User talk:Mberez

Welcome!

Hello, Mberez, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Planck angle

Hi, I edited your article because the English could have been clearer, hope you don't mind. There is a discussion about the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Planck angle, which you may want to contribute to. M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 16:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The version you wrote was illiterate, had no source, wrong, useless, and generally awful. A reference was added by user:Andy Dingley, which included a more useful definition of "Planck angle".

What the hell is the purpose in your definition ("equal to a radian due to a rotating light source at the Planck scale" or whatever)?? If its just a radian, what's the point??? M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you understant it and you argue with the definition, it is your problem. Stop destroying other people's work. I suggest you to your definition published separately.

What is so useful about your uncited definition?? Please explain. And the current version was not my definition, nor Any Dingly's, but the author of the paper you keep deleting, published separately. M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 22:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original "radian" version has the problems that it's unsourced, and that makes no sense to me for any value of a Planck angle with a magnitude around that of a radian. In such a case, what would a "Planck angle" mean? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Planck angle. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit-warring and you've now reverted this three times. Enough is enough, please stop.

If you don't stop, you'll be very obviously blocked for edit-warring.

If you think your version is correct, please use the talk: space (I suggest Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Planck_angle as that's where the main discussion already is) to explain why your version is better, why the Planck angle is 1 radian, and why the added ref is incorrect. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I inform you that one of the editors routinely erase all my version and this place fits its completely different. This is a discussion? This is hooliganism!

Yes, routinely erased because here on WP, we add content published by reliable secondary sources. Your version seems to be original research, something you came up with one day and felt it worth publishing on WP. The other version is more useful and has a citation. M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 22:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maschen completely erased my definition, and it entered its place, completely different! There is not any possibility of discussion. Do you understand? It is not I, but he misbehaves. Completely you do not understand this? You do not know what it means to discussion? This is your friend? I can see that he again wiped out my article and it entered its place. 100% hooliganism. I will write a complaint to the chief executive of wikipedia.

You judge who version is more useful? Are you got? I suggest that he posted his version separately. Besides his version it is very naive. Once again, I'll put my version of the definition and do not erase. Besides, how can you argue with the definition ?! This is nonsense.

In a moment I'll put my story again with the adjustments editor.

Welcome to Wikipedia. It works by basing all content on external reliable sources.

Your version uses no sources. It appears to be your own invention. Even if it isn't, you need to cite the sources you have used, so that other editors can read them too.

Your version suggests that the Planck angle is about 1 radian. This is different to all other claims for the Planck angle (and it being infinitesimally small). Why is yours different?

Other editors have had trouble understanding your version. Can you please explain it further, on the talk: page.

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My definition is so simple and clear that there is nothing to explain. The radius is equal to the Planck length and is equal to the length of the arc. The rotation speed is equal to c, which means that the angle = 1. If the angle is to be much smaller than 1, then the radius must be much więlszy of the Planck length. But it is then a completely different definition. Why radius to be exactly equal to the electron rozmirowi? Why not less? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.3.64 (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My definition is so simple and clear that there is nothing to explain. The radius is equal to the Planck length and is equal to the length of the arc. The rotation speed is equal to c, which means that the angle = 1. If the angle is to be much smaller than 1, then the radius must be a lot of rows affected by the Planck length. But it is then a completely different definition. Why radius to be exactly equal to the size of the electron? Why not less? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.3.64 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition is clearer in its expression than it is in its definition and its underlying meaning. Your definition appears to be a trivial restatement that a rotating vector of unit length will sweep out an angle of one radian in unit time. That's just basic geometry, it doesn't invoke Planck.

All other learned discussion of Planck angles imply that they are extremely small, far smaller than one radian. Why is your definition different?

Where did you learn your definition? Please state where, so that other editors can read your sources. If you invented this definition yourself, then that is seen on WP as WP:Original Research and is not permitted. WP's function is not to be a publishing house or pre-print server for new research. If you are making such inventions, this is not the place to first publish them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely unfair what you're doing. The current definition of Planck's angle is invented by one of you, probably by the author of this article. In literature no definition of Planck angle. In the cited article has nothing to do with an angle of Planck. In addition, the article has errors. I will write letter to the editor and deposit a complaint with the international scientific community on this issue. By whom is dominated wikipedia?

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mberez_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]