recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Electron internal structure— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm addressing the issues being brought up. I'm the author Pete Delaney
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Electron internal structure. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how the text of my page got whacked. It clearly wasn't intentional vandalism; I'll be more careful. I trully was trying to make a few constructive edits to address concerns that have reciently been brought up. Pete Delaney 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I responded here, where you also left a message. It looked like vandalism to me at a quick look from WP:Huggle. I probably ought to have looked more closely. Feel free to remove content here related to this, per WP:TPG. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Welcome!
|
A more personal welcome[edit]
Hi Pete, I'm the guy who posted that huge welcome template just above this. My name is MjolnirPants and if you have any questions you don't feel comfortable asking the community at large, you can post them to my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I am able.
You seem to be focused on editing one particular article; Electron internal structure. I see that you've edited the deletion template which has been placed on the page in response to the reason given for deletion. While your enthusiasm for this subject is appreciable and understandable, there are a few things you should be aware of. I'm going to summarize some of these things below, and just about anything you could want to know about Wikipedia is in the links in that welcome template, above. Again, feel free to leave me a message if you need any help, or have any questions.
You should know that your article is almost certainly going to be deleted. I know this might be upsetting to you, but there is a very good reason for this.
- The page describes what is known as a fringe theory. A fringe theory is a scientific, medical, political or philosophical theory that is held by only a few people, and is not considered to be a part of the mainstream. They are often presented as scientific theories, but usually aren't as formal and rigorous as a normal scientific theory. This isn't a death sentence for an article, however. We have articles on both legitimate fringe theories like Loop quantum gravity (which we usually don't even label as 'fringe'), and highly irrational ones, like the flat earth. However, we have a very strict policy concerning how we write about fringe theories here.
- Another problem with respect to your article getting deleted is that it's not very notable. While I'm sure it's quite fascinating to you, the fact is that not a lot of people have heard of it. This means not a lot of people are discussing it, and those who do are generally pretty close to it. This is a problem because without independent, reliable sources writing about this theory, we can't know if there are legitimate criticisms or major problems with the theory that need to be documented. Ideally, for a subject to be notable, we require that multiple, independent (meaning not connected to each other or to the originator of the subject), reliable (meaning we have good reasons to trust what they say) sources to have written about the subject.
- There are a few more problems with the article as it is written, but mostly they boil down to the fact that it breaks our rules about writing from a neutral point of view. This is a common problem with articles that don't meet our notability standards. If something is notable, then that means that trustworthy people with no connection to it have examined it and written about what is good and bad about it. This allows us to paint a balanced, neutral picture of the subject that is encyclopedic in nature. When the only source for an article about a fringe theory is the originator of the theory, then we only get to hear what the theory can explain. We never read about what the theory cannot explain.
- The last thing is that you seem to have put some of your own thoughts and analysis into the article. This is something we cannot do here on wikipedia. Original research is strictly off limits in all cases. The reason for this is because original thoughts or research that you have done cannot be verified by others. One of our goals here is to provably right on every claim we make. We can't do that if a claim in one of our articles is only based on a user who tested it out for him/herself. This problem is compounded when the claims are based on what a user has thought about a subject.
I hope you find this helpful. I hope that you decide to branch out and start editing other articles here, and become a valuable member of our little community. Once again, I want to invite you to ask me any questions you like. I will do everything in my power to help you get off to a good start here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again, Pete (or is it Piet?). I've restored my message back to it's original form. You should be aware that it's considered very rude to edit another person's comments, even when they appears on your own talk page. I'm not mad, I'm just letting you know that you should try to avoid doing that in the future. When you want to reply to someone, what you should do is click the little "edit" button next to the title of the section they commented in, then go one line below the end of their comment, insert one more colon (:) than you see at the beginning of their lines, and start typing.
- When you need a new paragraph, simply start a new line with the same number of colons you used in the first. If you click edit here, you can see how I did that with this post. You can also check out User:MjolnirPants/sandbox 1, where I've written up a brief demonstration of how conversations should go on Wikipedia.
- I'd like to ask you to first go back and check out those links in my message above (not the ones in the big template for now) and try to read at least the first couple paragraphs of each. Look through them for aspects you think might be useful in discussing this article. Then, try to respond here, by indenting each line of your response with two colons (::). Try to explain clearly why you believe the subject of this article is notable, in your own words (this is your talk page, not the article. Your personal thoughts are welcomed here), and using the links I provided you for some structure. They should give you a good idea of what you should say to make your case. When you feel comfortable talking to me using the usual formatting style, you can go back to the article's talk page and make your case there.
- One last thing. I could be wrong, but in case English is not your first language, you can go to the Local Embassy page, which is a place for non-native English speakers to find some help from others who speak their native language. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
My name is MjolnirPants and if you have any questions you don't feel comfortable asking the community at large, you can post them to my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I am able.
- Thanks.
I see that you've edited the deletion template which has been placed on the page in response to the reason given for deletion. While your enthusiasm for this subject is appreciable and understandable, there are a few things you should be aware of. I'm going to summarize some of these things below
- Ok. Yes I started discussing the Electron internal structure a few years ago with a quantum mechanic that I was hiking with.
- Not surprising you think the article will be deleted. How long did it take physicist to listen to Einstein? As I recall it was a long time till Dr. Plank noticed his paper and only when the top of the guild accepted it was he noticed. Similar for the theory that you should was your hands before delivering a baby. I wonder if out genetic make-up is to naturally reject non-mainstream idea. Many children’s story’s along that line of thought.
- Since Dr. Williamson has done such an in depth effort to answer a the question it seems worthy of visibility to the community. Some say the electron is a charge compressed into an infinitely small space. Others say it's a fuzzy ball of virtual photons buzzing around a infinitely small charge. Some say nothing can be smaller than the planks length. None of these theories seem to present a thorough explanation. Jphn's theory on the other hand is extremely well written, makes a lot of sense, is consistent with all know experiments, and no one has found a mistake. So why shouldn't it get equal visibility and attention in the culture, in our news papers, our encyclopedias, and university classes.
You should know that your article is almost certainly going to be deleted. I know this might be upsetting to you, but there is a very good reason for this.
- It won't upset me, just disappoint me. Suppose it will also disappoint Dr. Williamson a bit. He liked my attempting to present his work on Wikipedia.
- It's Like my trying to make the Linux kernel easy of other to learn and debug. Doesn’t go down well with the guild.
The page describes what is known as a fringe theory.
- I doubt John's work is 'fringe' as it based on the same math that created QED. Feynman used it. It's quite common. He has presented it in publications and conferences. It's going through peer review and currently no faults found. Not the fringe we see in TV; to be sure.
Another problem with respect to your article getting deleted is that it's not very notable.
- This problem has been fascinating to lots of physicist; Dirac, Einstein, Feynman. None of them is happy with the re-normalization hack/technique.
There are a few more problems with the article as it is written, but mostly they boil down to the fact that it breaks our rules about writing from a neutral point of view.
- My intent is to add some of the other points of view. I've read a few but I think the focus should at least be on the top two or three candidates.
- Like try to find the proof that an electron is an infinitely small point. How does that happen with pair production which has limited gamma ray energy?
- Compressing the charge to a point takes an infinite amount of energy. So my guess they really mean a small volume of the order of magnitude of the planks length. But is that consistent with the gamma ray energy. I doubt it. John's theory makes a lot more sense than others that I've read. In writing this article I will hopefully learn a lot more about both John's theory and that of others.
The last thing is that you seem to have put some of your own thoughts and analysis into the article. This is something we cannot do here on wikipedia.
- So can't others just delete something that I write that think is my own thoughts. You can't write a sentence without thought. I'm trying to be objective but that is always a point of debate. No?
I hope you find this helpful.
- Somewhat helpful, but I thing it would be helpful send some time writing the article and getting more exact complainants that just a generic tag.
- I think it would be useful to discuss the subject of the article and not the meta-data. More precise suggestions, less global gripes. No?
Hi again, Pete (or is it Piet?).
- Piet is just the German or Netherlands spelling of Pete.
- I didn't understand the need for the backdent. How does it differ from just dropping the indent?
- BTW is MjolnirPants a real name? Not sure how to pronounce it. Perhaps French and the s at the end isn't pronounced
I'd like to ask you to first go back and check out those links in my message above (not the ones in the big template for now) and try to read at least the first couple paragraphs of each.
- Is that what you were hoping for? Could you review Dr. Williamson papers to better understand at least one of the main points of this article?
- I've got his ok to add his diagrams from his papers.
- I was thinking of adding the Maxwells equations in their non-relativistic form and their expanded form.
- Any pointers on mapping mapping equations (8) through (15) of John's most comprehensive paper?
- See: Reference number 2: http://ffp14.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/DOCUMENTS/PREPRINTS/WILLIAMSON_John_preprint.pdf
- No, English actually is my first language, like Feynman English isn't my strong point. Pete.delaney (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again, Pete. I see you placed your responses in the middle of my comment. While I understand that you prefer to address my comments point by point, you've got to understand that doing things like this is considered extremely rude. It actually took me quite a bit of time to fix this. But you can see what I did: I placed your comments below mine (which indicates that they were made after mine), and indented exactly one level from mine (which indicates they were in response to mine). You'll notice I also quoted myself, to make sure your responses weren't taken out of context. I did this using the talk quotation template, which you can use by inserting {{tq|Quoted text here}}. Also notice how I used a bullet point (by replacing the final colon with an asterisk) to indicate each quote, but simply used indentation on your replies. This makes things easier to read, as once we encounter a new bullet point, we're on to the next topic. Now, I'm not going to respond to everything you said, because that's just going to make things harder. Instead, I'll respond to a few points, and then you can ask me again a few more of the questions I didn't get to before. Or you can ask new questions, I don't mind.
BTW is MjolnirPants a real name? Not sure how to pronounce it. Perhaps French and the s at the end isn't pronounced
- No, MjolnirPants is the handle I use on Wikipedia so I don't have to use my real name. It is a compound word, formed from Mjölnir, the name of Thor's hammer in Norse mythology and the word "pants". The first part is pronounced similar to "Mole Near", except there is a Y sound after the first letter. So it's something like "Meh Yole Near". The latter part is, of course, simply pronounced "pants".
I didn't understand the need for the backdent. How does it differ from just dropping the indent?
- I'm assuming you're referring to the outdent template ({{Outdent}}) when you say "backdent". The difference between them is that when you simply drop levels of indentation, you're indicating that you're replying to a comment further up in the thread. The outdent template indicates that you're simply collapsing the indent level, but still replying to the most recent comment.
Not surprising you think the article will be deleted. How long did it take physicist to listen to Einstein? As I recall it was a long time till Dr. Plank noticed his paper and only when the top of the guild accepted it was he noticed. Similar for the theory that you should was your hands before delivering a baby. I wonder if out genetic make-up is to naturally reject non-mainstream idea. Many children’s story’s along that line of thought.
- I have to tell you, Pete. This right here is what will be seen as ranting by just about anyone you meet here. You're asking rhetorical questions in an attempt to compare this particular individual to Einstein favorably. But none of us (not I, and not you, nor even Dr. Williamson) know what the future holds. It may well be that his work is born out and found to be as groundbreaking as Einstein's work was. But I think we can all agree that that's very unlikely. Most scientists will toil away in obscurity, to turn a phrase. Even if their work contributes to the mainstream paradigm in some important way, it's usually quite a minor way. Physics is, after all, an extremely complex subject. Comparing Dr. Williamson to Einstein will only serve to make people less likely to listen to you.
This problem has been fascinating to lots of physicist; Dirac, Einstein, Feynman. None of them is happy with the re-normalization hack/technique.
- I think I see what is happening here. You seem to be attempting to write an article about a subject in physics, not about the specific work of one particular group (or one particular scientist). If that is the case, then the problem with the article is one of balance: There is a mainstream scientific consensus that the electron has no internal structure, that it is a fundamental particle. In terms of of the standard model, this means the electron is a single 0-dimensional point, whereas in string theory, this means the electron is comprised of a single, 1-dimensional string. This is the mainstream scientific consensus, and no-where is this stated on the page, let alone given the weight it deserves.
- That's all I'm going to answer for now. I don't want either of us to get overwhelmed and lose track of what's being said. If you still need more answers, I'm happy to provide them, but let's stick to just 3 or 4 per exchange. That lets me give my full attention to each one as I'm responding, rather than having to just fire off a quick response so I can then move to the next one. Try to remember what I've told you about formatting, too. It really aids communication when we can all agree to the same formatting standards. If you want to know more, you can go Help:Using talk pages for more information about the standard formatting or, of course, you can ask me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've added material on the mainstream scientific consensus for the point electron theory. It seems to go back to Dirac and his Sea of Energy in empty space. I wonder if that includes all of the high energy photons traveling thru space. Anyway, there are lots of warts with his this theory, and I'm trying to produce both the positive and negative points of this theory. Do you know exactly what the point requirement was that appears to have been added by Dirac and worked around with re-normalization? I've been reading one of Dirac text books and a biography about him and haven't seen it mentioned there or elsewhere on wikipedia. My guess is that was needed for the Dirac Equation but so far I haven't seen the requirement required. Williamson theory's only wart is that it's not widely accepted yet. Do you see any issue on reading his papers?--Pete.delaney (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, actually I see a lot of issues. The problem is that this is not at all mainstream. I'm not saying it's wrong, because it might not be. It probably is, however. The major problem is that there's not a lot of support for it. For example, loop quantum gravity has dozens of well-respected physicists publishing on it full time, to the exclusion of any other work, and hundreds of physicists who will publish one or a few papers on it. Unless there's some major breakthrough, I don't see any way for this article to continue to exist. SO unfortunately, I had to nominate it for deletion. Now, I've written a note saying that I would prefer to merge some of the information here to our article about electrons. Honestly, I think having a (very) brief overview of Williamson's work in that article would improve it quite a bit. I would advise you to go with this option as well, though of course, you are free to say whatever you like.
- Allow me to offer you some technical advice on participating in an AfD process. You may discuss the article to your heart's content at that page, there is no requirement that you only speak once. That being said, when you want to cast your !vote, the accepted way to do it is to go to the bottom of the page, start your comment with one asterisk (*), which will make it a bullet point, then use three single-quotes to bold your specific suggestion (i.e. '''Delete''' or '''Redirect & merge'''). I'll post an example one below, so you can edit it and see how it's done. Again, I'm here if you have any questions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. In case you didn't see the link at the article, you can find the discussion page here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electron internal structure. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've added material on the mainstream scientific consensus for the point electron theory. It seems to go back to Dirac and his Sea of Energy in empty space. I wonder if that includes all of the high energy photons traveling thru space. Anyway, there are lots of warts with his this theory, and I'm trying to produce both the positive and negative points of this theory. Do you know exactly what the point requirement was that appears to have been added by Dirac and worked around with re-normalization? I've been reading one of Dirac text books and a biography about him and haven't seen it mentioned there or elsewhere on wikipedia. My guess is that was needed for the Dirac Equation but so far I haven't seen the requirement required. Williamson theory's only wart is that it's not widely accepted yet. Do you see any issue on reading his papers?--Pete.delaney (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Example AfD !vote[edit]
- Keep I've put a lot of time and effort into this article, it's not fair to delete it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: If you actually use that argument; that it's not fair because of the effort you put into it, you will get shot down. I'm just giving an example of how to format your comment. Please do not use that argument.
Hey Pete. I just wanted to give you another pointer. When you start a new line with one or more spaces, the wiki syntax interprets that as you wanting to format that text like code, using a monospaced font, inside a box. You should always use colons (:) to indent your lines. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
A more personal introduction[edit]
Hi MjolnirPants it appears to me that you seem to misunderstand my effort, it's not my theory about the internal structure of the electron but one being developed by a community of physics experts with Dr. Williamson having contributed the most to this important subject. You make it sound like this is only important to me, but you missed that this was the most important problem to many of our top scientist. That included Dirac, Einstein, and Feynman. So it seems misguided to think that understanding "what the electron is" is just a personal interest to me. Have you taken some time to read the work that Dr. Williamson has done? Want to help present this? It's going to take some time to learn how to write Maxwells equations on Wikiipedia.
The [Loop gravity]] article looks interesting and much more similar to this article than the myth of a flat earth.
I asked Dr. Williamson last evening for permission to use his images in this presentation and he said he appreciated by effort on Wikipedia snf though it was a good idea.
Begin email[edit]
Hi Piet,
Good for you trying to put up a page about this on Wikipedia.
Yes, of course you are welcome to use our images.
Am currently snowed under marking resit exams. I now have as many of these as I used to get in the main exam.
Will try to make some time to look into this though. Have been thinking we need to get into spreading the ideas and appreciate your effort on this.
Regards, John.
End email[edit]
I'll add some information on competing theories on what an electron is. Unfortunately most of them are now where as
--Pete.delaney (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Electron Toroidal Model.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Electron Toroidal Model.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've send mail to the Author, John Williamson, to verify a "Public Domain" Copyright. I've been looking at how to update it in preparation for Dr. Williamson's confirmation on the Copyright. --Pete.delaney (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- put {{OTRS-pending}} on it. BTW If you can get the academics to publish future papers (or even current ones) under open access (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) it would be greatky appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You uploaded, File:Electron Toroidal Model.png, where you either stated or implied that you had permission of a third party to upload it; or that evidence of such permission would be provided on request.
Wikipedia currently needs the permission to be explicit and proven at the time of upload.
Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which advises on how to confirm the permission you obtained from a third party.
It is also advisable to ask the third-party what source attribution they desire, as opposed to marking the image as having been "sent personally". Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Electron Mobious Strip Ribbon.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Electron Mobious Strip Ribbon.png, which you've attributed to John Williamson. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Dr. Williamson hasn't been able to provide copyright information even thought it's used in his published paper and is available in Google Images in many locations. I've removed the reference to Dr. Williamson images until compliance is possible.
- Dr. Van Der Mark, a co-author with Dr. Williamson, found no copy of his trasnfering the copyright to a third party, and therefore is likely the owner of the copyright. He is asking the third party, Louis de Broglie Foundation, and in the mean time is makeing new and better drawings. Here's the e-mail from Martin:
- Hi Piet, I have found the original letters from LdB, but no copy of any transfer of copyright. I am quite sure that if I provide color images (color for the double loop) of the same pictures with slight differences, such as changing c by k (perhaps better, the wave moves in the wavevector direction), that everything will be good. I can try to ask LdB about the situation, but for that I need some time too. I did find the original glossies as well, which may be scanned to provide high resolution and excellent contrast images. Cheers, Martin
- Please provide any concerns you might have with our effort to achieve 100% copyright compliance. --Pete.delaney (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You uploaded, File:Williamson Electron Spinnor Twisted Photon Strip.png, where you either stated or implied that you had permission of a third party to upload it; or that evidence of such permission would be provided on request.
Wikipedia currently needs the permission to be explicit and proven at the time of upload.
Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which advises on how to confirm the permission you obtained from a third party.
It is also advisable to ask the third-party what source attribution they desire, as opposed to marking the image as having been "sent personally".
- I do appreciate you were working on this :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Dr. Willamson created these photos himself, never used them in previous publications, and has granted them to the public domain. I've Cc: Wikipedia and received confirmation tickets (#2016081510002121, #2016081510004174). Perhaps the only thing missing is for Dr. Williamson to write explicit email that he has released these drawing to the public domain. From my email with him, and in the email sent to permissions-en it's 100% clear that he has just released these drawing to the public domain and wants them used on Wikipedia. He drew these himself and is the sole owner of them. Any more I can do?--Pete.delaney (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Tip: Sources[edit]
Hi. I just wanted to offer a tip. We don't care if something is true or not. We do have an article for Unicorn and we don't have articles on cutting edge science that may turn out true. As an encyclopedia, we summarize what's written in Reliable Sources. The way to support and keep an article is to show that other people find it Notable enough to have writen about it. You want to cite reliable sources who write about electron internal structure, and who are not affiliated with Williamson. Science journals publishing about it, books, magazines, newspapers etc. If there are alternate theories of internal structure it will help to include section(s) on them, with cited sources. The key is showing several good sources. Most other issues can be cleaned up later. Alsee (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Alsee. Dr. Williamson has mentioned their having many referenced to their work. I mentioned it in this discussion as I recall. Is this the right place to enumerate those references to their work? I haven't been able to find the exact reason the electron is thought to likely have no structure and/or is a charge at single point. Perhaps it was experimental but with a cloud of photons surrounding the electron I doubt that's a very good reason. Williamson worked on the election at the CERN LHC and says his theory is more consistent with experimental results at CERN. I think I read that the point-theory started with Dirac but reading his book, and book about him, I haven't see the reason. I'll ask Dr. Williamson to send me references to articles that refer to their work. He's rather busy, including a new paper or two that him and Martin are preparing to a very prestigious publication. Perhaps Stephan's recent detailed publication of the math of a Real Clifford/Dirac Algebra might be part of the foundation for that paper. Stephan's work is very impressive to me, it's difficult and I've sent a copy to a Quantum Mechanic friend of mine for his opinion as well as my University professor, who's the best mathematician I've ever worked with. He got his EE ScD from MIT when he was in his early 20's. In the mean time I thought I'd flesh out this article with as much as I can flesh out on the subject for other theories like the current Copenhagen interpretation of QED, string theory, and other theories that I've looked at but doubt they have any where as good of a presentation as the work of Willianson et. al. I've also started to discuss this with a friend of mine that has his PhD in physics. Hopefully I can get him to help write this wiki page. --Pete.delaney (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- You keep making the mistake of trying to talk about physics. Everyone is ignoring it. We deal with articles. Articles contain text and references. We don't care what the topic is. It could just as well be an article on Pudding. Right now the deletion discussion is basically unanimous to delete the article. The article will be deleted in two days.
- The only way you *might* be able to save the article is if you very quickly add new <ref>sources</ref>. At a minimum you need to post them to the deletion discussion. See my previous post for what sort of sources you need. Alsee (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've asked Williamson et. al. for the references to articles referencing their work as you requested. I'll ask again. In the mean time I've talked to my University Professor and thought I focus on those changes and other talking about the other models for the electron. There are quit a few. --Pete.delaney (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Dr. Williamson's and Dr. Van Der Mark's 1st paper "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" was in fact cited 46 times (including self-references), see: [1] --Pete.delaney (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Dr. Williamson's 2014 paper [2] comes up with 10 citations [3] on Google Scholar.--Pete.delaney (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Dr. Williamson's latest paper "On the nature of the photon and the electron"[4] already comes up with three citations, but one is by John and the other by Martin, so I suppose it's only fair to count the one article by Atkins, Gauther et. al. but even that paper was contributed to by Martin and John. --Pete.delaney (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Williamson Electron Spinnor Twisted Photon Strip.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Williamson Electron Spinnor Twisted Photon Strip.png, which you've attributed to Dr. John Williamson. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
A note on "canvassing"[edit]
Hi Pete. It looks like User:MjolnirPants has given you some good advice on how to work effectively in Wikipedia. I'd like to bring up another point for you to be aware of.
Over the last few days some brand-new editors have shown up to enter "Keep" votes for the Electron internal structure article as their first and only edits. It seems odd that brand-new users would jump immediately into one of Wikipedia's internal procedural discussions. This raises a concern that these editors could have been approached off-Wikipedia to help with keeping the article.
Such "off-Wiki canvassing" is very much to be avoided. WP:CANVASSING gives an overview of points to take into account when notifying other people about discussions that influence Wikipedia. The main issue here is transparency: limited and highly-visible notifications on-Wikipedia where everybody can see them usually is OK, but emailing folks off-site isn't transparent.
If you or someone else close to the subject has emailed other people about adding their votes it would be a really good idea not to do that any more. It's possible to get into some very hot water over this issue.
Wikipedia doesn't work quite like any other web site. Negotiating its ways of working sometimes can feel like tiptoeing through a minefield. If you have any questions about things by all means please approach me or another experienced user. Not that I know everything, but I've been around here for 10 years or so without getting kicked off. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Un block my account please[edit]
Pete.delaney (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here it was a simple mistake, I use piet as a pen name on the internet to avoid identity theft. I wasn't being malicious.
Decline reason:
Procedural close, don't open more than one request at a time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Pete.delaney (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Please Unblock my account[edit]
Pete.delaney (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was just trying to talk about Dr John Williamson work, see QuiCycle stuff on the internet
Decline reason:
This does not address the reason for your block at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Pete.delaney (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- ^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&sciodt=0,5&cites=13219624178901164014&scipsc=
- ^ http://ffp14.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/DOCUMENTS/PREPRINTS/WILLIAMSON_John_preprint.pdf
- ^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22A+new+theory+of+light+and+matter%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
- ^ http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf