User talk:Mpatel/archive 3

Black Stone

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. BookwormUK 17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your medcab case request

Hi, there, you recently added what appears to be a request for informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal, though you added the request to the template that is added to all cases upon creation instead of on an actual case page - if you follow the directions here, the case will be properly created :). Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey, sorry

Hey MP, sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to the question on Arabic-English translation of names, check back there, I replied right under your question.

Recent revert

Just a fair bit of advice. When placing a test template to warn another user it should be test1 not a final warning. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

Hi, could you have a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-16 Suhuf-i-Ibrahim, there appears to be some confusion regarding this case. Thanks, Addhoc 18:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General relativity

Just to let you know, I fixed your coding bug on General relativity by changing <ref/> to </ref>, which is the proper form for closing an inline reference. Mike Peel 11:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

String theory

Hi, just letting you know that the reason I reverted your addition to the article was that it improperly put the article in the category String Theorists which would be reserved for people, not for the theory itself. The proper way to link a term is to put [[ and ]] around it, so that it would look like this: [[string theorists]]. However, since there is no article on string theorists, you would get a broken link. Cheers! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photons from special relativity

On your user page you asked if light quantization is implicit in special relativity. Why do you think it might be? Maxwell's equations are covariant, so the world COULD have been just been described by Maxwell's equations with classical electromagnetic fields and no photons. Of course, if you add photons by hand then you may get their energy/frequency relation from special relativity, but that doesn't mean that light quantization is implicit in special relativity. Dark Formal 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

picture of muhammad[saw]

what is your idea about depiction of muhammad in picture.? thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

picture of muhammad[saw]

Zikrullah 10:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)what is your idea about depiction of muhammad in picture.? thank you![reply]

Thanks

M - Thanks for restoring my comment that in general relativity that the black hole is the "weirdest" prediction of GR. I did not like its removal either, but since it is a reflection of my personal POV on the topic of black holes, I felt that my restoring it was inapprorpiate. --EMS | Talk 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I just felt that it was a bit rash to remove it outright, but I think I managed to replace it with something less POV. I think it now reads a little better too. MP (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MathPhys/Not Even Wrong=

M -- I was wondering if you commented on Peter Woit's blog, Not Even Wrong, using the handle (MathPhys)?

If so, I was wondering about your comment that you were wondering what Dr. Louis Clavelli was thinking when he wrote the papers on SUSY transformations, and gamma ray bursts. I am a layman in physics, (I am a former chemist/ now an attorney) but I saw the articles about Clavelli's research in the New Scientist and the Economist and was intrigued/freaked out. I searched the internet for more info, and stumbled upon Not Even Wrong and your (?) comment. I was wondering if you knew how seriously Clavelli's ideas are taken in the Physics community. Thanks.

Actually, that wasn't me. Maybe someone with the same name or trying to impersonate me (let's hope not the latter). MP (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M-I'm guessing it's just someone with the same handle. It actually would make sense for someone involved with Math and Physics. :)

Planck constant derivation

Hi Mpatel,--In "Talk:Black hole electron" (Wikipedia) the Planck constant is derived from the electron mass, light velocity and the gravitational constant. Do you believe that this derivation is precisely correct or just approximately correct? The value is: h = 2mc(3Gm)exp 1/3, times (2pi)exp 5/3. This is shown under: Matter-wave quantum. --DonJStevens 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is about I have not edited Wikipedia in several years Someone evidently hacked my old password and I got about 15 mails telling me it was changed. I wish I could totally delete my ID and password as I have no interest in editing Wikipedia. I would like to avoid more SPAm e-mails. Pdn (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]