User talk:FyzixFighter/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, FyzixFighter/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy ^(talk) 21:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism article

The section on "Mormonism and Christianity" is deficient in many ways, particularly in its giving very limited reasons on why most Christians who have really studied Mormonism don't consider it Christian. The "plurality of gods" and "god/man" doctrines are major ways in which Mormonism differs from Christianity -- and the article ought to say so. That it's covered in greater depth elsewhere should not preclude its being included in a general overview article like this one. The pro-Mormon POV is pretty overt; could we have some balance? Thanks! RossweisseSTL (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

References for Joseph Smith, Jr. article

You may want to talk with User:Trödel, it seems like he was pretty active there. Another great resource, and I suspect has the longest history, would be User:Visorstuff. He is not only learned, but is great to work with; a depth of knowledge. Contact both of them and you will find your answers. Good Luck. Storm Rider 06:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Maybe when I've got a bit more time, and after the tempest of rhetoric has died down I'll devote more time and contact them. I noticed you took out the section on your talk page where I had placed some comments - hence me responding here. In the chance that you do look over here I hope you didn't mean to include me in the trolling comment. If you did, I'm sorry that my questions came across as such - it was never my intention to be inflammatory or annoying. --FyzixFighter 09:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read this, but it has been months since you made it; I apologize. I can assure you that you would never have been included in any kind of trolling accussation. I have always appreciated your level headed comments. Cheers! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joseph Smith, Jr., and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Dispute at anti-Mormon

In order to gain a consensus concerning the issue at anti-Mormon, would you please comment here? --uriah923^(talk) 04:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Temrec.png

Your imput was given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems regarding the image Temrec.png. The image is currently up for deletion, and thought you'd like to wiegh in your opinion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_December_5#Image:Temrec.png_.28talk_.7C_delete.29. Cheers. -Visorstuff 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism and Jesus as extra-terrestrial from Pleiades star cluster

I am in the process of addressing your referencing concerns on Talk:Mormonism --24.57.157.81 03:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Moses

Thanks for the extra reverts. I didn't even bother looking, though I probably should have. The Krunk 04:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "LDS Scriptures = pseudepigrapha" crusader

Hi FyzixFighter -

Our "pseudepigrapha" crusader is still at it - thanks for your help with him thus far. I commented on it at User_talk:Val42#Re._LDS_Scriptures_.3D_.22pseudepigrapha.22, in case you would also like to comment. Thanks. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 18:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to the article Book of Mormon

Hello FyzixFighter:

I'm putting this note here because I saw your name in the edit history of the Book of Mormon article. There have been two "batches" of changes to the article recently. As I explained in the Talk, I reversed these changes, not because of the substance of the changes but because of the "process". Talk:Book of Mormon#Reversal of Changes

I'm hoping you and others will look at the substance of these changes. I don't want the people who made the changes to think their efforts were reversed and then simply ignored. (And I'm not able to comment seriously on the proposed changes.)

The two batches of changes I'm referring to are the ones made on December 15 by 24.2.75.193, and on December 17 by DJ Clayworth. (Because the changes were reversed, the best place to see them is through the article history.)

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You might like to impress upon Wanderer57 not to reverse changes without cause. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted your edit

I reverted your last edit on the Criticism of Mormonism page - I would like to discuss though in order to avoid an edit war. Please review and let me know what you think. Descartes1979 (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Persons in the Book of Mormon and List of Book of Mormon people. You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon figures

I saw that you were undoing a bunch of my recent edits - just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. The reason why I started adding the phrase, "The historicity of <name> is not generally accepted by non-Mormon historians..." is because I saw it on some of the more major Book of Mormon figures such as the Nephi article, and the Nephites article - and I was trying to make them all consistent. If everyone agrees to a different standard for consistency I am on board for whatever.

Also, why are you removing the category Book of Mormon people?

In general, these articles are a mess and need a lot of cleanup - you may have already seen that I have been cleaning up the List of Book of Mormon people article, and the links and circular redirects and other problems there.

Let me know your thoughts, and maybe we can tag team this effort.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I was reverting the historicity remark was actually based in part on a previous discussion I was having with user:Salimfadhley over on Talk:Samuel the Lamanite, who I believe was one who originally added these statements. A standard was never agreed upon back then - User:Val42 tried to get some comment over on WP:LDS but no one responded. From looking at how other religious figures are handled from religious text like the Old Testament, such as those from Genesis or involved in the Exodus (both which have similar historicity issues as the BoM - look at most of the articles on the patriarchs b/n Adam and Noah), the standard appears to be to simply state "According to <religious text>...". Additional comments about historicity are usually only mentioned when specific to that subject, which is why I do think it's appropriate to have a historicity comment on the Nephite and Lamanite. When I recently sought input over on the village pump and WP:RELIGION, the responses (though few - two in fact) seems to agree that the pattern ("According to...") in the other religious figures articles is sufficient. It would definitely be worth getting some more input though.

As for the categorization, some of those were already in Category:Book of Mormon prophets which is a subcategory of Category:Book of Mormon people. Usually, articles need not appear in parent categories if they are already in the subcategory - there are exceptions, though I don't think these pages would qualify as such.

Oh, and I totally agree that a number of these articles are mess. The biggest problem I saw was the need for an expanded lead - IMO, in many cases the first paragraph/section, especially on the shorter articles, should be merged into the lead. I was also surprised that some of those articles even exist while other more notable (in terms of LDS culture and theology) don't have articles, like Hagoth. I think that's what for me makes for a more interesting article, not the story itself, but how the story has entered into the mormon mindset, culture, and teachings. I wouldn't mind tag-teaming, though I've got comps/quals coming up in about a week so really should be studying, but I might be able to throw in some effort in the meantime when my neurons glaze over from studying - curse you WP for making it so easy to distract myself from my studies! --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

FyzixFighter, there are no physics textbooks which say that centrifugal force is a term which applies to two different forces.

Secondly, centrifugal force is about the force which occurs in the centrifuge. It is about a force that can invoke Archimedes' principle.

It is not all about stationary objects as viewed from rotating frames of reference.

There are two distinct effects, but these are not the two that the article refers to.

You need to read the edits before you revert. The existing version is most unsatisfactory as it merely confuses the entire issue. David Tombe (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough

I have, Solomon-like, decided what the title of the thread is going to be. Please do not change the title of the thread again. You are disruptively edit warring. --barneca (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I apologize - my emotions got the better of me and I made a poor choice to continue that edit warring. However, does this mean that an administrator will now look into the original incident report of wikistalking? --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Situation reviewed. --barneca (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits on the LDS article

I saw you didn't like my edits on the main LDS article. I moved the discussion to the talk page - please weigh in on my proposal and help me understand your thoughts on why my edits are not acceptable. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a small thank you for your recent edits re: JSJr. NPOV is all about verifiable sources, no matter what they reveal - this recent stuff involves paragraph after paragraph of hearsay, which of course lessens the credibility of what everyone has done collectively. Best, A Sniper (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Informal Mediation Requested: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.

FYI. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Centrifugal force (planar motion)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Centrifugal force (planar motion), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrifugal force (planar motion). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

FyzixFighter, if you can give me the title of the chapter that your page 176 is on, I might be able to find the equivalent page in my 1980 edition. It would also be very interesting to know which edition you are using and who wrote the preface. Your quote from page 176 contradicts itself by referring back to the very section 3.3 which attributes the cause to centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The 2002 edition is the 3rd edition - preface written by Herbert Goldstein, Charles P. Poole, John L. Safko. Page 176 is in section 4.10 "The Criolis effect" in chapter 4 "The Kinematics of Rigid Body Motion". The reference back to section 3.3 is probably related to the part that also discusses angular momentum/effective potential energy there, and not the 1-D equivalent force equation:

By Eq. (3.15) the motion of the particle is r is that of a one dimensional problem with a fictitious potential energy: $V=V'+{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {l^{2}}{mr^{2}}}$

Eq. 3.15 is the conservation of energy equation with the theta-dot terms in the kinetic energy expressed in terms of l, the angular momentum and previously shown conserved quantity. That angular momentum is equivalent to centrifugal force is your own original synthesis. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, I didn't say that angular momentum was equivalent to centrifugal force. I said that the angular momentum explanation for why the planets stay up is equivalent to the centrifugal force explanation. Angular momentum gives rise to centrifugal force.

By the way, the quote in the 2002 edition is considerably amended from the one in the 1980 edition. You can see the older version on the centrifugal force talk page. David Tombe (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre PR

I note you've reversed several edits to the MMM Mormon PR page, particularly related to the destruction of the rock cairn, Governor Leavitt's order to re-inter the remains, and other objective, referenced information, claiming it's POV. Do you have a reference to support the assertion that "vandals" demolished the monument, or that it wasn't first done in the presence of Brigham Young? Seems to me that eliminating a documented report is inappropriate, and changing references to "some sources" is legitimate only if you have a competing reference. Otherwise, it appears that you're editing to support your own point of view.

If you have references that dispute the report that Brigham Young officiated at the 1861 destruction of the monument, why not present them, and let the article text incorporate them in a fair way?

If you have an argument for deleting the relevant, sourced reference to re-internment of the remains prior to completion of analysis, why not discuss it before deleting other peoples' work?

76.173.96.129 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Radial equation

FyzixFighter, I'll finish my reply here. Nobody was actually doubting that the planetary orbtial situation was equivalent to the co-rotating frame. That point had already been agreed. The argument was that you don't actually need to involve frames of reference at all, since the angular velocity belongs to the planet. Goldstein provided a source which treated the Kepler problem in the absence of any mention of rotating frames of reference, the point being that centrifugal force is a topic which in general doesn't have to be considered within the restricted context of rotating frames of reference. The main thrust of the debate was on the radial equation, A = B + C Everybody was in agreemnet that C is centripetal force. But the argument went,

A is not an acceleration.

OK then, call it Peter. But when circular motion occurs, Peter will be zero. Hence, for circular motion, we have,

0 = B + C

Then they would say, 'but B is only centrifugal force in the rotating frame'.

OK then, call it Billy in the inertial frame, but nevertheless, circular motion cannot take place on the basis of C alone. Because if you get rid of Billy, then Alfred comes back again and so we don't have circular motion.

And by the way, I did look at your reference. He was quite wrong when he said that centripetal force disappears in the co-rotating frame. Centripetal force does not disappear in the co-rotating frame. David Tombe (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God

I have changed your edit and removed the word Christian from the nontrinitarian paragraph. Though it is indeed correct, the entire section is about Christianity (which should reasonably be enough to settle the entire debate anyway), and it seems there's no advantage in labouring the point, in view of the fact that even this concession will probably still be disputed by some of the editors who seem to have significant bias against identifying nontrinitarians as Christian at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as the "Most" at the beginning of the first paragraph remains, this is sufficient for me. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Stratton book

FyzixFighter, can you please go to the talk page on Faraday's law and discuss this matter. It is crucial as regards relating the two aspects of electromagnetic induction. We could perhaps find a better way of expressing the point. David Tombe (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, I managed to get a look at Stratton. I can't find anything that even remotely resembles the quote which I had purported to have been in Stratton. I was obviously misinformed by a secondary source. In section 23 of chapter 1 there was some related stuff, but it was quite distinct from the point that I was making.

The proof in question appears in a January 1984 paper written by myself, and published in a magazine called the Toth-Maatian Review. I was quite surprised when I read about Stratton in a recently published paper, and that a line which they quoted as being in Stratton, 1941, was an identical proof to what I had published in the Toth-Matian Review in 1984.

So you are correct that I misrepresented Stratton, and I apologize for doing so. But I was misinformed by a recently published article, and I am now investigating the matter. I have written to the authors in order to get them to clarify the reference. The proof in question is original research, but in many respects it's already there in front of us, in that the total time derivative version of Faraday's law contains both the partial time derivative version as per the modern Maxwell's equations, and the vXB term which appeared in Maxwell's original papers. David Tombe (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you still have access to the book, check Chapter 5 - problem 23, which is what I presume your secondary source was referring to. It's a problem though, so drawing extreme conclusions about what Stratton was saying is difficult. However, I still don't think this supports your argument but rather shows when the Maxwell-Faraday equation and the Lorentz force law are combined, that in the frame of the moving charge (where v=0), the curl of the electric field reduces to the full time derivative of the magnetic field (which is expected when dB/dt is expanded in terms of the partial derivatives, v=0 kills all but the ∂B/∂t term). Jackson, on pages 209-211 (in the 3rd edition), does a more complete derivation and explanation of what the problem is trying to teach as I understand it. I think most physicist would agree that the equation in question in Maxwell's original papers is simply the combination of the Maxwell-Faraday equation and the Lorentz force law, with E being understood as a "total measured electromotive force" including both the induced EMF (both tranformer and motional) and the electromotive force due to an already present electric field. Jackson was an interesting read for me on this topic; he is very explicit in stating that E and B in the M-F equation are defined to be in the same frame, and that when the equation is transformed to another inertial frame such that the conductor is moving, it takes the form that Maxwell original wrote, so I don't really see any vast coverup or hinky physics/math going on. Anyways, cheers. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, Thanks. That's interesting because the guys that quoted the Stratton reference were not in full approval of Stratton's slant on the issue. They were referring to it in a slightly derogatory tone. They had their own reasons for wanting to use total time derivatives in Maxwell's equations. But I instantly noticed that the quote from Stratton was mathematically identical to what I had published in 1984, whether or not the physical interpretation was the same. My attitude is simply that the flux rule with its total time derivative, incorporates both the partial time derivative, which is the Maxwell-Faraday law (terminology as per wikipedia) plus the vXB effect.

I'm sure you are aware that Maxwell didn't talk about charge. His electromotive force term is therefore not strictly identical to the modern electric field E, but it is close enough for the purposes of illustrating the link between the two aspects of EM induction in question. Theoretically we can write E = vXB. It's not a format which is in common use, but if we take the curl of E = vXB -(partial)dA/dt, we get -dB/dt. As to whether my interpretation is the same as Stratton's, well my interpretation would be that v is the velocity of a charged particle relative to Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices. So if a particle is at rest in that medium, v=0, and so Faraday's total derivative law reduces to the partial derivative Maxwell-Faraday law. Regarding the issue of cover up, the thing is, that this very simple classical approach totally undermines any need for the more complex relativistic approaches which are supposed to deal with a problem which doesn't really exist when we look at it all as per Maxwell's approach. I'll have a look at that Jackson reference too.

I still think that the debate going on at Faraday's law, regarding the Feynman quote and the issue of the two aspects, can best be illustrated by that analysis above. The problem of course is legitimacy over the question of sources.

Steve, doesn't like using the term 'Faraday's law' for the flux rule, but he acknowledges that many textbooks do. I think that can all be cleared up in an appendix of terminologies. Too many debates get stifled due to terminological tripwires. David Tombe (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the meaning of v. If I'm recalling Jackson's derivation correctly (sorry, don't have the text with me at the moment), it seem irrelevant what v is relative to; assuming a classical Galilean invariance is enough to say that v is the velocity of the conductor within the frame where E and B are measured, ie there is no need for an absolute frame. It's hard to know if Maxwell meant his v to be in reference to the molecular vortices or not, since by 1864 he reformulates his theory without any specific mechanism - using Lagrange's method to get around not knowing internal connections involved.

I'd also be careful to note that while Maxwell uses molecular vortices as a model to explain electromagnetic phenomena, he falls short of saying that the molecular vortices physically cause the phenomena. In other words, he uses the model of molecular vortices (and tiny idle wheels between the vortices) as a mode of connection which is mechanically conceivable, but does not put it forward as the true mechanism for the connection existing in nature; it's an analogy that explains electromagnetism, but doesn't purport to be physical reality. So I wouldn't say his 1861 paper gives two separate "physical" explanations for induction, but that the model/analogy has separate mechanisms for the two phenomena. Subtle I know, but IMO significant as Maxwell himself made the distinction.

If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend "Electrodynamics from Ampere to Einstein" by Olivier Darrigol, which looks to be a pretty exhaustive history of EM theory. I'm currently working my way through it and have found it quite enlightening. You also might find Ivan Tolstoy's biography of Maxwell, which I've only skimmed, but appeared to do a pretty good job of showing the evolution of Maxwell's ideas. --FyzixFighter (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, Thanks for that information. I wouldn't actually have been planning to put my own interpretation of the meaning of v into the article. It was more just a case of wanting to put the maths proof in, and leaving it for readers to make up their own minds as to what it meant.

As regards Maxwell and EM induction, there is a long section in the latter half of part II of his 1861 paper where he gives a detailed explanation of each of the two aspects in terms of those molecular vortices. The moving wire explanation is easy enough to follow. In a magnetic field, the vortices will be aligned. The wire will move in the equatorial plane of the vortices. The vortices will not go through the wire. They will go around the wire. The pressure in front of the motion will contract the vortices, whereas the rarefaction behind the wire will expand them. A kind of Kepler's second law comes into play in which the contraction pressure causes an angular acceleration in the vortices in front of the wire and an angular deceleration in the vortices behind the wire. This vortex gradient gives rise to a flow of aether along the wire at right angles to the direction of motion of the wire. The right angle deflection is no doubt tied up with the Coriolis force that compliments the angular acceleration as per Kepler's second law, except that it's Faraday's law because the angular momentum is not being conserved when the wire is being pushed through the field. That's where Lenz's law and work done comes into it. At any rate we get the Coriolis vXH coming into play, with H being the vorticity of the molecular vortices.

The time varying aspect is more about a wave of angular acceleration being transmitted as EM radiation and discharged at right angles into a wire. Hence it is the same effect. But it is formulated using the other side of the Kepler's second law coin. It is formulated using the angular force -(partial)dA/dt aspect. Where A is aether field momentum and curl A = B.

We can't really put all that in the article, but it can be noted legitimately that Maxwell did deal with this exact problem. If challenged, a few quotes can be produced.

Maxwell's weakness in my opinion was that he didn't specify the sources and sinks in his vortices. His electric particle idea came late, in part II. He didn't have those particles in his hydrodynamics section at part I. Hence he lost the full significance of the generation of charge under pressure, that comes out of those vortices when tangential force is applied. And he gave up. And as you rightly point out, Lagrangian is a fudge which ignores cause. It balances out energy. But coservation of energy is only an irrotational phenomenon. We lose all the information on the tangential forces, such as Coriolis force.

So we see these tangential terms vXH + (partial)dA/dt in Faraday's law and Kepler's second law. The latter concerns conservation of angular momentum, whereas the former is rate of change of angular momentum, or torque. Hence even in a kitchen sink, these two terms apply in the water as it swirls out. But not cyclonically of course. David Tombe (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal force

Do you a current best version of your proposed short section? Let's go ahead and replace the long Brews section with a short one, and try to keep Brews and David from messing up the article too much from there. If I don't hear from you, I'll try to do it from the one on the talk page and maybe a few edits. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I nearly did put it in after Brews' "diatribe" which was just plain bad physics. However, some much more important real life issues (getting a couple of papers I'm co-authoring ready and submitted to journals) have taken precedence, to the point that I haven't even tried to follow any of the discussion since my last post. I'll try to find some time to review the current version, but I'm pretty sure that there won't be much that I can add if you and some of the other anti-bloat editors have been your usual excellent selves. I also never thanked you and some of the others for the feedback, support, and general words of encouragement - so thank you for that. I can't guarantee my ability to follow the editing or discussion in the next few months, but if the debate escalates to official or unofficial mediation or guided group dispute resolution, please be sure to let me know either here or via email so I can be sure to participate. Thanks again. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not participate in any further edit wars on Centrifugal force. Reverting another editor's contributions should be reserved for clear violations of policy, and the specific policy should be cited in the edit summary. It is often a good idea (and given this page's history of edit warring, always a good idea on this article) to discuss the revert on the talk page. I have urged all this article's editors to discuss BEFORE reverting, and again I implore you to adhere to this practice, in order to prevent further edit warring. Edit warring is not helpful to Wikipedia in any way. I have asked nicely on the article's talk page, now I am asking on specific editors' talk pages. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Wilhelm but I disagree with your assessment of the situation. The topic was still being discussed when David decided to insert the disputed text despite my very clear reservations. The relevant policies were stated in the initial reverts [1]. Attempts to discuss this topic in a civil manner resulted in the following interesting responses:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Such responses are completely uncivil and disregard WP:AGF. I'm willing to discuss sources and edits, but such discussion is pretty much pointless when the other editor throws out all modern sources as "rubbish" and refuses to engage in the appropriate dispute resolution channels. This is not a case of POV-suppression. David has yet to provide a reference that states explicitly that the non-reactive centrifugal force is real in the inertial (non-accelerating) frame. Whereas, we have multiple references going back over 100 years saying the opposite, that the centrifugal force arises not from the motion of the object but from the rotation of the reference frame. From the Roche article you removed:

I have identified at least three interpretations of centrifugal force in the literature: a valid meaning in physics, an entirely different but equally valid meaning in engineering, and a cluster of false meanings.

which he clarifies later:

There is, however, a valid concept of centrifugal force in physics. If the observer in a frame of reference rotating with the Earth pretends for mathematical convenience that it is an inertial frame, then it becomes necessary to postulate a fictitious outwards force on a geostationary satellite to explain why it does not plunge to Earth. This is the centrifugal force of physics, an entirely fictional force.

and from the Kobayashi reference:

The term centrifugal force simply implies the force away from the center of rotation and is therefore obscure. Let us consider the point mass moving in a circular path with respect to the inertial frame. The term centrifugal force then has two meanings: one is the inertial force due to the rotation of the noninertial frame relative to the inertial frame and the other is the reaction force of the centripetal force to produce acceleration toward the center of rotation.

As has been show by the various History of Physics type references, the Leibniz's concept of a real centrifugal force is seen as a result of his adopting a reference frame attached to the rotating body - ie, he was not using an inertial frame, but a co-rotating frame. The only POV not being expressed in the article is that Leibniz's centrifugal force and the rotating reference frame centrifugal force are different. However, no references have been provided that directly support this POV, and the multiple sources provided later in the article actually contradict this.

I also find it troubling that you placed the above warning on only the talk pages of the users on one side of the dispute and not on David's page nor on the anon that has rotating IP address. This does not help your appearance of being impartial. While I applaud your attempt to end the edit war, I disagree with your method which removed statements directly sourced to reliable sources. IMO the lead should be reverted to the consensus- and source-supported "two concept" sentence in the lead per WP:RS and WP:V. Besides attempting the edit war, do have any other reasons for removing the sourced statements? --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Look again at David's talk page and the anon IP user. I didn't just pick on one side. The problem I have with the statement in the lead, besides the fact that it is a limiting statement while sources do exist that suggest there is a third concept, is the history of the statement. It was first inserted saying that there were two concepts - one used in physics and one used in engineering (and one of those sources provided), but then the words "physics" and "engineering" were removed but the "two concepts" wording remained for some reason. When this was reworded and the second source added, it looked like the statement as it was later rendered was probably weakly supported (if at all) and the second source was added to prop up the first. Honestly, I don't know how well the statement is supported as I do not have these sources to refer to. The main problem I have with the sentence, by far, however, is the constant back and forth over it. I say let's find something we can agree on and come back to it. I think my edit history on this page bears out the fact that I have no agenda here but getting the editors to work together and produce the best possible article for the reader. If you have any suggestions on how I can better achieve that, I will always give equal weight to the comments and advice left on my talk page. I don't bear any hard feelings toward you or any of the other editors, I just want you all to find a way to work together. I have been trying to get David to come half way, but he feels like everyone else is united against him. I know you two have quite a checkered past, and I'm trying to be sensitive to that, but you guys really can't go around reverting each other (nor being rude to each other). I'll keep talking to David, and if he needs to be reminded about his role in all this, I will try to be there to remind him. I'm asking you to be as sensitive to his side of things as you want him to be to yours. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are favoring a side, but your warning to David made no mention of edit-warring - perhaps you meant it to be understood - I'd have appreciated everyone getting the exact same warning. What sources suggest there is a third concept distinct from the other two? None has been provided. There has been some discussion that the polar coordinates concept could be a third option, but no sources provided despite my request. Provided sources do treat this as a subset of the rotating frame. How can you say that the sentence is probably weakly supported when you haven't even checked the sources? I've provided the relevant quotes above. Where is the weakness in the above quotes? When have I ever been rude to David within the last several months of our interaction? Please, point them out to me so that I can correct my behavior. I think a comparison of David's comments and mine will reveal a great disparity in the level of civility we each show one other. Again, I do not think removal of a sourced statement is an acceptable way to end an edit-war. Additional reliable sources that directly support David's position is one acceptable way, or any of the other dispute resolution avenues - which David seems to have summarily dismissed. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention to permanently and unilaterally strike the passage from the lead, but to at least temporarily remove the immediate source of controversy and declare a "time out" to get these differences worked out before we just continue reverting and re-reverting. I know you may feel like you've been slighted because your version of the passage was removed, but very likely the other side feels equally slighted because their version also was removed. Notice IP user 72... wasted little time reverting my edit although my intentions were stated in the edit summary. Also, to clarify, I did not mean to suggest you have been rude to David. I hope there are not serious hard feelings between you two, but I can tell David has been getting very frustrated and his civility has sometimes worn thin. I really think he has the potential to be an invaluable editor, but his methods are sometimes questionable. I think he sometimes puts the cart before the horse and then assumes that because there is consensus against the way he presents information in the article it must be a consensus against the material itself, but it doesn't do much to dispel his fears when some of the talk page comments bear this out. The long and the short of it is, there may be some irreconcilable differences between the ideas of the several editors here, but there is never a need for incivility and edit warring. I do not intend to give anyone a free pass on perpetuating these behaviors, not David, not the anon editors, not the major contributors. If my responses to different editors are somewhat varied, it is because they have displayed various behaviors. As to the sources for a third approach, I will let that dispute work itself out on the talk page. I was not so much disputing the references as acknowledging the dispute and moving to diffuse the edit war. I freely admit that I have not read the source passages. If you could quote them directly, on the article's talk page, you would do us all a service, and this could be a starting point for an obviously needed discussion over this disputed passage specifically. Again I will remind you that I did not merely remove your sourced statement. I also removed the IP editor's statement, and he too was apparently upset by this. If I have united everyone in disagreeing with me, at least I have given you all something to agree about. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In rereading my posts, I realize I may have been a little too short in my response. I apologize for that, and thank you for responding in a level manner. I am still though of the opinion that you are coddling David too much. From my view, the reason the centrifugal force debates are so heated is because David does not know how to act civilly with other editors. If people disagree with him, he immediately accuses them of being idiots or of being part of a conspiracy to suppress information (this isn't just limited to his interactions on physics pages either). For example, when a simple request for a source is met by this kind of response [5], I find it impossible to pursue any meaningful discussion with him. In fact, usually when I get this kind of response from David, I stop responding to him in that thread. You've called him on such behavior before. I'd like the discussion to move forward, but without such uncivil rants and such total disregard of WP:AGF. Since if any of us call him on it he'd ignore it, and since you think that David can become a meaningful contributor, would you mind reminding him again that such behavior is neither appropriate or helpful. Honestly, I'm getting sick of these repetitive rants of his, and am close to asking uninvolved admins to take a look at his behavior and take appropriate action but, out of respect for you and your recent attempts to help David, I'll wait to see if he'll respond to your guidance. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I go further, we know from his previous interactions on the other centrifugal and coriolis pages that he genuinely is a crank. The sole purpose for his presence here is simply to put his OR and other misunderstandings into the wikipedia. He contributes to no other pages, and he has been suspended and then banned multiple times; the last time was an indefinite ban. I disagree completely with the last administrator that took it upon himself to unban him; this is nothing but harmful for the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here. He's a nut, and nothing but disruptive. I think it's time for a community topic ban for him on CF-related articles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In case you're still watching this page Wilhelm, I'd rather put some comments here rather than trying to go point-counterpoint with David on your talk page or somewhere else where it would detract from that page's discussion. I see that David has made you aware of the current report and topic ban discussion over on ANI. I had no interaction with the editor that filed the report nor did I ask anyone to initiate such, but it appears that the report was precipitated by a report I made over on WP:WQA. Despite multiple warnings from sympathetic and neutral editors like yourself, David continues to behave in a manner that prevents and disrupts cooperative editing. This response is all that is needed to see that David is being hoisted by his own petard in this situation. Save him from himself if you can, but I fear that, like previous warnings, it will fall on deaf ears. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Reported to Administrator's Noticeboard

FyzixFighter, I'm just letting you know that I've reported you at the administrator's noticeboard for wiki-hounding. The evidence is quite clear cut. You have been putting false information into physics articles which I have been trying to improve. You tried to convert the centrifugal force in the radial planetary orbital equation into a centripetal force. And yesterday, you removed sourced edits of mine and replaced them with information which you now admit to be in error. It is not possible to write a coherent article when somebody like yourself is continually trampling over the edits and playing out some clever game with so called reliable sources while at the same time refusing to discuss the topic and claiming not to have opinions. David Tombe (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

You ae being discussed here [6] Cardamon (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The existence of the Muulekites

The existence of the Muulekites is completely rejected by non-Mormon historians, archaeologists, anthropologist and theologians. This is because there is no trace of them except in the Book of Mormon; they are supported by absolutely no external evidences at all and there is no mention of them until the 19th century.

How odd… this statement I made is completely accurate. Only those with an LDS slant accept the existence of theses storybook people. And until the “Prophet” from Palmyra, they had never even been heard of. But instead of countering, you in a very Gestapo act simply delete these facts.

None of the mythological book of Mormon people exist outside the book of Mormon, much the way Frodo never existed outside the Lord of the Rings. Therefore, instead of facing facts you attempt to sweep it away in a Stalin like action. Wow. Well I guess those who use Wikipedia are lucky to have such a dishonest nazi like you ready to edit truth when it threatens your fairy tales. (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.27.175 (talk)

Invitation

I invite you to read my comment (No. 48) to "Faraday's Law of Induction." Mike La Moreaux (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Faraday's Law

FyzixFighter, I never stated that there was anything wrong with the one of Maxwell's Laws responsible for transformer emf. That is not the version of Faraday's Law which is stated at the beginning of the article. The cutting of magnetic field lines occurs in the homopolar generator but not in the example of the toroidal transformer. But then, there is no emf induced in that example for just that reason. Mike La Moreaux (talk)

Then I guess I'm a little confused by which Faraday's Law you are saying is false. The form of the law mentioned at the beginning of the article covers both transformer (stationary circuit) and motional EMF, so the homopolar generator is not a counter-example of the law stated in the article. The toroidal transformer is definitely an interesting example, and my guess is that the line integral used to calculate the EMF or the flux does something weird at the slip-ring, it being a strange disconnect in the geometry. The best thing to do would be to find a reliable source that treats that problem to see whether or not modern physics sees it as a counter-example of Faraday's law.

But let me leave aside the toroidal example, and let's look at the homopolar generator. At the beginning of the article, Faraday's Law is stated in words (in the quote box) and in mathematical formula. Are we in agreement on the semantics that the presentations are identical? If so, then it can be shown that the vxB term that causes the current in the homopolar generator is hidden in the full time derivative of the flux in the equation for Faraday's Law:

${\mathcal {E}}=-{\frac {d\Phi _{B}}{dt}}$.

By the way, Jackson covers this proof on pp. 208-211 of his graduate text; unfortunately Griffiths' undergraduate text brushes the distinction under the rug, turning the full derivative into a partial derivative without commentary. So following Jackson's proof, the magnetic flux linking the circuit is defined by

$\Phi _{B}=\int _{S}\mathbf {B} \cdot \mathbf {n} da$

where S is the surface bounded by the circuit C.

We also have to make use of the identity:

${\frac {d}{dt}}={\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}+\mathbf {v} \cdot \mathbf {\nabla }$.

This leads to

${\frac {d\mathbf {B} }{dt}}={\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+(\mathbf {v} \cdot \mathbf {\nabla } )\mathbf {B} ={\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+\nabla \times (\mathbf {B} \times \mathbf {v} )+\mathbf {v} (\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} )$.

The third term gives the contribution of sources of the vector field, ie magnetic monopoles, swept over by the moving circuit. We can therefore rewrite the full time derivative of the flux as

${\frac {d}{dt}}\int _{S}\mathbf {B} \cdot \mathbf {n} da=\int _{S}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}\cdot \mathbf {n} da+\oint _{C}(\mathbf {B} \times \mathbf {v} )\cdot d\mathbf {l}$

where the v is the velocity of the element dl of the circuit. This gives us for Faraday's law that

${\mathcal {E}}=-\int _{S}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}\cdot \mathbf {n} da+\oint _{C}(\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B} )\cdot d\mathbf {l}$.

The first term on the right gives the transformer EMF contribution (from electric fields induced by time-varying B-fields) and the second term is the motional EMF contribution. Again, this proof is essentially covered in Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (3rd ed) pp.208-211. Therefore the homopolar generator, which relies on a motional EMF, is not a counter-example of Faraday's Law as it is first introduced in the article. Does this make sense? Are there any points in the proof where we would disagree?

As for the toroidal wrapping with slip-ring, I don't know how the math really would treat the slip-ring. It is an interesting example, but I'm sure someone has looked at it before and answered the question of whether or not it is a counter-example to Faraday's Law. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, we are in agreement that the verbal and mathematical presentations of Faraday's Law at the beginning of the article are identical. In the case of the homopolar generator, B is a constant and so is a. Therefore the flux is a constant. Therefore the time rate of change of the flux is zero. Faraday's Law only explicitly deals with the time rate of flux change. The thing is that in the operation of the homopolar generator, there is obviously no flux change. Therefore Faraday's Law gives an emf of zero. What is so difficult to understand about this? The problem with the derivation is that the fourth equation involves the curl of vxB. In the case of the homopolar generator, the curl of vxB is zero because vxB does not define an electric field. This is a perfect example both of not seeing the forest for the trees, but also of forgetting the physics in the pursuit of the mathematics. (Moment has the units pound feet, and work has the units foot pounds. They are mathematically identical and physically completely different. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

When we say time rate change of the flux, does "time rate of change" refer to a full derivative or a partial derivative? The distinction is very important as shown in the proof above. If it's a full derivative then Faraday's law as stated in the article does give a non-zero emf for the homopolar generator. This is because as the flux is an integral, a non-zero full time derivative of the flux can be achieved by motion of the boundary/surfacewhile the value of the flux itself remains constant. The homopolar generator is a special case where Phi_B is constant, (partial)dPhi_B/dt is zero, but (full)dPhi_B/dt is non-zero.

As for the fourth equation, it follows directly from the identity in the third equation. Do you disagree with this identity? The fourth equation is merely expanding the full derivative in terms of the partial derivatives. If you think that the curl Bxv should not be in the fourth equation, then you disagree with the understood relationship between partial and full derivatives. Also, I never said the vxB term defines an electric field - I was very cautious to not mention electric field at all during the derivation. I did talk about EMF, but EMF and a line integral of the electric field are not the same thing. Like you said, just because EMF and electric potential (which is a line integral of the electric field) have the same units, they are not the same thing. We can say that

${\mathcal {E}}=\oint _{C}\mathbf {E'} \cdot d\mathbf {l}$,

but in this definition of EMF, $\mathbf {E'}$ is the electric field in the rest frame of the element dl. However, convention is to define E and B in the same frame, so E and E' are the same in this equation only when the circuit is stationary. Looking at the final form of the EMF in fact shows that, if we interpret the EMF as the line integral of the force per unit charge, then only the first term has to be due to an induced electric field, which is what the Maxwell equations predict. Note that this is not an approach to the problem that I have used my own faculties to invent, but is what is found in a very well-known and standard graduate level EM textbook. Therefore, according to this reliable source (WP standard for inclusion), the motional EMF of the homopolar generator is not a counter-example of Faraday's Law as stated in the article. Do you have a reliable source that says that the homopolar generator is a counter-example of how Faraday's Law is stated in the article?

From my point of view, your claims that the article's presentation that Faraday's law is false is due to not paying close enough attention to the mathematics used to describe the physics. When you are careful about the distinction between partial and full derivatives, the homopolar generator is no longer a counter-example. The question then becomes a matter of semantics, ie does "time rate of change" mean a partial or full derivative. I imagine that something similar happens with regards to the toroidal transformer, that a complete and proper mathematical treatment of how the integral and full time derivative will yield a zero time rate of change of the flux. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If the time rate of change of the flux is zero by inspection of the physical situation, then it does not matter whether we are talking about the partial or total time derivative. They are both zero. In the homopolar generator, the circuit boundary/surface is fixed. Only the conductor moves. There is no electrostatic field here, so potential is not involved. In any case, the line integral of a static electric field strength around a closed path is always zero. emf is the line integral of the electric field strength around a closed path and can be non-zero. Richard Feynman states that the homopolar generator is a counter example to the "flux rule," which is what we are calling Faraday's Law, in his "Lectures on Physics." Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we disagree on some very basic foundational principles, namely:

1. the significant difference between a partial and a full derivative and the relation between the two,
2. the definition of emf, the usual definition being the line integral of the electromagnetic force per unit charge (not of the electric field strength) around a closed path
3. what constitutes the boundary of the surface - in all references I've found, the conductor is the boundary, so if it's moving, the boundary is moving.

Therefore, it is pretty much pointless arguing from first principles and using rigorous mathematical analysis to respond to your assertion, so I won't argue math anymore, just reliable sources. Here are three sources I found pretty easily that clearly state that the homopolar generator can be explained by Faraday's Law and that define Faraday's Law as it is stated in the article:

1. "Magnetic fields: a comprehensive theoretical treatise for practical use", Heinz Knoepfel, pg 324 specifically [7]
2. "Introduction to electromagnetic theory: a modern perspective", Tai L. Chow, pp 183-184 [8]
3. "Electromotive force again", American Journal of Physics, vol 32 (1962) pp 209-310

The first one follows the proof above that I adapted from Jackson. The second and third one use a slightly different approach to show that when the circuit loop is not fudged, the total change in flux is not zero. To quote the third reference: "The 'homopolar generator' seems more complicated, but the essential physical situation becomes apparent...if the usual metal Faraday disk is replaced by an insulating disk with a single radial wire connecting the axis and the rim, with shich the external circuit makes a sliding contact. The results are unchanged by this modification of the usual experiment." What is the page number and quote from Feynman, I'd really like to compare these sources to see where the disconnect is. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not have access to a copy of "Lectures on Physics," but if you go to my comment, No. 48, "Faraday's Law is False!," on the discussion page to the article, Steve's link No. 1 in his comment of 15 September will take you to the relevant pages. The boundary of the surface of the circuit of the homopolar generator is fixed, while the conductor (the disk) moves. There is where Feynman states that the homopolar generator is a counter example to the "flux rule." I have not had time, yet, to check your referenced sources. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your second reference has a bogus calculation. It would have us believe that the flux increases without limit as the disk of the homopolar generator rotates - a clear absurdity. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I have to go along with FyzixFighter 100% on this issue. He has described the situation pretty well. I have had a tangle with both FyzixFighter and Steve Byrnes in the past over this issue, but it has been more over the manner of explaining the physics, rather than the physics itself, which none of us have been in disagreement with. FyzixFighter's mathematical proof above is correct. I would however have drastically simplified it at the point where he splits the total time derivative into the partial time derivative and the (v.grad)B term. I would simply have drawn attention to the fact that (v.grad)B is the curl of vXB. I know that you have argued that curl(vXB) is zero. It may well be. In fact it would certainly be zero for a constant magnetic field if we could have such a thing. But that doesn't in anyway undermine the fact the curl E = -(total)dB/dt covers for both the time varying case and the motionally induced case.

As for the toriodal/slip ring example, I am a bit confused about the geometry and so I can't really comment. I suspect that there will be some magnetic field, and that there will be a vXB force induced somewhere in the circuit if an EMF is induced. David Tombe (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter's point is that full attention must be paid to the distinction between the total time derivative and the partial time derivative. That is the crucial point that Mike doesn't seem to get. As long as v×B is non-zero, it doesn't matter if curl(v×B) =(v.grad)B = 0. Maxwell didn't actually have a Faraday's law in his original eight equations. Equation (D) in Maxwell's original eight was his equation for EMF. It read E = grad (phi) -(partial)dA/dt + v×B, where E was EMF, and hence it catered for both the time varying and the motionally induced kinds. Maxwell's EMF was actually a quantity that was closer to the modern electric field than it was to the modern EMF. The modern EMF is actually a voltage. Maxwell didn't use charge, but the relevant electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio was built into his equations and evaluated from the experiment in 1856 of Weber and Kohlrausch.

FyzixFighter was indeed very careful not to explicitly use the expression E = v×B at any stage of his manipulations. In my opinion, he wouldn't have been wrong if he had done so, but it wouldn't have been politically correct to have done so. Take the curl of Maxwell's equation (D) and you end up with the full total time derivative Faraday's law. David Tombe (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the homopolar generator, the magnetic field is constant. If the curl of E is zero, then the emf is zero. But we know there is a motional emf by inspection of the physical situation, and therefore Faraday's Law is proved wrong. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Toroidal transformer

To make this easier to follow I've added this subsection. Anyways, I think I've found the problem with the toroidal transformer and slip-ring scenario. However, this is my own thoughts not backed up yet by any reliable source. The problem with the scenario is that there is a huge disconnect in the geometry of the surface of the flux integral that occurs every time the wire goes around the slip ring. Essentially, a section of the surface is be pinched off and then removed, which places it outside the realm where Faraday's Law is even applicable. It's like have an elliptical loop of wire in a magnetic field normal to the plane of the loop, pinching the loop together in the middle and then cutting off and throwing away half of it. The flux in the circuit decreased (smaller area), but no one would try to apply Faraday's Law to this scenario to say that the reduction in flux caused by the pinch-and-cut induces an emf. As Steve already noted, the slip-ring is a geometry outside of Faraday's Law. I'm guessing thought that we'll disagree on this, though, so a reliable source is probably the only way to resolve this. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, This is interesting. Let's get it back to the Faraday's law talk page. I think I know what Mike is saying now. Also, in the toroidal scenario, I think you are correct in stating that it is a scenario which is outside the realms of Faraday's law. I'll make my views back on the Faraday's law talk page. David Tombe (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oustanding work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		An incredible display of consistent effort to improve and maintain the quality of Wikipedia. I tip my hat. StormRider 18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

John, that now makes 5 reverts within 24 hrs. Note that the 3RR policy states that "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the same material is involved." Therefore I have reported it at WP:ANEW. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that the 3RR rule was operative only for reversions of the same material, not different material on the same page. I'll be more careful in the future.--John Foxe (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For fighting the most insidious and furtive types of vandalism. Cheers! —Eustress talk 22:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)