This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 06:43, 2 August 2012 (→An article of interest to you is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:43, 2 August 2012 by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (→An article of interest to you is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

For discussions on deletion, see User:Kmarinas86/Deletion (14 sections).

For discussions on fair use, see User:Kmarinas86/Fair use (5 sections).

For discussions on good article reviews I received, see User:Kmarinas86/GA reviews received (13 sections).

For discussions on good article reviews I sent, see User:Kmarinas86/GA reviews sent (8 sections).

For discussions on my template experiments, see User:Kmarinas86/Template experiments (4 sections, 3 subsections).

For discussions on un-linked files, see User:Kmarinas86/Orphanage (10 sections).

For discussions on un-sourced files, see User:Kmarinas86/Unspecified source (7 sections).

For discussions on the content of the Rael articles, see User:Kmarinas86/Rael articles (6 sections).

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!

Hello Kmarinas86! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button

located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Misplaced Pages. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 01:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting Started
Misplaced Pages Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Misplaced Pages Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Misplaced Pages rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Comments on Kmarinas86's User-space

User page

Hi KMarinas. Would you mind putting the {{userpage}} template at the top of your user page? Your page will appear in a google search, and we're worried that the less computer-literate of our readers may mistake it for an encyclopaedia article. Normally, wikipedia guidelines state that userpages are not for publishing personal essays, however you are an editor in good standing, and the material is both interesting and unoffensive, so there is no reason to delete it if the template is up. Thanks a lot. yandman 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

template added ;)Kmarinas86 14:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. yandman 14:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Kmarinas86, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Kmarinas86. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything else

Entropy edits

Hello - can you give a list of your changes and some discussion on the Entropy talk page? I'm quite sure that they will be reverted unless there is some discussion, since the changes are so many and it's a page that is closely watched by a number of people. Thanks - PAR 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gravitational redshift

I added some contents at the top to this subject to give a better overview. Could you look at it? Thanks --Homy 17:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use talk:cult and talk:sect for off-topic discussions

These talk pages are only meant to suggest improvements for the article. They are not meant for theorizing about the subject. Thanks in advance. Andries 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Entropy

Would you please explain on Talk:Entropy the purpose behind the many edits you have done today and what your last edit comment "(this is where it was dozens of posts ago)" means. Are you suggesting that all recent edits have been worthless? I am far too busy organising a Conference that is on this weekend, but I will get back to look at this article. I will say one thing however. That is that the first para has indeed gone back to being totally unintelligable to the average reader as opposed to being only partly unintelligable. This needs to be addressed. The first para should give the ordinary reader a real idea of what the article is about and perhaps they will then delve deeper. --Bduke 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Are you suggesting that all recent edits have been worthless?" nah. of course not!Kmarinas86 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Entropy page restructuring

Your recent edits to entropy were certainly bold, and while I've no doubt that they were well intentioned, the page has been the subject of much editing and discussion by a number of editors. In cases such as this it is best to fully discuss and document changes: the restructuring is now under consideration at Talk:Entropy#Recent massive edits and it will be great if you can contribute to the discussion and to making this an excellent article. ... dave souza, talk 10:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering my question.;DPendo 4 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4

Olbers paradox

Hello, KMarinas86! Would you be so kind to upload your own animation to wikimedia commons? I could use it in the Dutch Misplaced Pages: thanks a lot. I tried but didn't succeed. --Dartelaar 20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I learned that I had to download first your image to my pc and then upload it to Commons. Please check if I have done it right and correct data if you like. --Dartelaar 00:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Thanks for providing more citations on Joseph Newman (inventor). Please note that if you cite a source multiple times, you need not repeat all the information in the cite multiple times. That's why we name the ref tags (preferably without spaces in the name). So if you have a citation like this: <ref name="invention">Citation information here, with links and such</ref>, then the next time you need that citation in the article, you need only write out the tag with the name like this: <ref name="invention" /> (note the terminating /> in the tag). -Amatulic 21:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to join our WikiProject?

Hello! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Houston, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the University of Houston. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Brianreading 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Tango

You know when you've been tangoed!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Electric machines

As the article talk pages should concentrate on discussions central to the improvement of the article, I'll copy our little exchange about electric machines and efficency to your talk page, will briefly comment, and -- if you're interested -- discuss matters more thoroughly later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjacobi (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And just for the record, I (unsurprisingly) sincerely belief that not much new technology will come out of Newman's invention. Even leaving all the contradictions to physics aside, there is a much more pragmatic argument: Any electric motor design which "only" cut backs losses by 50% (going from 90% to 95% efficency) would be of outmost commercial importance. You would be able to go (with bodyguards and lawyers if you prefer) into the development centers of Siemens, EMD, or Bombardier, demonstrate your working prototype and leave as a very rich man.

--Pjacobi (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RI^2 = heat losses

RI*(meters/ohm) = current times distance = current momentum

Current momentum can be determined by integrating current along the length of wire (with dl as the derivative length). It can be found in the Biot-Savart law.

To maximize current momentum / heat losses, the following should be maximized:

RI*(meters/ohm) / RI^2 = (meters/ohm)/I = cross-sectional area of wire / (resistivity * current)

But current momentum produces the magnetic field, the square of which is proportional to its energy. So to maximize the energy of the magnetic field / heat loss.

R^2*I^2*(meters/ohm)^2 / RI^2 = R*(meters/ohm)^2 = distance^2/ohm

Just use a longer wire! I guess the mere acceleration of two opposite charges converts mass into energy, causing electromagnetic radiation. Even the simple movement of a charge can cause a magnetic field, causing acceleration, and therefore radiation! If the wire is so short, that is like shorting the battery (e.g. connecting them in series) and not using the charges to your advantage.Kmarinas86 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I'd like to start by saying that I may more or less completely misunderstand you, but (apart from a very good remark about the mass to energy conversion), your statements look rather heterodox to me. Granted, Newman would have to have found new physics to make his machine work, but I assume we are discussing textbook physics and EE in this side note. Specifically:

It's not the resistive (heat) losses (or other losses) which bound the electric motor's efficency to 100%. Even using a supraconducting coil and everything you wish, you won't get above 100% -- the counter voltage induced by the rotation will make the input power needed to sustain rotation equal to mechanical work done.

So is 100% efficiency a moving target? Will simply making your motor smaller, more powerful, lighter, etc. simply increase what the 100%-efficient power would be?Kmarinas86 (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Equal amount of copper will give you motors of equal parameters, only with voltages and currents scaled in different, compensating directions. E.g. both thse setups will give the same magnetic field and motor operation:
- 1 meter of 0,15 mm diameter copper wire (about 1 Ω) at 4 V and 4 A (stall current) and
- 4 meter of 0,075mm diameter copper wire (about 16 Ω) at 16 V and 1 A (stall current)
But I agree with your guess that the mere acceleration of two opposite charges converts mass into energy. Every time some energy is transported away from a system, the system loses mass according to E=mc² -- in most cases an unmeasurable low amount. Also if you temporarily attach strings to the oppositely charged bodies, you can extract mechanical energy while reducing their distance, exactly that amount of mass will be lost (If we keep the system isolated, its total mass stays the same, e.g when letting the two bodys clonking together, the energy will first be converted to kinectic energy, then to heat, and both contribute to the mass of the system, which in effect stays constant). But in a motor the movement is periodic, so there is nothing in sight which can result in mass loss -- unless some copper atoms are vanishing mysteriously or sort of transmutate into something other than normal copper.

Ouch. Not exactly briefly. Sorry. --Pjacobi (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's ok.Kmarinas86 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kmarinas86! You've written a long answer, but used HTML comments to make it invisible? I'm assuming, that you aren't finished with that one. Regarding the other remark: 100% a moving target => Getting 1W mechanical work out of 1W electrical energy is the absolute limiting target using textbook physics and electrical engineering. What is done in the manufacturers' research labs and written about in science and engineering journals is:

Getting nearer to 100%, reducing the amount of heat that must be carried away which often is the limiting factor at which power a device can be operated
Reducing size and weight for a specified power and efficency

--Pjacobi (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

LAW 1: Magnetic field produced per current is proportional to the length of the conductor used by all that current.
LAW 2: Therefore, the magnetic field produced per electrical power is proportional to / , or simply / .

Note I said product of current and resistance, not voltage, since doubling current can be done at the same resistance and voltage by putting two batteries in parallel.

LAW 3: The magnetic field energy produced per copper mass is proportional to the ^2 / . This can be simplified as current^2 * .
LAW 4: The magnetic field energy divided by electrical power is proportional to ^2 / or length of conductor^2 / resistance. If length of conductor is proportional to resistance, then the magnetic field energy produced per electrical power is simply proportional to the length of that wire.
LAW 5: Magnetic field produced per mass of conductor is proportional to / , or simply current / cross-section of conductor.

Default case: 1 meter of 0.15 mm diameter copper wire (about 1 Ω) at 4 V and 4 A. Produces 1x the magnetic field and 1x the magnetic field energy (see magnetic pressure).

LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 100%

LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 100%

LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 100%

LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 100%

LAW 5: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 100%

WIDE AND LONG: 4 meter of 0.30 mm diameter copper wire (about 1 Ω) at 4 V and 4 A. Produces 4x the magnetic field and 16x the magnetic field energy, lasting just as long. Electrical power is the same as default.

More for your electrical power, but average life.

LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 400%

LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 400%

LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 100%

LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 1600%

LAW 5: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 25%

LONG: 4 meter of 0.15 mm diameter copper wire (about 4 Ω) at 4 V and 1 A. Produces 1x the magnetic field and 1x the magnetic field energy, for 4 times as long (because current is 1/4th as much). Electrical power is 1/4th of default power.

More strength for your electrical power, less for your weight, but long life.

LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 400%

LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 400%

LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 25%

LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 400%

LAW 5: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 25%

Magnetic field / Copper mass = 100%

WIDE: 1 meter of 0.30 mm diameter copper wire (about 1/4 Ω) at 4 V and 16 A. Produces 4x the magnetic field and 16x the magnetic field energy, for 1/4th as long (because current is 4 times higher). Electrical power is 4 times the default power.

More strength for your electrical power/weight, but early death.

LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 100%

LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 100%

LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 400%

LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 400%

LAW 1: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 100%

THIN AND LONG: 4 meter of 0.075 mm diameter copper wire (about 16 Ω) at 4 V and 1/4 A. Produces 1/4x the magnetic field and 1/16x the magnetic field energy, for 16 times as long (because current is 16 times lower). Electrical power is 1/16th of default power.

Less strength for your weight, but long life.

LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 100%

LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 400%

LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 6.25%

LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 100%

LAW 5: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 25%

THIN: 1 meter of 0.075 mm diameter copper wire (about 4 Ω) at 4 V and 1 A. Produces 1/4x the magnetic field and 1/16x the magnetic field energy, for 4 times as long (because current is 4 times higher). Electrical power is 1/4th of default power.

Less strength for your electrical power/weight, but long life.

LAW 1: Magnetic field / Electrical current = 100%

LAW 2: Magnetic field / Electrical power = 100%

LAW 3: Magnetic field energy / Copper mass = 25%

LAW 4: Magnetic field energy / Electrical power = 25%

LAW 5: Magnetic field / Copper mass = 100%

Wow, what a hell of work you did to do all examples. I'll look at the details soon. But very generally speaking, I'm doubting you are taking the back reaction into account, i.e. the voltage induced by the rotating rotor. It's obviously proportinal to the number of turns. And it's that back reaction, which limit the efficiency to 100% -- the resistive losses only determine how far below 100% we'll end. --Pjacobi (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In short:

Magnetic field energy per electrical power is proportional to:

(current * length of wire)^2 / (current*voltage)

(current * length of wire)^2 / (current^2*resistance)

(current * length of wire)^2 / (current^2*resistivity*length/area cross section of wire)

length of wire^2 / (resistivity*length/area cross section of wire)

length of wire / (resistivity/area cross section of wire)

length of wire * area cross section of wire / resistivity

mass of wire / resistivity

Magnetic field energy per mass of wire is proportional to:

electrical power / resistivity

Magnetic field energy, therefore increases with the electrical power and the mass of the conductor. As such, there is some point at which the energy from the magnetic field exceeds the electrical power. The only way to justify this is to say that the energy comes from the mass of the conductor which is "excited" by electrical current.Kmarinas86 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I now make the conclusion that all electric motors, not just Newman machines, convert mass into energy beyond that required to produce portable storage of electrical energy * (i.e. batteries). The conversion of mass into energy corresponds to simply the magnetic field that is produced and collapsed, similar to the concept of work done by expanding and contracting gases in a thermodynamic engine. The efficiency of this then would be determined by how much of that energy is usable and extracted by having a mass which interacts with this magnetic field, whether they be permanent magnets or electromagnets.Kmarinas86 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Doubling the mass of the wire can affect the electrical power depending on how you scale it. If you double its length, the power will be cut in half, while the total magnetic field will stay the same. This results in a energy efficient, but heavy, machine that is not suitable for portable power. This matches the specifications of a Newman machine which is not complemented by other devices.
If you use wire that has twice the cross-sectional area, you double the current and the magnetic field, quadrupling the power, but halve the life span, which doubles the total magnetic energy produced, but for twice the mass. This results in energy inefficient, and heavy machine that is suitable for portable power. This matches the specifications of large electric motors. These would be suitable for complementing a large Newman machine to power large vehicles.
Alternatively, you can use batteries that produce higher current (whether by parallel arrangement or greater voltage), which increases the current for a given coil, as well as increasing the total magnetic field per mass. This results in an energy inefficient, but light machine, that is suitable for highly mobile power. This matches the specifications of small electric motors. These would be suitable for complementing a small Newman machine to power small vehicles.

Kmarinas86 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Friendly fire

Sorry for getting snippy on the Newman talkpage the other day. — NRen2k5 08:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Woah man, you’re on fire! The Newman Machine article hasn’t seen this much attention ~~in…~~ ever! — NRen2k5, 13:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On magnet

Thanks for your units correction regarding the article Magnet. By the way, you come across as shocked and appalled to have discovered this error. Just so you know, there are errors everywhere in wikipedia's physics articles. The sense of shock will eventually wear off. But anyway, good work. :-) --Steve (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Scalar field theory (pseudoscience) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. I have reverted your reversion as your don't seem to understand why I reverted it. WP is not a place to promote one person's point of view, it is an encyclopedia. WP asks for neutral third-party sources and your addition is sourced solely from the website of the person about whom you are writing. Find other sources to prove your point and I'll leave it alone. Frmatt (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Reformed GA Symbol.png

File:Reformed GA Symbol.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Reformed GA Symbol.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

no support?

So I don't have your support? 0 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you do! Maybe I should add it back since you are concerned. :DKmarinas86 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just thought it was funny that you added that and then removed it. I'm not sure how valuable it is to have a comment that just says that it supports the previous one. 0 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Change of cited text at Raëlism

You changed sourced text so that it said something not in the source. Please do not do this again. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

According to this edit, the source is by "Giancarlo Genta". However, a book by Jason Colavito is also cited. Do they know enough about Raelians or the origin of their beliefs to justify a blanket statement such as "writers who have influenced Raëlian beliefs include Zechariah Sitchin and Erich von Däniken"? They may well just have written "Zechariah Sitchin and Erich von Däniken influenced heavily the books of the Raelian Movement". What exactly had been said in these two references? You could say something similarly vague such as "The British heavily influenced Americans."... but that doesn't say very much, leaving a lot to interpretation.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 03:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that change was made, it wasn't me and is a bit confusing as there are indeed two sources. I'm a bit surprised that someone who has been editing for five years doesn't seem to understand our policies. Colavito and Genta both give Sitchin credit for influencing Rael. That they do that is a fact, and I've given page numbers. Colavito says that both S and vD "provided an important mythological backdrop to Raelian belief". I don't have to justify the authors' claims, it just has to be verifiable that they make such claims. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What in the world is a "mythological backdrop"?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 10:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't attack other editors in edit summaries

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Aspartame controversy. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Your most recent edit summary at Flo McGarrell is of a similar vein. Edit summaries are especially problematic as what is written in the heat of the moment cannot be redacted. Novangelis (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Raelism

Believe it or not, I really don't think anyone totally objects necessarily to multiple articles about Raelism existing. The problem almost all the articles about Raelism other than the bios have is that they are so seriously overweighted with self-published materials of the Raelians, in likely violation of WP:SPS and maybe WP:SOAPBOX. And, yes, at least to me, there is the very real problem that so many of the articles are, apparently, based almost solely on the word of the Raelians themselves. I actually get the impression that, at times, someone saw two independent articles which mention a given subject, considered that enough to establish notability, and then used that as a justification for presenting the Raelian view on the topic. This really isn't what we want.

Ideally, most articles about religious groups should be primarily based on what independent sources which qualify as reliable as per WP:RS say about the groups. This is, unfortunately, because the groups themselves can and sometimes do have a tendency to misrepresent things or present an extremely unbalanced favorable view of themselves. As I'm sure you know, this includes the Catholic Church and any number of other groups better-established than the Raelians.

For what it's worth, the main direct subarticles of most religious movements tend to include: "History of", "Beliefs and practices of", "Criticism of," articles about its institions and governance, and biographies of the major players in the group. Sometimes, there are articles about the given group's relation to other groups, depending on how independently notable that material is. The "Beliefs and practices of" article is sometimes split into two articles, depending on the detail in independent sources on the subject, or if there is a potential problem of excess length. Given that this is a somewhat unique movement, there might be sufficient material in independent reliable sources to justify two separate articles there. The "Criticism of" article might be a good place to discuss the controversy about the baby cloning controversy related to this group, which, like Catholic sex abuse scandal, is probably a notable enough topic in its own right to merit an article.

I think personally that there may well be sufficient independent reliably-sourced material for each of the articles above, and they would probably be the best way of starting development of this topic. Yes, I know I said elsewhere that I favor one article for each group, but realize that, in many cases, those groups are smallish Christian denominations which get very little attention in the media, and thus don't have many independent reliable sources about them.

Unfortunately, I have to say that the idea of adding the template of number of adherents to the main Raelism article is probably not a particularly good one. All it really shows is that there has been a historical disagreement about whether the group has around 30 or around 60 thousand members. That really isn't that important. If it were a difference between 30 thousand and, maybe, 2 million, that might be, but this doesn't even come close to those levels. And, really, people join and leave all sorts of religious movements so regularly that, I think in general, placing any particular importance on the number of adherents is probably, generally, much less important than talking about the other major subjects regarding the group. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John. I would also like to see the Raelians (like all groups) get fair treatment on WP. I' sorry that I got off on the wrong foot with my comments on my AfD, although I don't think that saying they desire publicity was an unreasonable thing to say. (Or even necessarily a bad thing if true.) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Susan Palmer's book itself says something to that effect, so I don't think it is necessarily something inappropriate. Nor would I consider an NRM which clearly is basically almost completely original wanting publicity to be a bad thing, if that is the best way to get word about them out. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I really wish you were a bit better informed about wikipedia's policies and guidelines than you, as a self-proclaimed "expert", seem to be. The purpose of the reorganization of the articles relating to Raelism is basically to get them to conform to the first of the Five pillars of wikipedia, as per WP:FIVE. We are first, last, and foremost an encyclopedia, which means that our content should be, you guessed it, encyclopedic. Content which basically just reproduces the self-published material of any group, as opposed to comments by outsiders, who are presumably more neutral, is not encyclopedic, nor is material which has comparatively little inherent importance. The article on membership statistics was basically trivial information, and articles on basically trivial subjects are generally not considered encyclopedic. The others nominated for deletion are, basically, reproductions of self-published material. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to rely, primarily, on independent reliable sources. The Baby Eve incident was and probably still remains the single most "notable" matter relating to the Raelians other than their existence itself. At present, there is not even a redirect from Baby Eve to that article. While there were two sections to that article, prior to your recent changes, dealing with the subject, it would honestly probably be more rational for that matter to be made one single main section of the article, perhaps broken into multiple subsections, so that a redirect could link to the relevant material more easily.

Also, I think it makes sense to point out that the Aliens Adored book contains a good deal of material critical of Raelism, including substantial material related to Exrael, six pages of such in the edition I have. At present, there is no clear section of the main Raelism article about criticism of Raelism, just a section about it being called a "cult", which might be a significant part of the criticism, but clearly not the only part. The "Critical reception" section seems to take a position almost in defense of Raelism, while doing comparatively little to address the issues raised by Exrael and others in Chapter 7 of Palmer's book. This would include the soliciting of funds to pay for Rael's Racing Team, the criticism of the obviously sexist nature of the all-female Order of Angels, etc. Also, at least for me personally, I would be interested in knowing how, if at all, Rael might have been influenced by the then-widely popular and discussed ideas of Riverworld, which more or less deals with the same subject matter and predates Rael's revelations by at least a few years. I acknowledge up front that such information might not be readily available, because I personally haven't seen anything clearly linking the two, but haven't done exhaustive research and so might have missed something making the to-me obvious linkage of the two. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"The article on membership statistics was basically trivial information, and articles on basically trivial subjects are generally not considered encyclopedic." Agreed. Do you agree that they could serve as a subsection in the main article provided that only currently available sources are used? "At present, there is no clear section of the main Raelism article about criticism of Raelism, just a section about it being called a "cult", which might be a significant part of the criticism, but clearly not the only part." The sections are "# * 7.1 Fears of human cloning", "# 8 Views of sex", "# 9 Perception as a cult", and "# 10 Use of the swastika". What other criticism do you have in mind? "The 'Critical reception' section seems to take a position almost in defense of Raelism, while doing comparatively little to address the issues raised by Exrael and others in Chapter 7 of Palmer's book." "This would include the soliciting of funds to pay for Rael's Racing Team, the criticism of the obviously sexist nature of the all-female Order of Angels, etc." I can find the link to this right here, but I will have to return the university in the future in order to cooperate with this request. It will take some time before I can manage the trip, but I can do it. "Also, at least for me personally, I would be interested in knowing how, if at all, Rael might have been influenced by the then-widely popular and discussed ideas of Riverworld, which more or less deals with the same subject matter and predates Rael's revelations by at least a few years. I acknowledge up front that such information might not be readily available, because I personally haven't seen anything clearly linking the two, but haven't done exhaustive research and so might have missed something making the to-me obvious linkage of the two." I wouldn't be surprised to find like minds saying similar things, but I would be surprised to find out that all like minds did was copy from each other, so it amazes me that many apparent "ex-Raelians" actually consider "parallels" as challenging their former beliefs' authenticity.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 18:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to respond to the above point-by-point given the block format, but I will try.

I really have to question the importance of the number of adherents/followers per se. Certainly, there may well be cause to say that the group has grown in numbers since its inception, and to state the range of the more recent reported figures, both internally and externally reported, but I wouldn't myself go much beyond that.

"Fears of human cloning" as a section title doesn't make it clear whose fears are being discussed, Raelians or non-Raelians, and so isn't really clearly about "criticism" or outside critical opinion. "Views on sex" as a title is also neutral. "Use of the swastika" is also a neutral title. While some might see having the (internal) positive views of the topics and the (generally external) negative views of the topic most neutrally expressed in a single section, that isn't really the format most religion articles have here. What we generally have is sections about "beliefs and practices" discussing the beliefs and practices and the reasoning behind them, and a separate "criticism" section discussing the reasons and justifications for questioning or arguing against those beliefs and practices. Something along those lines here would probably make the article more clearly adhere to the effective, if clearly unofficial, standard of content separation.

My reason for mentioning Riverworld, is that the first novel, which came out in 1971, received both of the major awards for best novel, Hugo and Nebula, as did the second novel of the series. This is, I believe, unprecented within the field of science fiction and has not since duplicated by any other works, at least that I know of right off. (Maybe Ringworld came close - I dunno?) It also, rather clearly I think, demonstrates that the ideas were being comparatively widely discussed at the time of Rael's alleged contact with the Elohim, and in general, if one were to think that perhaps the contact was not genuine, it would make sense to think that perhaps the beliefs in the matter might have been influenced by things which Rael might have been exposed to through other means. Honestly, I myself had not known that former Raelians challenge the beliefs hased on similar discussion elsewhere, but it doesn't surprise me that they would. If it hasn't been mentioned in the sources, though, then it would be OR to discuss it in the article, but the idea of everybody who ever existed being replicated based on DNA is a somewhat novel one, and Farmer, the author, was known for writing SF which dealt with religious type ideas (his World of Tiers being very similar to the Mormon cosmology, for instance). Although that was a bit before my own time, being born in the early 60s, and such something I can't remember myself directly very well. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you might want to consider archiving this page as per WP:ARCHIVE at some point as well. It is getting kind of long. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Just because it struck me the above might not be completely clear, it is, more or less, a violation of WP:UNDUE to present independent negative material in equal weight to the internal "positive" material on a group in the article on the group itself. The first obligation of an article on a group is to present the information on the group itself, and that is best done by presenting all that material first. Then, the material critical on that group, for whatever reason, is generally best presented in a separate "Criticism of" section or article. Generally, the only real reason to not follow this is if the material being criticized is of comparatively limited importance to the group. In this case, the use of the swastika may be (I don't know) a compartiavely minor matter not often discussed by Raelians and Raelian sources. In cases like that, if the subject itself is of no particular importance, then it might make sense to use the point/counterpoint format. I am not however myself saying that the example cited is clearly necessarily one in which that applies, not knowing how significant the swastika is to Raelians internally. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program is looking for Campus Ambassadors in Houston

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian connected with the University of Houston. The Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Misplaced Pages assignments at another Houston school, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Misplaced Pages-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Misplaced Pages skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live in Houston and you are interested in being a Misplaced Pages Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Applying Kabbalah-50-50 to the Book of Revelation in italian...

In the last chapter You find the letters '-E-L-O-I-N-' (between parenthesis already in the text !)

http://letteredivine.angelfire.com/21-Apoc-W50.html (original italian official text approved by C.E.I.) --REDTURTLE 23:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Mislabeling of percentage rankings in graphic

In the percentages seem to not fit the country rankings. I'm assuming that the percentage indicates the percentage of the world population and the associated number is the overall ranking in population size. Javirosa (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Charts on the left:

Top: % Share of (World) Population from 1950 to 2010
Bottom: % Share of Population (of the present top ten most populated countries) from 1950 to 2010

Columns on the right:

--.-%: Population Growth in the 2000-2010 Decade (descending order)
#--: Rank by population size
-------: Continent/Country name

Notice how Russia's population growth rate is negative from 2000 to 2010 (last line).

Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 14:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Your editing of Heat

You have made a very large number of edits in the article on Heat personally I find what you are doing as very confusing. The article is in desperate need of improvement. You made at least 12 edits in January this year alone; I find almost no relevant discussion in the Heat:talk page. The result is chaotic and obscure for all others, I do not think this is the objective of Misplaced Pages. Would you care to summarise what you have done in the Heat:talk page? This would let others know what you have in mind. Thanking you in advance. --Damorbel (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

All my recent edits to that article were reverted last month.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
12:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

You somehow lead me to Frames of Reference, which is a concept I've meaning to look into. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Misplaced Pages. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Misplaced Pages contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Nayah

Kmarinas86's note: The first edit to the English Misplaced Pages article about Nayah was translated from the French Misplaced Pages article (http://fr.wikipedia.org/Nayah). The IP of the person responsible for the copyright violation is 92.135.202.206 which is an IP in Paris, France (geobytes.com). Thank you and have a blessed day.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
12:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Nayah, please note that Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://membres.multimania.fr/nayah2003/english/body.htm. As a copyright violation, Nayah appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Nayah has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Nayah and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Nayah with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Nayah.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Misplaced Pages must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Misplaced Pages takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Ohconfucius 04:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Nayah

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Nayah, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

studying for exams??

You wrote:

A lot of the higher mathematics articles would seem to be much ado about nothing, if it were not for its utility for those who are simply reviewing for higher level math exams.

Why would you say something like that? It is not only young people studying for exams that use Misplaced Pages's math articles; they are used by mature mathematicians as well. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Kmarinas86. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 01:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar

Hi there. I've come across a number of your internet posts, etc, regarding Mills' theory of classical physics. I share a similar interest, and it appears we are both around the same level of 'technical proficiency' with it. I'd love to discuss it with you sometime, if you're so inclined. My wiki page is

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Eric_mit_1992

I am new to wikipedia user/editing, and I have no idea how one sends another member private message, etc. I'd rather discuss over email, etc. Anyway, feel free to drop me a line.

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cubic equations of state

Category:Cubic equations of state, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brad7777 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

An article of interest to you is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS

In WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

You're being notified of this Arbcom case due to your interest in Blacklight Power. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)