User talk:Nemesis75

Welcome!

Hello, Nemesis75, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language
Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fringe Shift

Hey, excellent new article you have there! :) However I think it'd best be moved to Fringe shift, since it is not a proper noun. Very nice job with the content though :) — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit new to making new articles so any help is appreciated. Good suggestion but I'm not sure how to do it

- Thanks for responding on my talk page so that I would receive a new messages notification. I moved the article - it's very simple, there's a "move" tab at the top of the screen which allows you to do this. About the article, I'd suggest you make as little use of HTML as possible - make the MediaWiki markup language work for you! :) BTW it's <br/> or <br>, not </br>. — flamingspinach | (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armillaria bioluminescent?

I had never heard that before. You wouldn't have a reference handy, would you? (always glad to see someone else editing fungi articles..) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never used this feature before.. but yeah I got it from the wiki Armillaria page. Didn't check references there thoughNemesis75 (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Dayton Miller, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The welcome is quite a few years late, but thank you. This, however, is not scientific research, it is a report upon science which remains in question and by it's very nature is contentious and whether through the newness of the subject matter or its contentious nature, literally and specifically can not be referenced. One should note that the previous article was left untouched with it's extreme opinion, bias, and hyperbole such as "unassailable" yet adding corrected information with the balancing opinion of the paper is immediately reacted to? This smells very strongly of bias reactive counter editing. This also sounds like a really excellent way to abuse power/clout. If I have clout on wikipedia, could I not claim that any single word that person relays that is not a direct quotation from paper is "original research" and thereby bias any piece of information I wish to through continuous denial of edits? It's more than obvious by what you have quoted that the rules can be interpreted to encompass every word not directly quoted from a journal article and therefore compose a double bind as is found in many laws. Conflicting laws and laws which are impossible to uphold grant abusive rights to the enforcers and are a sine quo non of a failing system.

How is this controlled for in this system? How can anyone actually edit an article on contentious viewpoints without instantly being squelched? Surely there is some counter-balance. The vast majority of articles written herein are not direct quotations from journals nor is it even possible, under your current application of the rule, to report on the very existence of non-mainstream or "counter culture" commentary in a little discussion side-section (which is what this area is). You do understand this correct? For instance, if this was a catholic wiki which required only biblical commentary, I would not be allowed to speak even about the existence of gnostic texts nor relay their contents because not only are they not part of the bible, they never can be according to that particular organizations characterization of the word "bible". Reporting on non-consensus information directly precludes journal referencing and it is done regularly but apparently not in this particular case. Can I request that an editor that has no vested interest in the subject matter (does not commonly edit on this subject) nor frequents any of your wikipedia chat/social circles, to review this? Or have I run into a "grey area" wall in which judgement calls and therefore social power trump all?

Nemesis75 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the section very directly and unequivocally misrepresents certain aspects of the paper. So how exactly do I "cite sources" on that? Hopefully it won't require that I publish a journal referenced article about a misinterpretation of a paper on a wiki page, lol! Nemesis75 (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write in the article that certain aspects of the paper are misrepresented, then you would indeed need a reliable source that unequivocally states that certain aspects of the paper are misrepresented. - DVdm (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought this out? If there is only one paper and two people state that the contents of the paper are different, how can you select which one that needs an additional paper to thwart the other? Doesn't that seem a little silly? Surely you are joking. Or is there a some process of calling "shotgun" I wasn't aware of? Nemesis75 (talk)

The contributors to the article decide on such things—by wp:consensus on the article talk page. I see you have tagged the refs in the article, and opened an entry on the talk page. That's the place to watch. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Note: The "Roberts" section defended by the above wiki cybersquatter "DVdm" was actually a self-publish (original research not published in any journal.) Upon removing it for the same reason he removed my discussion, with the edit summary that it violated the same rules he cited, he immediately reverted his preferred content to keep it on the page, thus demonstrating clear hypocritical abuse of power. Other projects such as actual journal publications took my time away from pointless pursuit of turf wars over preferred metaphysics. Again, the very subject of the above dispute was "Original Research" itself, pre-existing on the article which was the subject of my discussion which DVdm blanked under the excuse that my commentary about the section was "Original research" ...quite "entertaining." Nemesis75 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 dispute resolution questions

While I have you, two more questions. Without revealing how to track a user's edits (since my enemy will likely read this and I don't want to enable them) is there any general thing I should do to look for attempted vandalism of my historical edits since they specifically want to hurt me personally? Question 2, some years ago I ran into what seems to be a very prolific admin in a particular subject matter, who is blatantly breaking rules to uphold a specific bias. Specifically he removed my comments on a section which is a about a self-publish based upon the excuse that my critique of the unpublished work was, itself, unpublished. I later eliminated the section based upon the no original work clause which he then immediately reverted. I promptly gave up, knowing how counter-productive it is to start fights with those in greater power. Notes are still in my talk section. ("November 2014") How is this sort of issue addressed? Nemesis75 (talk)

Nemesis75, thanks for asking - you can view a users contributions at Special:Contributions, or easily with WP:RedWarn by holding Shift then right-clicking a link to a user page or user talk page then selecting Account info > Contributions. You can also access other info like a users block log, rights changes and warn them along with many other things - and as far as I can tell, the user in question has never been an administrator, so has always had the same powers as you and I. Usually admins have a note on their main page saying they are an admin. But for genuine admin disputes (i.e. you've verified they are actually an admin) you have to go to the arbitration committee at WP:ArbCom (which is essentially the highest you can go on the English Wikipedia, past then you have to go to the Wikimedia Meta Wiki which is a whole can of worms in and of itself), otherwise, with experienced editors it's just best to figure it out on talk pages without (remembering important rules like WP:CIVIL and WP:ENGAGE), then heading to WP:ANI or WP:DRN appropriately. Feel free to ask if you need any more help. Ed6767 talk! 01:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your help! The wiki system is a bit arcane and I've already got so many systems in the queue to learn, I tend to avoid adding to the list, but picking up a few little pieces here and there is nice. I just assumed he was an admin by his demeanor, which, from his style was probably on purpose. (he starts right out "welcoming" me to wikipedia in a post on my talk page right next to another that was nearly a decade old) Unfortunately however, if you're an established frequently interacted-with entity in a community you do have more power within that system than a less socialized person if voting is ever part of it, so he still has significant social power over me in a dispute I think. But, since this is a crucial part of history he's tainting with self-published bad pseudoscience, I will probably have to engage him at some point. I guess I'll copy this to my talk page to archive it. Nemesis75 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steampunk Article and Copper Surfaces

Hi! Thanks for your message! I thought the way the sentence was phrased, as a prediction ("we can expect a lot more...") was inappropriate for Wikipedia. Articles aren't supposed to predict that will happen but rather describe what has happened. You can get around that, though, by phrasing it something like, "X are predicting" or "X are suggesting", backed up by sources, of course. Ottens (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Halpern-QuantumSteampunk.png

Thanks for uploading File:Halpern-QuantumSteampunk.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A one-way light speed test is possible.

	A one-way light speed test is possible.
	Torr, Doug G. & Kolen, Paul "An experiment to measure the one-way velocity of propagation of electromagnetic radiation.” Foundations of Physics 12:401–411 (1982) DavidBryanWallace (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but thanks for the reference! I'm actually the author of numerous papers which rely upon the well-known equivalence of Lorentz-Poincare aether with special relativity (and a more advanced aether with GR) and my most recent paper is directly calling out the metaphysical nonsense of claiming one cannot test the one-way speed of light. From Sagnac interferometers to a host of other early experiments, (not to mention the CMB) the one-way anisotropy of the speed of light is literally unquestionable, but the problem is that people think they are defending Einstein and relativity when they attack one-way anisotropy. They use circular arguments to support bad metaphysical assertions because they "know relativity is true." ...but they aren't defending relativity, they are defending non-empirical - yet academically traditional - metaphysics.

Unfortunately, they are only defending the confusion caused by Clifford Will when he conflated anisotropy with falsification of relativity. GR specifically expects and requires one-way anisotropy and Einstein pointed this out repeatedly. This - does - however lead to preferring Lorentz Poincare aether over Special Relativity (Which Einstein publicly deprecated) and there's confusion on what exactly that version of aether theory is, particularly because Poincare repeatedly pointed out the requirement for motion of the substance, (poincare stresses) whereas Lorentz kept hanging on to a stationary aether. Einstein's 1906 paper on the inertia of energy (mass-energy equiv) is drawing upon Poincare's mobile aether and he credits Poincare directly.

Relativity - as a whole or principle - is just fine without self-deluding defenders of the faith, but it still has them (about one-way tests) and they're barking up the wrong tree.

If you're looking at my edits and it seems like I'm just upholding the mainstream interpretational narrative like a good little cog, it's just because I'm good at hiding that I'm a heretic to avoid lynch mobs while I still provide unassailable truths just one tiny step away from directly saying where mainstream beliefs went wrong. I stick to the facts in articles but in talk areas I generally hide my real opinions to avoid the tribal aspect of wikipedia editing. (anyone from another tribe reading this right now is feeling the urge to go check - and possibly screw with - all my edits because they aren't aware how much tribalism affects their ideas of truth)

When it comes to the one-way tests, people just can't separate popular belief and their personal interpretation from the facts they are supposedly relying upon. Conflation, conflation, conflation. It's the lazy mind's way to simplify. So I'll keep pretending my opinion is the exact same as everyone else while I shove the relevant facts into the brightest light. I've been doing it for nearly 20 years and it's been working - albeit slowly. When I first joined wikipedia you couldn't even find out what a fringe shift was anywhere on the internet; so I made the article. It looks like crap and I really should update it. Haha Nemesis75 (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]