User talk:Markus Poessel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Contents

[edit] Welcome message

Welcome!

Hello, Markus Poessel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

We're always glad to have more physicists on board. I'm "watching" your talk page for awhile, so you can just ask here if you have any questions about how things work. You can use colons

to indent (:)
or indent further (::)

in order to organize discussion threads. Section headings are generated like this: ==Section==, but I think you already figured that out. The history and watchlist are two of the most useful features of the wiki. Again, thanks for joining and good luck! Gnixon 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon: Many thanks for the kind welcome (and also for responding to my "Request for Comments"). I do have another question where I would appreciate your input. In late February, I created the entry Science festival. As you might have seen from my user page, I'm consulting for one of those (the one to be held in NYC), so strictly speaking it's once more a potential conflict of interest. I don't think the article is anything other than neutral, but I'd appreciate if you could have a look at it. I was thinking about declaring an official conflict of interest on that one, as well, but there is such a thing as making a mountain out of a molehill. Markus Poessel 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. I took a look at that article, and I don't see any bias problems. It wouldn't be crazy to just mention your affiliations on the talk page, but certainly there's no need to make any mountains. If people didn't have interests, articles would never be written! It's great to see a new editor already writing new articles. I've been around awhile longer than you, and I have yet to do so. I should probably take a cue from your good contributions. Gnixon 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh! I forgot to mention that I noticed nothing else links to your article (see "What links here" on the left). It'd be great if you looked around for other articles that could link to it, otherwise it's likely nobody will ever find it. You could also check out WP:PERFECT for ideas on crafting the perfect article. Gnixon 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - in fact, there was one link (from Festival), but I've now gone and added some cross-links with Science museum, the Edinburgh festival etc. Oh, and I've added a brief text to the talk page mentioning my affiliation with the NY festival. Markus Poessel 09:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to general relativity

I fixed dashes in one section only, but there are more to be done; have a look at WP:DASH on the difference between emdashes, endashes and hyphens. On matter-mass, I wasn't certain if it's a hyphen, or it it refers to matter to mass, in which case it may be an endash, but in either case, it wouldn't be an emdash. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy - thanks for helping out. I'm surprised, though – I did have a look at WP:DASH some time ago, and from that article gathered that spaced en-dashes are considered a valid alternative to em-dashes, as long as they were used consistently throughout the article. I then changed Introduction to general relativity so that all interruptions were indeed indicated by spaced en-dashes. A search I made just now reveals that I did in fact miss one hyphen that should be an en-dash, and I'm of course willing to correct that, but I'm reluctant to go through the whole text again without a compelling reason. Is there some rule I overlooked – are the dash criteria for featured articles more strict than what is stated in WP:DASH? Markus Poessel 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was because of that one missed that I thought you might not have been aware of the need to use a consistent style; feel free to revert my changes if you prefer to consistently use spaced endashes, and change the one that was missing. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That explains it - sorry for the confusion. I've reverted to the version with spaced en-dashes, and replaced the one erroneous hyphen. Markus Poessel 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good; I hope to get a chance to read the article soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

Thank you so much for your help on The Age of Reason. I am busy researching, so it will take me a few days or a week to address your major points.

I was wondering if you would be willing to review Transformer. I did a "peer review exchange program" with the editor, but I feel incredibly guilty that I could not actually review the article more. Since I know nothing about transformers, I became mired down in clicking on other articles to try and understand the topic. As a physicist (cool), I am sure that you know the basics of transformers. I know the editor would greatly appreciate any help. His article has been sitting at peer review for a while.

By the way, was I correct in saying that undergraduate physics majors do not really understand general relativity? This is what all of my undergraduate physics major friends tell me. Are they all, um, challenged? I hope the FAC calms down and returns to a discussion of your excellent article. Awadewit | talk 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by understanding. A smart undergraduate physics major can certainly work through gr textbooks (in which the more advanced mathematical concepts, not being part of the regular curriculum, are introduced alongside the physics) and come away with a good understanding of the subject. Also, you can get a good basic understanding (significantly above what popular science reading can do, but not enough to enable you to jump right in and start your PhD work) using no more than undergraduate maths (in the biography of Intro to gr, the book by Schutz is an example for what can be done that way). No doubt your undergraduate physics major friends set the bar higher than that, but yes, you can understand gr, for a reasonable definition of "understand", as an undergraduate.
As for transformer: Bad timimg - with the FA review and so on I feel that I am being sucked into Wikipedia at the moment, to the detriment of other things I should be doing. It's addictive, and there should be a big warning sticker to that effect on the main page. But yes, I'll see if I can fit the transformer in, and say at least a little bit on it (but I can stop anytime, you know). --Markus Poessel 06:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand being sucked into wikipedia and becoming addicted - it certainly happened to me and I wouldn't want it to happen to you ("Just say no!"). Not a problem. Awadewit | talk 08:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tinker with "Introduction to general relativity"?

Hi Markus,

Would you mind if I tinkered a bit with Introduction to general relativity? I think I could make some improvements, but I would hate to throw a monkey wrench into its FAC, or make you miffed at me, so I thought I should ask first. If you'd prefer, I can wait until after it becomes FA. I could also write a few notes in a sandbox, and you could just extract what you liked from there. With many thanks for your understanding and hard work here, Willow 02:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A recognition of your hard work

I dub thee a wizard in the knightly order of wikipedians for your tireless contributions to Introduction to general relativity. As a wizard, it is your duty to preserve and pass on your magical knowledge so that future generations may benefit.
I dub thee a wizard in the knightly order of wikipedians for your tireless contributions to Introduction to general relativity. As a wizard, it is your duty to preserve and pass on your magical knowledge so that future generations may benefit.

Keep up the good work Markus and good luck with the main article. It attracts quite a few cranks so be careful. Cheers--Cronholm144 07:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to enlist the help of User:Silly rabbit, User:WillowW, User:Geometry guy, User:JRSpriggs, User:EVula, User:DVdm, User:Ems57fcva, User:Count Iblis, and WP:PHYS when you finally get going (although they will probably join in regardless). I imagine you could whip up an FA article from what is there in two weeks. Good luck.--Cronholm144 08:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea - thanks for the list of names! I hope that, even though getting the article to FA status within two weeks should be possible, things will move much more slowly. While I'm motivated to contribute, I think I need to cut down on the overall time I've been spending on WP the last week or so. --Markus Poessel 09:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand, it is very addictive, I have to cut down during the school year otherwise I don't get anything done. :)--Cronholm144 09:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GR

I've only had a chance to glance briefly through Intro to GR, so I won't comment at the FAR FAC yet, but what I've seen looks great! Great writing, good organization, and not a single rubber sheet or the like to make me cringe. (Well, "doyen" instead of something simpler like "prominent" made me squint, but I can't argue it's inaccurate.) I see you have Willow on board, so this is sure to be an FA success story, and I look forward to reading through it carefully when I get a chance. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Gnixon 04:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I just wanted to mention a minor technical detail in case there are a few sanboxes still lying around. When you transfer the original article be sure to remove the categories at the bottom of the article, otherwise it will count in the tables as an article (I did this with my first sandbox as well, it is fairly common). I removed them from WIP, but I wasn't sure if you had noticed, so I thought I would let you know. Cheers--Cronholm144 19:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I did notice that you and JRSpriggs had made some changes in that respect - thanks, and I apologize for my ignorance of this particular rule! --Markus Poessel 20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, you have managed to meet just about every good math/science editor I know, so any little mistakes that anyone makes (hopefully) won't last long. I also recommend you "publish" your essay, see WP:ESSAY. Cheers--Cronholm144 20:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
After the mostly solitary work on the article version that I presented for FAC review, the present cooperation is certainly a new and nice experience. Thanks for the essay suggestion; I'll be sure to look at it once I've made a bit more headway with the main article general relativity. --Markus Poessel 20:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

A worthy FA - let there be more...--Joopercoopers 11:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite relieved the FAC review is now over. Thanks for your support!//Markus Poessel 12:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome - they're not all like that - yours was a bit of a test case I think - and of wide and popular appeal, so generated a load of interest. regards --Joopercoopers 15:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
After your eloquent, calm and insightful defense of the excellent article Introduction to general relativity at FAC, you certainly deserve an award! Awadewit | talk 19:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks! --Markus Poessel 07:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Age of Reason

It would seem that the peer review for The Age of Reason was prematurely archived by someone or somebot. I have made extensive revisions. Please let me know if they address the problems you raised. We can just start chatting on the talk page of the article. Thanks so much for your help - I've never had this much trouble with an article and I really appreciate your assistance. Awadewit | talk 19:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about the review's sudden move to the archive. Continuing on the talk page seems to be the logical next step - and: you're welcome! --Markus Poessel 07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Gravitational Time Dilation ...

I understand if you can't really get into this, but I have a question: I understand what gravitation time dilation is, but I can't piece together from the various articles I've read WHY it occurs. I must warn you, I'm no physicist, I'm just reading up on some topics. If you could find the time to message me and explain it, briefly and (relatively) simply, I'd appreciate it. TribeCalledQuest 14:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out. TribeCalledQuest 12:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Great, but bad timing on my part. Here's the answer for which I just now got the inevitable edit conflict: "Physics isn't really concerned with the "why", which makes answering your question a bit difficult. I guess the closest one can come to an answer is that from general relativity, we know that the distortion of time and the warping of space are responsible for making bodies move as if there were a gravitational force acting on them. In order for bodies to move in the way we know they do (namely falling towards, and being attracted by, large masses), time must run more slowly close to massive bodies. Sorry if this isn't what you're after, but there really isn't that much more to it (except for all the details)." --Markus Poessel

[edit] Note to vandal

I saw your note to the GR vandal:

Dear anonymous user; thanks for dropping by general relativity to fix some things. The article is currently being revised simultaneously by a number of editors, and in such a situation, it would be great if you could propose major changes such as deleting a section...

Thanks for making my day! Alfred Centauri 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a Buddhist thing. --Markus Poessel 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When you're not busy...

I was wondering if you might have some spare time (!) to do a peer review of Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman. It is an article about a novel by Mary Wollstonecraft (I'm working on a Wollstonecraft featured topic at the moment - I'm almost done - so close.) I am struggling with the organization of the article (again). Also, I am having a difficult time presenting all of the major scholarly points of view without descending into "X said...However, Y argues...Yet, Z sees it this way..." If you could offer any insights over the next few weeks, I would greatly appreciate it. The article did not garner a lot of attention at WP:PR. Since the academic year has started up again for me, there is no rush. I have plenty of other things to do!

Also, I don't know if Willow mentioned it to you, but she is harvesting right now, so she won't be around that much for the next month or so. I just wanted to make sure that you knew she wasn't abandoning introduction to general relativity. She is knee-deep in vegetables or something. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

The Reviewers Award The Reviewers Award
Thank you for the careful and thorough reviews you lavished on The Age of Reason and The Wrongs of Woman. Your thoughtful comments helped me step back and see the articles from a new perspective. I appreciate your willingness to reread drafts and your great good humor. It is a pleasure to work with you. Awadewit | talk 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal at Schwarzschild metric

Hi Markus,

I'm conscious that I owe you something thoughtful at ItGR but, honestly, I'm too tired today. I'm writing because there's a stubborn vandal at the Schwarzschild metric, coincidentally German from their user page. I can't revert him again because of WP:3RR, so any help you could give me would be curvaceously welcome in many dimensions. ;) Willow 01:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Willow - is that all you do? Calm down the rest of us? Willow is too kind. She is spending much time trying to mediate the dispute about BE vs. AE over at A Vindication of the Rights of Men. Now I feel guilty. She could be spending time contributing content and instead she is trying to arbitrate this absurd debate which has totally spiral[l]ed out of control. :( Isn't it nice that quarks, leptons, bosons, and fermions don't have dialect preferences? Awadewit | talk 06:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that someone else did the revert, and that the user in question is now indefinitely blocked, so all appears well now. As for ItGR, take your time – for my part, I'm looking forward to a busy two coming months, so I'm quite content with the leisurely pace of our current ItGR work. --Markus Poessel 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

Finally! Something tangentially related to modern science! If you have any time in the next month or two, could you peer review Joseph Priestley? I have had two other editors occasionally looking over my shoulder at the science, but it never hurts to have more (I mean, I originally wrote he discovered "oxygen" instead of "oxygen gas"!) As the article is long and somewhat complex (it involves theology, philosophy, politics, and natural philosophy), I would owe you many favors. Awadewit | talk 06:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A quote you might enjoy

I came across a quotation you might find intriguing. In 1789, the Analytical Review reviewed Jean d'Alembert's History of the French Academy and this is how they described him: "a man distinguished in the most learned society in Europe by the universality and depth of this knowledge; by his proficiency in grammar, particular and universal, philology, metaphysics, history, the fine arts, and, above all, geometry". - I thought you would like the grammar bit, especially since you must so familiar with the mathematical formula named after him. :) Awadewit | talk 07:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's certainly the kind of thing anyone could be proud to have said about him or her. I must admit that so far, I mostly knew d'Alembert as a man of principle. Just having had a look at the WP article, I see that he was much more versatile than that. --Markus Poessel 16:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That's one of the things I love about the 18c - people dipped into a lot of things. No specialization. :) Awadewit | talk 19:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review list

Please think about adding yourself to this list of peer reviewers. Awadewit | talk 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I will refrain from doing so, seeing that I'm currently trying to keep my WP involvement down to a minimum - the bare essentials, if you will (general relativity and similar things, plus, of course, review requests from esteemed colleagues concerning). --Markus Poessel 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this falls under your minimum categories of wiki-participation, but Le Sage's theory of gravitation is an interesting and very good article that I had to unfortunately fail for GA. My guilt is overwhelming me so much that I am trying to find editors that can help out with the page in some meaningful way. I don't know if defunct theories are an interest of yours, but this one seemed interesting. Awadewit | talk 09:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but I 'll pass this one up - checking all that is too close to real work, and I'd rather invest the time in streamlining the general relativity article, for instance. I'd rather wait for whichever of your 18th century articles is up for review next. --Markus Poessel 12:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • She's just overworked, I think. You might ask gently prompt her, if you feel like it. We could do a section a week or something. :) Awadewit | talk 09:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

If you have a moment in the coming weeks, perhaps you could review Joseph Johnson (publisher)? It is a bit longish, so I would understand if you said no. Johnson was am important publisher of works by people like Wollstonecraft and Priestley. Awadewit | talk 07:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look at Johnson. Core Contest or no, I definitely want to do something about general relativity; at the moment, however, the reference books I need are in boxes which haven't caught up with me yet... --Markus Poessel (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year!

I wanted to thank you for the knowledge I've gained working with you on introduction to general relativity and the increased care you've forced me to take with my own contributions through your careful and thoughtful reviews. (I wanted to include a picture of the gingerbread particle accelerator that my friends and I are planning, but like most particle accelerators, its creation has been delayed. Hopefully, it will come online soon.) Awadewit | talk 09:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template limits

I was just visiting Wikipedia:Template limits and noticed you hit the limit with a 100 cites. You might like to know that this should no longer be a problem, because a new page preprocessor has been introduced. So you no longer need to substitute for the citation template. Geometry guy 12:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Introduction to" articles

You might be interested in this debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination). Awadewit | talk 18:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I followed this link, and just noticed that you wrote the essay, Markus! Many many thanks for doing that: it is great work. Geometry guy 18:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a couple of comments at the other debate, but I'm afraid that I must try to focus on my dissertation at the moment. I wanted to make my voice heard, though! This is an important one. Awadewit | talk 00:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are invited!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 1/13/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Force

I was wondering if you had time to review and perhaps improve the Force article a bit. From looking at the lead, I am worried that it doesn't explain the concepts as clearly to the layperson as it could. The article is currently at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit – I would like to, and I think it's an important article, but I'm currently in the middle of responding to my own batch of reviewers at Wikipedia:Peer_review/General_relativity/archive1. And I've still got some of the more labor-intensive requests (hunting through the article for long sentences) ahead of me. All the best, Markus Poessel (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Understood - I'm trying to rustle up some more reviewers for you, too. I don't know how successful that will be. Awadewit (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to rustle up more reviewers. I was thinking about going to the copy-editor's guild as a next step after that review – do you have any experience with them? My worry is that, with an article like this in which a number of formulations were chosen very deliberately, someone who might be a very good copy-editor, but doesn't know the science content, might actually create problems when editing the article. Markus Poessel (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right to be worried - unless you can find a copy editor who knows the material, I would dispense with that idea. It is very hard to copy edit an article that one doesn't understand thoroughly (I'm trying to do Action potential now and I feel useless - Willow is just being kind when she says I am helping, I think.) Also, the LoCE has a huge backlog - something like longer than six months. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, that is eminently useful information. Going to the LoCE, laudable as that organization is, doesn't seem to be the right next step then. I'll just go by the reviewers' comments, and try to do some polishing myself. Thanks! Markus Poessel (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Symphony Space

Well, the other image is much higher-resolution. Among other things, you can read the facade with phrases like "Family", "Film", "Wall to Wall", "Dance", "Literature", "Bloomsday on Broadway", posters for some upcoming shows etc. You can also see the sign for Thalia, Peter Norton's name, and the digital marquee in action.--Pharos (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:Thanks

Erm...did I do that? I guess I did. Strangely, I ran into that page marked as a new one while doing new-page patrol. I wouldn't have CSD'd otherwise...perhaps my browser glitched, or the site glitched, or I glitched. I had no intention of marking that for deletion. I could have sworn it appeared as a new page; apparently I made a stupid error. Sorry about that... FusionMix 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright :). Yes, it was a mistake. Thanks for not treating it as the end of the world, though. I saw a user lambasted thoroughly for the same mistake a couple of weeks ago. Again, thanks :). FusionMix 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E=mc^2 und Atombombe

Hi, melde mich hier gleich direkt: Wir haben in der deutschen Wikipedia einen kleinen Disput, der sich u.a. um einen Ihrer Texte dreht - Von E=mc² zur Atombombe. Einige (wie ich) folgen der Meinung von Werner Heisenberg, Robert Serber und Ihnen, dass E=mc² nur eine nebensächliche Rolle bei den Entwicklungen zur Kernspaltung und der Atombobme spielten. Andere wie z.b. de:Benutzer:Norbert Dragon sehen das etwas anders und meinen, Ihre Darstellung sei falsch. Siehe dazu die Diskussionen:

Die Diskussion wird derzeit weiter unter
Vielleicht könnten Sie da einen Kommentar schreiben. Grüße --D.H (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can Black Holes be formed?

Dear Markus Poessel,

I write to you, because I found your name under the discussion about General Relativity (GR). I read the page about GR and found, that it claim, GR predict Black Holes. As I understand GR, a Black Hole can't be formed, because it'll take an infinite time for the last part to fall in, so a event horizon can be formed. Isn't this correct, and should it be pointed out on the page about GR?

See: http://www.engr.newpaltz.edu/~biswast/bhole/blackhole.shtml and http://physorg.com/news101560368.html

Sincerely John Niclasen, Niels Bohr Institute, Denmark. http://www.fys.ku.dk/~niclasen/

John Niclasen (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't looked in detail at Krauss' quantum calculations, but classically, the "infinite time" it takes for the star to collapse is a matter of using inadequate coordinates - coordinates with a coordinate singularity at the horizon. Israel's article (Dark stars- the history of an idea, cited in general relativity, I believe) has a nice account of the evolving understanding of this. Markus Poessel (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Markus

How've you been? I'm sorry that I've been lame about finishing our work at Introduction to general relativity, but I hope to get back there this summer, if you're still game. I think Awadewit would be. I've rather allowed myself to get distracted. :(

One of my distractions you might like, however: List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. :) It's being considered as a Featured List candidate right now. If you could look it over and critique it, I'd be grateful. I tried to get everything right, but I'm conscious of how horribly limited my knowledge is, so I'd really appreciate your help and review. Thanks muchly, Markus! :) Willow (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think I might've addressed your concerns at the FLC? Could you look it over and see if that's true? Thanks again, Willow (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area
Last: 3/16/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update of Intro to GR

Hello, first let me congratulate you for your very well written article. I wanted to ask you something about a phrase in section Experimental tests:

Further tests of general relativity include precision measurements of the Shapiro effect or gravitational time delay for light (most recently in 2002 by the Cassini space probe) and measurements of effects predicted by general relativity for the behavior of gyroscopes travelling through space. For example geodetic precession has been tested with Lunar laser ranging experiments (high precision measurements of the orbit of the Moon), while frame-dragging will be tested by the Gravity Probe B satellite experiment launched in 2004 (with results expected in late 2007).

Have the results been published, so that the article can be updated? I'm asking you, because you might be in a better position to update this than most people. Good luck! diego_pmc (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)