# User talk:Count Iblis

 Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Wikipedia. Whether such edits violate Wikipedia's policies is neither here nor there.

 Count Iblis sticks to the guidelines in the essay: Editing scientific articles as if it were official policy.

 Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds.

## Creatio ex nihilo on Wikipedia

A bad ArbCom decision can be the spark leading to an issue being created that never existed in the first place. We can read here that the advocacy restriction I was under for Brews ohare, apart from being totally unjustified is typically wrongly interpreted:

"Wasn't Iblis himself once banned from advocating on Brews Ohare's behalf? Is that still in force? Tarc (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)"

When it was in force, it was never a meant as ban on advocacy on his behalf, that wasn't the perceived problem ArbCom wanted to act against. But outsiders who don't know the details, will tend to think so, as that is the only reasonable thing one can imagine. So, someomone has been sanctioned by ArbCom and why would someone else be sanctioned for advocay on his behalf? Certainly not for advocacy in any normal acceptable way, politely defending someone at AE staying well within the rules, regulations and norms for discourse. No, it must have been extremely disruptive form of advocacy with plenty of insults and perhaps also continuing the behvior of the sanctioned editor on his behalf.

This then becomes a well known fact as Protonk writes:

"This isn't an isolated incident, as Tarc and Looie note. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)"

That nothing ever happened w.r.t. disruptive advocacy, let alone a long term problem of this sort that would lead to Admin or ArbCom intervention, should be clear as no one has ever posted any diffs showing such behavior. And a single diff won't do, as that should be communicated to me first and then I would have to ignore that and this sort of thing would have had to be repeated multiple times. So, there should not only be examples of bad behavior, there should be examples of communication with me about such (alleged) unacceptable behavior that then went nowhere. None of this exists.

Clearly, we need a better ArbCom system and that's why ArbCom should pass a motion disbanding itself. Count Iblis (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of List of WikiLeaks mirrors

The article List of WikiLeaks mirrors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not needed.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

## Nomination of List of WikiLeaks mirrors for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of WikiLeaks mirrors, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WikiLeaks mirrors until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JDDJS (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give there the rationale for the list on the AFD page as I gave on the talk page of the main WikiLeaks page. Count Iblis (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

## ANI post

I liked your post here. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, I guess all we need to do now is ask Boris to re-activate the secret email list to prepare for Bastille day :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Bastille Day being bourgeois conceit. Mailing list reactivated for October November December revolution. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

I hope this clarifies it for you.--Scott Mac 13:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Me talking to William about Artic oscillation is not related to any Wikipedia articles to the slightest, let alone "substantially related". When William is back, I'll ask him to create CC subpages for permanent CC discussions on certain technical aspects of climate science. Count Iblis (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
If it is not related to Wikipedia articles, then best not to use Wikipedia. Unless you do want to end up blocked.--Scott Mac 14:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the problem here. William being topic banned from CC makes him the ideal person to host a Wiki climate science conference on his userspace. Under normal circumstances, he wouldn't have the time to do that. What makes Wikipedia particularly suitable is that you can easily write math equations here. If William agrees, Boris will officially announce this conference and we can then expect a large number of participants. Having many top climate scientists visiting Wikipedia would boost its image. We may also get many new expert contributors. Count Iblis (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It's just Scott Mac's usual bluster. He's a good guy on the BLP stuff and all, but tends to see himself as the Sword of Justice that cannot be challenged. Unfortunate, really, because the bluster is alienating him from people who support his goals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you want to point out why Count Iblis would best not be doing as he proposes, that's fine. I don't think I need to do anything here, it is all too obvious. As for the "bluster and alienation", I just begin to suspect I've trodden on the toes of yet another cabal - that does seem to be my curse.--Scott Mac 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
No. For example I would gladly help you with the BLP stuff. I've consistently voted for deleting BLPs of marginally notable figures and would have no problem being your meatpuppet supporting your stance in deletion discussions. (Remember how I supported you on the Monckton article?) But your "my way or the highway" approach to every situation that you encounter is ultimately counterproductive, and I'd rather not be associated with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm the Sword of Justice®. Jehochman Talk 16:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

B.t.w., Boris, would your colleague Dr. Arritt be available to give a presentation on the relation between global warming and precipitation? Count Iblis (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask. Where and when? (I think you know where to find him if you'd like to ask yourself.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The International Wikipedia Conference on Climate Change will be hosted by the Wikimedia foundation on William's talk page. It will start on Monday, 10 January 2011 on 14:00 UTC and end on Friday 14 January 21:00 UTC . The programme will be posted on William's talk page early next week. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

## ArbCom clarification requested

See this here. Good day. --Jayron32 01:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Count Iblis - thanks for your page at User:Count_Iblis/Speed_of_light. Since I stumbled across Jayron's request for clarification, I gave it a read. It's been a while since I thought about these topics at all (I was never an expert and now work in completely non-science-related field), but it made me realize something I never thought of but is obvious in retrospect - that several of the standard formulas regarding energy in Newtonian mathematics are just the consequences of first order Taylor approximation of the Lorenz factor for v << c. Martinp (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi MartinP,
Yes, this is indeed a Taylor expansion. However, note that my derivation goes further than this as I start without c in the equations, so the emergence of c itself is derived. The usual textbook derivation is rather ad hoc, c already appears in the equations. That means that they a priori assume how one should take the classical limit, while I derive this from first principles. Count Iblis (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

## Likebox

FWIW, as one of the proponents of the advocacy restrictions, I didn't care that much about the advocates' disruption per se (it was fairly well contained as WP drama goes). I can't speak for the other proponents but my own purpose in supporting that motion was to try to salvage Brews as an editor. I saw Likebox and crew as 1) reinforcing the stupid behavior that eventually got Brews banned; and 2) filibustering the DR processes Brews was involved in, to the point that Brews himself couldn't get a fair shake. I stated this view in the motion discussion. Of course I have no idea whether it influenced arbcom or not.

I don't have as bad a view of Arbcom as you do. They make mistakes, but they do the best they can under the constraints placed on them. The crappy situation we see in CC and other areas comes from deeper problems in WP's processes and culture. Bad arbitration outcomes are a symptom of that, not the underlying problem.

Your buddy Hillman (I'm also mostly an admirer of his) used to advocate putting subject-matter experts in control of Wikipedia's content in its various topic areas. Likebox expressed similar sentiments at times. Of course that means that the same logicians who Likebox kept fighting with would have been in charge of the logic articles, and they would have booted Likebox from the subject years before Likebox actually left. I wonder whether Likebox ever figured that out.

I have no idea whether Likebox was a real physics expert or not (I'm frankly skeptical even though he had some papers published), but in math and in history, he was Randy from Boise, and he made that obvious in the endless disputes he got in. And when someone does that too consistently, in too many incidents, as Likebox did, it presents itself less as a gap in their knowledge in some technical subject (most technical people are aware of their own knowledge gaps) and more as the kind of person they are. So if Likebox was RANDY in math and history, people reasonably inferred (whether ultimately correct or not) that he was likely to be the same way in physics, so that's why he got hassled over that infraparticle stuff. Otherwise, if he had been less obnoxious in general, nobody would have bothered him. He was completely whack in his belief that obnoxiousness is a necessary characteristic of a good editor, or even correlated with it. I don't know about physics, but the top math editors aren't like that even slightly.

67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem I saw with the ArbCom process when dealing with Brews and later in the CC area, was that way too much is made of vague perceptions about people's attitudes, behaviors and there is hardly any discussion about actually editing articles. I agree that deeper problems in the Wikipedia culture may be to blame, however, ArbCom does have the power to make binding rulings against consensus. The whole point of ArbCom is to make sure that there were community process don't work, you have some authorative body that can fix things.
Now, in case of Brews, I had informed ArbCom via email some weeks before I was restricted that I would file an appeal for Brews, talking into account the arguments in the appeal launched by Likebox, and I would propose something along the lines of Brews being restricted to work on physics from his userspace under mentorship. I had talked to Brews and he agreed that he was willing to edit under such constrains. I needed some time to work out the details as I didn't have too much time for wikipedia then. But then Brews informed me that Jimbo had agreed to intervene, and it would be better to wait for that. The outcome of Jimbo's intervention was that ArbCom lifted Brews topic ban entirely within 3 months, and that I, Likebox, Hell in a Bucket and David Tombe were now restricted from making any statements relating to Brews indefinitely.
At the time, I thought, "what a stupid restriction", but also, "if Brews's topic ban is lifted, then this is a moot issue". So, I simply decided to agree to disagree with this. The disagreement being that I was always pragmatic to find practical solutions. Also every time Brews was brought at AE, I always gave my frank opinions within the rules that exist there. I think some Arbs said that there was a battelfield atmosphere, however, while I always strongly disagreed with e.g., HeadBomb about Brews, that disagreement did not affect the relation with Headbomb and me in any other respects, so ArbCom clearly made far more out of this than there in reality was. That's why I said that it was very bad for them to pass that restriction by motion without a hearing. Had there been a hearing then, at least I would not have been restricted.
What has happened later long after the Advocacy restriction had been lifted, is that people are now making all sorts of unfounded assumptions from the fact that I had once been restricted. An influencal Admin even suggested that because Brews was eventually topic banned again (and later blocked for a year) one owuld have to look into whether or not advocacy on my part had played a role in this failure. I angrily replied that had my compromize proposal that ArbCom knew was forthcoming been implemented, then Brews would likely edit happily today from his userspace.
About Likebox, from talking to him, he is someone who knows quite a lot about mathematical physics topics like Yang-Baxter equation, quantum groups, Hopf algebras etc. as applied to theoretical physics topics. He is not stupid, but perhaps he is also a typical "arrogant theoretical physicst"  :) . Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Likebox has certainly provided some excellent physics content here. If he were to abandon the extreme unprofessionalism, he'd be great, though it's totally understandable that he'd rather choose to avoid the pettiness of this place. He would be easily unblocked if he were willing to say the right things and behave halfway reasonably.

Brews ohare is another story. His physics content is largely crap and his participation as a whole has been detrimental to the encyclopedia. My opinion, of course. Since you enjoy throwing his real name around, you might go look up the anecdotal comments on this site and see that others in real life also see him as opaque, unhelpful, and generally best avoided when possible.

I don't think the advocacy for Brews ohare's unprofessionalism was at all a factor in placing or lifting any topic ban. You were the only editor previously under the advocacy restriction who wasn't behaving like a screaming toddler, and your opinions seemed to get serious consideration. The idea of treating an elderly, retired academic as an untrustable child who must be confined to his userspace is utterly ridiculous, by the way, and it is far more decent to just pull the plug and ban him. But really, there is no failure evident today. Brews ohare is obsessively editing at Citizendium, where his unprofessional antics would never be tolerated (as well as similar antics against him). It should be considered a win-win situation for everyone. I hope he's happy there and produces content that others find useful. Tim Shuba (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

## MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Waste of Time

Wikipedia:Waste of Time, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Waste of Time (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Waste of Time during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

## WP Physics in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Physics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. My experience with this editor was at the Heim theory article quite some time ago, also a pseudoscientific topic. Taken in isolation, his behavior there, while problematic to some extent, was not a big deal, but I learned later that he behaves in a similar way on many other pages.
Now, I'm not sure a conventional topic ban would work, as that would have to be rather broad as the AN/I discussion suggests. If imposing 0RR would be too much work for other editors, then an alternative could perhaps be a mentoring agreement imposed on him along the lines of he being allowed to edit an article only when the mentor allows him to do so.
So, if you are the mentor, you could limit him to one article. You then check his editing, in case of bad behavior, you can revoke your permission. It's then best to choose an article were there can be some limited tolerance toward his type of behavior. E.g. the Heim theory article I mentioned, is such an article. It is in bad shape and not edited frequently, so editing there is not the same as editing in some high profile controversial article where everyone is already on edge. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And thank you for your reply. I see considerable merit in what you're proposing; I'm not sure the Heim Theory article would fly, though; I'm pretty sure people would say it falls within the "broadly construed" part of his pseudoscience ban. I actually like this guy very much, on a personal level; I even gave him a barnstar for his work on Reaction Engines Skylon, because he'd earned it, but also in part to encourage him to keep working on space articles, where he pretty much stays out of trouble. And he returned the favor giving me a "random acts of kindness" barnstar, which was quite a surprise. I feel pretty bad about this, actually, but he's so POV driven and has been so unable (not unwilling, I think) to keep his promises that I think it's going to have to be a site ban, eventually. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to stand mentoring him, as much as I like him personally, truly, and I don't think anyone else would be willing to either. Mann Jess tried under his ( Terra Novus' ) former account name, for something like eight months as I recall, and it was no good. He vanished when all the citizens were out with torches and pitchforks as AN/I and then showed up as Terra Novus as a "clean start" three days later. If he hadn't disappeared previously he almost certainly would have been site banned. It's really a shame; he's bright, articulate, polite, and an absolute POV disaster. I'd still buy him a pint, though.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

## Question

Hi, you seem to be the voice for GoRight, so could you answer a qustion? Why isn't s/he using their own talk page instead of the blog? I didn't have contact with this user as far as I can remember at least. I am usually the forgiving type but this editor lied to get unbanned which is not acceptable to me as I'm sure you realize by now. Would you please ask GoRight to use his talk page for comments? Someone can move it over for him as needed. I sure would appeciated it as I think others would too. Thanks for considering this, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

GoRight wrote to me (in his original email to me) that he didn't want a big discussion on Wikipedia about this issue. So, I don't think he wants public discussions here on Wikipedia about this issue. He intents to discuss things privately with ArbCom and perhaps some individual editors via email. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

## International Space Station

You've been here a while so I wont insult you with a warning tag and write a note instead. Please do not revert well sourced material without consensus. The material on magnitude of the station is well sourced and as a Physicist I'm sure you understand the math going on there. However, you have made it clear that you feel that the information is incorrect despite the sources provided. But please take a further look at those sources and you'll find that one is from one of the world's premiere planetariums and the website referenced by the ESA, NASA and nearly every website and smartphone app in existence. If you feel the wording could be improved in the article, you may edit it of course but please dont remove sections like that.--RadioFan (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a source that says that the brighness is -6 is a bad source. No need to waste time on that. I'll be reverting to the previous version, because Wikipedia should not contain obviously false information. Count Iblis (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop revering well sourced material. You are in danger of violating the 3 revert rule. If you have a reliable source to back up your claim, please produce it, until this "obviously" doesn't cut it.--RadioFan (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources that say that the ISS actually reaches -6 when it is overhead. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No such claim is made in the article. The numbers are for comparative purposes and are sourced as such.--RadioFan (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for my very bad memory, I was unable to recall the source for magnitude, I remembered all the research and so forth, but didn't recall until just then, when I stumbled back into the magnitude page to determine how it is defined, that the magnitude article is the source, and so I dumped all research and was onto other stuff, figuring it's up to the magnitude article editors. I must say I laughed out loud when I say your page, and the outspoken statement at the top, it's refreshing to see people speak their mind, and I can relate somewhat, as I tried to make an application recently, and I found the process unhelpful and time consuming, all very frustrating. Btw, if your up to it, or when you are up to it, I will look forward to your help with other issues like mass and so forth... Please, don't give up, don't get discouraged, everything seems different one week to the next. Penyulap talk 02:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! On the issue of magnitudes/visibility of objects, you can find a lot of misleading information in otherwise good sources. E.g. many books say that the Andromeda galaxy is the farthest object visible to the naked eye. But this isn't true. For years I actually believed this until someone told me that M33 is also visible and later I found that M81 has also been spotted with the naked eye. This is because, due to light pollution, we are used to not so dark skies and this has apparently affected the literature. John Bortle explains here, that a big issue here is that people who live away from cities wrongly think that they have pristine skies, when in reality their skies are also affected by light pollution.
What happens is that even hundreds of kilometers away from cities, you still have scattered city lights which makes the skys just a little grey instead of pitch dark. Then while you can still see most stars as usual, faint nebulae and galaxies are drowned out. So, e.g. M33 which should be easy to see becomes almost invisible, even though you don't have the obvious signs of light pollution.
You can then see the potential problem when editing Wikipedia on such a subject based on readily available sources if some editors only take for granted what a source literally says and only argue procedurally based on the source being reliable, making no effort to put the statements made in the sources into the proper context of everything that is known about the subject. Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the differences with country skies, I moved out to the country, and I have a 8 inch telescope too ! I don't get to use it as much as I'd like though. I think in passing, and buried deep in the sightings section, we should have a sentence that daytime sightings are possible for people with good eyesight, see also M81, M33 or something worded a lot better than that, and I mean a LOT better than that. But the FACT I have found out recently and is well referenced by the experiences of you two in the last day or two is this, Doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong when it comes to maintaining the true facts you have found in an article. You have to have a section on the talkpage that explains the wording on the articlepage, and has the reasoning behind it, AND has the support of multiple editors, as in, they STATE in that talkpage section, I SUPPORT that, and at the end of the section, we all write I SUPPORT THE CONSENSUS or something like that. That is the only way you can do it. That way, it makes fixing errors easy, you do not explain why in the edit summary like you are not allowed to do, you don't explain at all, you just pop in the edit summary (see consensus regarding this on takepage, section 'magnitude') and thats that. additional facts can be added to those sections and discussed there first, with more editors or the same number updating the consensus. then you can protect the text you have helped write, and you'll win at any dispute, simple. Lets work together you guys ok ? lets fix the ISS page together, between the three of us, with my bad memory, The Count's impatience and RadioFan's love of advertising speil, together we'd make one normal editor wouldn't we ? I say we give it a try ! now, who's with me ? Penyulap talk 19:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

## I'm really not sure what you were trying to do with the colors

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. - SudoGhost 01:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

## thanks

4 your knowledgeable answers at the reference desk. I guess a lot of the volunteers there just answer whether they know or not, or else pretend the question was slightly different than it actually was, a question they do know the answer to.24.7.28.186 (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! What also goes wrong on the Ref. Desk i.m.o. is that there are too many people answering questions and also that these people are the same "regulars". That then tends to generate long discussions among the regulars. Count Iblis (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

## Wait, what?

I'm hoping that that was meant in jest and I just failed to pick up the sarcasm? — Coren (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My reply to Ellen in that thread may make things clear. Basically a lot of paranoia going on here, the speculation started on Wikipedia Review, see here; that AN/I thread is actually a continuation of that WR discussion, because the main focus is to find out who Cbrick77 is, not really to stop John254 from socking (it's not like the Scibaby problem where the actual editing is the problem).
And if the edits are not a problem but people are still worried, then the drive to do checkuser tests is a form of OCD. Sadly, my attempt at doing Cognitive therapy didn't work well, as they did checkuser Cbrick77 against you: "Cognitive therapy focuses on the catastrophic thoughts and exaggerated sense of responsibility you feel. A big part of cognitive therapy for OCD is teaching you healthy and effective ways of responding to obsessive thoughts, without resorting to compulsive behavior." Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
But then, they didn't check if Cbrick77 = Jimbo, so things may not be as bad as I thought yesterday :) . Count Iblis (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

## Small world (wikipedia world that is)

Good to stumble across you again Count, how are you? Penyulap talk 13:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Penyulap, I'm ok., good to see you on the Ref Desk!. Count Iblis (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey I'm stalking you [1] Penyulap talk 18:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I see, you've been wasting some time there. :). Count Iblis (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

## Over-unity!

Since you are a physicist, do you have any feelings regarding, free energy, especially magnetic cogging, Bedini, or bi-toroidal transformers?

Free energy is a red herring issue. In theory, you can let a car run on pure water: because water evaporates all by itslef, you can exploit that to extract work. But note that it costs energy for water to evaporate, the energy for that can be extracted free of charge from the environment. So, you see that entropy is actually more relevant than energy. Count Iblis (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

## Global climate model

I definitely understand your reversions on Global climate model, but could you start a new discussion on the talk page next time? Even if it's little more than what you would have put in your edit summary, it does give you something for you to point to and ever so slightly increases the chance that the other party will stop edit warring. NW (Talk) 03:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

## Thou art needed (by meeth) on Science

reference desk.24.7.28.186 (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

## Conservapedia as an external link

Links to Conservapedia articles are almost always inappropriate for Wikipedia articles, as either sources or as external links. I don't know if this edit was intended as misguided humor, or as a left-handed attempt at mocking Conservapedia, or what, but it's pretty much never okay to add a link to a slanted hit piece to a biographical Wikipedia article. If you want to crack jokes, do it someplace that isn't an article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with the way it was used in this particular case. Count Iblis (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
You do understand that article space isn't the right place for jokes, right? Even really 'clever' jokes? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
That conservapedia article give a pretty accurate account of the perspective from a global warming denier's point of view. The fact that it so extremely slanted in that direction makes it a good source for that. William has had to deal with such people here, so one should mention something about that in the article about him. Count Iblis (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

## Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You have recently posted two malformed ITN submissions. Please follow convention standards at WP:ITN/C as outlined in "How to nominate an item" section. We also have developed a handy template. Thank You The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So, where did I go wrong? Count Iblis (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

## Recent hacking incident

What is the incident you referenced here? Could you provide a link?--Chaser (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

All these threads on Wikipedia Review are devoted to this incident. Count Iblis (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

## What to do about the NPOV problems on JOC?

See this. We seem to share a common perspective on the publication of papers on speculative topics and whether than constitutes support for fringe theories. I am curious as to whether we share similar views regarding the NPOV aspects of the current article. --174.255.65.20 (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that we shouldn't raise questions about it being peer reviewed in the description (barring direct evidence that it isn't peer reviewed), I just wrote another comment about that on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

## MfD nomination of Wikipedia:BLP2E

Wikipedia:BLP2E, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP2E and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:BLP2E during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

## Journal of Cosmology DRN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Journal of Cosmology". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

## Thank you

 100px For being spectacular at the Reference Desk Please accept this Physicians for a National Health Program poster for your nice work at the Reference Desks. You are amazing and awesome. Dualus (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi - Please don't add pics like that - it distracts from the important discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The alligator escaped from Collect's private Zoo. Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Well ok, anyway, thank you for not replacing it. Sometimes pics are ok in the right thread. Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

## RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[2]]. Thank you!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

## Your recent edits at Wikipedia:Government and it's talk page

Looks like you need a little dose of reality:

 Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Your proposal was soundly rejected eight months ago. It failed. Get over it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is still work in progress. I wrote up some ideas, but it has to be improved before one can hold a formal RFC about it. Count Iblis (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
What a load of nonsense. Since you insist on being so incredibly thick-headed about this I have brought it up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

## MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Government

Wikipedia:Government, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Government and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Government during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

## DRN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Apparent Weight". Thank you.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

## WP:AN3

I've reported you there for slow motion edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The report is at WP:AN3#User:Count Iblis reported by User:Beeblebrox (Result: ). In my opinion, you are risking a block by repeatedly removing the 'failed' tag. Consensus is against you. Please respond at AN3 and make a concession that would allow this edit warring case to be closed, while removing the appearance that your page is actually a part of current Wikipedia policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

## MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Noformation Talk 20:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

## 1 − 1 + 2 − 6 + 24 − 120 + · · ·

Hello.

I change the name of this:

1-1+2-6+24-120+...

to this:

1 − 1 + 2 − 6 + 24 − 120 + · · ·

Notice that the minus sign is longer than a mere hyphen and matches the length of the horizontal part of the plus sign. Also, proper spacing is used. All this is prescribed in WP:MOSMATH.

There's also the question of which articles ought to link to this one. I've added a few (three, I think?). If you know of others that ought to link to it and don't, could you add those links? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

## ArbCom RfC

Trying to get some path set here for how to proceed on the ArbCom RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

## Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Count Iblis: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you think the mediation schedule is too tight, so I thought I ought to comment here. I am totally open to drawing things out if it becomes necessary - the schedule is not written in stone, but it is more of a guideline, to give people a rough idea of what to expect. I deliberately chose a tight schedule, as I have found that in big disputes it is very important to keep things moving; in big mediations, if discussions stop for any significant length of time, then people tend to either drop out of the process completely or just take up the argument somewhere else. It is also easier to stretch out a tight schedule than it is to shorten a loose schedule. If you are concerned that you won't be able to keep up this schedule even with a bit of leeway, then that is still not a problem. It is eminently possible for you to make major contributions to the drafting process even if you have to miss a step or two. If you let me know how much time you're willing to spend on the process, we can work something out. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 15:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining! I'll have limited time available in the coming few days (this weekend and early next week). After that I likely won't have any time available for about a week. Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

## WP:V mediation straw poll

Hello Count Iblis, this is just to let you know that we are having a straw poll about how many drafts to include in the proposed RfC about Wikipedia:Verifiability. The result of this straw poll will have a large effect on the direction the mediation takes, so if you could let us know your preferred number over at the mediation page, I would be very grateful. I am thinking of leaving the discussion open at least until 10am (UTC) on Thursday, March 22, and possibly longer if we require more time to reach a consensus. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 16:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

## WP:V mediation compromise drafts

Hello Count Iblis, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 17:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

## Scibaby

:-) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

## Neutron magnetic moment accountability

Can the magnetic moment of a neutron be predicted from its quark structure?--86.125.178.54 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not an expert about these detailed calculations. However, it is clear that a rough estimate does work, because the g-factor is of order 1. See here for the definitions of (nuclear) magnetic moment. To precisely compute the g-factor is rather complicated, I think there are some results from lattice QCD computations here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you forgot to add a source and copyright tag to File:Potstir.gif that you uploaded recently. If will likely be deleted if you don't add that information. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

## File copyright problem with File:Potstir.gif

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Psychonaut (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of BrainMass

A tag has been placed on BrainMass, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 10:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested something on Roger davies' talk page, and posted a link to that also on the clarification page. Because of the large volume of postings there, I wasn't sure that this is all that visible. Basically, this is equivalent to a site ban minus whatever the mentor approves he can do. So, on the one hand, a lot more restrictive, however, on the other hand, Brews himself would prefer this over a topic ban (I've discussed this many times with Brews before). It allows him to work precisely where he can do so without friction. Count Iblis (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate to have such a discussion on someone's talkpage. Propose it on the clarification page where it can be properly considered and where it forms part of the record. It would be helpful if you do propose it on the clarification page, to explain a bit more about how it would work. In what way would you be mentoring him? Would you be advising him to stay away from certain articles and/or certain editors, and if he doesn't, you'll block him? Unless you are prepared to block, then the mentoring would be unlikely to work. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that you are not an admin. I wouldn't be able to support you mentoring Brews unless you were able to block him for infringements. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Count Iblis. Giving this your suggestion, the reasons why Brews is going to be topic-banned, and his positive contributions to content, I would suggest that Brews be allowed to post suggested changes in Physics articles to you talk page. If you approve his changes, you would place them in the article. Whether his changes are going to stay would be up to others (including you of course). Would that be something reasonable? P.S. If his changes would stay, that will be an argument for Arbcom to lift his topic ban. Otherwise, this will be indef. I doubt that Brews can edit anything other than Physics, Engineering and Math. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work. This setup would work especially well for articles that actually need a lot of editing, so it is clearly also in the interest of Wikipedia to ahve a set-up like this. Count Iblis (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Great! I do not know what Brews thinks. He should ask Arbcom, and they should allow it. Otherwise this may be interpreted as proxy editing on behalf of a topic-banned editor, which is not generally allowed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

## Proposal concerning Brews ohare

Hi Count:

I'd like to develop farther your proposal stated as below:

Brews is restricted to work on a list of articles, the list is determined by a mentor and is limited to a maximum of 3 articles. A link to the list is posted on the Speed of Light ArbCom page. Should Brews edit any other article than the listed ones, Brews will be blocked as part of the regular ArbCom enforcement procedure, and that block will be logged at the relevant ArbCom page.

In your elaboration, the procedure for constructing the list is that I propose the list to the mentor. I suppose that means the mentor can admit or refuse such a proposal, although the grounds for admission are not clear. Or, maybe I can propose any three pages (why not?), but cannot change the three more than once a week (say)?

The proposal then suggests that the mentor will judge whether an "argument will likely lead to nowhere". If it does look like that to the mentor, I suppose that I am not allowed to disagree with the mentor (that would simply transfer the argument to his talk page). This makes the working arrangement very much under mentor control, and if Dicklyon or Blackburne were the mentor, I could do nothing at all. Probably they would not be selected, but there are many crazies out there that may not yet be identified that could cause the whole thing to be unworkable.

The proposal does not say what recourse the mentor has if I prove intransigent and persist in arguing about articles, or perhaps edit articles not on the list. I suppose that the mentor has a pipeline to Administrator action, but what would the penalty be? I think a page ban for some period is the most sensible recourse.

The objective of limiting things to 3 pages is to reduce the work necessary by the mentor, I assume?

Overall, I think the proposal to limit how often I can respond is easier to work with and easier for me to see what is going to happen. What do you think about that? Brews ohare (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal is better if you stick to it. But then, it has to be made part of the ArbCom restrictions, so Admins will have to check if you stick these rules, and that means a lot of work for them. Some Arbs have said that they are against a new case or review because it would take editors or tem too much effort, so they probably are not going to implement a solution that requires some effort.
My proposal is not as good compared to yours, but I think it can be implemented with less effort, even compared to the topic ban. Then, about the mentor: The mentor should be someone who can properly assess where you can contribute productively and he must have the patience to discuss things with you. It has to be someone like me, or perhaps User:Sławomir Biały, i.e. someone familiar with your positive contributions.
The 3 article limit will make sure that an Admin can easily check your contribution list for violations. Clearly, this is also a lot easier than checking if you are sticking to a "broadly construed physics topic ban". For the mentor it shouldn't be a big deal if the list were ten artcles, and perhaps ten articles would also work well for an Admin. But I thought that 3 would be sufficient as you tend to spend a lot of time on a few artcles anyway, and to get accepted, a proposal would have to be a lot better than the standard topic ban. Count Iblis (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

## derivation of Planck's law

Dear Count Iblis, As I see it, there is a loose end in the derivation of Planck's law. As I read it, the cited source, Brehm & Mullin 1989, does not in the relevant section mention the βε/2 for the quantum harmonic oscillator that appears in the article. In the article this quantity appears in a formula and then disappears by magic. I was wondering if you would like to do something about that?Chjoaygame (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take a look. Count Iblis (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not wish to be a nuisance to you, so, hoping to forestall a particular risk, I would observe that Brehm and Mullin 1989 are explicit about their model. It is of radiation that has been emitted by a black body and is in equilibrium with a cavity with a small hole and perfectly reflecting walls. They write on page 80: "Our cavity model treats the interior of the cavity as a storage volume for the incoming and outgoing radiation." As I read this, the incoming and outgoing radiation belong to a black body. Planck's presentation actually put the black body inside the cavity (which did not have a hole), but made it so small that its energy was negligible. As I read this source, it does not raise the question of what would happen in the absence of matter such as the black body.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I see! Note that the source was put in later, some years after I edited in the derivation. I think we can just include the vacuum energy terms and then say that we're going to compute the energy relative to the ground state, therefore sum over <E> - epsilon/2. Count Iblis (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

## A kitten for you!

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question at the reference Desk, and providing a link to AJCN. The input and links I received from those responses has been really valuable! All the best,

— Jess· Δ 04:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Apparent weight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weightless (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

## Arbcom

I saw this coming as soon as they opened the case. Whenever a user goes before Arbcom it almost always results in Banning. In the rare circumstances where a ban is not enacted the editor (such as Rich Farmbrough) is restricted in such a way that they are made almost useless as an editor to the project. Additionally the arbitrations are written in such a vague manner that the can be interpretted in an almost infinite number of ways and usually results in a full ban later when they, naturally so, don't meet the criteria set forth. Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I see that the thread on the Village Pump is now active, I'll write more about this issue there. Count Iblis (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

## Possibly my favorite comment ever

Beautiful. :) Arkon (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

## The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

## ArbCom Reform Party at MFD

I can understand (and support) the desire to reform ArbCom, but this ain't the way in my view, and the potential for collateral damage is too high. Consequently, I have listed it at MFD here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party. Regards, Resolute 01:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party/Bill of Rights and linked it from your page. I'm sure there's a lot I left out, and a few things that need clarification... Wnt (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks good! Count Iblis (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

## ACE Candidate statement

I wanted to let you know that you have not included the required statements in your ACE Candidate statement. Candidates are required to "confirm that the candidate will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data" and "include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee". I recommend including those statements as soon as you can. Monty845 00:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for running. However, if you want to be taken seriously, you really need to improve your statement and answer all questions as an individual person (unless you want to prove that Beeblebrox was right.). This is something everyone does in real life elections, even if they go from a party. Speaking about your statement and "Bill of rights", what is your main message? I guess Kurtis get it correctly here by telling this: "But my concern is that he will almost certainly be excessively lenient towards vested contributors if their content contributions are decent enough." Actually, this is a powerful message that decent contributors deserve decent treatment, which is not always the case. If that is what you mean, you may have some supporters, but then you must actually take part in the elections. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I've had a look the Count's recent contribs. Normally he makes at least a few edits nearly every single day. He added his candidate statement on the 20th and stopped cold. I think it is pretty clear that he is just spamming for his party and is not a serious candidate. I think it is a real shame that we have here a user who is intelligent and able to make positive contributions but keeps doing patently dishonest things and then getting all revisionist when they are pointed out. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
@Count Iblis. Thank you. I read your responses and think they are very much reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The main point I'm making is that the system needs to be reformed. If we do this then who exactly the Arbitrators are will matter a lot less. Count Iblis (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that some changes are needed, and you are the only candidate who is not an administrator (and I therefore might be willing to vote for). So, with regard to suggestions in your candidate statement... (1) "Most cases can be handled by 3 or 4 Arbs". This will not speed-up the process because the time-limiting part is the drafting the initial version by one or two drafting arbs. (2) The "compulsory mediation". The forced mediation has been tried already by Durova and failed. Of course it might not fail under the guns of arbcom ... My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are other factors to consider too. My feeling is that cases are handled in a much too formal way, ending with a very legalistic drafting of the proposed and final decision. The focus must instead be much more on getting the relevant facts of the case straight and then determining the remedies that will most likely solve the identified problems. In the cases I've seen, ArbCom typically struggles to get these two crucially important things right even when it wasn't that hard to figure out. Sometimes they get it flatout wrong.
About forced mediation, if this fails, the case ends up on ArbCom's desk again, and they can then look at why the mediation failed. This will provide ArbCom with valuable information. If you consider the climate change case, then what triggered that case was a failure of a sort of a general sanctions system that was set up by Admins. But this didn't yield much relevant information. FOFs were things like William having a dispute with an Admin because William was defending his right to edit comments on his talk page. William had previously been sanctioned to not to edit comments of others, but the text of this restriction had left out that on his own user page he could of course do more or less as he pleases.
This sort of kindergarten like disputes are very far removed from the actual content disputes that trigger this all, but that's off limits to Admins and ArbCom. If instead the climate change case was first sent to mediation, then the fights would have had far more to do with the core of the matter. If mediation had succeeded, that would have been a wonderful outcome. But failure would have presented far more relevant evidence to ArbCom. Instead of William fighting some dispute with a trigger happy Admin (and ArbCom siding with that Admin, they tend to give the executive the benfit of the doubt), the Arbs would have had to consider incidents where editors would have been faulted by the mediators for bad editing practices (like insisting on using fringe sources). Count Iblis (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom accepts something only after previous failed attempts to resolve the problem. So, it is already there. A lot of cases are not about one specific content dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but then Wikipedia is fundamentally all about writing an encyclopedia. So, if you have a group of editors that don't get along, you could still focus on the most important areas where they clash and do a forced mediation there. That would at least focus the attention back to where it should be. Count Iblis (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

## ACE2012 Candidate Statements

Hi Count Iblis -- you need to add the following to your candidate statement, per the eligibility requirements: (1) a listing of alternate accounts, or a statement that you have none and (2) a statement of your wilingness to identify with the Foundation or an indication that you have already so identified.

Thanks and best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

## How many dudes you know

Rock a show like this? 116.93.139.115 (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

## Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

## Barnstar

 Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar For exploring new ideas and taking part in Arbcom elections, against all the odds. My very best wishes (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! The ArbCom Reform Party will continue to work toward improving ArbCom! Count Iblis (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Once upon a time, I was a member of a grass-root Coordination Committee during real elections in Russia. That was quite an eye-opener. Unfortunately, I can not tell what exactly my experience was because someone might interpret it as a hint about this Arbcom and have my account indefinitely blocked... My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Ha, perhaps ArbCom's secret service may cause trouble. During the Climate Change ArbCom case there were some new editors on the Global Warming page who I suspected were incognito ArbCom members who were testing the editing climate (basically the accusation by the climate scepticcs that William was the de-facto dictator of the climate change sector). Count Iblis (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

First, your post on Jimbo's talk page is incomplete. Second, if you're planning anything like that (I would advise against it) you should definitely speak to Fae first, as it might compromise anything he is planning to do. Prioryman (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I just reposted what I originally wrote, I guess it was some weird edit conflict that messed up my posting. I will of course consult with everyone involved, but formally the case I plan to start will not be about those original Arbcom cases, rather it will be a big omnibus case about more or less everything that has gone wrong with ArbCom in the least few years. The remedy should be a pardon for the people who on face value are capable of contributing to Wikipedia, the judgement that they can't (or can't within some topic area) being something purely due to some convoluted ArbCom reasoning with little hard evidence to support it. Count Iblis (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

## File:Contplanck.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Contplanck.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

## AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas t 07:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

## Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

## WP:ANI

What are you doing, and where did you get the debate in question? Essjay hasn't edited in six years, and Doc Glasgow hasn't used that username in a long time either. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so someone just pointed out that it's an April Fool's thing; I didn't realise at all that it was a joke. Sorry for coming here and leaving the above note; I thought either that people were faking signatures and you'd copied it from that place (but without telling us where you'd gotten it), or that you were faking signatures and causing chaos. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

First, let me express gratitude for your participation. Do you think anyone have tried to apply olum's paradox to the meta-universe as a prove of Existence of God or its just me? :) I see most people were confused into thinking that by our world i refer to our universe. I was refering however to the meta-universe, thus infinite space and eternal time. Do you think that meta-universe might have been not eternal or its space might not be infinite? Ryanspir (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has (it could be that Don Page has thought about this issue, as he is also a believer in God). I believe that ultimately everything is purely mathematical, there doesn't really exist a physical universe, it only seems to exist from the point of view of us (who are themselves mathematical concepts). Count Iblis (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Something like the matrix movie, or even more than that? Thanks for Don Page link Ryanspir (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you please explain it in simple terms and list some of the practical implications to my/our life? Ryanspir (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
What I believe is that what we are at any time is the algorithm that the brain is running at that moment. This can be motivated by various thought experiments, like replacing neurons in the brain by transitors one by one and arguing that this cannot ahve any influnece on our consciousness, if it had we would not be replacing the neurons in a functionally equivalent way. One then assumes the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle.
Then that algorithm that you are lives in some vast multiverse of algorithms. The person you where a second ago is actually a different algorithm that is in some sense close to you. The notion of time is then not fundamental, it is what you get when you consider such nearby algorithms that are related by their information content. I believe that all of physics can in principle be derived from such considerations. So, I don't think space-time, energy etc. are fundamental concepts, only mathematical operations like addition, multiplication etc. really exist. Count Iblis (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Very interesting. But I'm still failing to grasp the concept. Could you elucidate further and perhaps give some examples? What you are saying is the world as we consider it is unreal and it's just inside our "brains"? For there wouldn't be brains if the world is unreal. Ryanspir (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, so the brain is running a model of the world that includes your own body, and this is what you experience. You always experience this model of reality, not reality itself; this becomes clear when you see optical illusions. Handicapt people who miss a limb will sometimes feel phantom pain. This is due to the brain still running a model of the body in which the limb is still present, but because of lack of visual input about the limb, the parameters that describe the limb will tend to drift over time, bringing it in an awkward position. Using mirrors, one can fool the brain into believing that the mirror image of the other limb is the missing limb, which then resets the parameters, the phantom pain then disappears.
So, even if the unverse and our brains were real, we would still live in a virtual world rendered by the brain. But then it makes more sense to consider us to be that particular model. What we then need to explain is why we happen to find ourselves living in a World that is described by the known laws of physics. What seems to be going on here is that to describe me, you would need to specify an enormous amount of data, but you can compress this huge amount of information using the laws of physics (the entropy of the early universe is thought to be very low). But a similar version of me that is divorced from an external world, is described by a similar amount of data which, however, cannot be compressed. The world we find ourselves in can then be explained on the basis of probabilities. While all mathematical models exist, if you run some random model, there is much larger probability that it will might end up computing me living in a world like tis one compared to me in some ad hoc state divorced from a universe, because the former state can be obtained by a computation starting out with just a few bits, while the latter state needs all the information already present in the model. Count Iblis (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I see. So how do you assume the real world really looks like? And that thinking substance, which emulates everything, what is it and what gets data into it? Ryanspir (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
So, what we are at any moment is an algorithm in the process of processing data. That data contains information about a world, and it is there only because it is more probable for that data to be there than not. An alternative set of data would refer to an alternative world, and if we are unaware about all of the data (e.g. if we yet have to make a measurement of some quantity), we are in all the worlds consistent with the data we do have. Count Iblis (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
But why the algorithm is being arranged in that specific way? Who has arranged it this way? Ryanspir (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If I may come briefly into this conversation. The conversation is in an area known as metaphysics. In particular, the branch of metaphysics in which it lies is known as ontology, the study of what really exists. We have records of it from ancient Greece, with Plato and Aristotle the most famous metaphysicians. The ontology that Count Iblis proposes reminds me most of that proposed by Bishop Berkeley (1685-1753). Dr Johnson offered his proposed refutation of it by kicking a stone. I accept that Bishop Berkeley's ontology is different from Count Iblis', but the difference is perhaps not as great as the similarity.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are some similarities with my views and those of George Berkeley. I would say that quantum mechancs points to immaterialism being more on the right track. QM is only strange if you deny the existence of counterfactuals. You'll have a hard time explaining how the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester can work, while the physics here is trivial. Count Iblis (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ryanspir, the assumption I'm making is that all that exists is math. So, a priori the algorithm with all that data and without all that date just exist alongside all the other mathematical algorithms like the presciptions of how to compute square roots, how to compute logarithms, the digits of pi etc. etc. We are just a vastly more complicated algorithm than the algorithm that takes a number as imput and outputs the logarithm to some degree of precision, but in the end we are an algorithm and nothing more than that. Then if this is indeed true, one should be able to derive the laws of physics from this hypothesis. So, one needs to explain why the algorithm with all the data in it that refers to a physical world is preferred over algorithms without such data. I believe that this can be explained statistically, but I have no solid proof of this yet. Count Iblis (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

## eel

Do you intend to supply an article and go anywhere with this nom? If so I will restore it, but if not I am not interested in a hoax nomination. Let me know. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to, but the question is if we have a suitable article. I'll see if I can find one, but if you find something, you can put it back and make yourself the nominator. Count Iblis (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Count Iblis. You have new messages at Jimbo Wales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Count Iblis. You have new messages at Jimbo Wales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

## Consider signing my petition

See here

Count Iblis (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

## Deleted Filipachi article

I e-mailed you a copy the essay. We could send it around so that many as editors as possible can recreate it in their user space at the same time. It would be Wikipedia's "I'm Spartacus" moment. Kauffner (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

## Thank you

Thank you for being impartial. USchick (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm pretty sure I could not edit the news articles any better than you do. Count Iblis (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 The Mediation Award Count Iblis, this award is presented to you for your wisdom and understanding. Thank you for caring about real issues. You are a rare and valuable asset on Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

## Oh you!

You really did this. I suppose I should have remembered WP:BEANS (Actually I like the essay). --Cyclopiatalk 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I just couldn't resist creating that page :) . Count Iblis (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

## neuron star and black holes inside--recent reference desk question

Hi Count Iblis, thanks for your thoughts on my question at the reference desk. I am wondering if your point about the neutron star losing mass because of the black holes and exploding is the case when the star is fairly isoloated, but wouldnt happen if there were, say, a companion star that was giving upmass to the neutron star. ThanksRich (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rich, yes, if the neutron star where to gain mass from a companion, that would overwhelm any such exotic effect due to evaporating black holes. Now, in this paper it was suggested that you could have two neutron stars orbiting each other where the ligher neutron star would lose mass to the heavier one (because the ligher one will have a larger radius). Count Iblis (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thanks76.218.104.120 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

## Logo in image

In this image, it looks like the logo of the bank is fully or mostly visible on the screen. If I'm right in that being a copyrighted logo, then the image you took is a derivative work and is also copyrighted. Thus, it may be ineligible for commons. ~Charmlet -talk- 14:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly why I've removed the "transfer to Commons" template, and why Count Iblis needs to add a fair use rationale to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll give him some time to respond, but if he doesn't respond or add a fair use template in a few days I'll DI/CSD/whatever it is the image. Thanks. ~Charmlet -talk- 16:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I have asked SpareBank 1 if they are willing to grant permission as copyrightholders of the logo for the use of the picture on WikiMedia projects. This is better than to use the picture under fair use, because that would mean that the resolution of the picture would have to be reduced to as low as possible. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Permission to use on only WikiMedia projects neither qualifies it as "free" for Commons, nor exempt from NFCC and a fair use rationale. If they don't release the logo under an acceptable license (CC-BY-SA 3.0 or less restrictive for the most likely), then it's a derivative work and must be fair use with a NFCC use rationale, or deleted. And if they don't release it under a free license, it is not allowed on Commons. I'll still delay tagging it or anything, but for the most part I doubt they will release their logo under a free license. Thanks for trying at least :) ~Charmlet -talk- 18:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Charmlet is correct, only CC-BY-SA or GFDL licensing or the equivalent will be acceptable at Commons. Neither "Wikimedia only" or "Educational use only" licensing is allowed per policy. The bank will almost certainly not release an image including a cyrighted or trademarked logo, as they would thereby lose control of the logo irrevocably, so the only realistic option is to give the image a fair-use rationale. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, fair-use rationale, but then preferably without any restrictions on the image. One could argue that because the logo could be edited out of the image for the purpose of the article it is used in, we should remove that logo. A statement from the bank that the present picture is consistent with fair-use as far as they are concerned would thus be useful. Count Iblis (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't need permission for fair-use, that's what "fair use" means. If you want to remove the logo from the image, I can easily do that for you, but I'm not certain that removing the logo would make it acceptable at Commons. My feeling is that in a court case, the resulting image would be found to be non-copyrightable, but Commons most often wants things to be clear-cut and well-definied, so the safest thing would still be to leave it here with a fair-use rationale, since moving it to Commons would risk it being deleted. (Still, there would be a discussion before deletion, which would give the opportunity to move it back here.) Your choice - as I said, if you want the logo removed, it's easily done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Technically, removing the logo makes yet another derivative work, and since the original isn't free, the derivative isn't free. Best bet is either ask them to release it (unlikey) or use a fair use rational compliant with NFCC. ~Charmlet -talk- 23:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It's only a "derivative work" if the underlying screen is overall subject to copyrightable (i.e. not just the logo), and it's my opinion that absent the logo the underlying computer screen is probably (note these caveats) not subject to being copyrighted. Because it's not certain, fair-use is the surest way to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since at this point, I know of no way to remove the logo without having the original image, then any removal of logo from that image is a derivative of that image. However, an image that was taken of the screen which did not have the logo in the first place, as an original image, wouldn't be a derivative. But it is highly possible they copyright the software that the ATM runs, and thus the screen itself is copyrighted. Regardless, it seems resolved, so we need not hash this out right now :P ~Charmlet -talk- 00:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll use the fair-use rationale. Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

## Possibly unfree File:The world's most northerly ATM machine.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The world's most northerly ATM machine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

## Blocked

The edit war in which you have been engaged disrupts the reasonable operation of Wikipedia's reference desk, and you've chosen to engage in pointless and disruptive edit warring rather than worthwhile and moderate discussion. It's really difficult to understand why you felt the trivial matter in question was so important that you felt warring over it was more urgent that discussing it. Consequently I have blocked the accounts of both parties to this pointless dispute.-- Finlay McWalterTalk 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The reverts by me were not pointless, after reverting 3 times I explained myself on the talk page of the Ref Desk. As explained there, I never intended to continue the discussion that the OP said wasn't helpful, it was the hatting statement that was insulting toward me. If a discussion is to be hatted, you can't put a value judgement about an editor on it that may not be correct. I never ever meant to say that Medeis's grandfather should have been "killed" and the reply to Medeis also makes that clear. So, I don't want the hatting to imply that I somehow said what Medeis originally thought I said.
I don't want anyone to be blocked, the discussion can be hatted with a neutral statement (e.g. saying that the discussion is off topic or whatever). Count Iblis (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You make a pertinent and well-thought out point about the dispute in hand. Had you made this point rather than edit-warring, or even during the course of it, it's unlikely that I would have elected to block your account. I'm not blind to the fact, much as it may seem, that both parties were acting in what they felt was good faith. But both of you chosen, rather than to discuss the matter, to revert one another over and over. You're not blocked because I think you're wrong, but because you chose war-war over jaw-jaw. We all have disagreements over what should be in Wikipedia, but if we can't talk about them, we're screwed. It saddened be to block you, and I did worry that doing so would discourange you from the great preponderance of good things that you do. That you both do. But we have to be good to one another, or at least not to be bad to one another, and that's what you were both doing. I'm going to leave the rest of this to an admin who reviews unblock requests - I really don't want you to be blocked. But I really do want you to talk about problems first, second, and third. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 23:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was a bit insulted, that rarely happens to me and I should have used the talk page right from the start. Andy may have very strong feelings about euthanasia and about his view on managing the Ref Desk which may have caused him to revert rather than discuss the matter. But I see that JackofOz has replied on the Ref desk talk page; he has changed the hatting statement. The original issue has been cleared up as far as I'm concerned, so I think both Andy and I can be unblocked. Because Jack also says that he had problems with me invoking euthanasia because of personal experience, I need to apologize to him and Medeis on the talk page for my first comment which was not worded well enough and easily misinterpreted to imply something I don't support. Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Request reason:

See my explanation right above here. I don't intent to continue the reverts, I already had stopped reverting and explained myself on the talk page of the Ref Desk. I guess I should have done that earlier. I also want AndyTheGrump who is blocked for this to be unblocked; the matter should be discussed on the Ref Desk talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

It appears to me that you understand the problems associated with what you did - the content of your remarks at the reference desk and the edit warring - and that you will be more careful of both in the future. Your apology to Medeis is welcome. Bbb23 (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Not sure what the exact issue may be but the current block length of 10 days is extremely severe imo given the Count's clean block record over the past two years and also that blocks of such lengths are reserved for editors with long records of disruptive editing. The Count's record does not qualify for such severe treatment, bearing also in mind that blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome Count. I also thank NYB for his positive intervention. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The original comment that you made, in my view, was completely gratuitous and shockingly unnecessary, and should have been removed outright from the reference desk rather than "hatted" (which draws more attention to it). You should not make such a comment to another editor again. That being said, at this point the need for blocking may have passed, especially given that your intention upon being unblocked is to post apologies; but it might be a good idea for you to take a few days off from the reference desk, as well as to recalibrate your sense of what to say about sensitive subjects and when to say it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The original statement was unfortunate, what I meant to say was my later reply to Medeis. But then this was all off-topic and shouldn't have been in the discussion in the first place. I hurt the feelings of a few editors and should apologize for that. The reason I reverted the hatting was because the hatting summary was based on that reading of the first comment which is not something I meant to say, so it had the effect of putting more or less those wrong words in my mouth again. But, of course, I should have simply posted on the talk page instead of reverting. Count Iblis (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but then I did reply to Medeis making it clear what the context is. The reverts putting back the hatting (also note the edit summary used in those reverts) had the effect of letting me appear to say what I absolutely did not mean. But I agree that I should have handled this differently. Also where I live euthanasia is legal, it is not anywhere near controversial as it is in the US. A similarly poorly worded statement by someone would not be interpreted in this way (suggesting you advocate the "killing" of patients), even by opponents of euthanasia here. So, when this did happen here on Wikipedia, I saw that as a totally unacceptable insult toward me. But they do reflect genuine feelings of people here, so I will apologize for not being more careful with this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW, I must say what is shocking is the reaction to Count Iblis statement, especially the one by User:Newyorkbrad. He said something very sensible and there was nothing offensive about it. He simply gave very good advice on what to do on such situations, advice that I personally endorse. Everyone is entitled to their views on euthanasia, but the way this has been handled is a serious overreaction.-- cyclopiaspeak! 13:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Euthanasia is a hot-button issue and strong reactions to controversial statements can be expected. What I find more shocking is the length of this 10-day block issued to an editor in good standing. It is clearly punitive and it is disproportionate and unfair.I also find some of the comments of the blocking admin, especially when he states: I really don't want you to be blocked. incongruous to the length of the block he issued. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I would say that while I didn't mean to offend anyone, people did get offended. What I said was indeed not inherently offensive, in the sense that it was a personal attack meant to offend people here (and that you could only interpret it that way). As Dr.K points out, the whole problem with euthanasia is actually that in many countries, this is controversal subject and also a taboo subject. In those few countries where it has been legalized, the population is capable of discussing this subject rationally. E.g. in Britain there was a national debate about this, the House of Lords voted on it and rejected it. The character of that debate was quite negative, you had organizations of handicapped people invoking bleak "death panel" scenarios for the future. Then while there was no majority in favor, it would not have worked even with a majority in favor in such a climate.
Quite a few other problems have this same root cause, take e.g. persecution of gay people in Africa. If you debate this topic with people in Africa who oppose legalizing gay relationships, you'll get into the same issues. To them being gay is immoral and they have very strong convictions that this is the case. The only way things are going to change there is for these people to soften there stance. It's not that they would have to agree with our position on this matter, what is needed is for them to accept that people can reasonably have a different opinion than they have (e.g. that being in favor of legalization is not inconsistent with being a good Christian). Count Iblis (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the aphorism, "when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging?" Africa is far from the only place where LGBT individuals face harrassment, persecution, and criminalization grounded in intolerant religious or 'moral' concerns. (And of course 'Africa' is not a homogeneous, monolithic bloc—South Africa, for instance, remains one of fewer than 20 nations to have legalized same-sex marriage, and was the second such nation outside of Europe to do so.) Even within individual African countries, you will find a spectrum of beliefs, ranging from the openminded and accepting, to the merely tolerant, to the uncomfortable, to the viciously discriminatory—just as you will find most everywhere else.
Why on earth would you decide to condemn that whole one continent as your example, with all the potential overtones of racism? (While I am reasonably sure – and strongly hope – that it was not your intention to suggest this, it reads as implicitly suggesting that one can reason with the folks in other places, but that Africans specifically are irrational and unreasonable.) Are you truly ignorant of the presence of bigots in other places? Think before you hit save. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Ha, yes I do believe that one can reason with the people opposed to gay marriage in Africa and elsewhere, that we actually have to respect their opinion while strongly disagreeing with them, however difficult that is for us. So, actually, I would be opposed to thinking in terms of "bigots", because the moment you do that, you can't engage with the group of people who are the key to resolving the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
As with above, I'm not commenting on the block but Cyclopia, I think the point you're missing is there's a big difference between a person saying they support a person's right to chose euthanasia when the time comes, and would have chosen euthanasia or felt it was better to chose euthanasia in a certain set of circumstances; and saying euthansia should have been used in someone's personal case. It sounds like Count Iblis intended to say the former, but what they actually said sounded like the later. When the person being referred to is someone the person you're replying to cared strongly about, it's quite easy that the comment will come across as highly offensive since it's such an emotionally charged area. Note also, in Count Iblis's original comment it wasn't even emtirely clear if they were referring to voluntary euthansia. While I think most people would have assumed based on the comment that it was voluntary euthanasia, this highlights another problem with saying euthanasia would have been a better option for someone else's relative/friend/whatever. Are you saying the relative/friend/whatever should have chosen to be euthanasia or are you saying the person should have euthanised their relative/friend/whatever regardless of whether it was clear it was what the relative/friend/whatever wanted (i.e. non voluntary euthanasia)? Of course speaking generally, it's simply a bad idea to randomly start discussing euthanasia when people are talking about the death of someone they cared about. Which of course highlights the other problem, the comment was offtopic and the sort of stuff that is never really ontopic on the RD and while we allow it to some extent, we shut it down when it starts to get out of hand or cause offense. BTW, this goes both ways, if someone says they were involved in a relative's euthansia, regardless of the legal situation where the person who said it lives and regardless of the personal opinions of respondents, it would be quite wrong for someone else to call them a murderer. Expressing the personal opinion that euthanasia is always murder or the legal situation, while still unwelcome on the RD, is not the same thing but bringing up this opinion when someone mentions their relative's euthanasia would still be highly ill-advised. And for the record, I don't oppose voluntary euthanasia either provided sufficient safeguards are in place, this doesn't mean I don't see the problem with CI's reply and why it was so contentious. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

## When unblocked I'm going to raise competence issues against Bishonen and NYB on AN/I

I guess I should have been unblocked more promptly, I would then likely not have noted the discussion on User talk:Finlay McWalter about the blocks :). The problem I have is that the judgment is made that Andy was right to do what he did and I was wrong, while I would say that we were both wrong. Andy overreacted (just like I did), not only did he revert repeatedly but also used abusive language in the edit summaries. However, I do forgive Andy for that because my comments appeared to say something that is unacceptable (but with discussions that would have been easily cleared up).

Andy was unblocked with the unblocking statement saying that what he did was correct. I find that highly problematic, so this is something that needs to be discussed at AN/I. The involved parties are primarily Bishonen who unblocked with that statement (note that I was in favor of unblocking, the issue is only the unblocking statement) and NYB who also justified what Andy did. You really can't revert repeatedly with abuse edit summaries to restore a hatting with a denigrating closing statement against an editor. If there are BLP issues that warrant hatting or deleting, then that should be done in a proper way. The role of Admins is to help create a good editing atmosphere, not to give editors a carte blanche to forcefully "put things right". Count Iblis (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the edit summaries, I offer my sincere apologies - I clearly should have used more temperate language. As for you raising the matter at ANI, that is of course your right, but I hope you will understand that when I suggest that I think it inadvisable, I am not doing so just as an involved party. It seems inevitable that it will be pointed out that you had other alternatives than removing the hatting available to you, but chose not to take them. It might well prove unwise to suggest that others were at fault, without considering that your own actions may be taken into account. If it were up to me (which plainly it isn't) I would suggest that the best course would be for your block to be removed - I'd not realised that you were still blocked, or I would have commented earlier - and that we all put it down to experience, and move on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Count, I understand your frustration at the length it takes for this block to be lifted but please do not add more variables into the equation which can only detract from the issue at hand which is that the block should be lifted. I think as Andy explains above there are no more issues involved between you and him. As far as taking Bishonen and NYB to ANI this is not a good idea and further confuses your unblock request with external issues which is ironic since NYB actually intervened on your behalf. So please reconsider this approach. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, thank you for your apologies. As I wrote above, I want to apologise to you too because I didn't behave correctly either. As far as I'm concerned the problems are resolved, except that I do see a more general issue with the Admin intervention here. So, I take it as a given that I did not behave correctly, I should have used the talk page, changed the hatting statement (or ask someone else to do that for me) instead of simply reverting the hatting. But we have Admins to help calm things down... Dr. K and you suggest that I should not raise this matter at AN or AN/I, I'll think about that... Count Iblis (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this situation today, expecting that in light of Count Iblis's acknowledgement that he shouldn't have said what he did in the way that he did, he would be unblocked by now. I checked again just now thinking that if Count Iblis were not yet unblocked but no one strongly objected to unblocking, I might unblock him myself on the ground that any purpose served by the block has been satisfied. Now, of course, I'm not in a position to unblock, because it could be read as giving in to the threat to report me to ANI for administrator incompetence. For that reason I will have to leave the unblock request pending, although I recommend in favor of unblocking, at least on the basis of commutation to "time served."

Needless to say, I disagree with the assertion that I have acted incompetently (or more accurately, voiced my views incompetently, since I haven't taken any action). In my comments on Finlay McWalter's talkpage, while I agreed with Bishonen that AndyTheGrump should probably not have been blocked (and certainly should not have been blocked for 10 days), I opined that the (re)hatting as opposed to deletion of the disputed content and his edit summaries were unhelpful. Count Iblis, from your own point of view, I'm not sure it's in your interest for you to further publicize this incident in a venue such as ANI. Of course you have the right to do so if you choose, but if you do, you should expect to be asked what administrator action you are seeking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

NYB, thanks for explaining your position, I overlooked that you opposed the re-hatting, so I have no problems with your actions. I do think that Wikipedia lacks a review mechanism where strong criticisms can be made in a non-confrontational way. Compare this to my field, a good friend of mine can also happen be the anonymous Referee who writes a very critical referee report about my article. Science would not be as reliable as it is were it not for this system. On Wikipedia, the systems we have frequently fall prey to agenda driven attacks, personalization of conflicts etc.; actions are usually taken against editors, rarely do we consider that the rules must be amended based on incidents (this does happen but this is a very slow and tedious process). So, I won't raise the problems I have with Bishonen's actions on AN/I, but I will do so elsewhere, making it very clear right from the start that I don't seek any actions against Bishonen. Count Iblis (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
So, could someone now unblock Count Iblis? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I am slightly confused as to why we need an environment where "strong criticisms" can be made. My understanding of the ref desk is that we offer references, not critiques of people's views on euthanasia or homosexuality or whatnot. What in the world does bringing up the "persecution of gay people in Africa" have to do with the "offensive edit" other than perhaps a way to claim a moral highground with a red herring? (I.e., "Why are you blocking me when there are bigots in Africa?") If anything, this thread and the one above it seem to be arguing that editors should be free to soapbox even more freely. That seems wrong, and an unblock on those grounds seems to endorse the view that open debate is called for. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Medeis, first of all, let me apologise for any distress I may have caused by that poorly worded comment. What I wrote here about criticism refers to the Admin boards, dispute resolution mechanisms, ArbCom etc. etc. The issue I raised about persecution of gay people was to make the point that the controversial nature of certain issues leading to persecution is fundamentally caused by the population not being able to debate the issues freely. So, it's not that "editors should be free to "soapbox" even more freely", rather "people should be free to "soapbox" even more freely", where I put your choice of the word "soapbox" in quotes to emphasize that this word is not my preferred choice. Count Iblis (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
As I stated at the ref desk talk, your comment didn't really matter to me beyond my response to it. But I disagree with the notion that what is needed is free debate at wikipedia, so I will withdraw. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm for debate outside Wikipedia. Inside Wikipedia, the issue is that there is a lack of effective peer review. The mechanisms we have are inherently confrontational and these then become venues to fight out disputes. Count Iblis (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

## Unblock

Hi, Count Iblis, as you know, I've asked Finlay if he consented, or at least didn't object, to my unblocking you. He hasn't responded to my request; nor has he edited at Wikipedia since my request. Depending on where he lives, it's very possible that he's off-wiki for the night. I would prefer to wait, at least until tomorrow morning (Pacific time), for a response. If you'll be patient just a little longer, it would be appreciated. I should be back on-wiki relatively early in the morning, and I'll take it from there.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks that's ok. with me, had I been unblocked now I would probably edit here about ten hours from now anyway. And thank you too Dr. K for asking Bbb23 to take a look here. Count Iblis (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Count Iblis, I have unblocked you after consulting with Finlay, who gave me permission to use my own judgment. My interpretation of where you stand at the moment is you do not intend to go to ANI. I think that's a wise choice. To the extent you discuss the issues directly with editors, I urge you to do so in a constructive fashion. If it appears to you at any point that the discussion is no longer constructive, I suggest you let it go and move on. I personally have found that we simply can't always get the kind of personal satisfaction that we would wish at Wikipedia when we clash with another editor, and the best option is to drop it. Good luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Bbb23 for resolving this case in such a professional and elegant manner. Count, take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and as a result I now find myself editing here a bit sooner than I should :). I agree that aiming for personal satisfaction is not usually going to work in case of disputes. But I will raise another issues that became more clear to me while I was blocked. When Dr. K told me not to criticize NYB because he was helpful to me during the block, it dawned on me that it's actually very difficult to give criticism while avoiding confrontation. E.g. the way AN/I works is that you actually need to specify what action you want to be taken. The whole culture on Wikipedia has evolved to the point that this is considered to be the way things should work. But I think this is the root cause of many of the conflicts between editors, it is the reason why not just AN/I but even ArbCom is seen as a venue that leads to "too much drama" which leads to problems not getting dealt with at an early stage; we tend to postpone that until they are so bad that drastic measures against editors need to be taken. Count Iblis (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Well made points. I'm glad to see that you are back at your usual philosophical plateau. :) But fwiw, I fully agree with you and in fact I have thought about this phenomenon before. Perhaps one of these days I can share a few ideas with you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be good to discuss this further; perhaps on Jimbo's talk page to also get the views of other editors on this matter... Count Iblis (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem with any high-visibility talkpage is that sometimes the conversation dynamics may deteriorate and become unstable or at least unfocused. It may also be that the problem is inherent in an editing environment where everyone is more or less an independent publisher of information in a lightly regulated environment and sometimes their published works clash, often times leading to interpersonal conflicts. To design a system of conflict resolution policies/approaches for such a multi-variable, multi-degree of freedom system may need a Ph.D. thesis on the psychosocial interaction dynamics of online communities including a supercomputer able to calculate the optimum path through the large number of available solutions which depend on different initial or boundary conditions. Of course the above analysis should also include semantic manipulation employed as a defence or attack mechanism during conversations between the independent publishers and also semantic fuzziness which could lead to frequent misunderstandings which in turn could create positive feedback loops in online conversations. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

## Superposition state

I got it, but there is a lot of sensitivity to any kind of joking about the issue so it may be better not to. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I guess it's best to be careful here :) . Count Iblis (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
:) --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

## New proposal regarding Wer900 at AN/I

In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 19:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

## Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear Count Iblis.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

## Math Desk

I'll take this to ANI if you continue the disruptive edit warring at the math desk. Take your opinion to the talk page where discussion favors deletion. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have already complained on the talk page about your repeated disruptive removals of that threat. There is only one source of disruption on the math page, and these are your actions. You don't contribute to the Math desk, so it's not possible for you have experienced any disruption there. Count Iblis (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

## Copied from the Math desk (thread tends to get deleted because some editors like to play the "Moderator")

What are you do if I give \$ 1 Millon ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.8.188 (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Give me ten million dollars, and I will build a math institute in the south of France. With one million, I suppose I would settle for a tenth of a math institute. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
See here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, in my mind you do raise a point that you may or may not have intended: to what extent do you (in the generic sense) consider the Fields medal—and possibly other similar prizes—to be a fraud? Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't judge this for mathematics, but for theoretical physics the Fields medal is a good thing, you can win this prize for working on mathematical physics subjects like e.g. Edward Witten, Wendelin Werner, Stanislav Smirnov have done, a Nobel Prize is not going to be awarded for such work. Count Iblis (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
That's interesting. Are you a theoretical physicist, Count Iblis? Widener (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and my subfield field are certain subjects that fall within mathematical physics, so a Nobel Prize is unfortunately not in the cards for me :). A lot of what is now rigorous math that is practiced by "real mathematicians" (instead of physicists who tend to do things less rigorously) originally started out as pure physics subjects in which things were not done rigorously. Take e.g. the results obtained by Stanislav Smirnov that earned him the Field Medal. This is about percolation and the fact that in 2 dimensional systems you have conformal invariance in the scaling limit. A lot of results had been obtained by invoking conformal invariance, but there was not a rigorous mathematical proof that such a system is indeed conformally invariant. Smirnov obtained a proof for percolation the triangular lattice. Count Iblis (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

## Quick Question...

$\int_0^\infty \frac{f(x)}{F(x)}\ dx\ \overset{?}{=}\ \int_0^\infty \frac{x!}{x^x}\ dx \qquad,\qquad f(x)\ =\ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{n^x}{n^n} \qquad,\qquad F(x)\ =\ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{n^x}{n!}$

79.113.241.178 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll take a look at this problem this evening. Count Iblis (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you ! — 79.113.241.178 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

## Credentials?

Count Iblis,

Perhaps you can stop much of the hate by supplying your credentials, i.e., what college degree you have obtained, and perhaps from what school if you wish to give that information. It sometimes appears you have at least an undergraduate understanding of physics; although I think sometimes you get a few basics wrong or do not explain things clearly enough. And when I change a section of an article you have written in any manner, you immediately change it back stating that it is wrong or imprecise, even though there are numerous people on the talk pages who disagree with you. I am not yet an expert myself; I am still a semester away from getting my bachelor's degree in physics, and will hopefully go to grad school, but I want to know why you seem to think only you have a good grasp of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.105.109 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Forget about credentials, you need to discuss things rigorously from first principles. If you think that a statement is correct, then there shouldn't be much of a problem to give a rigorous self contained proof from first principles here. Asuming your argument is correct and there are still disagreements, then the disagreements will be due to making different assumptions and will then become also become clear. Count Iblis (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

## FA review?

Hello,

I noticed that you are involved with the physics articles on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could help me out. Right now, I'm working to bring the article AdS/CFT correspondence to FA status. So far, people have had many good suggestions and many positive things to say about the article, but I'm having trouble getting people to support or oppose the nomination.

I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at it and tell us your thoughts at this page. Please note that you do not have to be an expert on the subject. The article has already been checked quite carefully by other reviewers, and at this point, I'm just looking for people who can check that it meets the FA criteria.

Please let me know if you're interested. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

## Best divisor approximation - the sequel

Hi Count Iblis,

Recently, you were so kind to give me a pointer to the Lenstra–Lenstra–Lovász lattice basis reduction algorithm in order to solve a best divisor approximation problem. I have spend a great deal of time trying to understand the algorithm and your proposed vectors, and I have made some realizations (I think), and I have also run into some problems. I have written up my observations and thoughts in the original math desk thread, which is now archived (linked to in the header). I would appreciate if you would have the time to look through my partially disorganized thoughts and perhaps comment there...?

Do you think I should move the thread back to the math help desk, as I suspect noone will notice the new edits in the archives?

--Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look later today. It's a very powerful algorithm, I have done some work with this some years ago using Mathematica which has a build in routine for this. Count Iblis (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, yesterday, I realized a "man-in-the-middle" approach is greatly helpful to reduce the computational complexity enourmously for say, problems with of the order $m \sim 40$ prime factors, which naively requires of the order $2^m$ operations (for primorials). The idea is to separate the prime factors into two sets, calculate all the possible sums of the logs given the multiplicities ($2\cdot2^{m/2}$ operations for primorials), sort them (less than $m\cdot2^{m/2}\cdot \log(2)$ operations, as the log sums can be made such that they have a high degree of order), and then match them up via a "man in the middle" iterating through one sum forwards and another sum backwards to find the pairwise sums which come closest to $\log(x)$ (of the order $2^{m/2}$ operations). Using that method I could write a Python script, which found the best divisor approximation to, e.g., $\sqrt{p_{40}\#}$ in less than a second. I do not know how fast this can be done with the LLL algorithm?--Slaunger (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)