User talk:Second Quantization

Template:Education wikibreak Archive 1,2,3,4

3RR Eric mit 1992

FYI: 3RR Eric mit 1992 Any comments?
Some more info. forums.randi.org: Blacklight Power
Good luck with your schooling! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added the block to my report at AN. The topic is under discretionary sanctions and the editor seems like a clear SPA POV pusher. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

• Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

• News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

• Featured content: One of a kind

• Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

It appears as though the Fetzer article has been archived at WP:FTN, so I didn't really want dredge it up again there. Q: I'm not sure how to deal with these "tweaks" that are not in the sources cited:[1]. I assume that this is correct information added by the subject himself, but I don't have sources for the info. Thoughts? Thanks! Location (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

All information should be present in sources, particularly for a BLP, otherwise it is most likely original research. The subject has a conflict of interest and should really give his opinions on the talk page; and then someone else checks the sources and maybe performs the change. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting advertisements on the page of Ayurveda Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem :). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Many Thanks to some agreement: Gawain

True, however, there are different points to his death before the regnum, some might say he vanished with Arthur to Avalon, but, it is not to assume other edits as idiotic, until then Cagwinn should not step into some users who believ it was from earlier sources, let us say we let this one go, however if you do let this one go,there is a source showing it was from Lancelot, however in any case all users must respect sources from earlier documents, or there is not anything "idiotic" as some user's naive opininated fact maybe. Thank you, IRWolfie-- --GoShow (...............) 20:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

This. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht SPI

Your comments are invited here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbreht. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear IRWolfi I have not any connection with User Battomi. I lot of people know the information in madical biophysics. (Mbreht) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbreht (talk • contribs) 05:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You're still not signing your comments properly using four tildes (~~~~), as you have been instructed several times. Just putting your user name there manually isn't good enough.

If you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Don't do anything. Don't delete any tags or notices. Just wait. The SPI (sock puppet investigation) will likely reveal some of what's going on. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Plasma cosmology

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Plasma cosmology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

• Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

• News and notes: FDC portal launched

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Featured content: Casliber's words take root

• Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. My RfA

Hope you don't mind, but I fixed the formatting of your oppose vote at my RfA, as it was initially submitted in bullet form. And thank you for your participation, I really appreciate it. Take care. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 11:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Pumapunku

I did a search and quickly found the link. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

hi

This is ain't polite at all. I need an apologize for the insulting.--Neogeolegend (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to help you out. I am sorry if you are unable to see that. When Uncle G made his response you overreacted; you didn't talk to him calmly about it. For example: "I'm sorry, but can you please not refer to me as a child?". IRWolfie- (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Gaia hypothesis

If you have time, I'd like to ask your opinion on the article Gaia hypothesis. My understanding is that in its various forms it ranges from uncontroversial to fringe to complete pseudoscience ("the Earth is a single organism," etc), but I don't think that this point is clearly made in the article. I thought I would ask someone who is more experienced in dealing with pseudoscience or would know who I could ask before I do any major edits. :-) The article is quite detailed, and it has lots of citations but many of them come from a small group of authors. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll get back to you later today. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article isn't too bad at demarcating the complex interlinked system aspect from the "the largest living creature on Earth" aspect". Clearly the criticism here: Gaia_hypothesis#The_Earth_alive is directed at the "earth alive" idea and not the complex systems argument. The "Strong Gaia" section is probably undue for the article; it appears to be a further fringe belief. I would suggest posting to FTN to get ideas on how to separate out (into new articles perhaps?) or make the distinctions clearer. Also note that if it has been picked up as mainstream, then we are over emphasising Lovelock's ideas, a single individual; we should be representing the current consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)