User talk:WilyD

Plato and Aristotle discussing something. Unexplained:Plato's laptop.

ANB discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis

An editor would like to make UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis into an article. In 2009, the fate of the page was disupted. You were the first to redirect it (and protect it) a couple of years ago to List of UFC events. (It now goes to 2012 in UFC). Any objections? Cheers.

Convenience links:

• Log
• History

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just came here for the same reason as a request for un-protection was made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level. Could you either un-protect it or indicate why you think it should still be protected. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank. For some stupid reason I forgot to go look at the link they gave. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI

You and the PR guy attacking me at the same time. Why don't you have the frickin facts first. I didn't PROD the article. When the editor has already stated they won't tolerate removal of the article's material, me doing a redirect isn't going to work. Thus, to force a redirect, you have to go to AfD. I've been getting attacks from Maldoro2 for a few days, now I have to get them from you. What, I need to hand out milk and cookies or you are going to yell admin abuse too. Bgwhite (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you know, a sockpuppet has popped up. They are contesting the redirect and the book article is now back. Thanks alot for putting me down without having a clue on what has been going. Stay the hell away from me. Bgwhite (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zayed International Prize for the Environment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The National. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Carrapide.com Speedy deletion

This is how you keep Wikipedia all Western ! Go ahead ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assane101 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's save the good folks at RfD some time

I noticed that with this edit you've redirected Plowback retained earnings to Retained earnings instead of deleting it as per my nomination. I'd like you to reconsider that decision in light of the fact that plowback is synonymous with retained earnings which makes Plowback retained earnings an implausible search term and a confusing redirect to boot as it's effectively equivalent to Plowback plowback, or Retained earnings retained earnings. I'm sure you can appreciate the redundancy that exists there.

Here's a relevant quote from Microeconomics: Principles and Policy by William Baumol and Alan Blinder: "[t]he final major source of funds (...) is plowback, or retained earnings." There can be no mistake here; the two phrases are interchangeable rather than complementary. Plowback itself is a plausible redirect though; that's why I created it prior to nominating Plowback retained earnings for deletion.

If you still believe the page doesn't qualify for removal, please respond to this message indicating that at your earliest convenience. Iaritmioawp (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Plowback retained earnings listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Plowback retained earnings. Since you had some involvement with the Plowback retained earnings redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Killing of Roi Rotberg

Would you be willing to swing by and take another glance at this article. Against your advice, an editor started an AFD, which he has since withdrawn because the article has been substantially expanded. However, it needs someone to close it (or not). Thx.ShulMaven (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oort cloud and asteroid

Please explain what you mean exactly with your short "explanations". --JorisvS (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish your original research. In this case, MNRAS, ApJ, AJ, A&A, Icarus, and so on are available for that purpose. In the interim, articles need to reflect the published ideas of scholars and other authors, and not your own opinion. Simply repeatedly inserting your own opinion into articles is not allowed, either. If you know better than all the scientists and educators who've worked on the subject, publish your work elsewhere first. WilyD 11:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear what's unclear to you. What you think things should be called doesn't matter unless you publish it in a reliable source; in the interim, it's Paul Weissman's, Hal Levison's, and other people who've published reliable works on the subject whose opinion matters. WilyD 11:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming rather bad faith. I'll be more clear to you by reformulation my edit summary another way: How is using the terms "non-outgassing", "minor planet", and using the most common convention for the word "asteroid" and the one Wikipedia uses (!), 'publishing my original research'? --JorisvS (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me. I'm clearly not assuming bad faith. You're experienced enough that you should know better than to use Wikipedia as a publisher of your opinion, but you're doing it anyways, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt. But you know now (or if you're still unfamiliar with the policy on publishing your own research here, please go read it). It's not okay to replace the terminology of the literature (and other published sources, I suppose) with one you've cooked up yourself. WilyD 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean! You don't really explain what is "my own opinion" about it, yet you accuse me of publishing it. I do not see any opinion at all. "Non-outgassing minor planet" is a description, not a term that I've 'cooked up'. Or do you deny that 1996 PW is a) a minor planet, and b) that it does not outgas? --JorisvS (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying your conclusions don't flow logically. I'm merely saying you can't publish your conclusions here first. Publish them in Monthly Notices (or wherever) first, and then they can be included in Wikipedia. In the interim, we have to use the conclusions of people like Weissman, Hicks, and so forth, who've done that. WilyD 12:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

How so "conclusions"?? You basically keep repeating that, but you don't explain it. And you should easily have noticed that you should stop responding on my talk page. --JorisvS (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Non-outgassing minor planet" is a description, of course, but the word used by scientists and other people familiar with the subject matter is asteroid. Beyond this, just because a description is accurate doesn't mean it's good - "non-sandwich" or "non-elephant" would obvious be correct descriptors, but would also be horribly misleading. It's your own conclusion "non-outgassing minor planet" is a good or appropriate descriptor. This could even be true (it's not - whether or not an object is currently active is not the distinction being drawn in the literature, of course), but it's still your own opinion, and hijacking Wikipedia to publish your own opinions is still not appropriate. WilyD 14:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hijacking Wikipedia"? Seriously?

But thank you for finally actually responding. "Non-elephant" is vague, whereas "non-outgassing" (arguably better rephrased to "not known to be outgassing") is a specific (non-vague) term used to refer to a characteristic, so your comparison does not hold. The problem with parrotting specific words for specific instances is that it creates a non-uniformity in the meaning of the words, and hence creates unnecessary ambiguity and unnecessarily decreases clarity. Now, "asteroid" has always been a word without an exact definition, but has come to be increasingly referred to those minor planets out to the orbit of Jupiter, see asteroid. This is also the agreed-upon use on Wikipedia. Other minor planets have also occasionally been referred to as "asteroid", especially those that were discovered early, such as 944 Hidalgo (the first minor planet discovered with a semi-major axis beyond Jupiter's), and "asteroid" is sometimes also used to include all minor planets, including e.g. all Kuiper-belt objects. It is not OR to avoid referring to these as asteroids; OR refers to the actual content, not the specific terms used (nor the specific punctuation of terms, see e.g. this discussion). Moreover, this term is easily avoided by using more-specific and better-defined words, which increases the informative value to our readers anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Usurping the devices of Wikipedia to advance your own agenda to it's detriment; yes, hijacking is appropriate here. "Non-outgassing" is still your own idea, that doesn't come from the source (read the paper - it's like three pages long). And it's not simply rephrasing - the authors of the source is question would disagree with what you're saying. The sources say these are asteroids, and don't use outgassing/not outgassing as such a distinction (active asteroids certainly outgas). It's merely your own conclusion that the entire scientific community is wrong, and your own ideas are in fact right. WilyD 14:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's, again, assuming bad faith. I'm trying to have a decent discussion (WP:EQ), in which we can point out errors on each other's parts, without being accused of such strong things as 'hijacking', 'advancing your own agenda', and the like. If you think "non-outgassing" is wrong and should be reworded, perhaps to "without any evidence of cometary activity", just say that. --JorisvS (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If it isn't your intention to hijack Wikipedia to publish your own ideas, then stop trying to do it. It's not hard. Again, stop throwing transparently bogus charges at me; I haven't said anything about your intent, only factually described your actions. Beyond that, read Weissman & Levison; it's quite clearl they're talking about asteroids, not just bodies that don't show evidence of cometary activity. It's not hard to find - it's in the title (and repeatedly thereafter). Plus, your idea that you're trying to insert isn't even right; asteroids can display cometary activity: Active Asteroids. If you think they're wrong, find a source that suggests their wrong, don't just keeping trying to argue for your own idea. (Of course, I don't believe there are any sources that suggest they're wrong; but you're free to look). WilyD 09:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hijacking", and "publishing my own ideas" is not a factual description of my actions, but your interpretation of my actions. I have read that article. They primarily use "asteroid" in the sense of a 'rocky minor planet'. This is one of the more common uses of the word "asteroid". However, they do not claim that 1996 PW is an asteroid/rocky minor planet at all! They speculate about the possibility that it is one and compute probabilities. Therefore, it would, in fact, be OR to call 1996 PW an asteroid (as meaning a rocky minor planet) based on that article, because they acknowledge that it could be an extinct comet (icy body). Asteroids that display cometary activity has "asteroid" meaning 'minor planet from the inner Solar System', not in the sense that Weissman & Levison use it. --JorisvS (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

While they decide they can't tell if 1996 PW is an asteroid or not (and the subsequent papers on the subject run into the same problem), that's neither here nor there; the work still calculates the expect fraction of asteroids in the Oort cloud, and hasn't been refuted (unless there's something I'm not aware of, which is doubtful). Weissman & Levison calculate that the Oort cloud should be a couple percent asteroids, which is the state of the art. This is the idea that the article needs to reflect, not your own ideas about what is or isn't an asteroid. If you want your ideas of what is or isn't an asteroid to appear in the article, send it to MNRAS first. WilyD 13:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The relevant sentence in the article reads "However, the discovery of the object 1996 PW, an asteroid in an orbit more typical of a long-period comet, suggests that the cloud may also contain rocky objects.", with "an asteroid in an orbit more typical of a long-period comet" specifically describing 1996 PW. This part is therefore simply not supported by the reference, because, per the reference, 1996 PW is not even known to be rocky (or an "asteroid" in Weissman & Levison's words). In sum, regardless of the specific definition of "asteroid" one prefers, the current phrasing is not supported by the reference.

The second part, "suggests that the cloud may also contain rocky objects" is meant to convey that 'the Oort cloud should [contain] a couple percent asteroids'. It is, however, not quite what the reference says. How you have said it is more in line with the reference, though, and more precise. --JorisvS (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, there's a phrasing problem here; 1996 PW's nature is unclear, and subsequent author(s) have interpreted it as an extinct comet nuclei. The Weissman & Levison paper is about the fraction of the Oort cloud that's composed of asteroids, but the phrasing does need to accomodate 1996 PW appropriately (or not mention it or something). WilyD 13:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How is "with an asteroidal appearance" better than "without observed cometary activity"? Don't say because the source says so, because that is not true: Paragraph 2 reads 'However, physical observations have failed to detect any evidence for cometary activity in 1996 PW.'. Also, logic means that either 'research suggests that something is the case', or that 'something should be the case'. As for Category:Asteroids, it is a subcategory of Category:Minor planets, which is the more inclusive category (all asteroids are minor planets, but not vice versa). What is your rationale for including it alongside the other? --JorisvS (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is pretty clear on drawing the distinction between being asteroidal in appearance and being an extinct comet (as are the follow-up sources, such as Hicks et al.), as they don't mean the same thing. Try pushing beyond the second paragraph to the third paragraph, where they explicitly contrast "a comet that is no longer outgassing" and "an asteroid" (with two dynamical origins each). Pushing through the rest of the paper, you'll find it is concerned with how many asteroids end up in the Oort cloud. It's only four pages long. If you'd stop relying on your own intuition as to what should or shouldn't be an asteroid, following the literature wouldn't be so hard. I might agree that Oort cloud should be in minor planets (since it overlaps with nothing there but Asteroids as it stands), but one could probably dig up a paper by Alan Stern or someone on Pluto-analogues in the Oort cloud. There are some double-categorying in the area (e.g., Asteroids is in Category:Bodies of the Solar System and the daughter Category:Minor planets), which might be reflective of terminology problems and/or use of obsolete terms (or as yet unsettled terms), I'm not sure. WilyD 16:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure they talk about how many asteroids end up in the Oort cloud (I've read it). However, those sentences are not specifically about 1996 PW, whereas the one I'm talking about is. I'm only trying to follow the source as truthfully as possible. I'm asking you how your phrasing about 1996 PW is better than mine considering what the reference says. I'm no longer talking about what are most commonly considered asteroids or not, because while discussing this it turned out not to be relevant here at all. Note that Pluto is also a minor planet (it has for example the minor-planet number 134340). Sometimes categories are added somewhat haphazardly and a category a parent category that is also a parent category of another of its parent categories. WP:Categorization tells that pages should only be in the most specific relevant categories, which means that adding a parent category of a parent category is redundant. That specific case you highlighted is a clear example of that (and hence I've rectified the situation). --JorisvS (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

1996 PW is a bit of a red herring, since it's nature is never determined (and actually, it's former membership in the Oort cloud is just a probabilistic argument anyways). The context/paragraph in the article are pretty clear; they're about the composition of Oort cloud bodies, and the question is what fraction of the Oort cloud is cometary nuclei, and what fraction is asteroids. So you could remove the reference to 1996 PW, and just say "However, calculations of its formation have led to the expectation 1~2% of the bodies are asteroids, not cometary nuclei". Though I think it adds a bit of flow (and the article is pretty sparse as it is), so I don't particularly think that's a good idea. WilyD 10:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the rationale for mentioning 1996 PW. Nevertheless, the phrase that directly follows its mention, which you changed to "with an asteroidal appearance", is not about the composition of Oort cloud objects in general at all, but specifically about the nature of 1996 PW. The composition of Oort cloud objects in general is handled after that phrase. The reference talks specifically about the nature of 1996 PW in the second paragraph saying 'However, physical observations have failed to detect any evidence for cometary activity in 1996 PW.', which means that "without observed cometary activity" is most true to the reference. --JorisvS (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the source closely and object only using arguments that are actually based on facts. You'll then see I'm not pushing my own interpretation at all. --JorisvS (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, read the paper. 1996 PW looked like an asteroid. It was followed up (by other groups, or perhaps Weissman in another paper? or even Levison did observational stuff in those days?) to look for cometary activity. Which lead Weissman and Levison to calculate a) the fraction of Oort cloud objects that they expect to be asteroids (1~2%), and whether 1996 PW is such an asteroid (50-50). Merely not being outgassing on it's own is uninteresting, most cometary nuclei aren't outgassing, because they're extinct, or because they're far from the Sun. Again, read Weissman and Levison, the whole thing. The repeat the phrase "although asteroidal in appearance, it has a comet-like orbit", it's quite clear that the asteroidal appearance is what's important (and that being asteroidal in appearance is very different from merely not displaying cometary activity). If the fact that follow-up observations were made is too confusing, this more modern reference ddraws the distinction more clearly. WilyD 10:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In what aspect is "asteroidal in appearance" supposed to be different from not displaying cometary activity (which can only happen close to the Sun)? --JorisvS (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A cheese sandwich does not look like an asteroid, none the less, it does not display cometary activity. More importantly, Extinct comets are comets that don't display cometary activity. There are a lot more considerations; which depend on the thermal history of the body and so on. Again, I recommend you read the source you keep citing, it's quite clear that the important thing is that it looks like an asteroid but orbits like a comet, which motivates the consideration. WilyD 10:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

1996 PW also looked/-s like an extinct comet (in fact, follow-up research suggests that it is one). At that distance the only way to distinguish a(n oversized) cheese sandwich from an asteroid is its spectrum. Without a spectrum a cheese sandwich does look like an asteroid. 1996 PW's spectrum is type D, typical of type-D asteroids and extinct comets. The only thing that really made it 'look like an asteroid' was the lack of cometary activity, which at the time was unexpected for an object in such an orbit. --JorisvS (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is your idea, not found in the paper. The fact that it looked like an asteroid led Weissman and Levison to consider the question of how many asteroids are in the Oort cloud. The fact that it also looked like an extinct comet did not lead Weissman and Levison to consider how many asteroids are in the Oort cloud. The fact that it doesn't have a coma made the asteroidal interpretation more plausible (or at least, if someone looked and found a coma, they'd have concluded it was a mostly extinct comet), but isn't why Weissman and Levison suggested the Oort cloud should be a couple percent asteroids. With modern hindsight, it reasonable to conclude you shouldn't think about icy asteroids (as the Shannon et al. paper argues), but that's your idea, not Weissman et al.'s. If they believed then that you can't distinguish D-type asteroids from extinct comets, they wouldn't have done their follow-up observations (e.g., the Hicks paper). The Weissman paper is quite clear that the asteroidal appearance is why the consider the idea, not merely the lack of coma. Even if it turns out that calling D-type asteroids is a mistake, we can't send that information back to 1997 to motivate W&L. WilyD 12:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're avoiding the question of what is supposed to be the difference. They knew full well that 1996 PW could turn out to be an extinct comet, but they wanted to figure out the probability that it wasn't one. If 1996 PW could (have) be(en) an asteroid, what is 'icy asteroids' supposed to mean? --JorisvS (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, if you read the Weissman and Levison paper, you'll find the answer to your question: they define asteroids as objects that formed at less than 5.2 au from the Sun. Now, I wouldn't do that, but for the purposes of the article, it's good enough, I guess (admittedly the article is not great, but one step at a time). The more recent paper uses icy/iceless distinction, and gets a similar (though sightly higher) rate. As far whether there's even a distinction between an extinct comet and a D-type asteroid, my guess is no, but again, my own ideas don't make it into the article until after I publish them, and it's irrelevant to the question at hand. The sentence says "Observations of 1996 PW found that it looks like an asteroid, which prompted research that lead to the suggest we should expect 1e-2 of the Oort cloud to be asteroids". This statement is true, because that observation prompted that research". The sentence "Observations of 1996 PW found that it didn't have a coma, which prompted research that lead to the suggest we should expect 1e-2 of the Oort cloud to be asteroids" is false, because that observation did not prompt the research. It is true that it doesn't have a (detected) coma, but that isn't what prompted them to think about asteroids in the Oort cloud. It's also true that it looks like an extinct comet nucleus, but that isn't what prompted them to think about asteroids in the Oort cloud. WilyD 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for their definition of 'asteroid', nor whether there is a difference between D-type asteroids and extinct comets. I'll answer it: 'Looks like an asteroid' is not an observation, but an interpretation of an observation: One can't look and see that 'it looks like an asteroid', one can see something and interpret that as 'it looks like an asteroid'. When another step is inserted, it would be okay; the first step could then be left implicit: "Observations of 1996 PW (found that it didn't have a coma and) were interpreted as asteroidal in appearance, which prompted research that lead to the suggest we should expect 1e-2 of the Oort cloud to be asteroids". However, phrasing it this way is rather clumsy and the current sentence in the article is better anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's still wrong. Again, read the papers. 1996 PW has the colours of a D-type asteroid (within the observational errors & whatnot). That's what makes it look like an asteroid. Not having a coma doesn't make you look like an asteroid (e.g., cheese sandwiches). "Looks like" is somewhat imprecision language, but Weissman is expressing his ideas, not yours. WilyD 14:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, the spectrum, not the coma (though the article doesn't what made them interpret it as 'asteroidal in appearance'). The core of what I've said is not affected: 'Looks like an asteroid' is an interpretation regardless and the current phrasing is also better regardless. --JorisvS (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello WilyD:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Serendi^podous 13:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

You deleted my page while I was editing it..

Hey I was just editing my page as you deleted it. Can you please reinstate The Free World Charter article so I can complete my edits? Thank you, C — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silkfield (talk • contribs) 10:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the work at RfD

I just wanted to say thank you to argue vigorously but politely and sensibly at RfD: Not just today but always you do. You are usually wrong but seem to win a lot :)

In your honour, I am eating peanut butter spread over a Lorenz transformation. Apparently it says PBPBPBPB--------LZ------PB----.. No hang on, that is the label on the jar.

Keep up the good work, may we long disagree! Si Trew (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's a Lorenz cipher... no wonder my hands got sticky... Si Trew (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nevada

Hello, WilyD,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether it should be deleted. Your comments are welcome.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.