Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:34, 6 August 2007

Archives
July 2007

A talk page for Mr Kehler

I have made a subpage, where Mr W. Kehler is welcome to talk with me, until he is able to get his own user page. Click on the link below. Mr Kehler put a response here on my user page, and I have moved it into the subpage provided. Others are also welcome to join in if they wish.

Click on: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Mr Kehler. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)

Hello Duae, I thought you would want to know that your sub-page appeared in a question/report at WP:AN. I'm not sure how it got there, but I think someone noticed the page and wondered what it was. I posted a short notice there to explain, but I think it would be good if you visit and offer your comments. They may be able to help you with the confusing situation of the changing IP address for this editor. Here it the link to the WP:AN report. Best Wishes --Parsifal _Hello 03:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The whole conversation page idea got out of hand. I've given an account and some relevant links at the noticeboard, and will be interested to see if anyone has any useful suggestions. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and Quality Control

Hi Duae... I saw your new essay on your user page. I like your solution. It allows the current process to continue without interference, but also allows for more confidence in checked or approved articles. The problem with it though is that it can't pass the muster of ultra-egalitarianism, with prejudice against intellectual advancement. I believe that started out well-intended, based in equality of rights and purity of the consensus form, but as ideals those are by definition, not fully practical. And the result seems to be almost a backlash against acceptance of expertise - not among all editors, but among enough of them to stop qualifications from entering the system, other than when a qualified editor gains the local respect of other editors in their field and rallies them by consensus; an inefficient process.

As far as getting real information from WP when I need to know something, I do use the articles, but if I have even a shred of a question about what I see, then I either follow the actual references, or I read the talk pages and history to see if there are problems. Especially for current or changing information, WP is valuable, and I do use it. But as you say, don't trust the information without verifying... use it as a starting point. One of the most important points about that is that an article can change literally from second to second, and most readers don't realize that. They visit, usually from Google I imagine, read what they came for, and leave. Five seconds later, the mathematical formula or historical date that they retrieved could be different on that very same page, and they have no idea that could happen.

Aside from all that, there is something I really like about WP. It's a sort of grand experiment combining sociology, interpersonal behavioral psychology, linguistics, politics, all sorts of fields, into one giant laboratory that is being allowed to self-organize. Even the rules and policies are being edited from day to day. So thinking mathematically, it's a recursive experiment, because what happens when people read WP:NPOV or WP:V as a support for a point? They think they know what that means in a discussion, because they read it when they first got here and started editing. But maybe that policy has changed since then. How often does someone click on a link to WP:CONSENSUS when they see it in a discussion? Not very often, I'm sure. Here's an example where that fundamental policy changed just a week ago: . Is that an important change? Does it affect how editors approach their work?

So, what does it mean when we quote policy that is constantly changing as a basis for making decisions in articles, or even decisions in policy discussions?

I haven't thought this out in detail, but I have been very intrigued by how it works, and when I saw your essay I thought it would be interesting to share some of these thoughts.

At the base of it all, while Misplaced Pages itself says it is an encyclopedia, another view is that it's a new way for people to interact, and we don't quite know what it is creating. Is something true just because consensus says it's true? On Misplaced Pages, yes, as long as there are some references that look like solid third-party sources. But does that help us build a more efficient solar panel that costs less to manufacture? Only if there are some very skilled editors working on those articles and they also have the people skills to address the problems caused by less knowledgeable editors who might be really good at persuasive writing, or navigating policy points, or (as I think you've seen in action) just plain ignoring policy and being pushy with fringe ideas.

In a way, it's a noble process. It's also the biggest chess game ever known.

Thanks for your thoughts, enjoy your editing... --Parsifal _Hello 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I'm impressed to get a comment so soon. I really put it up for my own interest and to think about it. I may put it up for consideration in the formal channels after I've had a change to polish a bit. Your point on egalitarianism is a very good one. I have accordingly added a section to my proposal, to underline that editors are not expected to be experts; merely level headed individuals with a solid commitment to wikipedia official principles.

I'm also going to open up my proposal for editing by anyone who wants. Feel free to hack away. If I don't like any changes, I'll just revert them without mercy. :-) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want more input from others, you could post a note at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Keep in mind, you may be upsetting the apple cart, so you could get some rather strong responses (I'm not suggesting you hold back, or not hold back, as I said, I like your idea... just mentioning that I've noticed in other policy-related discussions, they can get rather heated).

You may be interested in checking out some of these links: Help:Modifying and Creating policy, Category:Misplaced Pages proposals, Category:Misplaced Pages rejected proposals, Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals, and Misplaced Pages:Expert editors. --Parsifal _Hello 06:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The wikiproject banner

Well, the Zionist banner was meant to be serious in a way. Please see WP:AN#WikiProject_Zionism.3F for the explanation. 129.170.116.177 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know. However, I felt that the manner in the which the point was being made was inappropriate and deliberately misleading, so I removed it. No offense intended. There may be some way you can mark up a more appropriate information box that can be used to tag discussions where there is a suspected deliberate attempt by an outside group to influence Misplaced Pages towards a particular point of view. If you try this, keep it as neutral as possible.

In general, however, I recommend patience. The general issue of articles on Allegations of apartheid is apparently being reviewed, as well as the attempt by Hasbara to manipulate Misplaced Pages as they consider best. Thanks for the note. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Kehler page

• By you imposed wfc Kehler is not suitable as my fathers main Email, used by me. He means that he got meanwhile more spam.
• T-COM Germany promised that I soon will have DSL at my home (a bit away from cities in country).
• Our club executives (I am the 2nd in my club, one of 3 sections) decided to take a very fast VDSL, gratis by a sponsor, with an option >16.000 kB/s and a LINUX-HP to be more safe. They offered me to perhaps even completely take the old T-COM of the club (if my DSL works at home) and even to pay the line while I act for the club as its writer.

But I suggest now to put for me personally an existing, sleeping NICKNAME DeepBlueDiamond with a still existing sleeping email DeepBlueDiamond@aol.com valid until I get T-COM; then I intend to become DeepBlueDiamond@t-online.de

ok? - Thanks for help, I think we come together if the agreement works - and then my DSL-lite. 84.158.239.236 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think some kind of user account would be a great idea. I don't know what to call you. You've signed quite a number of your posts here with an email address, and that does tend to pick up spam. The best thing might be to sign up with an account here at Misplaced Pages, and then contact people through the Wikipeda talk page channels. It's what I do; I never mention any email address here for precisely the reason you mention. If you prefer the page currently W. Kehler to be renamed to something else, just let me know. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(I have done the rename from WFCKehler to W. Kehler.) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Our problem with by you hidden pages to SHOW

Your good meant attempt to hide sections had a problem here: Neither direct links to an inner section nor even a clic from the table of content fuctioned.

If you are talking about the attempt I made to manage the W. Kehler page some time ago, by allowing some older sections to be collapsed using the NavFrame method, then note that I put it back as soon as you said you preferred not to have it. You will find, by the way, that when this facility is used in a page, links all continue to work when the linked sections are expanded, but not when they are collapsed. But this is irrelevant now; I removed the framing and it is all one long quarter Megabyte of continuous text, just as you apparently like. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OOPS. I have just figured out the problem. My apologies! I moved the page for you just fine, but I made some of the links from this page go to the talk page of W. Kehler. Sorry; my mistake. It's nothing to do with hide/show; it is actually about namespaces. I will fix up the links. The problem is a bit subtle. There are several different "namespaces" in wikipedia, including a "User" space, and a "User talk" space. In this way, there is the "W. Kehler" page in my user space, and the "W. Kehler" discussion page in my "User talk" space. It is analogous to articles in the "Main" space, and discussion pages in the "Talk" space. Stand by. Links being fixed now. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) All fixed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Unique WIKI-ID also for changing IP's?

FOR UNDERSTANDING: I'm only "W.Kehler".

Our Astro club has got old WIN98 equipment 500 Mhz working perfectly after tunings.

I personally mainly try to act there with my 2.5Ghz XP-Lap.

QUESTION: Could I sign-on WIKI also with changing IP?

You know: I used my father's PC with his DSL and Email at his home.

When I'll get a stable DSL (promised by AOL since 3 y.) for my home by T-COM in "flat country", our club will have a sponsored gratis LINUX-server.

QUESTION: Can I act then either from my home and from that LINUX server with one WIKI-ID?

Could "my page" than(!) be transferred with a tempory later erased link from the old one?

"Our" 3 clubs (sections) are distributed in a circle of until 100 miles. Nearly half of our section's experts (mainly resigning but still a bit partly active pensioners) are more near to me than to club's centre. Could they act either here or there e.g. with different IPs but one new club's WIKI-ID only? 84.158.205.158 10:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Each person should have their own individual account. Misplaced Pages does not allow shared accounts, and such accounts are likely to be blocked. You can read more details at Username policy — Sharing accounts. I have nothing personally to do with that rule. I think it is a sensible rule, but what I think doesn't matter. I still recommend obtaining an account, but it's up to you of course.

There is nothing to stop you using an account through a dynamic ID. You get the same access to your own user space whichever IP address you happened to be using at the time. All your information is stored here at the Misplaced Pages servers, so it makes no difference whether you access Misplaced Pages from home, or from a club, or from an internet cafe, or anywhere you like. There is nothing to transfer.

I have renamed the page I set up for you, to be W. Kehler. The old page now redirects. Sorry about that! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dissident's Email-statements

INFORMATION: I got meanwhile 3 Emails from "dissidents" of the OPEN LETTER and tried today to induce them to say and act themselves in or after linked ISSUE-section. Most clearly wrote Jastrzebski:

• "The relativistic mass of the photon is hf/c^2 as it has always been (which is known to most high school students) so what are you trying to prove or just to do sending me thus about the BB and the mass of photon?"
• He confirmied that PHOTON'S RELATIVISTIC MASS is the only one, even MEANING "gravitation has been explained ninety years ago and the Big Bang died about 20 years ago" (resumed remark: by all mentioned crucial objections?) and must be considered (Remark, word in German written by him, as) "kaputt"! 84.158.209.42 10:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have always known that the relativistic mass of a photon is hf/c^2. The only difference is that I tend not to use the phrase "relativistic mass". Modern texts on relativity tend to prefer using the term "mass" for the frame invariant "rest mass", which is why the phrase "relativistic mass" is not used so often. But there is no associated change whatsoever to the theory. This is nothing but a choice of terminology. I know what relativistic mass means, I have no problem reading papers that use the term, and the particular choice of words makes no difference whatsoever to how you calculate the motions of a photon and the interactions with other particles and with gravity and general relativity. This is not a topic for debate here; please keep that to the other page. Thanks —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 84.158.208.213 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is that the mass of photons is ambivalent taken in physics.

About ~1905 to ~1930 (said French Prof.) Einstein was so glad, got prices for "his" predicted and proved Einstein effects based on photon's gravity and its mass; but ~1948 he wrote that he favorizes (in 4D spacetime only?) a zero rest mass. Since that, Astronomers no more understand one another and make mentioned "war"?

Mentioned Prof. meant: Instead of taking a normalized linear metric, physicists should take an invariant "volume metric" instead, e.g. for 3D visible for the famous BB-balloon:

Each volume element of an inflated balloon remains always the same, gets thinner but "broader".

Could such a metric - here according to dr/dt - solve problems differently? E.g. a related Lorentz-transformation? And the view of c² (in such a stretched volume) instead of only taking c? Anyhow interesting at least to normalize the volume instead, also suitable to solve Einstein'S problem of the connservation of mass by a simple transformation of the Einstein Tensor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.158.208.213 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not relevant to this user talk page. If you want to debate physics; get an account so that you can fill up your own pages with it. Or put it in a new section at User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler. No offense intended, but I am closing this topic, and will delete further comment on the matter here. Thanks. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ellenberger NPOV dispute

You added the NPOV dispute tag to the Ellenberger page--but I don't see any discussion on the talk page that explains what is disputed. I think the page has shaped up and is looking pretty good now--is there still something that merits that tag? Lippard 16:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim! I think there is. I put a brief comment on the discussion page last month to point out my concern, and I don't see it addressed as yet. The problem is that I might simply be wrong, and I don't have the time to check out all the background to put up a proper response. I simply don't have time over the next few days to do much, but I might try and put another comment in the discussion page. Of all the people best able to address my concerns, you'd be at the top of the list. Suggest further discussion should be in the article page, rather than here. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)