User talk:Fedosin

 Hello Fedosin, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.


 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonstandard physics articles
As you have noticed, the set of articles that were moved to subpages of Nonstandard physics were nominated for deletion. I made the move as an attempt to protect these pages from deletion, see Requests for deletion. (I see you already commented.)

If these articles are actually mainstream physics, it can certainly be considered to move them out into mainspace, organized under the physics pages in general. If articles are duplicates of Wikipedia articles, they probably should be deleted, or, maybe better, replaced with links to the WP article and possibly additional material. Wikiversity can have far broader resources than Wikipedia articles!

What we don't want is "fringe theories" presented as if they were mainstream. Something sitting at the top level (an ordinary page in mainspace) should be neutral, and if facts and theories are presented there that are controversial or original, they should be identified as such. It should be possible to verify information in top-level mainspace pages from reliable sources. But we can, on Wikiversity, create pages with original research, original ideas, etc. My recommendation is that these be limited to subpages, under a topic, the topic page at the top level is neutral and verifiable.....

Anyway, I wanted to give you a deeper welcome, and if I can be of any assistance, my Talk page is open. --Abd 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As a part of the close of A request for deletion for the "Inexplicable physics articles", the Nonstandard physics pages were tagged with a statement that "This article was nominated for deletion, but consensus was unclear. If it has not been converted into useful content in 6 months, then it may be deleted without further discussion."


 * I discussed this decision with the custodian who made it, and he wrote, "Feel free to un-tag useful articles as you see fit." My opinion is that all the articles are potentially useful if placed in proper context. I moved them to subpages of Nonstandard physics because this would address concerns about any possible fringe character of what is stated there, not as an assertion that there was anything actually wrong with the pages. If the concerns have been addressed, if statements are referenced to papers in mainstreal journals or such references, other than your own publications, there would be no problem with moving any of these pages into the School of Physics, and it is also possible that these pages become subpages of other pages in that hierarchy as essays by an individual scholar, i.e., yourself. I will assist in this as I'm able, and please request assistance if you find it appropriate. We should review all the pages before the six months is up, and we may solicit participation by other users who are familiar with physics.
 * Wikiversity is not like Wikipedia, we do not exclude fringe or unorthodox theories, even if not sourced. How they are presented, though, must be, overall, neutral, and educationally useful. Examining even false theories, should they be false (i.e., dysfunctional), can be educational, if the examination is balanced.
 * If you re-use anything that you have published elsewhere, steps may need to be taken to demonstrate that you are, in fact, the original author and that you have the right to give permission to reproduce here. That's not necessary for original writing here. This all gets easier because you now are using an account. --Abd 16:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cold fusion
I have been working on the Cold fusion resource. Cold fusion is a quite unusual field, where experimental results from work undertaken, mostly by electrochemists, has been interpreted to be incompatible with existing theories by nuclear physicists, with, as a result, the experimental evidence being rejected as "impossible." However, a fundamental error was made, which was to assume that what the discoverers of the anomaly, Pons and Fleischmann, claimed was an "unknown nuclear reaction," would necessarily be d-d fusion, a known, and very well characterized reaction. It was obvious from the results, that if the reaction was, in fact, some sort of catalyzed d-d fusion, it was happening under unknown conditions, so prediction of behavior was based on assumptions of similarity. There are now theories to explain cold fusion that do not involve d-d fusion; for example, there is a theory that double-molecular confinement of D2 can lead, under rare conditions, to the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate, which is predicted, from quantum field theory, to collapse and fuse within a matter of femtoseconds. This would form Be-8, which would then decay into two helium nuclei. No neutrons, no tritium, no gamma radiation.

I hasten to add that this theory is incomplete and unconfirmed, but it does explain some of the experimental evidence, which is, confirmed, that the Fleschmann-Pons effect, when it produces anomalous heat, also produces helium at a ratio consistent with that of deuterium fusion, it's been estimated, from twelve studies, to be roughly 25 +/-5 MeV/He-4, with 23.8 MeV being the theoretical figure for and deuterium -> helium conversion. So, from the laws of thermodynamics, there is strong confirmation that some kind of fusion, i.e., the conversion of deuterium to helium, by whatever mechanism, is taking place.

Your participation in and/or review of materials that are being added to the Cold fusion resource will be appreciated. At this point, cold fusion is an experimental science, with little explanatory theory that is sufficiently developed to make accurate predictions. However, it's important that the resource cover certain aspects of physics. The rejection of cold fusion in 1989-1990 was quite understandable, given the common assumption that the reaction would be d-d fusion. However, there was never any actual demonstration that the F-P results were artifact, and anomalous heat in the palladium deuteride system has been very widely confirmed, well above noise, and the helium results more or less ice the matter, due to the power of correlation of what should be independent errors, if they were errors.

I hope you can help with that resource. While I have some background in physics, it was a long time ago and I don't consider myself competent to understand all aspects, definitively. --Abd 16:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please give me some days to finish reedition of articles which are interesting for me now. Fedosin 18:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No rush, Fedosin. If you'd like to get a sense of current thinking on cold fusion, see the recent review of the field published in Naturwissenschaften, the October 2010 issue, copy at . I was happy to be credited in it, just before the bibliography, since that's one of the journals Albert Einstein published in. --Abd 18:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Images in Scale dimension
Hi! I've been doing a bit of a cleanup of non-free images used on Wikiversity, and a couple of pictures you were using on Scale dimension turned up: File:Escher, Metamorphosis III.jpg and File:Galaofspheres.jpg. As the Wikimedia Foundation policy is fairly restrictive on the use of non-free images, I've had to remove both, but if you think that they meet the exemption policy, I'd be very happy to help update the fair-use rationale and place them back. Alternatively, you may find the there are some free works on Commons which would do the same job. :) At any rate, if you need any assistance at all just let me know - I'd be very glad to help. - Bilby 22:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've proposed process to generate a report on our fair use policy, at Assembly. If you believe that these images are important to your educational resource, please let me know, we can work on fair use rationale. (And thanks to Bilby and S Larctia for their work cleaning up our licensing situation.) --Abd 22:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Your articles that might be deleted.
an RfD covering many pages that I think you created closed with a decision suggesting that the pages be deleted in six months if they had not been incorporated into learning resources. Six months having elapsed, a probationary custodian just deleted one of them. I undeleted, but to maximize consensus and minimize disagreement around here, we should make some effort to respect that original intention.

One of the pages, Physics/Essays/Anonymous/Dirac large numbers hypothesis, the one that was deleted, actually had been radically changed by me. It simply points, now, to the Wikipedia article and suggests discussion. Something like that might be done with other pages, but that would, to be best, require review of the content. Then these pages should be placed into our page hierarchy, associated with general articles on the general topics. You are the best person to do that. Can you help? link corrected to current location. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Abd 02:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

After reading of article Fine structure constant it seems it may be deleted if this is necessary - it repeats Wikipedia version, and original or useful information is very small and may be moved to article Stoney scale. Fedosin 18:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For the first I want say that at Nonstandard physics are only 4 articles which were translated by me into English for Wikiversity: Gravitational induction, Gravitomagnetism , Maxwell-like gravitational equations , and Selfconsistent gravitational constants. After some editions of the articles, which were done, I hope they may be moved now to a standard physics location. See also talk.

File copyright
Image:Escher, Metamorphosis III.jpg lacks a fair use rationale, and therefore will be deleted on or after October 26, 2011, unless a fair use rationale is supplied. If you would like any assistance in sorting out the copyright status of this image, please don't hesitate to contact me or another user. Thanks. Simone 11:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This applies also to File:Galaofspheres.jpg and File:Another_World.jpg. -- Simone 14:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see use rationale for Image:Escher, Metamorphosis III.jpg, may be it will be enough?Fedosin 15:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for filing the rationale. I'm afraid however, that if you read WV:EDP, "Fair use content is used only if its presence can significantly increase understanding of the topic". You need to explain in the fair use rationale how the inclusion of the Escher drawing in the resource significantly increases the reader's understanding of scale dimension.
 * You need to file similar rationales for the other two images, if you want them to stay in the article. -- Simone 18:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We are working on that EDP, it was labeled policy without discussion, so details of it may not be precisely what we want. The problem, to be sure, was that without an EDP, generic WMF policy would apply, which was clearly written with the needs of projects other than ours, which had barely begun when the Board resolution was issued.
 * Go ahead and add the rationales for the other files. The question of whether or not a custodian should second-guess an educator is another issue that will need to be resolved. We would not go into a professor's classroom and question every slide the professor shows his students.... To be sure, Fedosin, Simone is just enforcing what she sees as a clear policy, so don't take it personally. The question here is "Who decides if an increase in understanding is "significant"? Someone who doesn't understand the resource itself? I'll be proposing procedure that is simpler. If an author asserts that content is improved by the presence of an image, this creates an assumption that it's an improvement. The author would be required to assert that in the fair use rationale. If we get into judging it, routinely, we will have many highly subjective judgments to make. If the assertion is preposterous, that's one thing. But if it's possible, we should accept it.
 * However, that's just my opinion. What the Wikiversity community will decide it wants is not up to me, alone. It's up to the community. Which includes you, Fedosin. Have you looked at Assembly? You are invited to register as a member of the Assembly. All registered users may. --Abd 20:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonstandard physics/Fine structure constant
. I'm moving this to your user space, to User:Fedosin/Fine structure constant, so that you may re-use any of the content. When you are done, please place a deletion tag on it, and it can be deleted. The page will be deleted from mainspace, no redirect will be left. To place a deletion tag, use

on the page. The reason here might be "copy of Wikipedia article, not needed on Wikiversity." Or whatever.

However, it's also possible to have a mainspace page, Fine structure constant, that is a link to the WP article, with only a little explanatory content, such as a definition, with, then, links to pages that discuss related topics.

The other articles under nonstandard physics may be moved to appropriate positions in mainspace, if you believe them ready for that. The "nonstandard physics" subspace was designed to avoid controversy. If you believe any page is "standard physics," go ahead and assert that by moving the page to mainspace and removing any old tags that aren't appropriate.

If you understand that something is from your own ideas or original research, place it as a subpage, it's better. If you start at the top level then some who don't realize the possibilities here may contest it. As your own essay, it doesn't have to be "neutral." You may, of course, create standard physics pages in mainspace and then link essays or controversial research as subpages. Let me know if there are any questions. --Abd 23:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is prepared now to move to a mainspace page, Fine structure constant. It has some explanatory content, such as a definition, with links to pages that discuss related topics, and reference to Wikipedia. Part of content was distributed to articles Stoney scale and Selfconsistent gravitational constants. Fedosin 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me, but you are the expert. I do suggest you move it to mainspace now. You don't need to ask permission for any of these pages, but please do review that original RFD, and the next one, and consider the objections. Ask me if you have any questions. Thanks for your contributions and patience. --Abd 11:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see you didn't move the page, you copied the content. I'm not sure, perhaps the redirect that was there prevented you from moving i. Copying the content like that should be avoided, because the history is lost. I didn't think of that. I've fixed it, and am cleaning up redirects.
 * One thing I didn't check. If you edited the page content as part of the copying, that's lost. If it's important I can recover it, let me know. --Abd 17:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is not important, so it is up to you. For the next I will know that redirect is better then copied the content.Fedosin 17:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Abd's nomination for full custodianship
Discussion re-opened on this nomination, November 16. You commented in the original discussion, but have not commented in the current one, which might close on November 21. The current discussion is at Candidates for Custodianship/Abd (full custodian). --Abd 20:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

IP edits to your user page.
and more before these two. Fedosin, please log in if possible before editing your user page, because we will want to make sure that vandals don't make gross or subtle changes, and only you would know for sure about subtle problems. I looked at these last two changes and they seem fine, but that takes time. I have not looked carefully at the others. I recommend that you check all those changes, you will quickly see the ultimate effect of them in this diff. I glanced over it and nothing leapt out as a problem, but if you simply log in, there is no issue at all. By the way, I'm honored that you contribute to Wikiversity. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Moved your essay
I moved your essay to Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter. This was the first action in a series of planned actions that would move resources you have created that represent your approach to physics, into that space dedicated to your work. Defining your work as "essay" gives you author rights. Placing the work as I did removes possible controversy over the neutrality of these pages.

There are many other resources you have created that may be moved there, and, of course, you may create any new essays relating to physics you wish in that space.

If you wish to claim that any work you have done is "standard physics," you are free to object and we can discuss the matter.

My goal here is to give you the greatest freedom to express your ideas, including arguments, demonstrations, and what you have called proofs, while not creating controversy and cause for disruption, such as the old deletion discussions.

Thanks for continuing to contribute to Wikiversity. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have edited Category:Inexplicable physics pages to reflect what I intend to do, all those pages I assume are your work. If not, please let me know. Otherwise I intend to move all those pages to your Physics/Essay space. They will no longer be tagged "inexplicable physics" and will be only be labelled as nonstandard, perhaps only where they are linked. Generally, these pages should not be linked from mainspace without a "nonstandard" disclaimer. Note that I'm relying on my own opinion about "standard physics," and that opinion does not mean that your work does not use standard physics, I'm sure it does, at least in part. I actually want to avoid making any judgment of your work beyond recognizing it as controversial, which it clearly is. At least one of those pages, I noticed, you redirected back to mainspace.


 * Mainspace itself is gradually being organized so that "small topics" become subpages of larger ones. This is not a hard and fast rule, but is a shift away from the alphabetically organized flat structure of that kind of encyclopedia, toward a hierarchy of knowledge for improved educational function. Where we have a "standard physics" resource relating to one of your essays, we will either move the essay to an essay subpage of that resource, or link to it as an essay, or, if your work can be established as standard or at least widely accepted, it could become a full resource itself (whether at the top level in mainspace or as a subpage)-- which means anyone can edit it, to "improve" it. As you may know, such editing is not always beneficial, it's the Wikipedia problem. We are avoiding that problem here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion
I tagged pages that were covered by the original Inexplicable physics deletion discussion, for speedy deletion. Those might be deleted at any time. However, if you wish any of these pages to be kept, please remove the deletion template and we can then discuss what to do with them. I moved the pages that you had edited to your Physics essay space, as a quick way of handling them. You can see all pages targeted for speedy deletion, at any time, at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. They are all subpages of Nonstandard physics, which will be deleted itself when all subpages are gone. Removing the deletion template at the top of the page will remove the pages from that category. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The speedy deletion tags I added have been converted to place the remaining pages in Category:Proposed deletions. The pages will be deleted if not improved or protected in some way by January 16. You may decide to protect any of these pages by moving them to your essay space, under Physics/Essays/Fedosin, whether or not you are ready to work on them or with them. On the Fedosin essay organizing page, you may indicate what you have worked on and what is pending. If you do decide to protect a page from deletion, please remove the Proposed deletion template.

That Category:Inexplicable physics pages tag may be removed from any page under your care, if you wish. Eventually I expect that tag to disappear, it is not useful, but it was intended as a warning that material was not necessarily standard physics, and it was tolerated as such.

That pages are classified as essays has been done to give you maximum freedom while still keeping pages in mainspace. If you wish to assert any of these pages as "standard physics," you may move them. I suggest first discussing where they would go. We are moving away from having small, highly specific articles in mainspace at the top level, and toward placing them as subpages of more notable educational resources. This is flexible. If an educational resource could be a course in a brick-and-mortar university, it could be in mainspace here. Otherwise, if it could be a topic studied within a broader course, or perhaps a scheduled lecture, then it can be organized within a resource devoted to the broader topic. Sometimes we create a resource simply to hold more specific pages.

Eventually, I hope to see much more activity here discussing topics. Besides allowing original research and "lectures," discussion is something we can do on Wikiversity that is not really possible on an encylcopedia project. Thanks for all your work. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I responded to you on my user talk page. I moved all the pages to your essay space. I also moved two more pages, I think, that I found in mainspace that may be by the same author. The last one was Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Electric charge wave, which was mentioned in the old RFD. The IP had been blocked. We had immature custodians then, who did not understand that most people dislike being forced to do anything.
 * Copyright infringement is an issue, but never an emergency, because the Wikimedia Foundation is heavily protected against lawsuit or prosecution. The IP was "infinite" blocked without warning. That was later changed to one year, but the IP never returned as that IP. I see that you attempted to negotiate something, on User talk:195.47.212.108, but very good chance the IP did not see it. We really do want people to register accounts, because it becomes more possible to discuss issues.
 * We would still address copyright issues, often. Or not. If it comes up, and a user is not cooperative after warning, they may be short-blocked to get their attention. This user also had, as you saw, his own "attitude." That did not help. Looking globally, I see that the user, long-term active on ru.wikipedia but also uk.wikipedia, also had problems elsewhere. It's common with experts, in fact. This guy understood physics, perhaps, but not people, and not wikis. Thanks for trying. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One more point: I did not remove inexplicable physics or proposed deletion tags from these pages. If you don't remove the proposed deletion tags, those pages may be still be deleted in January. It's up to you. They are, however, intertwined by mutual links. I've left the redirects in place so that those links work, I removed double redirects, correcting the old redirects if I had not done so before. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Doctor Fedosin
I was reading through your essays and noticed there wasnt a lot of narrative to explain them. This left me a little confused as to the what they were trying to prove. I was hoping you could explain some of your gravitation formulae to me. As far as I could tell, at least a few would really help me in understanding some of the hurdles I am seeing in my own research.

Anyways, hopefully you can contact me, I am sue you are very busy, but your math does interest me.Derenek (discuss • contribs)

Fedosin (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Derenek, I can comment in short some simple things about gravitation here. If the case needs formulas it should better communicate via your email.

As I am in some hot water for placing controversial articles up, I am not sure if i should place my email address here. Is there a place where I could get your email address?Derenek (discuss • contribs)


 * My e-mail is in every my paper.Fedosin (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I edited your gravitoelectromagnetism article
While reading your article and trying to understand the equations, I decided to fix some grammatical/structural issues. This helped me a lot in understanding what you were trying to describe. Would it be ok, if I moved the edits I made from your talk age to yur main article?Derenek (discuss • contribs)

Also, if you are amenable, while I try and understand your other math, could I also make grammatical changes? I do not wish to insult you or anything so I am asking now prior to going through the rest of them.

Fedosin (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You can edit in any page including gravitoelectromagnetism. Also you can add your comments at talk pages such as . In any case all of it is for improving of the texts quality.

Life and the "Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter"
Hello, Dr Fedosin, I'm Javier Moreno, and i just want to suggest you to see this discussion about life: Talk:Life--Javier José Moreno Tovar18 (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Fedosin (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Javier Moreno, I agree with you that the life is eternal phenomenon.

Great! :)  I want to do emphasis in the fact that life connect with the smaller parts of space because when we see, we can see infinite smaller points that conform our vision and our consciousness, both properties of life in almost every living being. And every part of the space have an absolute union to each other, so only can be moved by life, so every particle is a god particle!

--Javier José Moreno Tovar18 (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Space - Movement - Matter and Relativity of Time


Hello Dr Fedosin, I send this letter to the international society of physics students:

Hello, I'm Javier Moreno, I study Geophysics in Venezuela, and I have a critic for Einstein Theory of Relativity of time, The theory can't be true because if it were, perception of movement and coincidence of events wouldn't be possible.I also think movement is only possible if it is generated by life because the absolute union of all the parts of space is a fundamental property of the space, or in other words space can't have holes, I think that in our description of reality we can never violate those fundaments, The great fact here is that even with this absolute union, movement is possible, and that is a irrefutable visual proof of the existence of at least one Life form who generate matter and movement or in other words God. Other indication is that the only possible thing that really connect with the totallity of every smaller part of space is Life itself, Vision and counciousness without a doubt, that's why we can see infinitte smaller points that form our vision and we can't avoid that fundament neither in every description we do, I hope we can undertand this for the really advance of physics and science. Movement became a injectivity of counciousness over space. Thank you for you attention, I wait for your answers.

Javier Moreno --Javier José Moreno Tovar18 (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Javier José Moreno Tovar18, in my opinion, in the simplest case we can say about two types of matter that the Universe includes. One of them is lifeless matter and other is living matter. The lifeless object has no visible signs of life but some small particles of the object are carrying life. The living matter is organized by life but can includes some lifeless particles. In the picture, both types of matter can generate movement of bodies. Fedosin (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Strong gravitational constant
Hi Fedosin!

Your resource Strong gravitational constant appears to be well-developed and ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's try to announce. Fedosin (discuss • contribs) 05:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

General field
Hi Fedosin!

Your theoretical physics resource General field appears to be well developed and ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Fedosin (discuss • contribs) 06:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Acceleration field
Hi Fedosin!

Your theoretical physics resource Acceleration field appears to be well-developed and ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can do it for sure, including for all other resources. Fedosin (discuss • contribs) 07:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hydrogen system
See Requests_for_Deletion. I really do respect much of your work. It just doesn't belong in mainspace (in my opinion.) Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * For now, the community has allowed your essays to remain in main space under Physics/Essays. Do not exceed these boundaries by linking or redirecting to it from other main space resources. This will very quickly result in all of this material being either moved to user space or deleted outright. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)