Anti-relativity

I understand you have limited time/capability to edit, but I think it would help tremendously if you would familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is a secondary source—a fact that no editor can change—so if you put in material that appears to be your own analysis it will be removed. You can always make a case that something is not original research on the article talk page. -- SCZenz 20:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Mr. Zens. I have myself worked a long time ago as a professional editor of a technical journal in Berlin (for one year). Since I am a retired physicist, I do have also the time. But I certainly shall not spend my time if I see that nothing can come out, because others know everything better. Then you would have to do your work alone. In the article no new research work is presented, but everything reported is already known and has been published in journals like the ones mentioned at the beginning of the article, or in philosophical journals like 'Existentia'.

Thank you also for your official 'Welcome to Wikipedia', but I read all the verbal injuries on the page for articles proposed for deletion. I had now already several time the impression that I am not dealing with mature people. I myself, if I would be an administrator of Wikipedia, would cancel from the very beginning any comment as invalid, which contains verbal injuries of this kind.

Mr. Jacobi had contacted me on the talk page for the German version of the article. He felt "paralyzed" and wanted me to generate an article which is still better than the English version 'Anti-relativity'. I explained to him that this easily could be done, because if one would begin from zero, then a struchture could first be generated where the information is ordered in a suitable manner. I recommended to him to use the list of contents of the book of Walter Theimer in order to generate some initial structure.

There might be a misunderstanding. Perhaps Mr. Jabobi would like to take up my recommendation. Then, in fact, it would first be necessary to delete the German version altogether in order to begin from zero. If this is what he means, I don't object at all. I also do not object at all, if he re-arranges in the German version of the article all the information gathered so far in the English version.

But if his idea should be to first destroy the English version of it too, so that later on he can show off with a nice German article which contains all the information he found in the English version then I would object against this, also from the following reason: To the German version which Mr. Jacobi controls the public had no access. Therefore, it would have been impossible that all this information, which is now available in the English version, had compiled there. I have nothing against it, if he now takes advantage of the tolerance and freedom of speech that had been guaranteed hitherto in the English version, but I cannot see why the wrong impression shall be received by the public, that all that information had been collected in the German version because free access had been given to it. Quite the contrary is true: Mr. Jacobi has reserved for the German page for himself a monopol of opinion, and nobody can edit there anything because he is misusing the page for purposes of propaganda.

For what purpose does he now interfere with the English version of the article 'Anti-relativity'. He can start with re-editing the German version and can inegrate all the information found in the English version. What does he want more.

Why does he want to destroy the English artice 'Anti.relativity'.

Since I had not started from zero, but had to integrate all information available before my interference, the English version might later on reauire a different structure, i.e., it might be necessary to re-write the whole article again. But this should be done after I have added all the information which I think should be presented there.

Re-writing the article at the moment would imply that I would have to do the same work once more. You would have to do this without me, bcause I have better things to do than to play here foolish around. I shall now go to the other questions, if they are not already answered by this statement.KraMuc 10:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General welcome

I just realize you were never welcomed to Wikipedia, so... welcome! Here's a generic greeting with general info:

Welcome!

Hello, KraMuc~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- SCZenz 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-relativity has been deleted after AfD

I'm moving your comment from Talk:Anti-relativity here:

Complaint about Removal of Former Article 'Anti-Relativity'
Wikipedia, I can understand that because of my complaint on manipulation of edit summary records compiled under 'history', the function 'history' is not accessible at the moment.
What worries me more, is, that apparently the version modified considerably by me has already been put into a safe - much earlier than I would recommend to do.
Today, I came here in order to make a modification. I had written something like: "Einstein was a quite different type". The word "type" I had used in the sense of 'character'. I would be glad, if a supervisor of Wikipedia would correct the sentence for me.
I also would be glad, if the section 'Creditability of the Scribes' would be re-inserted. I am aware that this section hurts - but hundret years SRT is enough. Please note that the story told in that section is highly original, for seceral reasons: i) To the best of my knowledge, it has never been told in this way before. ii) One or two pieces of the puzzle might be in the memory of the German public, but not all three (I have seen Freiherr von Richthofen presenting the Trick in Bavarian Television, but DESY is located near Hamburg, far in the north of Germany.) iii) Up to know I was used solely to 'Wikipedia ghosts' moving cursors across the screen, but starnge things happened in betweenKraMuc 15:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The talk page of a deleted article is not the right place for such a complaint. You may consider to complain at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Pjacobi 15:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provided Mr. Jacobi refers to the German version of the article and wants to re-write it from zero I have no objection whatsoever.

But this measure should not imply that the English version is detroyed too.

As far as the English version 'Anti-relativity' is concerned, I suggest that it should be re-installed so that I have access to it again.

Perhaps Wikipedia should stress once more in the label at the beginning that the article is under work and should not yet be regarded as a final version suitable for Wikipedia.KraMuc 11:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin can give you a copy of a deleted article into your so called "user space" (a room for drafts which aren't articles), if he is convinced that you don't abuse this courtesy. I for myself wouldn't do this, giving your past behaviour (perhaps this is only a question of learning how Wikipedia does work). But you can ask at Wikipedia:Deletion review or by contact any other admin of your choice. --Pjacobi 12:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it an extremely bad behaviou, Mr. Jacobi, that you delete here a lengthy message which was not adressed to you but rather to the user E4mmacro.KraMuc 17:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As can bee seen in the edit history of this talk page, I didn't delete anything. Perhaps you've got an "edit conflict" warning? See Help:Edit conflict for this problem? --Pjacobi 20:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 100% sure, but I could imagine that this page is watched also by other authorities. Administrators exaggerating with chicanerie should perhaps consider this in order to avoid that they do harm to themselves. My message to user E4mmacro did not vanish because of an editing conflict, but rather during 'preview' phases, where no editing conflict could occur. Somebody deleted my text. This had happened before.

I shall now proceed with re-formulating the text at the end.KraMuc 12:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DESY's Gènio Secondo

A user who had voted delete suspects that I am charging DESY personnel with having murdered DESY's Gènio Secondo. In the newspaper, where many years ago I had seen the message that the man had been found shot dead in Brussels, no further information had been given. Probably, DESY's Personnel Department knows more about the dead of the man. Obviously, by playing the genius, he had put a tremendeous pressure on himself. I guess that he killed himself. I recall that in his interviews apologetic messages could be found, such as: "My brain swims in alcohol". I do charge nobody with anything.KraMuc 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-relativity

This page was deleted through AfD by the consensus of the community. Please stop trying to recreate it. --Philosophus ^T 17:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, I am not trying to recreate the article "Anti-relativity", but I am writing now an entirely different article which fulfills the criterion of neutrality etc. On the page on which the deleted article had existed one can find a written invitation to create a new article. In order to emphasize that I am not copying the old, deleted article I have given the novel article the title "Galilean Relativity".

What attitude is this, anyway, to try to suppress the opinion of others in this rude and irresponsible manner?

I had now been contacted by the administrator pjacobi on the talk page of user Harald88. I have interpreted his message such that there is no objection against me writing a new article.

If a certain article has been deleted because of violations against the neutrality requirements etc. then this can hardly mean that the theme Galilean relativity shall be banned altogether! This is what Philosophus would like, isn't it, Philosophus?

If I should be wrong in this respect, then the administrators should let me know. As matter of fact, in that case I would not supply further contributions.

I stress omce more that I am not really interested to participate in childish and immature games of this kind.KraMuc 18:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article 'Anti-relativity' has been deleted, but there has been an invitation to write a new article 'Anti-relativity'

Wikipedia, following your written invitation to write a new article 'Anti-relativity' I started today writing text again. As soon as I started I was confronted with Vandalism again. There are persons, like the user Philosophus, who try everything in order to avoid that an article on modern Galilean Relativity is generated.

Could Wikipedia please make its mind up and clarify whether or not it wants an article of this kind (considering that there exist journals like Galilean Electrodynamics)?

If Wikipedia wants an article 'Galilean Relativity', could Wikipedia then please ensure that the generation of the article is not continuously hampered and interrupted by irresponsible pseudo-academic vandals who call themselves Philosophus and the like?

Wikipedia, could you please give a clear answer?KraMuc 19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good start would be to not create the article with Anti-relativity as the title. Try "Galilean relativity (pseudoscience)", or maybe "Modern Galilean relativity". --Philosophus ^T 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Galilean Relativity

Your rewritten article is now at Modern Galilean relativity per Philosophus's suggestion. Please do not try to recreate an article at Anti-relativity again. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, I thought I should warn you that there's a lot of touchy users out there, and it's easier to work with them if you don't call them things like vandal left and right. Nicely pointing out that the recreated content was significantly different would have sufficed. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Laurascudder. Could you please change the spelling of 'Modern Galilean relativity' into Modern Galilean Relativity? I am somewhat in a hurry because in two weeks time I leave for Italy and I shall not return before the second half of August. I shall try to finish the article before I leave. The current interruptions are annoying.KraMuc 17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for now I'd consider the new article start sufficently encyclopedic in style, with one content issue: Is Ritz "modern" enough for this article? Shouldn't the Ritz part go to emission theory which needs some cleanup anyway? --Pjacobi 17:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to embark on the Ritz theory much further. This was merely meant to provide some overview. Anything else is left to the reference: J.P. Wesley, "Ritz is Wrong". I probably shall acommodate some of the references in footnotes, so that they will no longer be listed up in the reference list. I shall decide on this in a later phase, when the citations are more complete.KraMuc 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]