Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 8 August 2009

Please post new messages at the bottom of the talk page, use headings when starting new talk topics, and sign all contributions.

Portal:Thailand

Thanks for adding more item. I think the Hem article is interesting. Too bad there's no image we can use for the portal. It's such a pain that those deletionists don't consider portals worthy of fair-use! --Melanochromis 17:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Day of rest / Sabbath

Some definitions of Sabbath are examples of a Day of rest, but they are not one and the same. The definition of Day of rest is linked from several other articles where a link to Sabbath (in lieu of Day of rest) would not properly define the term. As the definition stands on its own, as no content was merged into the Sabbath article, and as it would not make logical sense to place it in the Sabbath article, the changes have been reverted. Alansohn 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Kievan Rus

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Kievan Rus'. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --133.41.84.206 08:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Dingle

I've never run across you editing to the best of my recollection, but you seem a reasonable sort. Perhaps you could take initiative on an RFC or something? At this point I'm going to guess that nobody there sees me as a neutral good faith party (I think I've managed to somehow be on the opposite "side" of everyone there)... otherwise I would do it. Consensus should not be all that hard to achieve with some influx of outside opinions.--Isotope23 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this, and I'm going to refrain from starting an RfC, though it's probably the best way forward. I'd rather see how others handle it, especially as I'm intending to mostly ignore wikipedia for quite a while due to other projects. Tim Shuba 04:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough!--Isotope23 13:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my AFD "CITIES BY LONGITUDE"

I saw your comment on my AFD for Cities by Longitude, and I about laughed my ass off. IF it was malformed as you say it was, then why the hell was it in the AFD pile to begin with? (It was placed in the pile on Nov 9, and votes can in Nov 10 on!!!) Your first comment , like I said was comical enough, but then to say it's encyclopedic tells me you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Read this then tell me it meets this criteria. (FYI - It doesn't). Next time be a man about it and say "KEEP BECAUSE WP:ILIKEIT". KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently it was opined (AFD's are not votes) upon because editors saw the AFD at the article. It wasn't correctly listed until Dumbot caught it on the 11th.--Isotope23 20:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

question...

I see you haven't been very active lately. Nevertheless -- I am asking everyone who made a substantial contribution to H. Candace Gorman whether they think User:Butseriouslyfolks's large excision was justified by policy.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page. I did originally express my disagreement for his action, and wasn't terribly impressed with the response, but it wasn't an argument I cared to pursue. I still do support reinsertion of the material. Tim Shuba (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Yours. Thanks for it. Cheers, dfg (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

Most likely you are busy with more pressing matters, but just on the off chance that you can spare a few moments, I'd be grateful for your input here. By the way, thank you for the link to Chris Hillman's archive of Misplaced Pages contributions: good reading.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you got some good input from Jim E. Black, better than I would've given. About the only think I can think of right now is to try keep discussion on the article talk page relating strictly to the topic itself. There are many problems with the way scientific subects are presented (or misrepresented) here, and several reasons why experts in various fields are chased out by the wikipedia system. Some people are trying to improve the situation, and there are improvements in certain cases, but it is a long road ahead, with many pitfalls. Tim Shuba (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikkidd

You may have seen that he and 2 sockpuppets have been blocked indefinitely and I gave a couple of IPs short blocks today. But he'll be back. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Photon time dilation

I have submited my submission as discussion, not as article addition. I have seen many opposing submissions in discussions of wikipedia articles. Please, explain to me, what my discussion submission violates. My submission is not my personal ambition, and there is no trace of that. Misplaced Pages shoud not be only collection of some knowledge, but collection of truth. This is highly important. If some information in any wikipedia article is invalid, it should be corrected. If there are serious contradictions in theoretical articles, even they are not solved yet, it should be very important, to mention these contradictions in articles, not only in discussions. If such contradictions exist, discussion of the article is the right place to start the process. I have explained why I have submitted "Photon time dilation" discussion submission, and what was my intension. As I wrote : Physics is the science of reality. So it must be consistent with reality. Inconsistence with reality seriously indicates invalidity of the theory. If there is inconsistence of the theory with reality, there are several ways to start the improvement of the theory. In any case, the contradictions of the theory must be recognized, formulated, defined, published and finaly solved. Please explain, what in my submission is seriously invalid, that you have censored my submission. Contradiction is logical expression. Contradictions can be complex or simple. Photon time dilation, in context of the physical time dilation, is simple contradiction, that can be formulated using set of simple logical, verbal expressions (is,is,if,than) based on current mainstream theories. What are wikipedia rules for censorship of discussion ? Softvision (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the talk page guidelines which I already linked to from your user talk page, you will find the following sentences.

1. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.
2. Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article.

You have violated these on several occasions, and have been previously warned about campaigning for your original research, which you admit is not based on anything found in reliable sources. Similar comments apply to your edits at other pages, such as Talk:Equivalence principle and Talk:Color confinement.

There are several places you can ask for others' input on this matter. I think a good starting point might be at the Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance page. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. But your answer did not solve what I wrote : Misplaced Pages shoud not be only collection of some knowledge, but collection of truth. This is highly important. If some information in any wikipedia article is invalid, it should be corrected. If there are serious contradictions in theoretical articles, even they are not solved yet, it should be very important, to mention these contradictions in articles, not only in discussions. If I understand well, if there is invalid information in wiki article, there is only possibility to correct it on scientificaly published sources. If such sources does not exist, the article in wikipedia is treated as valid, wheather it is valid or not, and wheather the contradiction is evident or complex. If it is so, these rules are insufficient to maintain validity of wikipedia content, and it would be higly important to change theese rules, or to implement processes, that will enable effective solution of the wikipedia contradictions. Such processes should contain cooperation with scientific authorities. Propagation of invalid information can cause serious confusion. Just deletion of contradiction warnings is against the quality and consistency of wikipedia content, and against the propagation of valid information. Contradiction warning is distinctly related to the article validity and therefore concerning article content and editors work. Contradiction warning is not forum discussion, but message to the editors. As I wrote, majority of contradictions can be expressed using simple logical, verbal expressions, and therefore understood and considered publicly. "In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions." Solution of contradictions is not only fundamental scientific method, but also fundamental method of understanding reality. Reality is not contradictive. I have noticed other contradictions in elementary physics articles. But I have also noticed some latent interest of some editors in this area. I understand this latent interest as actively expressed. It is not hidden, that fundamental physical theories are incomplete, and that this incompleteness has serious dimension. Misplaced Pages is propagated globally as composite information. Responsibility for related wikipedia content and propagation of related information is therefore on editors. I recomend to consider the photon time dilation contradiction.

Photon time dilation contradiction : If frequency is generic property of the photon, and photon is elementary particle, than from the reference frame of the observer, photon time is according to the theory of relativity absolutely dilated. Therefore photon frequency cannot manifest. If frequency is generic property of the photon, and photon is electromagnetic wave, than observed frequency is Doppler shifted generic frequency. Therefore time of the photon cannot be dilated. Photon cannot be both, the particle and the wave, if theory of relativity is valid. The frequency of the photon is the same, wheater it is observed as the particle or as the wave. Softvision (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Some comments:

• Your so-called logical contradiction is trivially full of errors. I am not interested in discussing or arguing about it, so you're wasting effort posting about it here. Users are given wider latitude in their own userspace than in article and talk space, so this kind of thing could be discussed (within reason) on your talk page or on someone else's talk page, but it can be disruptive to place it on an article talk page. That is why I originally moved your section to your talk page.
• As I already said, the Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance page is probably a good place for getting others' opinions about whether my removal of the section was appropriate. That page looks like a good choice as a starting point for any other questions or concerns you may have.
• If you have questions or disagreements with policies and guidelines, you can bring them up on the relevant talk pages, such as this one for reliable sources, or post to noticeboards like the reliable sources noticeboard.
• It will help considerably if you read the policies and guidelines carefully before posting to the pages mentioned in the bullet point above. For example, your comments about truth in articles would almost certainly bring a mention of the first paragraph in the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy.
• I strongly suggest you do not continue to re-edit your contributions repeatedly as you have done in your submissions here and elsewhere. Use the 'show preview' button and/or write in a text editor, and click 'save page' only when you think your submission is complete.

I hope these comments are useful. Tim Shuba (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light

Hi Tim. The fight against the crackpots continues on WP.

Your presence at the above article would be much appreciated. One editor continues to fill the article with his own personal and somewhat idiosyncratic views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's quite the group of collaborators you are running with at that article. It doesn't look like fun at all to get involved. One problem evident there, which is endemic throughout wikipedia, is that disputes often lead to an insane number of footnotes, practically one for every sentence. Not only does this make the article less verifiable and reliable as a whole, but it encourages disjointed writing and lack of cohesion. For example, if there is agreement that the book by Zhang is an important reference for the subject, what a real article writer would do is to present the gist of how it relates to the article subject, by employing a carefully constructed set of sentences or paragraphs. Sourcing every sentence in a paragraph or section willy-nilly from different sources leads to confusion, and promotes shoddy writing. Oh, speaking of shoddy writing and bogus research, look at this excellent citation. Not only does the referenced page not support anything in the paragraph and does not refer to the speed of light even once, what it does say in part is the following.

This kind of stuff gives me a chuckle. Primarily, I use wikipedia for enjoyment rather than attempt to edit seriously. Since I am aware of how and why so much blatantly bogus information gets into articles, and why a large number of articles are highly unreliable, it doesn't affect me adversely as a user. Therefore, whether the speed of light article gets better or gets worse isn't too important to me. Good luck, though. Tim Shuba (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will battle on, it was an FA once. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)