Talk:Entropic force

message: :I could throw a picture of rubber bands or something on here, but I bet we have something better available. -Craig Pemberton 08:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it before I noticed your comment. Independently of your argument, picture should be related to examples. This article name is not a synonym to 'entropy' and content should reflect this difference. That this animation was here for so long shows how careless previous editors were and general misunderstanding of the concept. --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I de-emphasized the new and speculative physics theories, interesting though they may be, to primarily focus on the chemistry examples which are ubiquitous and very important. See WP:UNDUE. I also deleted some explanations (like the galaxy collision and copper) that I thought were incorrect or misleading. We can put them back if there's a citation to a reliable source. (I would be surprised if there was.) The section still has citations to unpublished papers, and discussion of non-notable theories, so in my opinion it could be reduced even further. But I'll just leave it be for now. :-) --Steve (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Therefore, this rule does not apply to the contents. In the contents of an article sum of knowledge should be represented, especially see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience with wp:due weight, wp:npov and wp:notcensored. --Asterixf2 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-emphasized speculative theories 

message: Controversial theories generally should be mentioned when external sources are available, including Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience with wp:due weight, with wp:npov and wp:notcensored. "Speculative" is an inadequate description without external source claiming so, hence "Controversial" should be used instead.
Before my edits this article was misrepresented and subtly ridiculed - not wp:npov. --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial theories and bias 

message: I deleted This piece per  Wikipedia:Fringe theories: " For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter.". See Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories for more detail. The references provided are primary sources, expressing fringe opinions of the proponents. As such they do not belong to wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: did you? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: yes.TR 19:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Finally something useful out of this bickering. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For some people those topics were obviously and objectively important for the article and it literally does not matter if there are independent secondary sources found and mentioned or not. However the mentioned Visser content was added by me. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but you are very wrong there. Independent secondary sources are vital. If an physics idea was published and nobody bothered to respond to it in the physics literature, then obviously it is not worth mentioning (since quite clearly nobody cares). The only  way to show that an idea is objectively and obviously important to a subject is to find an reliable independent source that comments on its relevance. Without the relevance to the subject is neither "obvious" nor "objective". This should not be a hard concept to grasp. Being new earns you some slack, but the sooner you come to grips to such basic and obvious editing principles, the more useful you will be as a Wikipedia editor.TR 11:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are talking about something else than I did. I was not talking about showing something to others. For example a person that does not have even a basic general knowledge in zoology (or worse, that have a certain prejudice) could be tempted to delete various statements or sections in articles from this domain by judging them as fringe that is not accompanied by independent secondary sources (requiring effectively 2 reliable sources per claim). Such a behavior would not be constructive. And last but not least "obvious" and "objective" were assumptions about judgement of editors for the sake of argument. There is a lot of articles with plenty of knowledge without references and this knowledge is very appropriate for encyclopedia when written by a person that is qualified to do so. Furthermore, there is even a template ... Wikipedia should not be overly prohibitive. Please also see WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the other hand, if such "knowledge without references" is challenged for secondary sources by anyone, and none is or can be given, then that content will be removed, whether it was "written by a person that is qualified to do so" or not, because Wikipedia has no means to verify that qualification. The ultimate deciding factor will always be wp:consensus. For failing or refusing to accept that policy, a plethora of highly qualified content providers with spectacular credentials are now living with a permanent Wikipedia block or ban. - DVdm (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with how you approach and interpret policies in general, but I agree about consensus.--Asterixf2 (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds familiar. - DVdm (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  The argument of editor credentials works two ways. Sometimes an editor comes along that is extremely well-versed comes along who recognized that a statement sourced by a primary mostly-ignored-by-the-literature-source is total and utter gooblycock that is completely unrepresentative of the vast literature on the subject. It is good of such an editor removes such misinformation.TR 20:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe theories 

message: After re-reading the 1st paragraph or two several times I realised this article is almost incomprehensible. Please make it at least readable by humans ? 178.255.168.77 (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: I broadened the scope of the previous section on "Directional entropic forces" to discuss colloids more generally (and renamed it accordingly) because entropic forces are important there beyond just for directional entropic forces, and they weren't discussed elsewhere in the page. I migrated and edited version of the discussion of directional entropic forces to the page on depletion forces where they enter a bit more naturally. Entrophys (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colloids 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Entropic force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904053433/https://biofold.org/emidio/pages/documents/papers/Compiani_Biochemistry2013.pdf to http://biofold.org/emidio/pages/documents/papers/Compiani_Biochemistry2013.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , I have reverted your recent additions for five reasons:
#You shouldn't be adding content about your own work
#You certainly shouldn't be adding content about your own original research
#The lead should summarise the rest of the article, it's not the place for new content
#You need to cite references in the approved way, see Help:Referencing for beginners (and they should't be to your own work)
#You should not be adding material with so many redlinks
Maproom (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions