User talk:Albester

Welcome to Wikipedia Albester. I saw that you added quite a bit of information to the Pinwheel Galaxy. I hope you'll contribute further to astronomical articles on Wikipedia. Thanks and keep up the good work.--Kalsermar 20:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalsermar thank you for your kind words of encouragement. You are correct, I am new to Wikipedia, and I feel humbled to be allowed to make my own little contributions here and there! Albester 12:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- thanks for adding the comprehensive section in the first place. I'd hardly call what you wrote "horribly phrased". I just thought it might help for the article flow to adjust the intro slightly. (Hope you don't mind.) Izogi 07:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, feel free to improve any and all articles you may come across in Wikipedia, including Quantum mechanics. Don't let whether or not it's a FA deter you from improving it. If it loses FA status and you then improve it to FA status again, it will again become a FA. However, the point about POVs in Physics is not as simple as you say. The mathematical and theoretical parts are not always neatly laid down gardens, so debates are eternally ongoing, even on established theories such as Special relativity. Even in Physics, there is no objective truth (yes, I'm an antirealist/subjective realist). That is why things should be sourced.

As for interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, these come at many levels. At one level, almost everyone accepts the statistical interpretation. But at another level of interpretations, there's a slew of competing ones such as the Copenhagen, many-worlds, consistent histories, environmental decoherence, pilot wave and others. But at the level of detail required in a Wikipedia article, I think all relevant information can sourced from textbooks like Shankar and Sakurai. Best of luck working on the article. Incidentally, are you a professional physicist? Loom91 09:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can be considered one, I recently graduated in theoretical physics and am working on my PhD now. Of course you are correct about the POV. What I meant is that its the mathematical basis that should be the starting point of everything, the common ground everyone agrees on (I'm talking 'conventional' physics of course, not cutting edge where nothing is certain). The rest is merely interpretation, that is not to say that is not important, but rather when a certain interpretation as broad as Born's statistical one or the Copenhagen interpretation, how must I source it? A reference to the original article in which Born or Bohr put forth their interpretations is very nice I think.

My approach to physics articles is to put the physics to the fore as best as possible, and then follow up on the various interpretations, if any, and explain them. In any case, my primary concern was with correcting factual inaccuracies and I will do so :) Albester 11:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To buy nitric acid is not to easy and the nitration reactions always produce loads of NO2, the product is than dinitro toluene not TNT and the last step is even harder. 100g are possible but several kg would need a lot of work. But with Acetonperoxide its a lot easier.--Stone 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to come by, true enough. But my point was that any individual preserevant enough can ultimately manage with commonly available apparatus. After all, to aquire pure HNO3 one only needs a distilling setup. I believe you are correct that in the first nitration stage a mix of MNT and DNT are produced, but these can be seperated to repeat the process.

Claude thanks for the extensive reference. I had previously read a final summary of the results of JET, but this will hopefully broaden my knowledge. Best regards, Albester 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was thinking of adding this report as a reference in the ITER article and possibly others like

Nuclear Power and/or Fusion power. What do you think? ClaudeSB 16:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You are free to do so, and I would recommend it as well. There seems to be some misunderstanding on various parts like the feasibility and prospects of a working fusion reactor. In light of this a reference from relevant professional literature is very welcome indeed! Albester 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albester; "

I don't know if you are familiar with citations, but the numbered links within an article lead to more information about the previous points. In the case of the claim that northwestern Europe is a global "tornado hot spot", see the citation for that one, an encyclopedia brittanica article (or click here). More info on this topic is also available at The Tornado Project and the TORRO FAQ page.

On a side note, from what I can tell through my own research, England and the Netherlands are first and second in tornadoes per land area. Runningonbrains 14:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albester, where did u get the sky brightness graph from? i'm trying to recreate it for different atmospheres. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Thanks for uploading

in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our

Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

File permission problem with File:Lapalma-spectrum.png

Thanks for uploading File:Lapalma-spectrum.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at

non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]