User talk:TimothyRias/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:TimothyRias. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I noticed in the opening paragraph of the Black hole article it states,( Around a black hole, there is a mathematically defined surface called an event horizon that marks the point of no return. The hole is called "black" because it absorbs all the light that hits the horizon, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics ). Would it not be more correct to make a revision of this statement incorporating the possibility of the Holographic principle.--Cloudassault (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
== Ponytail ==
Recently Ponytail was tagged as being of interest to WikiProject Physics. You subsequently deleted this tag. While I agree that the article as a whole isn't physics, the scientific studies section certainly is. I'm not sure if that's enough to warrant inclusion, but I wanted to point it out incase you missed it. 786b6364 (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Insults
If I've made a mistake, I'm certainly willing to rectify it. There's no need to resort to childish name calling. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just an objective observation.TR 21:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's a mature response. Kaldari (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you do something stupid, you should not be surprised to be called out on it, especially if you failed to follow common courtesy in doing so.TR 09:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a foolish action done without proper research and consideration. I apologize for the mistake. Kaldari (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you do something stupid, you should not be surprised to be called out on it, especially if you failed to follow common courtesy in doing so.TR 09:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's a mature response. Kaldari (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Million Award
|
The Million Award | |
| For your contributions to bring Black hole (estimated annual readership: 1,725,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Black hole to Good Article status. |
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I owe you a second one of these, too:
|
|
The Million Award | |
| For your contributions to bring Speed of light (estimated annual readership: 1,616,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Speed of light to Good Article status. |
- If I've missed any others, just let me know... and thanks again for serving so many readers with your work. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Article on Basil Hiley
Hi Timothy,
Some time ago in June 2011 you rated the article on "Basil Hiley" as "Low importance" (diff link). Since that time, Hiley has received the Majorana prize (in 2012), and the Wikipedia article about him has changed substantially, having been expanded and improved. I noted that you are member of the WikiProject Physics – would you be willing to consider whether it would merit to be upgraded to C- or B-class on quality and to "mid" on importance?
Cheers --Chris Howard (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you feel that the criteria for mid importance are met, feel free to change the importance rating. There is no monopoly on changing this rating by anyone, so go ahead. TR 11:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)