|
This was not good for my blood pressure.
Hello!
editI previously contributed to all sorts of articles on Wikipedia, particularly to those on physics.
I edited as an IP for some time until I decided that this edit was too good to be forgotten, which spurred me to make my own account.
I'm famous! My right elbow and left leg now appear on Wikipedia.
Pages I have started
editArticles
- Moral Mondays -- A series of ongoing protests against actions taking by the Republican-controlled North Carolina government
- Russian foreign agent law -- A law passed in Russia which requires all NGOs receiving any money from abroad to register as "foreign agents"
- Predatory open access publishing -- Publishers and journals which attempt to exploit the open access publishing model
- Charles L. Kane -- Theoretical physicist
- Allan H. MacDonald -- Theoretical physicist
- Neil Ashcroft -- Physicist, translated from the German page
- Burbidgea -- Stub on a genus of gingers
- John A. Johnson (astronomer) -- Planet-hunting astronomer
- Cornell NanoScale Science and Technology Facility -- A scientific user facility and cleanroom, part of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network
- Rhett Allain -- Physicist and science blogger
- Bismuth selenide -- Thermoelectric and topological insulator
- Ahlbeck (Usedom) -- A beach resort town in Germany near the border with Poland, translated from the German
Essays
- Wikipedia:Citing sources with Zotero -- A how-to guide for adding citations to Wikipedia using Zotero
Quotes
editAnd please, stay calm. No matter what eddy currents are doing, discussions definitely should transform energy into useful work, not into heat. — HHHIPPO 22:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC) [1]
It is difficult or impossible to make any progress with anyone whose starting point is "my opinion is so obviously The Truth that nobody could possibly disagree with me in good faith. Therefore, anyone who expresses disagreement with me must be part of a conspiracy against me." Also, Wikipedia supposedly works on consensus, but if any agreement among editors is interpreted as evidence that they must be in a conspiracy, then the whole concept of consensus breaks down. If we have those two things combined together, we get a mindset that interprets any agreement with one's own position as proof that there is consensus, and any agreement with an opposing position as proof that there is an evil conspiracy. The fundamental problem with conspiracy theorists is that they are so determined to keep their paranoid view of the universe that they are completely deaf to anything that goes against that view: you can offer as many reasons as you like to think that there is no monstrous conspiracy going on, but the conspiracy theorists genuinely will not hear what you are saying. Not a lot one can do. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[2]
Original images
editI have uploaded a number of images to the Wikimedia Commons. Please feel free to use them as long as you reference this account or the source page as required by the license. This page is an excellent example. Please note that this also applies to non-web use; the TI band structure diagram below was used in at least three talks at the 2012 American Physical Society March Meeting without any attribution as is required under the license =)
.jpg)
