Jump to content

User talk:Pjacobi/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Pjacobi

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VandalPatrol (talk | contribs) at 07:25, 20 June 2006 (How am I a vandal?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0

I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under the GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides.

All rights released to all minor edits
I agree to release all rights, unless otherwise stated, to all my English Wikipedia text contributions marked as minor edits, enabling anyone to use them for any purpose. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to freely use my minor edit contributions, please check the multi-licensing guide.

Listen

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why is "Chaldeans" redirecting to "Assyrian_people"?? Shouldnt "Chaldeans" redirect to "Chaldean"? Doesn't that make more sense? but you keep on ruining it. Shouldn't there be a {{Syriac Christianity}} box under Chaldeans?? And How come Syriac doesn't count? Shouldn't they have their own article too? I am only fixing this up and you keep reverting my changes... why? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domthedude001 (talk • contribs) on 19:35, 18 April 2006.

Wait a moment, go slowly with your changes, and see and discuss at Talk:Assyrian_people#Redirect/rename_mess. --Pjacobi 19:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Why are you reverting my edits? you ruined it. Now we have no Syriac page, two Assyrian pages, and two Chaldean pages (one goes to Assyrians and the other goes to Chaldeans). --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domthedude001 (talk • contribs) on 18:40, 18 April 2006.

on semi-break

I'm taken a semi-break from Wikipedia. Answers may take somewhat longer than normal. And I'll try not to look at my watchlist. --Pjacobi 09:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RfA

See User_talk:Garzo, where I gave him a heads up. Nominations must be accepted on the subpage and all the questions must be answered before nominations can be placed on the WP:RfA page per the new policy. Once Garzo has accepted and answered the questions, he can place the subpage on WP:RfA and adjust the closing time/date. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it doesn't make much sense to argue any longer about this point, but out of curiousity, where is this new policy? As I've seen Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate my first thought that someone fell in love with the technical possibility to "automate" the process. But it's surely a policy page. --Pjacobi
All of it is in the instructions - we modified it to reflect that in order to place a subpage on the RfA page, it had to be accepted and teh questions answered. Yes, this is relatively new policy - it gained wide support with no opposition on the RfA talk page, so it was implemented a week or two ago. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. --Pjacobi 00:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small answer

Thanks for trying to inject some sanity into both sides here. It's greatly appreciated, and I'll keep your "but"s in mind. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer has been accepted. Please place any evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer/Evidence Fred Bauder 01:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum indeterminacy

Please see and comment on Talk:Quantum indeterminacy#Dispute status of this article. Thanks --CSTAR 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics

Do you think that Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics is a candidate to be sent up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? DV8 2XL 16:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, but I didn't explored the issue in depth. It has many problems, starting with the lemma, but I'm not sure about deleteability. Hmm, taking this search:
the WP:NOR may kick in.
Pjacobi 17:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider voting. Thank-you. DV8 2XL 01:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non compactness of Wikipedia

Since Wikipedia is not compact, I suppose we can have an infinite sequence of oddities converging to infinity. --CSTAR 22:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let us learn some language, which is not widely used by cranks, request a Wikipedia in that language, and start over there. Perhaps Laal. Or Polari, as it would be easier to learn, but wouldn't the cranks follow us into that Wikipedia? --Pjacobi 07:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

167.206.112.86

I had blocked 167.206.112.86 indefinitely myself in the past, but then unblocked it as per request of User:Kyla. Whereas all anonymous edits are trash, there seems to be at least one (sort of) legitimate user at this IP, which is supposedly the IP of Kyla's school. --Pjacobi 16:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this school Kyla's only source for an internet connection? Unfortunately, this IP address has a two year history of nothing but vandalism. Perhaps she or he could cooperate with us by providing the time stamps of past acts of vandalism to her system administrator or escalate this to the proper authorities at his/her school so we do not need to block this IP. Hall Monitor 17:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask her in e-Mail. --Pjacobi 17:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From a new admin

Hi Peter! Apparently, thank you messages have gone out of fashion. However, I do want to thank you for nominating me for RfA. I confess that it wasn't something that I was thinking about, but, when you suggested it to me, I liked it. I hope that you will be able to help me out if I get stuck with anything. Let me know if there's anything I can help you with. Thanks. --Gareth Hughes 10:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure, Wikipedia now has a valuable admin more. --Pjacobi 10:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Welcome Message

Hello Pjacobi,

I came to you because you are most likely an online admin(you blocked the last IP) I was wondering if you could change the welcome template to this, note the inclusion of the sandbox.

This is the new text: *Wikipedia:Sandbox Don't forget to practice editing and creating articles in the sandbox before editing real articles.

and this is the whole message:

Welcome

Hello Pjacobi/Archive2, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Don't forget to practice editing and creating articles in the sandbox before editing real articles. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

END TEMPLATE


Thanks, Prodego talk 13:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Gee, it's like getting married all over again. How romantic.--CSTAR 14:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-)

Hi Prodego,

I'd think this should go the same way as all changes to protected pages: discuss is at Template talk:Welcome and if a consensus emerges, the template will be changed.

Pjacobi 14:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digamma and Linear B

Hi Pjacobi, Sorry for the delay in replying. I've had a look through my books and can't corroborate the claim but I'm no expert in the field. Robin Osborne in Greece in the Making (Routledge, 1996) asserts that the spoken language link is the only connection that survived between Mycenean and Archaic Greece and that the written syllabary was entirely lost (p.30). He goes on to say (p107) that the entire alphabet came from Phoenicia in the ninth century and that despite local variations, they "manifestly take their forms from the Semitic scripts used by the Phoenicians". Maybe the editor meant that the letter was ascribed to an existing sound in Greek rather than being derived from an LB predecessor. Also, isn't "basileus" the Greek work for king? adamsan 20:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for your support on my Rfa. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Wanniyala-Aetto

Hi, thanks for protecting Sinhala. Could you also protect Wanniyala-Aetto? Thanks. --Hottenot

So this is where you run to Hottentot? You should be banned for violating the 3 reverts rule many times over as a member.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.225.160 (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 07:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both combattants blocked for 24h --Pjacobi 07:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhala

Hi, what's up with this? On the face of it, looks like you protected an article you were involved in a dispute over. I don't see much wrong with either version, so why the edit warring and protection? --Tony SidawayTalk 10:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know, whether "Sinhala" or "Sinhalese" is the correct version, so I can't edit-war about this issue. Anyway, the right (or better) version should be the lemma and all uses in the text should match the form in the lemma. I assume this is an undisputed policy.
But as the two combattants are blocked now, perhaps it's best to unprotect.
Pjacobi 10:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's P

You noticed the dearth of links to do with the Reichskonkordat on my famekeeper Rfc page some time ago . I notice it gets worse with time , all the de-coupling of german stuff ,and I wonder if you think this a tolerable situation ? EffK 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NASA's results on Hydrino's

You deleted most of the abstract, that stated that the results were NOT verified by NASA, using BlackLightPower's own device.

NASA is the proof that is weilded about like a sword, as proof that results were verifed: But so much of scientific reproducibility was missing, the abstract needs to be reproduced in its whole. Its a matter of Accuracy:

Isnt Wikipedia for "presenting each point of view accurately."

"It means citing verifiable[NASA Abstracts], authoritative sources whenever possible[NASA], especially on controversial topics.[Hydrino Theory]"

The other verifications fall along similar lines: The company states that the results were verfied by a group in Germany, where Dr Mills gave a talk. No results were avaible for them.

Do unbalenced points of view beomce truth AFTER you reapeat them enough? I need practice at this stuff before I take on something really controversial.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 11:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is most unclear what you are talking about.
Confirmation of results. ( or lack thereof )
An encyclopedia article isn't just a bunch of quotes stitched together but should try to give an accurate summary of topic.
That is why on the talk page I asked about qualifying 'sucessfull' results.
I've shortened the NASA result, because it seems most unimportant to me: nine years ago and nothing resulted of it.
Pjacobi 11:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason it has any importance whatsoever, is that: Its the ONLY independant study that has been pubslished/abstracted. All the rest is basically propiganda.
This is not in anyway an enecyclopedia. Any 'expert' would have had this article deleted years ago. Just keep whacking at it, until either someone cleans out all the rest of the garbage, or someone actually puts it up for delettion. --Artoftransformation 22:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If by now I understand you correctly, there are some points to clarify:
  • I'm not a supporter of the Hydrino theory and I'm rather clueless why you may think I am.
  • The Hydrino article is by all practical means undeletable. The theory, without accessing its validity, is well beyond Wikipedia's notability trhreshoild
  • It's perfectly possible to have fine Wikipedia articles on strange theories. We even have a sort of template for it: Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition. Or see Space opera in Scientology doctrine.
Pjacobi 22:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks, Pjacobi, for your message. I have no hard feelings. I know I'm quite hypersensitive regarding some topics, after what has transpired between April and October. Thanks for your appreciation. Of course, there is nothing bad in respectfully disagreeing on things. Cheers, Str1977 22:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate History , Reichskonkordat

dear Pjacobi , I regret to ask you to witness the rapidity with which I am considered a censorable contributor to the history of the Reichskonkordat , or much of anything related to history . As you know there is nothing new in this, and I am currently bemused as to how other than a formal resolution of this may be possible. That is also not new . EffK 22:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EffK, your sometimes rather disturbing behaviour doesn't help your cause of presenting a critical account of the Roman Catholic Church (where criticism is deserved). Starting with the use of multiple usernames.
In some selected cases, by ArbCom ruling or on a voluntary basis, "edit partnerships" were tried. An experienced Wikipedia editor which is uninvolved in topics you want to edit will team up with you, trying to argue for your changes. In exchange you would be required from reverting yourself etc. I don't know whether there are currently volunteers for this job.
Also you may want to look at WP:AMA for advice and help.
Pjacobi 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like yeah. Actually my usernames only changed because I lose Cookies and frankly why should I trust an email to Jimbo when he doesnt stand by me as honest anyway . I am in the awkward position of saying the things that no one else is prepared or able to enunciate. You may find this disturbing, as do others , but it doesnt make you right to criticise me , or justify you not saying them , or Str whitewashing . The suggestion you make is reasoneable and I was nor aware of it- indeed I have needed the help and never was it offered . I am losing patience with being abused , called paranoid/ crazy . But have a pop anytime , eh ? Consider whom you attack , I suggest . I have reason- you do not .

EffK 03:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you memorize or write down your password, you can always re-login and use your old account again. If you set an e-mail address you even can recover from forgotten passwords. --Pjacobi 07:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pjacobi, despite EffK's accusations. I have looked at his edits with an open mind and even retained some (smaller edits). However, alomost everything was either off-topic, or inaccurate or POV. It was basically a piece of editorializing matching in quality to the article he linked to (about Ludwig Stiegler), whose author apparently has no clue whatsover about current German politics or the Weimar Republic - calling the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold a right-wing group resembles either User:68.57.33.91, who calls the DNVP left-wing or exposes his own political position as being so much to the left, that everyone else must be right-wing. Unfortunately, that's the kind of literature EffK feeds on. Str1977 23:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My frustration at your apparent equanimity over Nuremburg deletion may have read more criticism into your reply than you intended. I am disappointed though . You very much weakened your initial position as to content importance , did you not? Str1977 's apparent reasonableness is belied by his editing actions , and I would therefore ask you straight if these really seem acceptable or as he says . You know of this because I dragged you in after you commented so long ago . I feel that I am constrained into hyper reaction by the editor's very long and continuous malign actions, and that you here give me no credit for my good faith , or attempts to contribute healthy articles . So my hasty disquiet is replaced by this analysis of your inaction and equanimity at loss of content. EffK 04:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
@FK: Yes, I was more sympathetic to your agenda in the past, as a superficial comparison to the de: articles gave the impression, that criticism at Pope Pius XI were toned down here. But after having read around more, my impression did change, as the information mostly was only distributed into other articles. There may still be a minor NPOV problem within this area, but by now I'd prefer to work on it with contributors willing to accept the co-operative spirit of Wikipedia. In the moment you just aren't cold blooded enough to help your own cause.
@Str1977: I generally don't have problem with leftist editors (make your own conclusions about this), but their participation in Wikipedia generally depends on learning that Wikipedia isn't a leftist project (in the European sense, for some US-Americans it is communism anyway). Also http://www.wsws.org isn't a totally wacko source (minus the topic of AIDS, where it is a totally wacko source). Only thinking that it is a NPOV source is, sorry to say this, stupid.
Pjacobi 07:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pjacobi, I don't have a problem either with leftist editors either. Leftist positions are not foreign to me and some of my opinions could be termed leftist, though currently I don't think left and right to be really meaningful anymore. This might change, if left and right takes up new defintions. (All this from a European and German perspective). The problem comes when user, regardless of their views, seem unable to cooperate and put themselves on a high horse of political or moral superiority (and start to call names, as EffK has done in the past). I also was shocked by the article EffK linked to (the page had "socialist" in the title), first it was the typical onesidedness in papers influenced very much my ideology, but the Reichsbanner thing really blew out my ceiling. Some (mainly conservative or libertarian) Americans argue that the Nazis were leftists. They are wrong of course, but at least they make a reasonable argument (collectivism = left, liberty = right). To just label an organisation right-wing without appearently knowing anything about it, probably only because of an allergical reaction to the morpheme "Reichs-", is just way out. Of course, that's not EffK's fault, as he didn't write the article. But he shouldn't be so credulous to onesided articles that play well to his pre-conceptions. We all have to be careful about that. Anyway, the article, just as IMHO his recent edit, did not add anything substantial to the article. Cheers, Str1977 10:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reichskonkordat nonsense

Pjacobi-Are you really suggesting the validity of revert on material relevant to the Rkkdt from the Nuremburg Trials? You are most in error in taking this position , which you should certainly have , in doubt , separated from anything extra, and defended. this is not left and right, but open or closed . i reject your charges, howqsoever nicely put. I understand you do not wish to persist , and I therefore am forced to note your unreasonable position. EffK 11:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New ?- The Great Scandal

In order to achieve Robert McClenon's aim for an article to catch all the surrounding off-topics, I wrote up The Great Scandal because Hitler's Pope was coralled into one corner of the topic . I come to say this because straight-way , str1977 determines he should obliterate all the linkage from this new article out to its facets . Neither you nor anyone would thereby see it . Up to you how you judge it, I see that I have zero influence with personnel . you commented , and the issues which brought you to comment, are un-resolved. I do not consider my personality an issue or of any relevant magnitude , but it could be a justification were there no other . EffK 16:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very bad idea. I nominated it for deletion. See rationale and discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Scandal. --Pjacobi 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do suggest a better idea , and implement it. EffK 19:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please show restrain

I would appreciate if you show some restrain when deleting content from Prem Rawat that is properly sourced. If you keep listening to the atrocity stories made by a couple of obesessed apostates, you will be making value judgements that are misleading.

You did a search in Google and based on the results of the search, you decided that the material about the UN 60th Anniversary was not appropriate for inclusion. You should have asked before pulling the trigger. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from deleting content because you think it is a frabrication and without explaining your deletion. Either provide some references that support your point, or stop. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you discussing article content disputes on a user talk page? --Pjacobi 15:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My complaint is not about content but about your intervention on that article. I have removed the content related bullet points. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elerner RfC

I have added a request for comment on Eric Lerner's editing, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elerner. You may want to look at it if you have a spare moment. –Joke137 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hercolubus

I can feel the pull already... --CSTAR 16:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap! I try to vfd afd it, but I fear, it wouldn't work. --Pjacobi 16:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The version present when I checked recently seemed NPOV enough. If it really is a popular folk belief anywhere, where's the problem? --Christopher Thomas 17:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, checking the edit history, it looks like content has only been sane since 17:20 (rewrite by Wikipediatrix).--Christopher Thomas 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better now. I'm not sure , though, if it is really a popular folk belief anywhere. Rabolu was a Colombian crank with abolutely no scientific training.--CSTAR

Heck, if you want an example of the absurd...

Check out the disclaimer on the subcategory Category:People without hands. I mean, on a serious level, I can see why it's there, but... wow. Melchoir 23:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH that category has some logic, as those people are mostly known and notable as people without hands. But amputess is with some exception categorization of somthing irrelevant to their notability. --Pjacobi 08:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against Lightbringer, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, to which you contributed, has closed. The decision is that Lightbringer is hereby banned indefinitely from editing articles and talk-pages related to Freemasonry (the closeness of the relation is to be interpretted by any sysop as they see fit, regardless of the article's title), and is placed on personal attack parole for six months from now (to expire on the 24 of May 2006). If Lightbringer violates the Freemasonry ban, a sysop may ban them for up to a week, and after five such bans, for up to a year. If they violate the personal attack parole, a sysop may ban them for up to a week.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philosophy (navigation) RfC

We have a content dispute issue. Please comment on the talk page. This message is being sent out to everyone who didn't vote Delete in the last TfD of the template, ie: User:SimonP User:Jules.lt User:Pjacobi User:thames User:Michael User:Christopherparham User:FranksValli User:Silence User:Andymussell User:Moosh88 User:Rick Norwood User:Izehar

Thanks

Thanks for the quick speed of gravity edits, they were just what was needed. linas 05:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Würdest du mal

...hier vorbei schauen? Danke dir. --ST ○ 17:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hast Du gesehen was es hier alles an Bildern gibt? Der Bilderbereich der englischen Wikipedia ist eine einzige riesige Urheberrechtsverletzung, ein Unrechtsbewusstsein ist nicht vorhanden. Wegen Aussichtslosigkeit halte ich mich da raus. --Pjacobi 17:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - bis die erste Klage Erfolg hat, dann kommen sie gerannt. Danke dir jedenfalls. --ST ○ 17:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New proposed portal page designed for Philosophy

Template:Philosophy portal

Hi. The philosophy navigation template has been merged into a new portal page, as you desired, and it is ready for comment. (It's about 90% complete, and there won't be any blank column space when we are through). Have a look! Go for it! 06:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for common sense, fairness and down to earth attitude

Though I do not always agree with you, I consider all your contributions and comments that I have seen defensible, fair, based on common sense, and on a down to earth attitude. Thanks. Andries 12:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Thanks for the feedback. I fear some of this impression stems from my preference, to let things go if there is severe resistance, even if I think, that I am right and the state of an article is poor. But OTOH it may work out in the end, as I regularily re-vist the pages in long intervals. --Pjacobi 08:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

yes I am using the javascript thing. God light mode. thanks for picking it up on that edit. I am fixing up my own program that does not have the problem but for now is there a thing like it that does not have a problem. My program will not have the problem because it would be more work to add the problem!!! --Adam1213 Talk + 12:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philosophy navigation linkspam

You may want to weigh in here.—jiy (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[4]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 01:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

help requested to solve unhealthy dynamics between believers and apostates

You may be interested to see that the article on Sathya Sai Baba now shows similar traits as the article on Prem Rawat. Rebuttal and surrebuttal by believers and apostates (mainly me) and there seems no way to stop the ever increasing controversy with counter-counter arguments. Every deletion is restored by the opposing factions, so the controversy section of the article grows and grows. Your help and comments are appreciated. See talk:Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 02:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please come and take a look. The latest exchange in the talk page is most revealing as it pertains to the reputability of sources used[5], and the numerous problems with the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look on Monday, but I'm rather tight with time, sorry. --Pjacobi 21:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tachyons

Some anon keeps adding text about Aasis Vinayak's paper on tachyon mass, which as you pointed out has not been peer reviewed yet. Its been added twice since you reverted it. Since the edits are coming from different IP's each time, its a bit difficult to leave messages telling them to cease and desist. Any thoughts?

Whoops forgot to sign! Gershwinrb 17:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astigmatism

File:Astigmatism 2 eyes illus.png
Aspherical cornea (top, exagerated) and normal eye below.

You deleted my graphic from Astigmatism on 12 Sept. Your "Wrong image removed" comment is vague. I'm happy to make changes based on logical arguments. See the review history of my POTD image for root canal.

Similar astigmatism images for reference:

I've readded the image and await your substantial justification.

jk 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've ansered at Talk:Astigmatism#Image

Question

Which section of Talk:Scalar field theory relates to this edit [6]? Fred Bauder 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone is busy, I can try to track this down. On a related note, I notice that Pjacobi is on semi-leave, so if help is needed on related issues, let me know. I am disheartened to be warring with another related pseudoscience editor who has gone from 0 to 60 on the offensiveness scale in no time at all, and so am interested in helping out the trustworthy editors as best I can. linas 01:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks to Linas for taking up this time-consuming and draining struggle.
@Fred: See
Reddi can't tell one Lagrangian from another if no one gives him a label, but he cut'n'pastes like hell everything that merely sounds connected.
Pjacobi 12:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"
Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two times

Dear Pjacobi, I agree with you that the article is not really good, but on the other hand, there could be an article about two times because it is an idea that often becomes a topic of debates. Best wishes, LM --Lumidek 19:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P, could you take a look at

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj and possibly add a comment, if you feel so inclined? r b-j 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, where's the meat there? I can't even see the point of your accusers. Will write a comment tomorrow. --Pjacobi 00:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia

Care to check this proposed guideline? Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Too many userboxes

Why have you opposed me, User:Locke Cole, and User:Idont havaname just for having "too many userboxes"? It's a very weak reason to oppose and you appear to be the sole voice of opposition Sceptre (Talk) 19:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive discussion at wikien-l.
Some points from there:
  • Userboxes attract the "wrong" contributors and vice versa
  • Userboxes ease factional struggles and block voting
  • This is a project to write an encyclopedia.
To prepare a next wave of userbox purging, admins were asked to check their own user pages, so that the action wouldn't look hypocritical. So what sense does it make to create new admins who are attached to userboxes?
Pjacobi 20:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hardly attached to them Sceptre (Talk) 20:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubts (or regrets) that candidates which are in good standing otherwise, will become elected despite my single oppose. --Pjacobi 21:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback anyway. Sceptre (Talk) 21:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finite QFT

Thanks for your question, Pjacobi, and Happy New Year. This article is a kind of article where it's hard to find obvious nonsenses, but where the point is completely unclear. For example, they explain how they can derive the coupling of ghosts. Well, the coupling of Faddeev-Popov ghosts are strictly determined by the commutation relations of the Lie algebra they are associated with. It's very hard to understand how can there be anything new about deriving ghost couplings, and there are similar points. Most of the formulae in that paper are more or less well-known formulae - but they try to claim that they rediscovered "proper" QED in some sense that I don't understand.

Theories with asymptotic freedom such as Quantum Chromodynamics much like finite theories such as N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory can be claimed to be finite and free of ultraviolet divergences. That's certainly not the case of Quantum Electrodynamics because the latter has a Landau pole, and if they claim that their QED without modifications to its defining equations is finite, then you can be sure that everyone else in particle physics would think that they lost their mind.

This enterprise is a part of axiomatic quantum field theory that has not led anywhere but it is of course often hard to say it directly to the eyes of those who spent lives doing such things - and they have difficulties to admit it to themselves, too.

At any rate, I think that there should be a policy that a scientific result should not be interpreted as a fact on Wikipedia unless it has at least 20 citations according to scholar.google.com, excluding self-citations. Best wishes, Lubos --Lumidek 20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I have decided to withdraw my nomination, due to growing oppose votes due to my lack of experence (and because of userboxes?). I will now aim to continue, and broadern my scope from userboxes. I will accept a nomination, should one be made, in 1-2 months. Ian13ID:540053 18:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aetherometry

Excuse me, please, this is Janusz Karpinski, writing just after midnight on January 13. I am curious why such person as you, obviously a scientist, spends time so without point, quarrelling about aetherometry. Why do you give permission to keep this article in Wikipedia which you can not verify and on a subject which is well known only to few people? An encyclopedia is a bad place for this and it is damaging to the dignity to spend time making such bad blood in such pettyness. Wikipedia has policy that says it should not allow such articles. Is it not that you think that this policy is wise and upholding to dignity? I am writing not only to you but also to other few scientists who are involved in aetherometry fighting now. Also excuse that I am new to writing in Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.226.185 (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 08:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. There is no Wikipedia to not report on Pseudoscience. --Pjacobi 08:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is Janusz again, at 11:30 on January 13. I have now an account. I think I wrote not clearly enough. I did not mean that there is policy about pseudoscience. But there is policy about verifiability and fact-checking. I found this:

"Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X. Theory X has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you meet the physicist, and over a beer, he tells you: "Actually, I think Theory X is a load of rubbish." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry. Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you? For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia, you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it would be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper. It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important."

Especially if you have a big theory referencing many experiments, it is big job verifying if the theory is scientific or if it is not scientific. Wikipedia cannot verify this by itself. So the policy says that then such theory should not be included in Wikipedia.

Also, I found another policy: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." This also applies to Aetherometry. These are the policies that I was talking about before. Best regards, Janusz.

Hi Janusz
The scientific vs non scientific part is easy, as we don't do any research or try to decide whether it is true or false. We only decide:
  1. Is it taught at universities?
  2. Is it published in peer reviewed journals, included in the relevant citation indexes?
So there can be no misunderstanding. Aetherometry is pseudoscience, not science.
The other policy is subject to more controversies how to apply it. As I read it, and I'm of the expression I'm near consensus her, it means:
  1. Fringe theories, if published (a thrshold problem lurks here) can get there own article. At the WikiProject Pseudoscience we tried to create a template for very strange subjects: Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition, see also Nazi moon base.
  2. But, and this is other side of the policy, these theories aren't allowed to "invade" other articles. So we have an article Autodynamics, but its POV should stay out of the article Neutrino.
Pjacobi 23:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, you say in the first part there can be no misunderstandig, but I dont follow you there. The category pseudoscience says: "This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method.". And the scientific method article says: "The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings and orderings of the following: -Characterizations (Quantifications, observations and measurements)- Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)- Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories)- Experiments (tests of all of the above)." Can you explain why you conclude that if it is not taught at universities and not published in peer-reviewed journals, it means that it has been alleged by the scientific community to violate the scientific method? Maybe they dont even know about it or dont bother with it. I am not understanding the reasoning. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 00:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR. As in all cases, we don't do our own investigations. Let the scientific community decide, whether something adheres to the scientific method. There was an extensive discussion on this on the mailing list wikien-l (the "SPOV vs NPOV2 thread). Despite a large range of opinions, there was a consensus, that the "pseudoscience" label shouldn't be the result of our own investigations and tries to proof or disproof.
If OTOH, they dont even know about it or dont bother with it we must take it as negative proof. Otherwise, lack of citable reference that cheeese is outruled as major constitutent of the monn, could be taken as argument in favour of the Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition.
--Pjacobi 12:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry, but I must disagree with you. There is, in my opinion, difference between Green Cheese Model and aetherometry. To say that moon is made of green cheese forms obvious contradiction with existing empirical evidence, because we have samples from moon that are not blue cheese. And we also have no empirical reason to think there is blue cheese in moon composition at all, especially since cheese is made by man. But aetherometry, from what I see, says it is based on empirical evidence that existing physics does not explain, and I dont see (by my little reading) obvious contradiction with existing empirical evidence, only with existing interpretations. These interpretations are accepted, but it is always possible that other interpretations will arise that are better because they cover more data and make more unified view or fix some errors. So I think your two examples are not very analogous. For green cheese moon you can immediately know for sure it is not scientific, but for aetherometry you may suspect, but you cannot make definitive claim until you examine carefully the experiments and the conclusions. It is also not impossible that it is wrong in some things and right in other things. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 17:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M.H.F.

Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Jacoby, gerade ist mir aufgefallen, daß ich mich vermutlich an einer total falschen Stelle eben gemeldet habe. Es ist mir aufrichtig peinlich. Ich weiß nicht, ob Sie mir das jemals verzeihen können. Es war keine Absicht, wirklich nicht. Und dann noch mit dieser Message da... und dann noch die plumpe Anrede, die ich benutzte... Ich bin in mehrere Fettnäpfchen getreten.. Ich bin unmöglich... bitte verzeihen Sie mir das. Ich werde hier nicht wieder auftauchen. Mit aufrichtiger voller Achtung vor Ihrer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. M.H.F. 15:34, 14. Jan. 2006

Huch? Warum so verschreckt? Und einen Doktortitel habe ich auch nicht. Und fast alle MItarbeiter duzen sich hier. ..Pjacobi 14:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re disambiguation

Hi, I appreciate your pointing out of my mistake in those disambiguations. I have just started with this task and was finding my feet, so to speak. Mushintalk 17:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Can you take a look at Talk:Charismatic_authority#Lists_of_people_in_article. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syndromic survelliance

Please use a specific reason when suggesting speedy deletion using {{db|reason}}. The reasons you gave are not sufficient for speedy deletion and I will be listing it on {{prod}} instead. - Mgm|(talk) 13:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. Valid reasons for speedy deletion, (which do not include: unsourced -- spam -- unformatted) can be found at WP:CSD. Apologies if you already knew. :) - Mgm|(talk) 13:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was scratching my head, how to delete that one. On de: I wouldn't hesitate to simply delete without further procedure myself. Putting it on AfD looked like overkill for such non-article (unless you have some bookmarklet do this automatically, has anyone?). So I've inserted {{delete}} to share the judgement. I'm sorry, that neither product placement nor missing to give any source is valid CSD on en:, but the new procedure using {{prod}} (which I was unaware of) seems to be fine. --Pjacobi 15:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wpspam invite

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together fighting those who spam Wikipedia. --Perfecto 05:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Shankar

Hi, I noticed a while back that you have concerns that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar should be renamed Ravi Shankar (guru) or something similar. Recently, Ravi Shankar (musician) was moved to Ravi Shankar. I wish I were able to revert the change, however, the redirect page has a history, and I am not an admin, so I filed a request for move. If you feel strongly that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is not the appropriate title name, you may wish to share your opinion on this request for move. One of the arguments raised against the title Ravi Shankar (musician) was that the musician's article title doesn't require a qualifier because the guru's article has a "different name". (My own concern is rather different. I'm concerned to keep the effort required to fix misdirected links from being overwhelming, but that is a story for another day perhaps...) --BostonMA 03:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling are mixed over this issue, as a number of contributors I trust argued for taking the self choosen names for gurus and the like. I'll nevertheless visit the discussion. --Pjacobi 07:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User-pages / article.

Hello. And thanks advise. I'm a new user, so take some time to understand this wiki-world. This is not so easy thing. I learn this article-help first. br.Heikki. --Heikki 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you might know, I am planning to take a very long or permanent break from WP article space, but I might remain a member of WikiProject GTR. I am burnt out from the need to try to retard the introduction of crank POV-pushing (i.e. cranks trying to portray their ideas as representing mainstream science), but I still believe in the goal of providing a high quality free on-line universal encyclopedia, with a particular focus on the science and technology articles. This is just context for a brief remark: I am concerned that a list I created, Contributors to general relativity, not turn into one of those pointless lists of Everyone Who Ever Published an Eprint Even Tangentially Related to GTR. This is why I've been trying to avoid red-linking anyone I haven't added to the list; persons I have added myself I consider to be "major contributors", and that is the purpose of the list. User:Hve has added many names and fortunately I agree with almost all of his/her additions. But apparently someone I have never heard of has already added himself, which I don't like to see. OK, just a consideration to bear in mind, make of it what you will. BTW, I hope physics types will deal with Tom Van Flandern over at Speed of gravity. I figure I've already done my bit "arguing" with him. (Actually arguing with him is impossible because of his practice of constantly complaining "no, you rebutted crankclaim(n) but I was saying crankclaim(n+1)", so expect frustration if you decide to try. See the file just cited for examples of this behavior.)---CH 16:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just two comments in hurry:
  1. Sexl would be relevant for biography in Wikipedia, agreed? (And isn't it Roman, not Rudolph)
  2. Don't despair. Let us work in shifts against the cranks. Take your sabbatical whenever needed, but please return.
Pjacobi 23:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Virchow

Hallo, kannst du vielleicht bei Rudolf Virchow vorbeischauen? Ein JASpencer (talk · contribs) versucht mit allen Mitteln Virchow zu einem Freimaurer zu machen. Ich hätte nichts dagegen, wenn er es beweisen könnte, aber er verwendet irgendwelche zweideutigen Texte und behauptet, diese würden es "beweisen". Keine Meiner Quellen zieht überhaupt nur in Erwägung, dass er Freimaurer gewesen sein könnte. Wenn man die Initiationsloge nicht nennen kann, wird es dünn...

Der Benutzer scheint es generell auf alle Freimaurerei-Artikel abgesehen zu haben und ist wohl ein religiöser Verschwörungstheoretiker. Auch scheint er von http://www.trosch.org/ angetan zu sein. Der Kulturkampf soll seiner Meinung nach von den Freimaurern initiiert worden sein, dazu führt er Virchow an, der ja seiner Meinung nach Freimaurer gewesen wäre. Nur dass der Kulturkampf eben von Bismark ausging und Virchow dessen Politik nicht leiden konnte... Weiter nimmt päpstliche Bullen und stellt Sätze in Zusammenhang, die auch hier wieder Zusammenhänge konstruieren sollen. Zusätzlich wird er von einer Sockenpuppenfarm unterstützt, die sich hier findet: Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Lightbringer Dieser User scheint aber aus Canada zu kommen, dort wird jetzt auch www.trosch.org gehostet, vorher im gleichen Bundesstaat Texas wie JASpencer. Ob das was bedeutet, weiß ich nicht.

Zusätzlich wird im Artikel Catholicism and Freemasonry beschönigt. So wird bei der Inquisition, die Freimaurer zu Tode gefoltert hatte, in den Kerker werfen ließ und ermordet hat, von "put to death" geredet.

Menschen töten wird irgendwie verharmlost und das angebliche Verbreiten von Ideen verteufelt. Ein weiterer Punkt: JASpencer zieht natürlich entsprechend den alten Enzyklika die Freimaurerei Richtung Satanismus und Religion. Vermutlich hält er auch den Taxil hoax noch für echt.

Vielleicht kannst du da irgendwie helfen?

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hummel on Maharaji

Do you have Hummel's book "Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen" (1980) If so, could you please give the German original text and context of the English translation of Hummel's statement "Maharaj Ji could become the symbol of the desire for the messianic child due to his age." I believe this to be yet another astute observation by Hummel and I want to use it for the article.

By the way you may be interested to read a statement by a self-described moderate ex-premie contributor in Wikipedia that I think accurately and fairly describes the problem that some former followers (incl. me) of gurus have.

I have Hummel's 1994 book "Religöser Pluralismus oder Christliches Abendland?" at home, so if you need anything from that book, please let me know.
Andries 16:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not do any effort. I already order the book in Antiqariat. Andries 11:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andries, thanks for all the pointers. But I'm only taking a short break from my wiki-break. Will be back later in the year for larger projects. --Pjacobi 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Physics

Hi Beland, I don't fully understand why the manually created list is replaced by bot generated listings. Is there any prior discussion on this? --Pjacobi 22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to point you to Wikipedia talk:Pages needing attention, where notice was given about the discussion on Wikipedia:Cleanup_process/Cleanup_sorting_proposal. It looks like you have already found it, though, so I have replied on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing attention. -- Beland 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Assyrian people

Sure, I'll have a look. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cat Scan

Hello,

Thank you for the tip on Cat Scan. I tried to use it but failed. I use Internet Exploror, but it appears my browser may be too old a version for Cat Scan to function properly.

Back to the drawing board.

Regards,

Michael David 16:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
You were right. It wasn’t a problem with my browser. I was not entering the proper search criteria, beginning with the ‘en’. Did I mention I am still somewhat computer challenged.
You have made my week (subcategory: day; subsubcategory; Friday). Seriously, I have been wrestling with this issue since I began exploring Wikipedia in January.
We can still (and most likely will) debate over which Categories are appropriate for any given Article, but, for now, you have solved a major research tool problem for me.
I am very grateful.
Be healthy,
Michael David
  • Hello again,

I may have applauded a little too soon. There are some Articles that should be - but are not - appearing when a search is done.

Please take a minute and go to Cat Scan. Search 'for all pages' for the Category:'Cancer deaths'. Anthony Burgess should be in that list.

Please let me know how you do.

Thanks,

Michael David 19:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein Award

Sorry, I have already put down all the reliable information I have about this award under the title. I maintain it as much as I can, though occasionally someone comes and puts in information that has nothing to do with the real award. Unfortunately, I have not been able find out which institution gives/gave the award. I think the best thing to learn more is to contact one of the recipients themselves: Hawking, Lee and Yang are still in physics. Erkcan 00:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand that you would like to keep wikipedia as clean as possible. I follow your point. However, I really do not understand why you would like to delete this article. Note that as a physicist myself, I really understand the value of these prizes and I do not see the logic of keeping articles for all sorts of little awards while deleting this one, just because we could not find the detailed information on it on the web. (You do not suggest that if something is not yet on the web, it is does not exist at all, right? :)) I must say that I have spent hours and hours in order to establish the current version of the article, little by little. And I have documented in the discussion page the actual references to the information (and note that I chose as reliable sources as I could find, all are universities or research institutions). As for you finding nothing on the web on Prof. Gursey's recieveing the award, there are plenty of Turkish-languages webpages that state he received the medal in 1979. I put one of those into the discussion page, from a website of Bosphorus University, as I did for the other recipients. Erkcan 19:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, something that I forgot. I am aware of another Einsteinmedaille awarded by Einsteinhaus in Bern. Unfortunately, since Prof. Einstein was a very prominent scientist, almost like the face of physics in the world, there are multiple awards established after him. If you think that this makes it difficult to determine whether this prize is worth being in wikipedia, I think that might be a reasonable corcern. Having spent a lot of time on this article, I cannot be totally impartial in such a point; so if you really feel strongly about having it deleted, I will respect your opinion, but will try to defend it. :) Erkcan 20:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject WS

Just letting you know I have created a userbox for WikiProject Writing Systems at Template:User WikiProject WS. It looks like this:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Writing systems.

Just add {{User WikiProject WS}} to your userpage. BTW, any questions or comments should be directed to the project's talkpage, as I will be spamming this message to all current members. Thanx!--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seeintro

Actually, creating introduction or trampoline forks for technical articles was not a concept thought of by me. Such articles have existed for long and attempts to get them deleted have always failed. All I've done is categorise and systemise them. Loom91 05:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any previous discussions? --Pjacobi 07:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk page of Introduction to quantum mechanics for a link to the AfD discussion. Loom91 06:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second look the link isn't there. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum_Mechanics_-_simplified and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Special_relativity_for_beginners and also Wikipedia_talk:Make technical articles accessible. Loom91 06:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointers. The AfDs look somewhat inconclusive to me. To get more input, I brought the issue to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#...for_beginners. Don't get me wrong: On a quick scan, the Intrdduction to... articles look rather good. --Pjacobi 07:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer

Would you be kind enough to make some statements about the appropriate use of talk pages at Talk:Prem Rawat? You have some background in the dispute and may be able to explain to newly involved editors how to go about it. As you have seen, I have been unable to contain the misuse of these page, despite my explanation. It is obvious to me now, that these people will not take any thing from me at face value. As you have witnessed, the signal to noise ratio is way off the mark, and the talk page is becoming just an other forum in which mostly the anti faction is repeating their criticism that they publish in their forums and websites (followed by rebuttals from supporters) or simply using the talk page to air their grievances against Prem Rawat or Elan Vital. Please note that the article has improved quite a lot over the last few months or so, thanks to comments and recommendations made by non-involved editors. We have now a good and balanced lead to the article, for example after the comments made by User:Bishonen. As for my intentions for this article: All I strive for is to have an article that is well written, NPOV and supported by reputable sources so that it cannot be challenged again and again by either side pro or con. We have amassed 140 sources, the majority of which are from books, encyclopedias and scholarly articles, a task that has taken an enormous effort to achieve, making this one of the best researched articles in WP.

I have many on-going projects that I would like to continue pursue in WP (Such as my contributions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team), but unfortunately I am spending a lot of time in the never-ending disputes on that talk page.

Your assistance would be much appreciated. From what I have observed of your contributions to WP, and notwithstanding that our POVs may differ quite a bit, I still trust that your intervention and help to enforce some basic talk page discipline, if you accept to undertake it, will be neutral and impartial. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Sage gravity page

Pjacobi -

What I can tell you is that MRE is Edwards (the PG editor) and not Evans (although that may be almost as bad). For PG itself, I see it as being admissible but impeachable. As for the reference in question: I am not sure if it belongs in or out. What happenned was that I needed to go back a ways to undo some truly egregious edits by ELQ22, and the reinsertion came along for the ride. --EMS | Talk 21:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bell's spaceship paradox

Well, it seems that User:RodBall is blowing off me as well (he now claims that I don't understand the nature of the Lorentz transformation!). I'd still like to rewrite Rindler coordinates and then Bell's spaceship paradox, but I'd like to avoid pointless arguing with him over the correctness of standard textbook analysis.---CH 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely rewritten Rindler coordinates (wrote new article and made new figures from scratch).---CH 04:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to discuss his example on his user talk page, in the hope, he will see the error in his assumptions. And to avoid cluttering the article talk page even more.
Many thanks for Rindler coordinates! Wow! I'll hope to do a translating excerpt for the german Wikipedia.
One nitpick regarding illustrations: As the MediaWiki software can scale bitmaps, it is a good idea to generate them in a significantly larger size (and also thicker than 1px lines), so that they will also look good when printed. As a side effect, the lines will get an antialiased (no "staircases") look on screen. If you can export vector garphics into SVG format, MediaWiki will also take this and generate good looking illustration for any resolution.
Pjacobi 05:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kudo--- wow, a translation! :-)

I must confess that I have been too lazy to really master Maple's graphics routines. I used to use Mathematica but gradually switched to Maple about 2000 and generally prefer Maple, although Mathematica's graphics are clearly superior. Oh well, I'll try to bear this in mind for future. ---CH 06:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peter, I could use some more help in the talk page. User:Rod Ball continues to insist that the mainstream viewpoint, as expressed in the current version of the article (which I completely rewrote with completely new figures), in the sci.physics FAQ, and elsewhere is not only incorrect but not even the mainstream.

I have exposed his key error in the last section of the talk page, called User:Rod Ball's mistake? In the diagram earlier in the talk page (look for the diagram just below his sentence "The following diagram shows successive positions of the rod in x-t coordinates of the launchsite or "lab" frame" in the first section of the talk page), he is clearly either

  1. confusing hyperbolic arc length with hyperbolic angle, or else
  2. confusing Rindler coordinate time with elapsed proper time since the t = 0 in the Rindler chart, as measured by the Rindler observers themselves.

He also doesn't seem to understand four-acceleration as the covariant derivative of the unit tangent vector to a timelike curve, i.e. he doesn't understand path curvature. He insists that his personal notion of acceleration, which he improperly calls "proper acceleration" (of course, the standard notion is the only one which deserves this name, since it is the acceleration measured by the observer himself using his accelerometer), is preferable. This incorrect claim also appears to rest upon his confusion either about hyperbolic arc length versus hyperbolic angle or about the relation of Rindler coordinate time to elapsed proper time measured by the Rindler observers. Ball seems to ascribe his personal notion to either W. Rindler or to J. S. Bell, but this is surely another misunderstanding on his part.

Last but not least, I could use some help trying to tell him that the mainstream view is what we say it is (string will break), not what he claims it is (string won't break). We won't convince him, but we need to establish that by Wikipedia standards, the characterization of the mainstream view in the article as I rewrote it should stand.---CH 19:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just slow down on the talk page for while, I suggest. Is there an acute problem on the article page? IMHO there is limit, how much talk page space should be devoted to personal conversation and and discussion of the subject (instead of discussing the article).
In the mean time, I've started a discussion with him on his user talk page, were I intend to point out the errors in his presentation with the most basic means possible.
Pjacobi 20:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discipline

"And don't take controversies from other places to Wikipedia." Not that I disagree with this, but I don't think this is mentioned anywhere in the talk page guidelines - perhaps it should be . However, this certainly is in the guidelines: "In other words, try to consider the person on the other end of the discussion is a thinking, rational being who is trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia — unless, and only unless, you have firm, solid, and objective proof to the contrary." What, in your mind, constitutes such proof? Is evidence of bad faith gathered from outside of Wikipedia considered taking 'controversies from other places to Wikipedia'? Alfred Centauri 02:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

additions to archives

Hi I note that the discussion continues on Talk:Special relativity/Archive2. Shall we simply move those new comments to the Talk page, or what is the usual way to deal with that? On top of that, one of the additions is undeniably an insult, which perhaps should be deleted. Harald88 09:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignoring them should be fine. I'll give them a look. This sort of discussion page abuse (including continuing discussion on archived pages), I've only seen at Jehova's Witnesses (more exactly, at de:Zeugen Jehovas) until now. --Pjacobi 18:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sperre

Hallo, ist es nicht blödsinnig dass sie mich wegen einem Beitrag sperren, wo ich klarmachen wollte, dass die Perser Rassisten sind? Bitte schau dir den Link da an, der zum Beitrag führt? WAS IST DARAN SO SCHLIMM? Ich sagte, dass die Perser die anderen als Mischlinge und "Semiten" sehen, dabei sind die Perser doch selber Mischmasch und haben sich sogar mit mongoliden vermischt! WAS BITTE DARAN IST SO SCHLIMM DASS ICH IM DEUTSCHEN WIKIPEDIA FÜR 1 MONAT GESPERRT WURDE???

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Dersimli&redirect=no#Bitte

Es sind mehrere Fundstellen angegeben worden, wo Du Dich im Ton vergriffen hast. Es geht nicht um Recht oder Unrecht, sondern um schreiende, beleidigende Kommentare. Du hattest Deine Mitarbeit bei der Wikipedia in einem ähnlich unduldsamen Tonfall begonnen, dann bist Du konstruktiver und freundlicher gewordern. Ich (und andere) verstehen nicht, warum es zum Schluss wieder zu unangenehm werden musste. --Pjacobi 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"dass die Perser Rassisten sind". "The Persians are racists." (emphasis mine) Frankly, that's such a racist commentary that in conjunction with the other stuff on the German Wikipedia an indefinite block would have been appropriate. Fossa 02:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was meant to be a nationalist remark, not a racist one? "Criticon" and "Nation Europa" often tried to argue about this fine distinction. --Pjacobi 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help for template

Hi, this is the ikiroid again, trying to scout out help for Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems. I'm looking for anyone who can help contribute to Template:Infobox WS. It's an esoteric sort of template, copied from Template:Infobox Language that now needs to be revised for writing system pages. All ideas and comments about it should be directed to Template talk:Infobox WS. Contact me with any questions or comments. Thanks!--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I was curt recently...

... regarding the issue of my nomination for adminship. The truth is that Glen put me in rather an awkward position, nominating me for adminship and going so far as to start the RfA page, not knowing that after the last time someone asked me if I wanted to run I put up a notice on the board where users with high edit counts are listed that I didn't want to run for admin. When Glen said he had already started the nomination I knew he didn't mean it to be a problem for me, but I was still caught between feeling like I should take up the responsibility and knowing that I already skirt the edge health-wise with all the responsibilities I'm already handling. I'm afraid the added stress made me curter and more likely to snap at people. I apologize if I said inappropriate things regarding your handling of the situation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was a bit stressed, too. Since resigning from adminship on de:, I'm somewhat bitter.
Whereas we already had some collisions, I'd judge you a valueable and valued contributor to Wikipedia, you abstaining from adminship candidacy spared me to think about my vote.
Pjacobi 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troubling patterns of edits and what to do about them

Hi, Peter, can you drop by my user talk page? User:ObsidianOrder and User:Omegatron are very upset over my recent activity correlating anon IPs with (apparently) a single individual and in some cases suggesting a real life identity in connection with conern over a possible conflict of interest. In one very recent example, one of the affected individuals, Ibison (talk · contribs) took my point and responded constructively to my expression of concern. In others, I pointed out in my talk page comments that it wasn't entirely clear that there was malicious intent. I raised concerns rather than making accusations, or at least this was my intent. Nonetheless Obsidian is threatening to ArbCom me and Omegatron appears to believe that I posted personal contact information which is absolutely not true. TIA ---CH 22:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but can you follow up to clarify something? I never posted anyone's personal contact information. I would never even consider doing that. There is a proscription, but I wouldn't consider doing this even if there were no proscription. I said that User:Omegatron apparently thinks I posted personal contact information, but I don't know why he thinks that. Personal contact information means street address, phone number, email, stuff like that, not name and city of residence. ---CH 23:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need for a "massacres" category?

Hi there. As someone who took part in this CfD, I'm notifying you of a discussion I've started at Category talk:School massacres. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD

Why vfd Permanent magnet motor? Perpetual motion machine

What part of the article violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, or the copyright policy? Perpetual motion machine 19:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiablity. --Pjacobi 19:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullsh*t. The magazine Science & Mechanics (Spring 1980) covered it in the "Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor" article. Your bias blinds you. Perpetual motion machine 19:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrenfest paradox

Hi please comment on Ehrenfest paradox, since CH and I have a very different opinion about it but we both like your version of it - at least, he says so but he seems to refuse your clear description.

And do you have by any chance that original paper? If not, I can likely obtain it. Harald88 21:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Harald, I'm trying to take a near-break from Wiki, please don't tempt me. But I'm reading the Grøn paper and the online book. So, yes, if you can email me the original paper from Ehrenfest, it would be nice. I'm rather seldom at Hamburg University these days. --Pjacobi 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent you the article, and it confirms what I thought. Regards, Harald88 01:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just dropped by to ask you to help me convince Harald that my description agrees with the one he quoted and also with the description in Grøn, and also, of course, with Ehrenfest's own statement. From a previous comment it seems that you agree with me, but Harald appears strongly disagree (I don't know why, since this seems perfectly obvious to me). ---CH 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll procede very slowly in all this, as I sometimes find myself rather confused about rotating frames. I'll reading Grøn etc, but for now, for an important software integration test, I've to install and configure half a dozen Windows servers in different rôles and this will prohibit doing more fun stuff, unless all of them show there infamous (non-)progress indicators at the same time. --Pjacobi 07:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, as you now probably have noticed yourself, Ehrenfest didn't discuss rotating frames but only used the "stationary" frame. Happily so, for that avoids confusion and makes the subject matter particularly simple and easy to understand: Only basic SRT, and only one frame of reference. Please comment on my proposed improved summary phrasing (based on yours) on the Ehrenfest Talk page.
Regards, Harald88 13:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you comment specifically on one small point? To wit: Harald's claim that I misstated Ehrenfest's statement of the paradox vis a vis Einstein's statement. (See his comments on the talk page.) ---CH 16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Peter, I completely rewrote the first section using your figures (threw my stuff into length contraction). I thought that would satisfy Harald, but he is more upset than ever. As soon as you get a chance, can you take a look at the new version and then see if you can figure out why he is so upset? TIA ---CH 18:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, obviously Chris still doesn't understand the false claims that he put in the article. Instead of starting an edit war it would be better if he finally understands that Ehrenfest wrote nothing erroneous about disc-riding observers in 1909 as it wasn't even discussed. Perhaps you are better in explaining it to him, in a more direct manner? If that doesn't help I will ask for either mediation or RfC. Harald88 21:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peter thanks a lot - as Chris is a mathematician, your last explanation to EMS is likely most effective for Chris! :)) Harald88 11:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly but true, he still doesn't understand it... Thus it's no use to wait for him to improve it himself. :( Harald88 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vince 23:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Hi, I have seen your comment... "Hi -- Thanks for pointing out (3). Google provides a way of filtering out ads from undersired web sites, so I've used that to get rid of ads from aethertheory.co.uk and anti-relativity.com." Discussion ref...Talk:Special relativity...I would like to point out that there are no adverts or commercial interest on the calculator site. I feel pretty gutted with having my link not only moved about, but now removed. I've put a more complete explanation on...Talk:Special relativity...page I hope you reply there, (i'm not very well and want to try and keep things simple. I am not sure what to do next, maybe i should just put in a new category and put it at the top. What do you think?).[reply]

L'affaire Bogdanoff

Thank you very much for being "on the ball" with reverting the Bogdanov Affair article. Anville 17:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rama does of the work I guess. BTW: In the moment, I don't revert the sock's comments on the talk page, despite the ArbCom ruling would also allow reverting there, I assume. --Pjacobi 19:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care very much about the talk page, although Rama and NicholasTurnbull seem to prever reverting there as well. The sock is back as Kirhtz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), by the way. Anville 20:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already handled. Milestones of the English Wikipedia
  • 1,000,000 articles
  • 1,000 featured articles
  • 100 banned Wikipedia editors involved in the Bogdanov Affair
Pjacobi 20:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sardonic LOL. . . . Anville 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I a vandal?

Can you explain what have I done that you call vandalism? It's easy to bully people when you have powers. VandalPatrol 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pjacobi/Archive2&oldid=59586172"