Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phoenixrod (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 3 November 2008 (→Talk: Gadsby (book): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edits to Talk:Speed of light

Hi, Sorry if I removed your comment, that wasn't my intent. Your edit to Talk:Speed of light made a double copy of every other section on that page, so I reverted it. (Look at the top lines of the page history, and you'll see that the page grew from 94 kbytes to 187 kbytes after you edited it.) I looked at your version to see if you had added an actual comment, but with such a long page I wasn't able to spot it, and in that situation the diffs from the previous version are no help. I just looked again and still wasn't able to see what you added. Sorry again. --Bob Mellish (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Battle of Britain

Don't know if you meant to put it in, but you signed your name to the page. It's been removed. A bit more care, in future? TREKphiler 05:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a mistake, thanks for removing it.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a prob. Also, FYI, replies are usually to the poster's talk (except on article pages, where this form is usual), if you don't already know. TREKphiler 10:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Editorial page

Re this comment: well said. TREKphiler 10:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speed of light

Hi Martin. Alhazen carried out quite a lot of experiments with light to prove his intromission theory, so I think it would take up a lot of unnecessary space if we were to describe them in the speed of light article, but you can have a look at the Book of Optics article for descriptions of some of those experiments (I'm planning to add some more of his experiments to that article later on). Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A new approach

Dear Martin,

I read your comment on 'a new approach to lightspeed'. I do realise that problems arise from the use of another definition of velocity. The definition of the metre, being dependent on time (frequency, wavelength), has to be reconsidered. Or should our idea of time be revised? What is time? Does it exist, or is it being created continuously? Is time really to be considered the fourth (or zeroth) dimension? I don't know. I hope I'll live long enough to find out.

Kindly Regarding,

Jaap, Jay2U: Jay2U (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Invention of radio

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Invention of Radio. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: A new approach

Dear Martin,

The article about proper time has put many things into place.

Thanks, Jaap Jay2U (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I think you need to step back and take a breather from Invention of Radio. Maybe shut down and walk away for a day ot two. Because you are close to breaking WP:3RR if you haven't already broken it.Swampfire (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, problem. I know what it is like to get wrapped up in a page and not pay attention to exactly what I am doing. Just bare in mind. To make sure it actually belong, especially with the article being about a specific subject, and to always add from a NPOV, and make sure to include valid references.Swampfire (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

vos Savant's MH solution

Martin - vos Savant's case analysis solution is at http://www.marilynvossavant.com/articles/gameshow.html (which is in the external links section of the article). -- Rick Block (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Gadsby (book)

Martin, would you mind re-formatting this edit? Replying in the middle of my comment messes up the numbering, and it's a little more difficult to follow the discussion when you are replying to unsigned parts of a comment. Thanks, and I hope we can remain civil in the discussion. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)