User talk:SteveBaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
NOTE: I know some people carry on conversations across two User talk pages. I find this ludicrous and unintuitive, and would much prefer to follow Wikipedia's recommendations (see How to keep a two-way conversation readable). Conversations started here will be continued here, while those I start on other users' pages will be continued there. If a user replies to a post of mine on this page, I will either cut/paste the text to their page, or (more likely) copy/paste from their page to this one and continue it here.

The Simulation Hypothesis[edit]

Steve,

I just read your comments on the Talk Page of the Simulation Hypothesis article. I was particularly struck by your allusions that our universe/reality seems “plugged” (to use accounting jargon, as I’m an accountant; today the preferred term is “fine- tuned"), though you subsequently disclaimed belief in the simulation hypothesis. Nevertheless, your points would seem to buttress any form of creationism and the tendency for science to search for alternative explanations by way of doctrinaire presentiments. You saliently bring this point home with your observation:

“Old flight simulators from the 1980's used to have a precision of 1/256th of a foot - if you lived in that simulation, you'd say that the laws of physics quantised all distances to a 'plank length' of 1/256th of a foot and invent complicated 'laws of physics' to explain that.”

You also mention relativity as another seeming indication that (at least our) material reality is an illusion. I too was struck by this point and to that effect have written a philosophical proof of a creator based upon STR. In it, I contend that if one assumes that Einstein’s theory is correct—as on empirical grounds it certainly seems to be—, then it would appear that our universe had to have had a creator of some kind, though not necessarily God in the traditional sense. If you should sometime have about seven minutes to invest and had any interest, here is the link to the free access essay:

http://wwwdnschneidercom.xbuild.com/#/miscellaneous-7/4526495432

The argument also assumes the validity of the eternalism theory of time that STR implies and to which both Minkowski and Einstein adhered as do a significant majority of philosophers and physicists today as there seems no tenable alternative explanation for the relativity of simultaneity. I don’t believe my argument can be refuted without denying the validity of relativity and eternalism. Finally, although my proof depends upon the two overt assumptions I made, there is, however, one additional tacit assumption my proof relies upon that has a direct bearing on the article in question. If you should read my proof, I was wondering if you could discern such for yourself.

Thanks again for the benefit of your experience and attendant observations which serve to further reinforce my own beliefs, even if you personally don’t adhere to them. That’s all right as neither had the atheist Einstein, and his work serves as the underpinnings of my proof of a creator!

Best regards,

Don SchneiderHistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There are really two answers to this. If you hold with the simulation hypothesis...then there is no "creator" within the simulatiion...no simulated creator. Clearly there is some kind of entity in the parent universe who created the simulation...but this would most likely be an entirely normal creature...a computer programmer, perhaps. Not a god or a supernatural being. I work as a game and simulation programmer - I make simulated beings in my simulated worlds...I am their creator - but I'm neither god nor supernatural. Most importantly, a truly omnipotent god would not need to use the quantization and speed of light trickery to make his/her simulation work. So if we show that this hyothesis is true - then that is proof positive that our creator is subject to sharp limitations. SteveBaker (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Steve, Does your email work and are you happy for me to send you a personal question on Asperger's to consider? "Consider" meaning it is up to you whether you answer or not. If you don't have email set up could you email me please? Thanks --BozMo talk 08:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My contact information (including email) is right there at User:SteveBaker. Feel free to mail me! SteveBaker (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Email sent. --BozMo talk 13:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
...and replied to. SteveBaker (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

How are you? If you reply, please, leave your message at my talk. best wishes. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your take on this[edit]

I couldn't agree more. It will get worse before it gets better. A lot of good editors politely remain silent, or have now chosen to visit less frequently at the Refdesk. It is a shame that a couple of editors can ruin it for so many. 54.204.179.139 (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The above is the latest IP from an Amazon-based troll whose sole purpose here is to cause trouble. Anything posted by that troll should be deleted on-sight. There is no dispute at the ref desk which is anywhere near large enough to override the risk of an editor committing harm to himself or others. Deleting it and turning it over to the WMF was the right and proper thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
So you believe that it's OK for a lone editor to take a dislike to someone and start deleting all of their posts on sight? If that were the right thing to do, I'd certainly be deleting all of your crappy answers at the Ref Desk on sight...but I don't because I happen to believe that the world works better when the rule of law applies rather than people taking vigilante action. Sure, that person has been in trouble in the past - but the decision was to give them a 30 day block - not a forever block - which is what Medeis is imposing. If Medeis (or you) believe that this poster has not reformed after the 30 day block - then your correct response is to go back to the ANI and tell them that sterner action is needed...not take it upon yourself to start deleting/hatting posts. Neither you, nor I, nor Medeis has the right to do that...heck, we're not even Admins. SteveBaker (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Wiser folks on the ref desk talk page have already told you that deleting that section and turning it over to the WMF was the right thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I have no respect for your opinions or your entirely non-insightful comments. Please stop posting to my talk page - if you have anything to say on the matter - go someplace else. SteveBaker (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The feeling is mutual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you have no regard for anything I say, and you've never said anything useful to me, how's about we declare an informal interaction ban? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Second Coming and the Environment[edit]

By soon, I mean very soon. I am asking this because there are some Christians who claim and believe that Jesus will come back and the world will end very soon. They believe that there are signs of the Second Coming and many of these signs have already been fulfilled. For example, look at this article. Jesus talked about these signs in Wikisource:Bible (King James)/Matthew#Chapter 24, Wikisource:Bible (King James)/Mark#Chapter 13 and Wikisource:Bible (King James)/Luke#Chapter 24.

Great Time (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but I'm a confirmed atheist - I personally believe that all of christianity is a bunch of exploitative hogwash. If that's what you want to believe - I'm unlikely to be able to persuade you otherwise...but using that as an excuse to trash the planet is beyond stupid.
We have an article: Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ - I suggest you read it. It lists at least 30 other occasions when people just like you have used similar "signs and portents" to predict the second coming every few years for at least the last 200 years. I don't see any reason why your prediction would be any more reliable that theirs. It also lists three other people who have made predictions of this happening - and despite them all having access to exactly the same information that you're looking at - they can't agree on a single date either.
Bottom line is that even if you're right, and Jesus exists and is coming back someday - your chances of actually making a correct prediction are no better than all of those other people - which means that it's almost certain that you're wrong about the date you think it's going to be. Hence, assuming that Jesus will return before the planet is fatally damaged is a very, very bad idea. Recall Ronald Weinland - who has (on three separate occasions) decided that he knew when Jesus would be returning - and decided that he needn't bother paying his taxes because of that. He ended up serving a 3 year prison sentence as a result of that...and guess what, Jesus didn't come on 2011 Sep 29, 2012 May 27, or most recently 2013 May 18 - as he so confidently predicted.
So, even if I could go along with this whole religious nonsense - I most certainly wouldn't agree that you can predict the date of the second coming - and that means that we have to look after our tiny, frail little planet in order that our children and especially our grandchildren will have somewhere nice to live, have food to eat and have the creatures and beauty of our earth to enjoy until whatever fate befalls mankind actually DOES happen.
At any rate - please don't bother to try to convince me - it's really just a load of bullshit as far as I'm concerned.
SteveBaker (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
My response would have been shorter: "Are you asking a question, or what?" —Tamfang (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Where is the proof you undid the deletion of my thread in RDMISC? Can you show me where they talked about you undoing the deletion? (both/it happened, if I remember correctly)--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "undo deletion" of any thread of yours that I can find. On Jan 27th, I removed the "hatting" (hiding) of a thread that you started on Jan 26th - but as far as I know, it was never deleted. Anyway, you can see the edit summary HERE.†
The discussion of that is HERE...although it will ultimately be archived someplace else. My specific comment on that thread is HERE.
Please note that my actions there should not be taken to mean that I endorse anything you said, that is emphatically not the case - merely that I felt it was not within the reasonable right of the person who hid the question to do so without prior discussion and consensus to do so on the reference desk talk page or some other place where proper administrative action may take place. Even then, I might have left the hatting in place had it not been for the long history of that particular editor taking precipitate action over dubious questions rather than seeking consensus to act first. I'm not especially interested in your part in this.
Might I ask why you require this information?
SteveBaker (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, want to see if the deletion was undone, since I think I heard worrying rumors. "Yes, I closed the OP's thread as requesting prediction. It did request prediction. I didn't close it again after SteveBaker reopened it, did I?" †I don't see any edit summary.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the complete history of that thread:

  • 26th Jan - you created the thread - editing it 6 times before you were happy with it:
 14:23, 26 Jan 78.156.109.166  (Suicide: new section)
 14:24, 26 Jan 78.156.109.166  (Suicide)
 14:26, 26 Jan 78.156.109.166  (Suicide)
 14:26, 26 Jan 78.156.109.166  (Suicide)
 14:26, 26 Jan 78.156.109.166  (Suicide)
 14:27, 26 Jan 78.156.109.166  (Suicide)
  • InedibleHulk and Sjo reply to it (rather poorly, IMHO):
 15:12, 26 Jan InedibleHulk  (Suicide)
 15:15, 26 Jan InedibleHulk  (Suicide)
 15:16, 26 Jan Sjö  (Suicide)
 15:25, 26 Jan InedibleHulk  (Suicide)
  • Medeis unilaterally decides that it's inappropriate and "hats" it ("hat" means "Hide And Tag" - this hides the thread without deleting it - and requires an explanatory note to be included). The reason Medeis gave was "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. See the user's talk page for disruptive history":
 15:36, 26 Jan Medeis  (Suicide)
 15:37, 26 Jan Medeis  (Suicide: close request for prediction by disruptive user)
  • I decide that Medies has overstepped his/her authority in hatting the thread without discussion on the talk page - so I decide to reverse that - in part because you had already "served your time" for previous disruptions - in part because I believe that a decent answer, based in statistics, is perfectly possible - and in part because Medeis has a bad history of hatting and deleting threads without community discussion:
 10:01, 27 Jan SteveBaker  (Suicide: Unhatting.)
  • Baseball Bugs responds to your question:
12:53, 27 Jan Baseball Bugs  (Suicide)
  • Dissatisfied with previous answers, I attempt to answer the question "properly" and to correct the errors made by InedibleHulk and Sjo:
 13:42, 28 Jan SteveBaker  (Suicide: Not "multiply by 12" - that's bad.)
  • Baseball Bugs responds some more...in part agreeing with my previous answer...and in part expanding upon it:
14:11, 28 Jan Baseball Bugs  (Suicide)
14:13, 28 Jan Baseball Bugs  (Suicide)
  • Then there is some discussion about the validity of your question on the "Talk" page - which goes on for several days afterwards. Within the space of 7 hours, Baseball Bugs goes from wanting to help out with an answer (14:11 on Jan 28th) to wanting the thread removed (21:03 Jan 28th) - and Knowledgekid87 joins in:
19:49, 28 Jan Knowledgekid87  (Suicide: Re)
21:03, 28 Jan Baseball Bugs  (Suicide)
21:26, 28 Jan Knowledgekid87  (Suicide: Box it up.)
  • Finally, Medeis deletes the entire thread - with the edit summary "see talk" - which is arguably somewhat reasonable now that there has been some community discussion:
21:27, 28 Jan Medeis  (Suicide: see talk)

I took no further action because the matter had now been discussed on the talk page - and Medeis was no longer acting without community support.

Please note that none of the people involved here (myself included) are Wikipedia administrators - and if you require some kind of remedial action, you'll need to find one to discuss it with. I certainly can't help you any further.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A Lamborghini for you![edit]

Lamborghini (3016881885).jpg Real Racer Award
For your help at Helpdesk..! Joseph 16:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Many thanks! I'm more of a MINI Cooper guy than a Lambo fan - but I bet I could get a reasonably good trade for it!  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

steady body weight[edit]

Thank you for your long helpful comment on my post at the science reference desk. I was pleased to find that my exercise program is similar to the one you recommended! --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi urgent[edit]

I emailed you via the wikipedia email system about something that's semiurgent.

Many thanks! Replied to via email (and FIXED!) 24.27.49.184 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

occam's razor reply[edit]

thanks for your replies on Occam's razor. I've responded to your last comment but of course we can continue here if you have something to add as that discussion is now a bit old.212.96.61.236 (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:ComputerBarnstar4.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:ComputerBarnstar.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation shotgunning[edit]

Okay, I've seen this practice often enough on fringe articles that I've drafted a short essay on it. See Wikipedia:Citation shotgunning (shortcut: WP:CITESHOT). Feel free to add or edit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Social History[edit]

In light of some comments you made on the reference desk.

What would your views be on a social history WikiProject? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised we don't already have one. Well, actually - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society suggests that the subject is so broad that it's had to be split up into a couple of hundred sub-projects already.
At any rate, I'm not really interested in WikiProjects - I don't have the kind of time needed to work on something like that. They are a great way to organize the effort - but they just don't work for me. SteveBaker (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Segar (glaze)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Segar (glaze) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

An old friend seems to have stopped by for a visit lately...[edit]

Hmmm?. --Jayron32 01:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - I strongly suspect it. The MO certainly fits. The edit history for that IP is certainly close to Cuddly. SteveBaker (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg For the best posting I've seen on the reference desk ever! I mean, I only discovered the haven fairly recently, but your perspective is insightful on many levels and I hope other Wikipedians follow your example~ Cheers ~Helicopter Llama~ 17:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind of you! I have no idea what a stroopwafel is, but it's probably higher in calories than my diet permits. So when I have a moment, I'll carefully carry them over to my front page where they may be preserved in all their stroopy deliciousness for all eternity.  :-)

Hmmm - which posting was it that you liked so much? SteveBaker (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(OK, I just read stroopwafel...they may not last long enough to make it to my front page! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
haha it was the one where you talked about the way too common page name debates c: ~Helicopter Llama~ 17:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah...OK! Yeah - I've been through far too many of those naming debates and while, at first, I fought tooth and nail to get "The Right Name" - I've come to realize that what's mostly needed is "Whatever name will end this stupid argument the soonest!"
The Sega Genesis vs "Mega Drive" one was by far the worst. I worked *SO* hard to get a consensus for the present title - getting both sides to lay out their arguments in detail, managing the counter-arguments for each one - microscopically tracking the ancient history of the article and the rules and guidelines covering that stuff. In the end, I got a sizeable majority to agree on the present title and all but maybe two of the opposition to agree that while they didn't like the title we chose, that the debate really had to end. HOORAY! PEACE AT LAST!! Yet within less than a month, it was being aggressively re-debated...and it's probably still being re-re-re-debated right now. I tried to get admins to agree that re-opening the debate without any significantly new argument being presented amounts to "disruptive editing" so we could quickly block people who tried to re-open the debate - but that hasn't really happened.
So these days, I try to avoid those arguments - instead pointing out to both sides that it REALLY doesn't matter a damn what you call it - so long as it doesn't change very often and debates about changing the name doesn't tarnish our ability to work on the article.
It's tough though...don't ever expect an easy decision - or a lasting one!
SteveBaker (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)