User talk:Pwrong: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:44, 24 September 2012

Hey there. I was one of the guys behind the Circus metal article before Wikipedia flushed it down the information toilet. I created a Wiki site dedicated to obscure band knowleadge and want to invite you to join at your leisure. If you feel that your knowledge isn't being put to enough use on Wikipedia, then I welcome you and anyone else who might feel the same. I went ahead and re-created the Circus metal article there, and I encourage you to add any pertinent information remaining about it. See it here: http://collectivesilence.wetpaint.com 172.162.14.249 (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check it. http://www.livejournal.com/users/circus_metal Ghost of Famine 22:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also preserved per your request at User:Pwrong/Circus metal. Please don't recreate unless the notability concerns are seriously addressed (probably under a different title). Cool Hand Luke 01:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mondo Cane (album)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mondo Cane (album), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Mondo Cane (album). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mondo Cane (album)

An editor has nominated Mondo Cane (album), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mondo Cane (album) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bins?

Is that really an encyclopediac entry - if you go to singapore there is not a bin anywhere in railwa stations - hardly an encyclopediac item? anecdotal yes, but encylopediac? Satu Suro 04:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potassium-argon dating/ assumptions

I've removed the citation needed tags from the assumptions section of Potassium-argon dating as it is all from the reference given at the top of the section (except for the OR part you removed). The book is searchable on Amazon and the content starts on p. 10. I've indented the numbered assumptions to try to clarify this. The section needs some context or amplification to avoid being misleading. Given the user names and edit history of the user(s) adding the section ... well, agf I suppose :-) Vsmith (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Extra Life (band)

A tag has been placed on Extra Life (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beeblebrox. I've attempted to fix up my Extra Life article in response to your speedy deletion box. Unfortunately someone's gone and ignored my {{hangon}} tag, and deleted it anyway. Is there anything you can do to help? No hard feelings about the box, but I think actually carrying it out was undeserved. Pwrong (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a copy of the deleted material on User:Pwrong/Extra Life (band). I recommend you start an article in your userspace until you've included the basic required things like sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Lack of sources is not a reason for speedy deletion, but not having them means people will have trouble figuring out why the article is notable. I'm going to reinstate the article because there seems to be a link with a noteworthy band (even though there's no indication Charlie had a significant part in that)- Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Triple J Hottest 100, 2009

An article that you have been involved in editing, Triple J Hottest 100, 2009, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple J Hottest 100, 2009. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Polkadot Cadaver

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Polkadot Cadaver. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polkadot Cadaver. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perth meetup

	Perth Meetup v t e Next: 28 July 2024 (watch) Last: 23 June 2024
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

There is a meetup happening this weekend in Perth, if you're interested. (You're in Category:Wikipedians in Perth.) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 07:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy about Rob Bryanton deletion

Seems like it was a pet peeve of yours. One "Delete" !vote at the AfD. The guy has written two books. Whatever your private views, he has produced quite enough to qualify as notable. Tony (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed a pet peeve of mine, his video annoyed the hell out of me. But I still followed the rules and I'm not the admin who carried out the deletion. The article didn't fit the criteria for notability when it was deleted. If that's changed you can try to recreate the article. The new book might potentially get him some notability, but I can't find anything about it on Google, not even on his on website. Pwrong (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were pretty damning in your critique. I can't find any great objection to his thesis—illustrated in his video series—up to the fifth dimension, at least. Is there something I should know? Tony (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll explain why the video is so bad if you like. Again, these aren't the reasons why the article is gone (some articles about bad ideas are welcome on Wikipedia), it's just why I don't like the video. Most of 0D to 3D is ok, because it's common knowledge. There are a few suspicious mistakes. It's very silly to define the third dimension is "what you fold through", because you can can do that in any dimension. Try putting an ant on a piece of string and "folding it through the second dimension".

When he gets to 4D, he seems unaware that the logical next step from 3D Euclidean space is 4D Euclidean space, so he jumps to 4D Minkowski spacetime. There are actually many different spaces that have four dimensions. If you use a Euclidean metric you get something much more mathematically similar to 3D space, and if you use the Minkowski metric you get something like our universe. His idea of a person being an undulating snake from birth to death is a fun, easy way to think about time (really good for movies), but it's a terrible way to think about dimensions. What he's really doing is mapping from Minkowski space to Euclidean space, which is not simple or particularly useful, especially for someone learning this for the first time.

The mobius strip section is true but not done very well and irrelevant to the rest of the video. The idea of probability being a dimension is not new and not accurate. You can describe the set of all possible worlds with set theory and quantum mechanics, but that set would require infinitely many dimensions. You can't arrange all possible universes in a line, and if you could it would make things more complicated and harder to understand. For the rest of the video, he just tells an increasingly ridiculous story and assigns dimensions to parts of the story more-or-less arbitrarily. He stops when he gets to ten just because string theory says there are ten dimensions. However in string theory, six of the dimensions are actually regular spatial dimensions curled up to a very small size (see Kaluza Klein theory. They aren't "ordered" in any sense, and they have nothing to do with probability dimensions or folding spaces or anything Bryanton says. The other four dimensions are the usual ones associated with spacetime.

When people see this video, they think they now understand dimensions perfectly, or at least 1 to 5. The problem is when they encounter a proper explanation of dimension, they get hopelessly confused because it contradicts the nice linear tale in the video. In fact the truth is simpler than Bryanton's convoluted explanation, it just requires a bit more thought. Pwrong (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 :It was indeed a pet peeve of mine, his video annoyed the hell out of me. But I still followed the rules and I'm not the admin who carried out the deletion. The article didn't fit the criteria for notability when it was deleted. If that's changed you can try to recreate the article. The new book might potentially get him some notability, but I can't find anything about it on Google, not even on his on website. [[User:Pwrong|Pwrong]] ([[User talk:Pwrong#top|talk]]) 10:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 ::You were pretty damning in your critique. I can't find any great objection to his thesis—illustrated in his video series—up to the fifth dimension, at least. Is there something I should know? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk) </font >]] 13:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
-:::Sure, I'll explain why the video is so bad if you like. Again, these aren't the reasons why the article is gone (articles about [[Deepak Chopra|bad]] [[Time Cube|ideas]] are welcome on Wikipedia), it's just why I don't like the video. Most of 0D to 3D is ok, because it's common knowledge. There are a few suspicious mistakes. It's very silly to define the third dimension is "what you fold through", because you can can do that in any dimension. Try putting an ant on a piece of string and "folding it through the second dimension".
+:::Sure, I'll explain why the video is so bad if you like. Again, these aren't the reasons why the article is gone (some articles about [[Deepak Chopra|bad]] [[Time Cube|ideas]] are welcome on Wikipedia), it's just why I don't like the video. Most of 0D to 3D is ok, because it's common knowledge. There are a few suspicious mistakes. It's very silly to define the third dimension is "what you fold through", because you can can do that in any dimension. Try putting an ant on a piece of string and "folding it through the second dimension".
 :::When he gets to 4D, he seems unaware that the logical next step from 3D [[Euclidean space]] is 4D Euclidean space, so he jumps to 4D [[Minkowski space]]time. There are actually many different spaces that have four dimensions. If you use a Euclidean metric you get something much more mathematically similar to 3D space, and if you use the Minkowski metric you get something like our universe. His idea of a person being an undulating snake from birth to death is a fun, easy way to think about time (really good for [[Donnie Darko|movies]]), but it's a terrible way to think about dimensions. What he's really doing is mapping from Minkowski space to Euclidean space, which is not simple or particularly useful, especially for someone learning this for the first time.