User talk:TimothyRias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Home Talk Works Sandboxes

DYK for Extreme mass ratio inspiral

The DYK Project (Nominate) 00:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


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)

Million Award

Million award logo.svg 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:

Million award logo.svg This user 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:
Million award logo.svg 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)
Million award logo.svg This user 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)

Mirror symmetry article

Hello TimothyRias,

I just wanted to let you know that I've made all the changes you suggested in your review of the article mirror symmetry (string theory). Please let me know if I've addressed all of your concerns.

Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Timothy, I don't know if you noticed, but I made changes to the article in response to your concern about comprehensiveness. Please let me know if you're satisfied with the current version. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but... what?

"hypothesized" has the strong connotation that there is no evidence


There wouldn't be a hypothesis if there was no evidence! Explaining evidence is what hypotheses are for! Serendipodous 07:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Using the adjective "hypothesized" in front of a something that is a hypothesis, strongly suggests that there is no evidence for the hypothesis beyond the observations that it was constructed to explain. Using it in that sense, suggests that there is a high amount of doubt that the hypothesis is actually true. So, even though it is technically correct to say that "the Oort Cloud is a hypothesized spherical cloud...", it doesn't quite convey the correct status of the hypothesis, since at this point there very little doubt that there is such a thing as the Oort Cloud.TR 10:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any evidence for the Oort Cloud beyond what it was constructed to explain; I don't see how there could be, or would even need to be. Unless you're a creationist, "Comets keep coming, they don't last long, therefore there must be a lot of them where they come from" is a pretty solid basis on which to form a hypothesis. Serendipodous 14:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons License