User talk:Geoffrey.landis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 15:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Comments

Way back when, you were working on the beam-powered propulsion page and you added something about work being based on something originally by Marx. Since I'm pretty sure you didn't mean Karl Marx, can you add a first name or something to clear up the reference? Avram (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Geoffrey! Why did you delete the word "window"? Of course it is an English word now but the reason why it was tought by professors as beeing German ist that in the Northern German dialect it is the proper word for the small round windows under the roof. --Ruk 16:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because it is an English word.

If the topic is "English words that originated from German roots long ago," well, the entire English language has Germanic roots. You will have to add about a hundred thousand words, including common words like man, house, is, mine, & and.

[edit] Minor edits

Hi Geoffery. When deleting two or more sentences, unless they are vandalism, can you not mark the edit as minor? The definition of "minor edit" can be found here. Thanks. Rintrah 19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I read the page and now have revised my understanding of Wikipedia's official definition of "minor"! Geoffrey.landis 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atmospheric escape

Hi. Back in March, you added a link to a creationist website - http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/helium.asp - to Atmospheric escape. Maybe there's another source somewhere on the helium problem that doesn't conclude that, "It certainly seems that the creationist position is correct, on the basis of the latest observational evidence. ..."?
—wwoods 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops-- don't think I read through the whole article. I was just looking for a cite for the equation, and stopped reading further once I got to the part I was looking for, the Jeans escape equation. Geoffrey.landis 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inadvertent heads-up

At first I reverted your edit to New Coke, thinking someone just hadn't read the whole article. But then I noticed that, indeed, the entire subsection devoted to the reintroduction of Classic Coke was gone, and indeed a vandal[1] had defaced it, and another user dealt with it by simply deleting the vandalism without reverting it[2]. Over a month ago.

The "reversal" section is now back in the article. Thanks for helping~ Daniel Case 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

wow, that's an odd vandalism Geoffrey.landis 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be low:

Edit summary usage for Geoffrey.landis: 47% for major edits and 62% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Berea OH.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Berea OH.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mutual coherence

You might be coherent to another science person. But to me, you were totally uncoherent. So, no mutual coherence.


[edit] DragonHeart Source Material?

Hey, Geoffrey? Do you have a source corroborating the statement that Zelazney's short story inspired an aspect of Pogue's screenplay other than IMDb, such as an interview with the writer? I'm concerned that perhaps the information in IMDb is the result of speculation on the part of an IMDb contributor, based on the similarities between the short story and the DragonHeart plot element. Roundelais 19:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Having read the story and seen the movie, I'd say that the text of the story is more than adequate corroboration. Geoffrey.landis 02:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds rather like original research. I don't think it's reasonable to assert that a writer derived inspiration from another piece of fiction unless the author has admitted it, and it's not really a good idea to call the story 'source material' when you don't have proof that the writer has ever even read the story in question. Unless there's a word-for-word dialogue duplication or communication from one of the two writers backing it up, the only claim you can really make is that the gimmick is similar, not that Pogue lifted the concept wholesale from Zelazny. Roundelais 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I will disagree with you here. Have you read the story? Geoffrey.landis 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to, but apparently my public library doesn't have any of the anthologies where it's featured. It might take some time to track down a copy of the text. Despite similarities in the storylines, if there isn't documentation of an instance where Pogue admits to having read the story, or where Zelazny complains that his idea was stolen, then your claim is pure speculation or original research by Wikipedia standards. IMDb isn't a terribly reliable source, as most of the data is submitted by users and not thoroughly researched for authenticity by the staff. If you wanted to state on Wikipedia that the partnership plot device bears a striking resemblence to Zelazny's story, I'd have no problem with that. Asserting that the writer definitely used the story as source material for the screenplay when there are no secondary sources to support that view is another matter. Roundelais 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, until you started this thread, I didn't realize that there was any controversy about the source material. In fact, other than your comments, I still don't know that there's any controversy-- I've never heard anybody (other than you) suggest that "The George Business" is not source material for Dragonheart. When I get some time I'll look at various movie books around the house and see if there's a better citation to quote, but right at the moment, time is at a premium Geoffrey.landis 23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Though the theory is likely accepted as fact in the circles where you travel, calling "The George Business" 'uncredited source material' is tantamount to an accusation of copyright infringement or plagiarism in a forum that sets high value on NPOV. By Wikipedia standards, "widely accepted" and "provable" are not synonymous.
From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).
From Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
From Wikipedia:No original research: Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article...In general, the most reliable sources are books, journals, magazines, and mainstream newspapers; published by university presses or known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable...
As for controversy, I'm not so much disputing the idea that Pogue drew inspiration from "The George Business" as the question of whether it's Verifiable by Wikipedia standards. Dogpile and Google searches turn up A) the Wikipedia articles on Dragonheart and Unicorn Variations, due to the content you added, B) the IMDb reference you used (which has not neccessarily been verified) and C) a couple of instances of fan speculation. Based on the evidence available so far, the most that could truthfully be claimed is that IMDb reports the short story as Source Material.
I agree that there's a good possibility that Pogue has read "The George Business," and that he incorporated the concept into his screenplay. However, there is no documented proof, and separate writers have been known to have strikingly similar ideas in the past without having been exposed to each others' work. Without such proof, Wikipedia should not assert that one writer used another writer's as 'uncredited source material.' Roundelais 17:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not convinced; the only person who seems to be arguing is you. Nevertheless, I have rewritten the paragraph in question to now state that the movie has a plot similar to the story, rather than "is based on" the story. Geoffrey.landis 00:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erin O'Brien

I think your addition of actress Erin O'Brien's middle name (Joanne) to the title of her article confuses the issue since she never used her middle name in billing or in any context. While it is a common Irish name, she's certainly the only actress by that name to achieve her level of notoriety. Skymasterson 17:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Erin O'Brien" already redirects to Erin Joanne O'Brien, so anybody looking won't have any trouble finding her. Since there are four actresses named Erin O'Brien--plus Erin O'Brien-Moore-- this seemed to me a straightforward method to keep them separate. However, if you think it would be more logical to rename the page "Erin O'Brien (actress)," I won't stop you. Geoffrey.landis 18:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too speedy deletion

According to my notes I created an article on Mac's back's bookstore at 10:18; at 10:19, according to the record, you tagged for speedy deletion.

Please note the following text from the Wikipedia article on speedy deletion Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion: "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets, and consider notifying the page's creator."

In my opinion, one minute qualifies as "too soon."

Geoffrey.landis 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • In my defense, the page didn't look incomplete; it looked like a complete page for a local bookstore. If you feel the article as it was can be improved, it can be recreated by posting at Wikipedia:Undeletion. Usually when I'm creating an article, I create it and work on it under my user space, like at User:Eaolson/PageName and move it to the main namespace when it is ready. eaolson 03:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Eaolson, you deleted the page one minute after the first two sentences were posted. ONE MINUTE. In precisely what way do you believe that this action followed the Wikipedia speedy deletion policy "try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation"? What do you do, camp on new articles creation so you can be the first to delete the instant something new shows up?

Let me also point out that the speedy deletion policy suggests "notifying the page's creator." I notice that you didn't do that, either. Wikipedia also has a policy "Wikipedia:Assume good faith"-- this is apparently yet another Wikipedia policy you've personally decided is not worth following. Geoffrey.landis 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • First of all, please calm down and don't make personal attacks. I didn't delete the page. I tagged it with {{db-corp}}. An admin reviewed the speedy delete nomination and actually deleted it. The article met speedy delete criteria WP:CSD#A7, specifically it was an article about a business, yet made no assertion as to the notability of the business. As I recall, the article was for a local bookstore and the only real information about the business was that it was an unofficial meeting place for some group or another. The speedy delete tag was well within WP policy.
Yes, I was doing newpage patrolling. When I did your article, I think I speedy delete tagged several bands that have never released an album and exist only on MySpace, an article saying how much some guy likes his girlfriend, and another about the best Mom in the country.
I've asked for an deletion review. If it's restored, that will give you the opportunity to improve the article. eaolson 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If you harras Eaolson one more time over this I will block you. Clear? Anyway, the article was deleted by an administrator, your beef belongs elsewhere. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC. Urgh.. I guess that I overreacted. I'm perhaps oversensitive to harassment and GWH is right, none of your actions were over the line but it is clear that eaolson felt pressured by your comments to him. Nevertheless, the warning was OTT. Sorry for the overreaction. Thanks GWH for the injection of sanity. Spartaz Humbug! 19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh, none of the comments on Eaolson's talk page or here is an actionable personal attack or harrassment per Wikipedia standards, Spartaz. Please do not threaten people with blocking spuriously. Georgewilliamherbert 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't intended for my comments to rise to the threshold of personal attack; nevertheless, let me apologize for writing in haste, and note that my comments stemmed from some amount of frustration over having been listed for deletion before I'd barely finished typing. In any case, Eaolson (on his user page) has noted that he has asked for an deletion review, and I accept that as a good-faith effort on his part to resolve the problem gracefully. Geoffrey.landis 20:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There is some symmetry to pretty much everyone involved in this acknowledging some error (lot of it in my case). This must be a wiki record as mostly we fall over each other to deny responsibility for our mistakes - thank you for taking this in such good spirit. I went and had a look at the article as it was before deletion to see whether or not it was salvagable. I'm sorry but the article doesn't have a hope of surviving an afd as it was. The issue is notability and lack of reliable sources. I'm guessing that its not notable for the book selling business but notable because of its connection to the literary scene. I guess that this boils down to whether you know of any reliable sources we could use to assert notability. If you can come up with a couple that pass the guideline I'll undelete this for you. Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, at the moment my feeling is to hell with it. Geoffrey.landis 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ah!

Geoffrey!

Good, good. I noticed from reading your talk page that you had gotten somewhat upset last month - deletions, etc - and I was worried that you had decided to leave the project. Then I checked your contribs, and I saw that you're still here. Glad to see it.

Well, it was a useful reminder that one shouldn't assume that there will be any sort of call for discussion or consensus on Wikipedia, since it takes just two people on Wikipedia to delete somebody's work with no warning, no discussion, and no archive. I would call this a flaw in Wikipedia-- particularly since it seem to be done at 2am Eastern time, so when you wake up there's no trace that the article had ever existed-- but Wikipedia seems to consider this just business as usual. So I took it as a warning not to take Wikipedia too seriously; anything you write can get erased at any time.

Incidentally... in the mid-90s, I acquired a few boxes full-to-the-brim of Analogs and IASfms at a garage sale. In one of them was a story about... about a modern civilization, very like ours, that had started using magic, and was doing so in a technological, scientific way. One scene I recall had a character walking through snowfall, with a spell that stopped snow from existing within a few feet of his head... this worked just fine until he walked under a tree with branches bent under the weight of the snow. Those branches, suddenly freed of snow, snapped upwards, and hit the branches above them, dislodging the snow, and those branches snapped upwards, and those branches snapped upwards, and so on, and the sudden treeful of snow overloaded the spell and all the snow fell on him at once. Also an offhand mention of another character who was going to travel to Venus so that she could study the Venus elemental, as compared to the Earth elemental...

this was your story Elemental, yes? DS 13:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep-- in fact, that was my first story. Geoffrey.landis 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fermi paradox

Hi, Geoffrey! I understand your active/passive distinction, but adding your own name to an article (as opposed to a citation or reference) is considered suspect on Wikipedia, since it has lead to many abuses. Perhaps you could make it active without adding your own name (I can try this), or suggest the change on the talk page and see what others think? LouScheffer 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Geoffrey! You wrote "And, yes, I do find it a little disconcerting to find an article with a paragraph discussing my work, carefully written and rewritten in such a way to avoid mentioning my name." I feel exactly the opposite - though I'm the author of some of the other ideas expressed in the same article, I always find it uncomfortable when the author (including myself) is mentioned. This may influence the reader, consciously or unconsciously, to form their impression based on the author, not the idea. This is of course the reasoning behind blind review, which I strongly favor, and also correlates with my experience. And if you want to form your opinion based on the author, it's just a click away (the wikipedia references are very good about this). But you need to make some explicit effort to do this, which may help reduce biases. Anyway, my 2 cents... LouScheffer 07:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • it's an amusing theory of writing, but that's not the style in which enclopedia articles are typically written. "Person A proposed theory B based on considerations C" is much more straightforward than the roundabout phrasing. Geoffrey.landis 04:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki lawyers

Hi Geoffrey, Keith Henson here. We've met or at least been a few places at the some time. Developing problem with Wikipedia is that the place is being overrun by wiki lawyers who don't have a clue about the subjects. They are, however, anal retentive about enforcing wiki policy even if they don't even understand the reasons for the policy. There is more here if you are interested. [3]

The reason I came here was from following a link from solar power satellites, Thinned array curse that you wrote.

I have just started a wiki off the Wikipedia to organize thoughts/numbers/physics about a moving cable space elevator sized to build SPS in large numbers and would definitely appreciate your help. Email me if you want a pointer. hkhenson@rogers.com Keith Henson 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Keith-- Don't know if I have much free time available, but sure, send me a link. Geoffrey.landis 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Bishop

I guess we will leave it out for now due to lack of documentation from available primary sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree; it's not central to the article anyway. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A userbox is a graphic with a short description that is used to describe a user. It is for fun and it is not necessary. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objections to Evolution

(note: this text was originally on the page "User talk:Hrafn". Hrafn deleted this text from his page and pasted it here. The context for this is that Hrafn reverted a change I'd made to the page Objections to Evolution, where I had deleted an incorrect statement about gravity.)

nb., I just deleted a stack of comments from Hrafn with his opinions about the previous two sentences. I have no idea who Hrafn is, but I am finding him tedious, and have little interest in engaging in dialogue with him here. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

-=-=-=-=-

(Hrafn wrote:) WP:SOAPBOX rant returned to sender (I have no use for it)

Let me get this straight. Some idiot adds this text to the "Objections to Evolution" page and you don't revert it: "For example, logic and mathematics can prove that the chance that the earth has randomly provided the exact environment needed for any kind of life in the universe is less than one in 100 trillion. However, science, not being held to the same standards of logic or mathematics, needs only to observe, in far less mathematical or logical terms, certain phenomena to produce "proof." The confusion arises, then, in that the colloquial meaning of proof is simply "compelling evidence", in which case scientists would indeed consider evolution "proven", whereas mathematicans and logicians would not."

...but when the same article states that the theory of gravity is so broad and welll accepted that it's hard to think of an experiment that would disprove it, making it an unfalsifiable theory, and I delete that text... you race to skip right over the claptrap written by the creationist idiot, and revert that??

I'm sorry, what the hell is up with this gravity-denier business? Gravity is a testable theory. Get used to it. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a gravity denier. Can you think of a new experiment (i.e. one that has not already been attempted numerous times, with results that confirm gravity) that could disprove gravity? I doubt it. HrafnTalkStalk 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
And I can only revert what I can see -- I hadn't updated my watchlist, so I didn't know about the recent cruft. HrafnTalkStalk 02:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
On the section "unfalsifiability" you have repeatedly reverted the article to state that gravitation is the prime (in fact, only) example of a theory that it's "difficult to imagine any evidence that could disprove it." Since this is in the section on unfalsifiability, it's pretty much impossible to read this as anything other than a statement that theories of gravitation are unfalsifiable, thus denying that they are scientific theories at all (at least if you accept Popper's definitions.) I'd call this being a denier. In fact, not only can theories of gravity indeed be falsified, they have been falsified. Newton's gravity has been falsified by a large raft of experiments-- check out Clifford Will's review, for example. Gravity experiments are being done all the time-- there is a large community looking to find flaws in GR experimentally; try going to the experimental relativity section at any April APS meeting. (With luck, someday one of them will succeed). Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Get a clue! (1) I have not "repeatedly reverted the article" on this issue -- I have done so only once. (2) The version I reverted to did not state "that gravitation is the prime (in fact, only) example of a theory that it's 'difficult to imagine any evidence that could disprove it.'" Either gain a consensus behind a change on the article talkpage or bugger off. Either way, stop bothering me here with fallacious accusations. HrafnTalkStalk 03:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies; I noted several reversions by you to the section; but following down through the rather tangled history,I see you are right, the other reverts were to different parts of the section. However, I nevertheless find myself completely baffled; this should be be a completely uncontroversial edit. 'Why are people so adamant about putting this statement about theories of gravity into an article about evolution??? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Because Creationists like to pretend that evolution (including the facts of it, like transitional fossils, genetic evidence, etc, etc) doesn't exist -- but would have a great deal of difficulty denying gravity -- which makes it a powerful analogy. If you think that the analogy has been mis-framed in this context, then suggest a more accurate framing. Do not simply try to delete it, or you will keep on getting reverted. HrafnTalkStalk 05:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You are apparently unaware of this, but right now there is a concerted war against truth going on. One of the contentions in this war is the proposition that science has no value; it is purely a social construct, and the "evidence" that is adduced to support this is the purported "fact" that scientists do not follow a scientific methodology; scientific facts are not falsifiable, and in general it's all made up stuff so you can ignore it. For reasons that I do not understand, you seem to be attempting to slide into the "objections to evolution" article a statement to this effect. Oh, sure, theories of gravity are examples of a theorys that are so constructed that you can't even think of an experiment that can falsify it. The problem is that this is just wrong. Pure, flat-out wrong. Gravity is experimentally testable. Experimental tests of gravity are done constantly. The University of Washington has a whole group doing interesting experimental tests of gravity. We launched a spacecraft, Gravity Probe B, to experimentally test gravity. There are a host of theories, both metric and non-metric, with alternate possible models of gravity, and experimental tests constantly being done to try to determine whether one of these are correct. The statement that you can't even think of a way to test gravity is wrong. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Are you the Geoffrey A. Landis? Thanks. (Regardless, I do appreciate your recent work as a wikipedian). Ra2007 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm the only Geoffrey A. Landis I know of. (There is a Geoffrey B. Landis, and also I believe a Geoffrey C. Landis, but I'm the "A" version.) Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry about your rough treatment. I do hope you come back from time to time and fix articles that you see have factual errors. Ra2007 (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I know it was frustrating, but you should apologize to filll (talk · contribs) for this editing of his comments on an article talk page. I think this is a no-no on wikipedia. Ra2007 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm puzzled here. The tag "citation needed" is only a tag that's put onto somebody else's post. Nobody ever tags their own post with citation needed. Putting a "citation needed" tag onto a post is equivalent to a statement that the assertion tagged needs citation.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Logically, you are correct--there was no possibility for misunderstanding that the user tagged his own statement. But there are rules at wikipedia, and they are complex. Some contributors are adroit at baiting new users to violate esoteric rules, and also good at screaming bloody murder when the rules are violated. For example, provocatively, they will describe edits new users made with harsh langauge. New users will correctly take this as an insult against them, and insult back. However, it is okay to insult edits, but not editors. Anyway, you are correct logically, but you don't actually have to mean it when you apologize. It is just the cost of entry in the wikipedia system. You might want to look at Editing other's comments. Also take a look at WP:BITE Ra2007 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, you may be called to the mat for this, because you deleted other comments. (You might not, either, since it was part of a good faith apology.) Just a warning. Ra2007 (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know; I'm hoping that Filll will accept this a an apology, and I can back out of the whole thing. This has been consuming way too much time, and I believe that there are more useful things that both of us could be doing with our time. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
My guess is he will accept it. I agree, the drama is too much sometimes. Ra2007 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eddington experiment (1919 eclipse)

Hi there. Would you be interested in my comment here? The Eddington and General Relativity articles don't really cover the experiment. If I started up a separate page on it, would you be able to help out? Carcharoth (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an article specifically about the expedition seems reasonable. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google Scholar results and Jacob Golomb

Could you please take a look at the discussion that has taken place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Golomb? --Eastmain (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to see somebody edit the article and add some meat to it, to keep it out of the speedy-delete queue. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jorie Graham Rule

Just wanted to let you know that I re-added the FACT tag over at Foetry.com relating to the Jorie Graham Rule. My reasoning is on the discussion page, and I hope that you or someone else can find evidence for this outside of Foetry itself. I'll probably give it a couple of weeks and then delete the item as a whole if nobody's come up with anything new. ProfJeFF (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd added two citations; but at your request I added three more. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much - I left a response on the Foetry.com talk page so that everyone can see what I was thinking. ProfJeFF (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Bishop

I totally agree with your comment on the Jamie Bishop article. If anyone tries to rush this through another AfD, let me know and I'll try to help. Likewise, if you ever need any assistance on any articles here drop me a line. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Various things

Replied on the energy stuff here. Another thing I wanted to ask someone who knows about this kind of thing is whether the following articles are OK: On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances and Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire - they were on a list to be checked for accuracy following an arbitration case, but I don't know if they ever did get checked. Finally, I mentioned above, back in January, that I was thinking of doing an article on the Eddington experiment. Would you have time to have a look at it? See here. I've been picking rather desultorily at it, and some external comment would be useful. The sources I am using are on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually a little overcommitted right now; I might have a few minutes to look over an article, but don't really have time to make any serious editing. I did look over the two thermodynamics articles, and about all I can say is that it's a field of history on which I don't have much expertise, and can't make any useful comments on accuracy. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was very pleased to see this! I knew it was important to get that bit of the background right, and you seem to have got it spot on with that reference. The bit about the corpuscular theory of light falling into obscurity is a really good point as well. Might go and do a bit more work on the article again, now. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)