User talk:Joke137/Archive 2

Archive: 1

Physical cosmology

Sorry, I just never heard of it being referred to as that, and most ambiguous subjects go under "Subjectname (field)". If you really want to change back, here are my contributions - I haven't edited many, just revert them. If you agree with the change, here is list of redirects. I was just working my way down the list. Infinity0 ^talk 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you decide, just drop me a note on my talk to inform me. If you decide to go ahead with the change, I'll be happy to help fix the redirects. Infinity0 ^talk 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Quarl

Hi Joke, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 12:18Z

OI!

yea, you're right... it's the stupid external link system combined with repeated footnote entries... Sasquatch t|c 03:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology

What a mess! I see someone (Eric Lerner?) put this up for mediation. Please let me know if I can contribute usefully to that. ---CH 23:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voting!

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

rƒa · ɐƒɹ

Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible common interest

I see that you chose Rush D. Holt Jr. as a sample congressmen in the discussion of honorifics. Are you by any chance from the New Jersey 12th gerrymander? ;-> If you prefer to discuss this privately, I have reregistered my e-mail, so it should work. Septentrionalis 16:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I sent you an email but I'm not sure if it worked. Did you receive it? –Joke 18:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Equivalence Principle changes

Hello. I just read your note in my page. I do not remember when I made the changes to equivalence principle (sometimes I forget to sign in when I make changes or so). But I remember, I got the idea for the changes from a paper I was reading, where the euivalence principle is discussed with relative detail, for describing the place of scalar field in modern physics and so. I don´t have it here but it is a paper of Milgrom, I think (the one of MOND). Let me check the things...

What were you telling about some ideas? What would I have to do? Nbez 22:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)N.M.B.R.

To be sincere, I do not remember well. Maybe it was not Milgrom. If it is important,I´ll check well...Nbez 22:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne

Yeah, pretty impressive blowout in the end. I suspected for a long time that this was his motivation (he had all sorts of little signs) and suspected that before he got voted off he would do something revealing (since he clearly had no desire to try and argue his case), but didn't expect it quite this soon. The sooner, the better, in my mind. --Fastfission 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just now going through and trying to remove the damage he's done to various minor articles. I'll leave David Hilbert, Henri Poincaré and Albert Einstein to their usual editors, though. –Joke 16:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Should it just be deleted? As in having the page removed. Seeing how he's about to be banned and all. Delta 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. if they are the same length they shouldn't cancel (if not, the shortest one goes first), but I'll unblock and reblock just to make sure. As to whether it's a losing battle, I doubt it. I don't think he has unlimited access to IPs, and simply reverting him from here on out will remove a key element to the perpetuation of his nonsense: a response. He'll give up eventually, since he is getting no interaction out of it. --Fastfission 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another date links proposal

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 11:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Typeset_writing_examples

I have uploaded, and propose supporting the original, unmodified scan - historical significance. If you agree, please feel free to re-consider your vote. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I convey my greetings to you on my completion of one year as a wikipedian. Come here, we shall have a party tonight. The biggest laddus have been ordered. --Bhadani 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Joke137, and thank you for taking time to vote on my RfA. I understand that my last 6000+ edits were not sufficient to convince you that edits like some of my early ones would never be repeated again, but I sincerely hope that at some point I would be able to convince you of my transformation. Looking forward to working with you in future. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

	My RfA
	Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)	→AzaToth 09:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Joke137/Archive 2, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 07:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 12:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Birkhoff's theorem

Hi, Joke, you may be right about Rudolph Langer, since I don't know the original citation, just the book, but can you find a reference and add this information to Birkhoff's theorem (relativity) before reverting the disambig page? TIA ---CH 01:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's rewrite large scale structure

Would you like to help rewrite large-scale structure of the cosmos? I've begund the process. Let me know or just show up and help. In particular, your referencing abilities would be useful. --ScienceApologist 20:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has been on my list of things to do for a while. I am away from a computer for a few days starting this weekend, but will help out after that. –Joke 01:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Indulge. :)

Dear Joke137/Archive 2,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Rosenbergs

I noticed you edited a section on the Rosenbergs (citing pleonasm) and then reverted yourself. I was wondering why, because I find that passage problematic on a number of levels.--Jack Upland 08:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the passage is problematic. I reverted myself because fixing it wasn't as simple as it looked, and I was doing other things at the time. –Joke 13:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

Hi, Joke, I am seeking comments from Ph.D. physicists in Talk:Nikola Tesla. Was he great inventor/engineer, as I claim, or a great physicist/scientist, as C-c-c-c claims? TIA ---CH 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Joke. Please note that you just reverted to a version where a wealth of information was randomly deleted. Please make any changes to the Tesla article on the version prior to the long run of seeming vandalism committed recently. The version you reverted to includes the addition of weird sentences like "When Edison was a very old man and close to death, he said his biggest mistake was that he never respected Nikola Tesla or his work." and farfetched POVs like a change from "Tesla's theory is ignored by some researchers (and mainly disregarded by physicists)." to "disregarded by nearly all researchers" (which is untrue). If you find any spelling errors or grammar errors in the original - feel free to change that. You can also remove irrelevant information (like Tesla's cat and such) Just don't revert to a version that is missing much sourced information. Thanks. 72.144.60.85 18:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help me understand why you are constantly reverting back. At this point I see no other reason except to "win" this revert war we're having. 72.144.60.85 19:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your rewrite of VSL.

personally, the only argument that i really understood was Duff's (i've also been in contact with him a couple of times about this stuff) and the Barrow's quote (that oddly might have changed since the book, as per an email i have from him). to me, that dimensionful/dimensionless quantity point should settle it (but what do i know, i'm just an electrical engineer with an interest in some of this). but, really, thanks for cleaning up that mess. would you be interested in weighing in on what the primary title should be of Gravitomagnetism or Gravitoelectromagnetism? r b-j 03:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Patterns of bad edits and what to do about them

Hi, Joke, can you drop by my user talk page? User:ObsidianOrder and User:Omegatron are very upset and Obsidian is threatening to ArbCom me. ---CH 21:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Astrophysical plasmas

I vaguely recall you creating the article on Astrophysical plasmas as a means to described the "standard" view of plasmas in astronomy. Mindful not to fill it with with some of the more speculative stuff on Alfvén's cosmic plamsas, I created an article on his "Plasma Universe". There is now discussion (in Talk:Astrophysical_plasma) about merging the two articles, and you may wish to give your two cents worth. --Iantresman 17:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Self creation cosmology up for deletion

FYI, the article Self creation cosmology, in which you appear to have had an interest, has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self creation cosmology. --Lambiam^Talk 22:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi I'm Marc User:(Melinus):

I have not used Wikipedia for several months now and when I tied to spead a wiki love (smiley face) on someone web page it saidd I was blocked by you. I suspect it was by accident as I have made no edits in months. Please look into it and remove the block. --merlinus 22:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Ps It seems to work here but not on certain sites

It should be OK now. See Wikipedia:Autoblock to understand what happened. –Joke 23:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arthur Rubin

Thanks - don't know what I did there! Shouldn't edit at this time of night obviously. Dlyons493 Talk 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't your edit! –Joke 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rat-baiting

You might want to participate in this vote:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rat-baiting

Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what kind of argument I have insinuated myself into, but the nomination of that article was absurd. –Joke 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I recalled you entered the book citation into the article, so you understood that the article is correct. Take care SirIsaacBrock 02:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lion Baiting Tags

You removed all of the dispute tags from Lion-Baiting. Do you believe that the section which reads "Antiquity has examples of the eternal dream of man's faithful companion..." is written in the proper encyclopedic tone? Do you believe that each and every one of the multiple anecdotes are appropriate for the article? Do you believe that I am disputing the above statements? If you do, please reinsert the tags and engage in discussion on the talk page of the article in question. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't think the article is a particularly good example of Wikipedia. It needs to be cleaned up, the quotes need to be reduced in length, the tone needs to be improved. I just saw the RfC against WritersCramp and, I agree, it doesn't look pretty. But it looks to me like you are slapping an excessive number of tags on the pet articles of one editor not because you would genuinely like to see them improved, but because you are trying to make a point that you are annoyed. I don't think this is acceptable, particularly without detailed talk page comments stating exactly what changes you would like to see in the article.

If you put an article up for deletion, that should be enough. It is up for deletion and it goes without saying that you think there are problems with it. You don't need to add a pile of tags to reinforce your point. –Joke 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

False String History

That history of how Gabriele Veneziano discovored strong nuclear force/string history is false, and a rumor. I quote Gabriele Veneziano

i acationaly see writing in books that this model was invented by chance or was found in a math book. makes me feel pretty bad

do not dishonor him, by having false information about his hard work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.208.244.136 (talk • contribs) on 18:25, 15 July 2006.

The text in the article makes no such insinuation. Besides, where are you quoting from? –Joke 00:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't Marymount make the cut

Is there an objective standard? US News? Bona Fides 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no objective standard, but we are trying to keep the article relatively concise. At one time, people were adding virtually every public and private high school in NYC. As I see things, including CUNY, NYU and Columbia is obvious, along with some specialized schools like Julliard, Rockefeller University, and some design schools. The Cooper Union, Fordham, Yeshiva and the New School are less clear cut – I included each of them because there was something interesting and distinctive that could be said of them. For Pace University and Marymount, it really seems like the only thing being said is that they're good schools and X program or Y program are pretty good, which wouldn't be that interesting, I think, for a reader unfamiliar with New York City. –Joke 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

NYC gov't article

Hello Joke - I've admired your editing efforts on the New York City page, even though I returned a few of your trimmings under government back into the article. This led me to focus on the Government of New York City article, which was in abysmal shape. After an entire overhaul it could use a pair of sharp, fresh eyes. When you get a chance, take a look. Thanks. Wv235 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just read your comments on the main NYC talk page regarding NYC rent control and Con Ed power generation. These are certainly worth mentioning. Would the rent control scheme fit into the Government of New York City page? And would the power generation issues fit in the Geography and environment of New York City page? BTW, this last article is full of fascinating info and is ripe to be split into two articles, one on NYC geography and one on the city's environment. Wv235 01:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, Joke, you might be interested in this MfD. ---CH 00:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Deceleration parameter

Joke -

Would you mind taking a look at deceleration parameter? It is a new stub article, and I am in an ongoing dispute with its creator over its content. The person is intent on being expository, and IMO is putting forawrd eqautions and mentioning phenomena but failing to explain how or why they are relevatnt to the topic. --EMS | Talk 00:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)