- 1 Welcome!
- 2 Nice work
- 3 Insight, Obama, etc.
- 4 You're welcome
- 5 bleep bleep
- 6 grazie
- 7 Response to your comment
- 8 Groupthink
- 9 Stenger
- 10 WP:NPOV DUE
- 11 E-mail
- 12 Holographic principle
- 13 A real (and useful) Lzip exists
- 14 Article nominated for deletion
- 15 AfD nomination of News World Communications
- 16 Why did Corporate Personhood move?
- 17 User:Ed Poor and talk page topic ban for Unification Church related articles
- 18 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 has been amended by the Arbitration Committee
- 19 New AfD of article you have worked on
Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Wndl42! Thanks for joining the fray over at the Corporate Personhood Debate article. It is too bad that corporate personhood has been translated, via redirect, into the Wikiality newspeak non-equivalent (and inappropriately capitalized) Corporate Personhood Debate. In any case, the article you have been editing needs to be retitled, or moved over to where it belongs at Corporate personhood. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:
- Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
- When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
- Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
- Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!
And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, Wndl42, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing in particular, just the improvements you've made in the past few days. Λυδαcιτγ 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Insight, Obama, etc.
Thanks for your hard work on all this. The articles seem to be in good shape now, hard hitting but not attacking individuals unfairly. Please let me know if any more problems come up. Cheers. Redddogg (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- What BLP considerations? Protection isn't an endorsement of any version (see m:The Wrong Version); I have this sneaking suspicion that I protected the wrong version. If there are serious BLP concerns in the current version (e.g. the person could email OTRS about it or whatever) then I'll remove those. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thanks for stepping in and protecting my lair from creepy anti-Semitic infiltration :) Sorry I've been away from Bleep-land; I took a nap and then the amount of talk there went way beyond what I could catch up on. It might be good for everyone to take at least a few hours breather, and try to not cover arguments that have been argued multiple times already. At least let's find something new to argue about! :) Speaking of controversial bla bla, are you familiar with Julian Barbour? Quite good stuff, whether you agree with his thesis or not. cheeers, Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wheeler of course I know from his wonderful semi-popular explications of Gen Rev. Bekenstein I will look into; I'll start by snagging the SciAm article (about my speed!), and let you know. Barbour I only recently discovered via a retired architect friend who recommended End of time. cheers Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Response to your comment
- For an AdS spacetime, for which holography is on really solid ground, the "boundary" is indeed spherical ("boundary" because it's the conformal boundary, not a true boundary). However, no one really knows how to holographically describe our universe, which appears to have a positive cosmological (non-)constant. See eg http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1129 for a recent effort at this. In general, I believe there are quite a few cases in which non-spherical holographic screens are a possibility.PhysPhD (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- PhysPhD, that was probably the most helpful comment and cite I've yet had on my talk page in this context, and I am indebted. The recent Leonard Susskind paper you provide as a reference is very helpful. As my professional work has been greatly influenced by Gödel, Escher, Bach, I was particularly grateful that Susskind invokes Escher so perfectly.
- As regards "spherical"...from Susskind:
"The boundary of anti de Sitter space plays a key role in the ADS/CFT correspondence, where it represents the extreme ultraviolet degrees of freedom of the boundary theory. The corresponding boundary in the FRW geometry...consists of the intersection of the hat...with the space-like future boundary of de Sitter space. From within the interior of the bubble...represents space-like infinity. It is the obvious surface for a holographic description."
- You correctly point out that while the 2-sphere-->3-sphere intuitive leap might be attractive to the point of being the "obvious surface", it is nonetheless incorrect as you say to pre-suppose that this is the only possible (or even likely) construction.
- My contribution to the article will (I hope) make the topic more accessible to the lay reader, and I think (a) the "spherical" construct is indispensable in this regard, and (b) the current analogy in the lead; "if you have a room, you can model all of the events within that room by creating a theory which only takes into account what happens in the walls of the room." is quite inadequate in this regard. I will propose an alternative analogy for the intro on the talk page, and look to continue the discussion there. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss and enrich. WNDL42 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the following. Perhaps you should make it into a Scratchpad, e.g. User:Wndl4/Groupthink, and we could work it up into an article. Or a Wikipolicy :-) Pete St.John (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).
- Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
- Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
- Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
- Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
- Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
- Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
- Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
- Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
- Thanks Peter, I appreciate the support. I have recieved a very nice collection of e-mails in support of the Arbcom enforcement complaint where I called this out, from users either unable or otherwise unwilling to speak up at the time. Apparently this speaks to a complaint that many other good editors share but have been unable to "put the finger on" what is actually going on here at Wikipedia. Thanks again for commenting here! WNDL42 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah I think if good comes from this (fighting with disputatious editors), it will be enunciating some new or refined policy. I've been thinking about "Don't be a Submarine" (stealth wikisophistry, and a pun on "Don't be a Dick"), proposing a wikiproject Ethical Disputation (which sounds less catchy), etc. Pete St.John (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wndl42 - nothing to do with the What the bleep article but could you please point me - directly - at Stenger's comments regarding What the bleep? If you get time please, I would be curios to give them a quick read. Thank you. Really2012back (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. By the way, just as I was giving up that any editor on What the bleep had a sense of humour the title of your reply to me: "Hi again Really...Bleeping critics!!!" made me not only laugh but cough my cup of tea all over my keyboard. Thanks ;-)Really2012back (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for your contributions concerning my proposals to get more clarity on the DUE WEIGHT issue. I've drafted new proposals, and would welcome any improvement or critique you may have! Thx, — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Sir, thanks for your thanks, and I am indeed male, as you assumed. I greet you, --Sir Xiutwel 10:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiutwel (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your comment, it sounds interesting and I will add it to Template:String theory, I think this is more appropriate. For an introduction how to edit PyhsicsNavigation templates have a look at Template:PhysicsNavigation. If you have still some queststion about this special template or in general, please feel free to ask. (Sheliak (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
- Thanks Sheliak -- your comment here piques my interest in the general topic. WNDL42 (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
A real (and useful) Lzip exists
I have written a lossless data compresor based on the LZMA algorithm, but when I searched Wikipedia I saw an article of the same name dedicated to an April fool's day joke.
Would you mind if I replace the current article with one about the real tool?
Article nominated for deletion
AfD nomination of News World Communications
An article that you have been involved in editing, News World Communications, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News World Communications. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Why did Corporate Personhood move?
The referenced discussion at Talk:Juristic person is missing. In my way of thinking, the legal notion of Corporate Personhood is what is of primary importance to an encyclopedia entry, and not the debate. WP:NOTE WP:TITLE seems to agree, in several aspects, including the "narrowness" of the inclusion of "debate", the notability of the debate vs. the notability of the legal concept, conciseness, etc. -- Bill Huston (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEd_Poor_2. You received this notification because you regularly edited Unification Church related subjects. Please comment there. Andries (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 has been amended by the Arbitration Committee
New AfD of article you have worked on
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (3rd nomination). BigJim707 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)