User talk:Amaltheus

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

Picture of the day

Tirumala septentrionis, commonly known as the dark blue tiger, is a species of butterfly in the danaid subfamily of the family Nymphalidae. It is found in South and Southeast Asia, including the Himalayas to southern India and Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Cambodia. Its upper wing is generally black with some bluish-white semihyaline markings, and its wing span is 80 to 115 millimetres (3.1 to 4.5 inches). This male butterfly of the subspecies T. s. dravidarum was photographed in Kumarakom in the Indian state of Kerala.Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

User:Amaltheus/Citations reference

The real strategy to avoiding side-ways motions

1. When someone offers a suggestion respond to the suggestion, don't attack the individual personally who made the suggestion.
2. When you fail number 1 don't deny it and assault and attack and threaten and blame the person for getting upset with you. Don't hound them to pieces. Don't search their edit history for every imperfection, they're new, they discussed the article on the talk page, whatever you can find to list as a fault.
3. When you fail number 1 apologize for real. A real apology consists of saying you're sorry for what you did. Not of saying you're sorry if someone was offended by your behavior. It doesn't consist of any comments on your part about another's behavior-that's an excuse not an apology. Don't expect an apology in return. Just take responsibility for what you did. Just say you're sorry and then move back to the issue, the article, and discussing it.

But, the most important suggestion is to be so interested in your topic that you could not consider discussing a stranger instead. The worst thing about this is that it was boring compared to a discussion on the role of sex in eukaryotic biodiversity. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Valerian Onitiu

I believe that FIDE did not begin awarding titles for composition until 1959. Valerian Onitiu died in 1948, and to my knowledge FIDE does not award titles posthumously. Quale (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you're right, and he's an earlier problemist. I still think the best thing, if you think he's notable, would be to look up information off-line about the major problem. Still, I wonder about the notability comparative with other problemist, particularly without information about a spectacular single problem if his overall FIDE score isn't real high. Amaltheus (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in chess problems in general, so I'm not a goood judge of what is a spectacular single problem. What about the problem used as an example in the article? It's also found in the grasshopper article and was added about 5 months before the Onitiu article was created. One of the co-authors of the problem was the inventor of the grasshopper. To be fair, the creator of the grasshopper article is also the creator of the Onitiu article, but he has expertise in the field of chess composition that I lack. Quale (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the best judge, either. I think the one problem may be good enough to confer notability, which is why I encouraged the authors to review that off line and add information to the article. Chess is tricky, though, notability in it. I've researched players for family members, and deciding their notability required multiple sources. But there are many print sources available for that purpose: to debate the notability (or, in the case of what I was doing: playability) of another player. There's a robust on-line community, but it's nothing like what's available off-line for chess players, and not all sources are in English. The author might be better served to include the problem in a grasshopper article, research it off line, then add the article about Onitiu. I don't think the lack of notability is so easily proclaimed with a chess problemist, though. There are players with almost no declared notability that, I swear, everyone who played would bow down to if given the opportunity. --Amaltheus (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I did read the notability guidelines on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia policies aren't easily interpreted. They're not what is practiced in the community, for instance, so it's not easy to go by that. What would be most useful, imo, is to declare he is notable in chess and let the cards fall where they may.

list of materials analysis methods

Hi!

Thanks for your edits on that page! I put some comments on the proposal page about it. I think it is a wonderful way of addressing a real need for us in the physical sciences: most of us are pretty lost in the forest of ever proliferating techniques. Any easier and more transparent the entry into it can be is imho a blessing for science, including for our students and their teachers.

Jcwf (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I had put something here but that may not be the proper place. I dont usually contribute on en: I have been a nl: user mostly (since 2002) and am now mostly on nl:wiktionary. However, I am also in Physical and Solid State chemistry and I ma even conspiring to use the the techniqes page as basis for a cumulative exam I am putting together for our grad students. I'd love to get some critical mass together to make this a good portal or so and I appreciate any input from your side Jcwf (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A portal is something like this: Portal:Chemistry which is a sub-portal of Portal:Science. Jcwf (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention on my behalf. Kkmurray does have a point: my cat stinks but then not having any cat on a lot of those pages does too, and one has to start somewhere. One thing that needs to be done imho is to find a good system of cats and subcats. Beste stuurlui staan aan wal (Dutch proverb: the best captains can always be found on shore..)

While I sympathize with your suggestion to limit it to material char. technique I actually think that should be one of the subcats and would love to see an overall structure for all the physical (or even other..) sciences. Obviously that would require input from other people than just you and me, so starting with the mat-char stuff is not a bad idea. I did notice that the bio people have a pretty extensive category system of their 'methods'. I;d rather call them techniques though.

Another idea I had is to develop a standard template for techniques that summarizes a number of characteristics: What do you hit the sample with? (e.g. neutrons) What do you measure? (e.g. characteristic X-rays) What info do you get (e.g. atomic composition). What requirements? (e.g. high vac.) Is it a surface technique? What area of science is it used in? etc. Maybe it is hard to come up with something applicable in all cases. Id appreciate your thoughts

Jcwf (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro to evo

Don't post here about the Introduction to evolution article. I've put up with all the shit I'm going to. --Amaltheus (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No posts from Introduction to evolution article owners will be read. Have the decency to stop badgering, mocking and playing with me. Get out of here. --Amaltheus (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bullying" and "appeasement"

I think in your understandable anger you've completely mistaken me for someone else. Did you see this ([1]). Please calm down. --Dweller (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

Huh? Harassing anybody is against the rules. (What you posted on my talk page is a serious accusation, so if you know of a case when you were harassed with an administrator's support, you should post that incident at administrators' noticeboard at minimum. Other applicable processes include requests for comment and - as the last instance - arbitration.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was considerate of you, Mike, to stop by and offer suggestions. Thanks. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Find fault with the articles and not with me. Cheers Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gladly. As soon as you stop finding fault with me and misrepresenting your participation[2][3] I will stop responding to you.[4] --Amaltheus (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The mental illness exchange:

[5],[6][7],

Interesting, I'm now no longer a human being, but an "it."[8] NPA again, doesn't seem to apply to attacks against me. In fact, it appears to be an invitation.

":If I have upset you in some way, then I am sorry. The other party doesn't seem to mind however (see [9] and [10]), so apologies would be misplaced in this case. By the way, I am astonished by the bending over going on here to keep this party on board. It might be capable of making valuable contributions to the project, but as the history shows, it behaves abominably - at least in my perception. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Emphasis added.)

I've never been called an it before. Anywhere. But considering the nature of the earlier exchange diagnosing mental illness in others on the web, it's not all that surprising that the first time is on Wikipedia from someone justifying their ability to diagnose mental illnesses in others on the web. And, again, signed, sealed and delivered the Wikipedia Administrator Stamp of Approval.

To Dweller, in language approved by other Wikipedia administrators, just to make sure I get it right and polite, before you post again here or about me, please reconsider. Stop it! Cheers!

--Amaltheus (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New section

. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

Now that I've stepped through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution diff by diff, I have a better sense of who wrote what. Please tell me if this is correct. Almost everything written after the section break is yours, but Random Replicator moved large chunks out to the talk page and has broken up your commentary with underscored "done" remarks, and you have struck that which you agree is done. So everything after the section break that is not indented (after I tried to correct the threading) and not struck is what you still have concerns about. Is that correct? (It would help if other editor's didn't break up and edit your commentary, as that makes it hard for me to sort through.) Is there anything unresolved above the section break? It's been a long and difficult FAC, and I appreciate the patience by all and see that you've made good suggestions; it's time to focus on anything important remaining to be resolved, as yours is the only significant remaining oppose. I will try to follow the FAC more closely now, to avoid the threading/indenting/moving commentary issues that have resulted in a messy FAC so far. I suggest all stay focused on the article; normally, FACs this messy would be restarted, but this one seems almost over the hump, so I hate to restart it. You are correct that comments about the FAC belong on the FAC and not on your talk page, but brevity is appreciated :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the new summary on the FAC page, Amaltheus. I hope all will work towards resolving the few remaining concerns now, as the article is so close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus, I'm happy to see everyone working together as well as they can towards proposed wording to resolve the remaining issues. Many of your suggestions have been adopted. With twelve supports the FAC is well along towards developing consensus, so I hope you all can resolve any remaining differences soon. Proposing exact wording for issues that still concern you might be the best way forward now. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, proposing exact wording was what got me in trouble in the first place. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to side with anyone; just trying to help get the issues resolved. I hope your studies go well. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what? It is irritating that the gang that bashed me when I suggested adding sex to the summary box doesn't know what Watson and Crick contributed to evolutionary biology today, can't define "evolution," and constantly has to be corrected on the most basic things in their article.

My first comment about reproduction in the info box was simply ignored-no one responded, commented or noted it. They edited the box as if my suggestion had not been posted. I tried again. Here's what led them to spend the past 3 weeks hammering me:[11]

"Better, but point 2 is talking about sexually reproduced offspring in general. Bacteria reproduce, and their offspring may be identical to the parent. While clones may differ in minor random ways due to mutations this may or may not be accumulatable, so you should mention sex somewhere.--Amaltheus (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)"

And in response I was told that I was trying to "destroy the article" by "insisting that even 13-15 year olds must hear the fine details suitable for graduate study on their first encounter with the subject," and that I was trying to "shove so much extra crap into the" summary box that it would "become worthless."[12] If adding a single three-letter word to an info box will destroy the article it needed the help anyhow.

I learned my lesson with that one and the week RR and his friends spent making nasty comments about me on their talk pages-it's not safe to say something in a neutral manner about this article, it will be ignored or get the poster battered. I was fine with the change in the Watson and Crick in the article. I said, "yes," in answer to your question and struck out my comment. Again, my posting a simple straight-forward response to a question or an issue got me mauled by the wiki-gang. RR posted his question indented under my response-seeming to completely dismiss my response, then commanded me not to do the same thing to him. You indicated in an edit summary that I was not following indent/responses, so now I should assume that others aren't, also? I assume you would have commented had others not been following.

That one remark of mine about sex and my simple "yes" had nothing offensive, defensive, or earning the type of responses I got and the type of nastiness still directed at me. The article can either stand on substantive issues or it shouldn't be on the Main Page. And the editors seem to think it will be easier to defend their incorrect statements on evolution and poorly references sources. It won't. It will just make Wikipedia a target for the creationists if Wikipedia does so poorly and features an article on evolution that is factually inaccurate or shows a major misunderstanding of the history of science. I don't see why anyone wants that.

This article was not anywhere near a FA when it started. The nomination should have been withdrawn. It should have been reviewed by someone with a background in biology or evolutionary biology. And they would have been attacked just like I was attacked.

--Amaltheus (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like the going was tough; Wiki can be that way, Amaltheus. To survive, one has to be able to put it aside and focus on content, or it will get to you. Remember we're all just internet volunteers, and in that sense, we're the only experts we've got. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be allowed. I thought the content would have been more interesting than playing games about me. This seems not to be the case, though. And the games keep coming on.[13] --Amaltheus (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarity

Tried to organize a bit on FA. If I have placed Done under any of yours that you no longer consider a problem could you strike it out. If I have Done and it is still a problem your welcome to delete it and I try again. Both Weinberg and Barriers to speciation are gone; so that might have eliminated a few. There have also been edits since the earlier (higher up list) that may have been resolved as well. I want to go through and see if there is anything I have the skills to fix. --Random Replicator (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry never mind, I just realized that was a summary at the end not a continutation of new concerns. I'll look it over and see if it is anything that I am able to address.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)