User talk:Biophys
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Hello, Biophys, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.
Again, welcome! Alex Bakharev 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vladimir Putin, Quotations
Hello, Biophys. I've removed one of your contribs and moved other (see history). But it's mostly technical, i.e. your work is appreciated. I've noticed some of your interest to Quotations -- let's work together to improve them. The thing is, the majority of the section was contributed once by me, and there was no one pro or contra voice. I would give B for the section, but not more. It still needs a large work of adding, removing, and refining. And, again, your work is valued. Remember one of basic principles of Wikipedia, be bold! Thank you. ellol 13:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You might be interested...
I noticed your interests that you stated on your user page, and I just thought that you might be interested in the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject. If you like, drop by. I think that you may find it interesting. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 20:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Non-postulated relativity by Lev Lomize
Dear SCZenz,
Thank you very much for explanation! As I said, this is not an entirely new approach in physics. This work does not disprove anything in SR. The original book (in Russian) has been extensively peer reviewed by highly qualified physicists in Moscow. Moreover, 60,000 copies were sold.
I understand your point: you do not want any articles in Wikipedia that would be considered by many people in the field as "controversial" or wrong. You think that Wikipedia is not the place to promote new ideas or interpretations. Could you recommend me any other place that would be more appropriate for this purpose?
Next question. Let's assume that someone (probably not me) will create a Wikipedia article with a biography of Lev Lomize, where his contributions, ideas and views in physics will be described. Would that be O'K? Or even such article will be deleted if someone does not like it?
Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Biophys
- The book has been peer-reviwed by physicists? Really? This surprises me, because usually only journal articles undergo scientific peer review—it would be helpful to have some kind of verification of this fact.
- I don't know much about places to promote new ideas. You can always set up your own webpage. But if the author really has a useful new scientific idea, he should publish some journal papers. Once there are journal papers, then they can be cited and included on Wikipedia.
- As for writing a separate article on the author and his book... There's no reason that there can't be an article on any book, but books with very small print runs are generally regarded as insufficiently notable to include. There are no hard-and-fast rules on this, and I don't honestly know what would happen with this particular book.
- Hope that helps! -- SCZenz 20:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the author of the book passed away this year so he won't be able to publish any papers. Also, one should be careful making a statement like "...has been extensively peer reviewed by highly qualified physicists..." including a Nobel laureate without any evidence. These are usually frowned upon. Tailpig 19:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Biophys, I don't have the impression that his approach is really original. You may see that as a negative remark, but for Wikipedia it can actually work out positive, as such an approach (which I would call "Lorentzian") that was shared by a number of notable, even "authoritive" physicists is certainly more notable (= encyclopedic) than that of one physicist who is unknown in the west.
- Thus it may be worth writing a slightly more general article about it, if a respected journal article or book can be found that already discusses the subject (in order to avoid WP:OR). Possibly either "Lorentzian relativity" or "Physical relativity" could be sufficiently general as well as notable topics to which that book belongs. But probably you'd need help from other editors to make such a new article live up to its scope... Harald88 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Regards, Harald88 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New reply
Hi, thanks for your comments. Let me make sure I was clear last time, because I think it's all the advice I can give. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and includes only information that has already appeared in reliable primary and secondary sources. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability.) In areas of science, we include information that has been verifiably peer reviewed, which almost always means that the material has appeared in a recognized scientific journal. That is the system scientists use to verify their research as being well-founded and significant enough for wide circulation—we at Wikipedia didn't make it up, but we do rely on it as a measure of verifiability and notability. Research not published in a journal is generally unlikely to be included in Wikipedia. -- SCZenz 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- If it's simply a new way of teaching SR, then there are two ways it could be included in Wikipedia:
- It was a notable minority viewpoint among teachers of SR.
- Our editors thought the pedagogical approach would be useful for our readers, and found it not to have any major philisophical differences from ordinary SR teaching.
- Is either of these things true? -- SCZenz 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I can answer for Biophys (Biophys where are you?).
- Point 1: Yes, that is verified to be factual (Lorentz, Poincare, Langevin and several other teachers as well as a number of notable experimantal physicists such as Ives)
- Point 2: Not clear what you mean. People such as Bell and of course the above Russian author, if I understand well, emphasized the pedagogical usefulness of the physical interpretation that we inherited from the stationary ether model, even if we don't explicitly use it.
- Regards, Harald88 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This month's winner is proteasome!
– ClockworkSoul 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Albumin
I was wondering if I might pick your brain? Yesterday you wrote in peripheral membrane protein that albumin can associate with lipid bilayers under certain experimental conditions in vitro. May I ask what conditions those might be, and what your source is? I ask because this behavior may be interfering with a set of experiments that I'm trying to perform. Many thanks! – ClockworkSoul 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peripheral membrane protein
Did you notice that this article has been nominated for the MCB Collaboration of the Month? I see you've been putting alot of work into it, so you might want to add your vote to the stack: it's currently one of the front runners to be next month's collaboration. – ClockworkSoul 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
