Brews ohare (talk | contribs) |
Michael C Price (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 227: | Line 227: | ||
[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]]: We are moving on. We could revisit your interpretation of events and try to reconcile that version with mine, but reconciliation would be a long agonizing process (assuming it could happen), and would move very little towards the present objectives. [[User:Brews ohare|Brews ohare]] ([[User talk:Brews ohare|talk]]) 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]]: We are moving on. We could revisit your interpretation of events and try to reconcile that version with mine, but reconciliation would be a long agonizing process (assuming it could happen), and would move very little towards the present objectives. [[User:Brews ohare|Brews ohare]] ([[User talk:Brews ohare|talk]]) 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
Hi Ron, |
|||
I don't know what you mean by Brews not being able to respond for "political reasons". He's topic banned now, of course, but not when the SoL / Arbcom debates were raging. I asked repeatedly for him to respond my kilometre question and never got a substantive response. Other people had other issues, of a similar nature. |
|||
FWIW Brews changed his position on the nature of C during the (long) course of the SoL affair. Initially he claimed Tombe was correct, that there was something wrong with the way the speed of light was measured and defined (which is false). Later he said that the matter was merely confusing and needed explaining better (which is true). I believe that he realised during the course of the debate that Tombe was wrong, but that he couldn't bring himself to admit this. This helped to further muddy the waters and why now you're accused of misrepresenting Brews' position, whilst you think otherwise - it depends on whether you representing Early Brews or Late Brews. Most people didn't notice Brews change of position, so this causes confusion today. |
|||
Given (I think) that Brews was being evasive, I believe the ban was justified. Of course if you think he wasn't evasive then you'll believe that the ban should be lifed immediately. Since Brews is unrepentant I think he'll start the same behaviour again, but I could be wrong. An admission of error on his part would persuade me to wholeheartedly support lifting the ban. The admission is required, not because I wish to see Brews publicly flogged but because I believe that without Brews himself realising his behaviour was unnecessarily disruptive he will just repeat his behaviour. He has to show that he has learnt from the experience; so far there is no indication of this. Of course I am not an Arbcom, so my views are pretty irrelevant, but I thought it might help you (and possibly Iblis and even Brews) to see where most of the other folks are coming from. |
|||
--[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:Michael C Price|talk]]</sup> 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:31, 31 January 2010
Arbitration for Quantum Mysticism
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Quantum mysticism article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbound (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikis Take Manhattan
|
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.
LAST YEAR'S EVENT
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
- Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
- Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)
WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.
WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
- 148 Lafayette Street
- between Grand & Howard Streets
FOR UPDATES
Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.
Thanks,
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
"paragraph"
On User_talk:RobinK, you said, "But this is it. If CBM wants this included in the text, it would take only a paragraph to insert, and it would complete the proof of Godel's theorem." I would be very interested in seeing your hypothetical paragraph that fully justifies how the language of Peano arithmetic can be extended to include all the primitive recursive functions. Such a one-paragraph proof is not known in the literature, which is why people still rely on the lengthy proofs necessary to use Gödel's β function to show that it is possible to quantify over finite sequences in PA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- "I was going to assume that the Godel beta-function is given, which means that you already know that the extraction of the prime exponent is allowed by first order logic and PA." This is exactly my point. An actual proof of the incompleteness theorem has to actually prove this, and that's where almost all of the work is. The actual diagonal lemma part is very short and easy, it's only the arithmetization that is difficult. But once one has established that the language includes all primitive recursive functions, the remainder of the arithmetization, such as assigning Gödel numbers to formulas and proofs, is trivial. Similarly for the second incompleteness theorem: almost all the work is in the formalization of the provability predicate within the theory at hand. Once this is done, the rest of the result is easy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
That interests me. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Gödel
Likebox, I was wondering about Chaitin's work, also the popularizations of the proofs of Gödel's theorem by him. Can these be used as sources for the more easily accessible proofs? Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Third opinion
Likebox, if you have time could you give your opinion on the Scharnhorst effect as discussed on the talk page of speed of light. It may be that I'm wrong about how well established the Scharnhorst theoretically is. But I'm now dealing with an editor who is too lazy to read any articles who takes a contrarian POV based on basically nothing. I don't mind being proven wrong, but only after discussing some real physics. Count Iblis (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- The urgency has gone away as a compromize solution seems to have been found. But your opinion on the Scharnhorst effect would still be welcome. Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
ANI
I have raised the issue of your "modern proofs" here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- You said, "But even [CBM] doesn't pretend that there is any inaccuracy in the proof anymore." I wish that you would avoid speaking for me. I posted this comment exactly to outline some problems with the text you added other than its originality.
- The proof you added is not complete, as it does not prove the arithmetization results that you consider "easy to prove"; the proof you added is about as complete as the proof sketch already in the article. The text you added is not inaccurate in the sense of proving a false result, but it does use terminology in an inaccurate way. For example, as I said in the comment linked above, it is not at all obvious that a proof method known to Kleene in the 1950s is a "modern" proof.
- Finally, your claim "all the current textbooks use Turing machines to prove the incompleteness theorems" is false, even if it is interpreted broadly to mean that the proof goes via the T predicate. For example, the proof in Hinman's Fundamentals of mathematical logic (2005) uses the approach via the diagonal lemma, as does Mendelson's Introduction to mathematical logic — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Berezin
Likebox, thank you for your message where you say, in particular: "Please be more specific when you say Candlin's theory is incomplete".
Actually, what I say is that there is *no theory* in Candlin's paper at all, just some insights, although very good ones.
Also, I think this must be symmetric. I will present a more complete analysis of Candlin's work when I have more time, but can *you* be specific in indicating which exactly fragments of Candlin's work might prove your opinion? See also the discussion page of "Berezin integral" for my analysis of Khalatnikov's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paloff (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Probation
Per this discussion at WP:ANI, you've been placed on probation.
If User:Likebox makes any edits deemed to be tendentious, point of view pushing, addition of original research, or disruptive by an uninvolved administrator, Likebox may be blocked. After three incidents the block length may increase to one year.
If you have any questions about edits that might be problematic, feel free to ask for input from other editors, from any administrator or from me. The goal here is to get you out of trouble so that you can continue helping to build Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 15:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Opposition on Wikipedia
Moved from ANI by Jehochman Talk
Since wikipedia is a consensus-driven entity, it is important that some protection for the opposition. The position of those that oppose the consensus view should be allowed on the talk page, and their voices must continue to be heard, so that consensus can shift in the future. The goal of my edits on Godel's theorem and History Wars is to point out problems that I believe are very serious.
1. On history wars, revisionism is presented as history. The opinions of the recent revisionist Windschuttle are presented as if they were uncontested majority opinions, instead of right wing denialist propaganda (which is the position of most genocide scholars and historians).
2. On Godel's theorem, there is no decent proof. This is hard to fix, because the textbooks purposefully choose to use obscure language, for no good reason. The same proofs can be written in English, and there is no reason we should not do so.
These are two separate conflicts, which have on thing in common: I am editing against a certain consensus. This is essential to continue moving the encyclopedia forward after the initial building stage. This type of debate needs to be encouraged, not sanctioned.Likebox (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course you are welcome to disagree with consensus, but you must at some point drop the matter rather than engaging in argumentum ad nauseum. Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Discussion on article talk pages needs to lead to a result. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree with others, and move on. You can always circle back later and re-raise the issue, especially if you have new sources to support your view. It takes judgment to know how often you can do that without upsetting others and disrupting their work. This is a collaborative project. Jehochman Talk 18:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Jehochman. If you've put forward all your arguments and the consensus for changing an article in the direction you want still isn't there, then it's best to let the matter rest for a while. What you could try to do with your proof of Gödel is to create a new article, but only if you have sufficient approval of the editors at Wiki Project Math. The advantage then is that the level of support you need is a lot less than the support you need to include your proof in the existing article. The article has to be able to survive AFD. There are probably people who are against including your proof in the existing article but who don't think your proof is wrong (just that it is not an advantage to include it) and they could vote to keep such an article. To delete the article there has to be a consensus against keeping it. Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree, Count. Don't encourage editors to create POV forks. As I and AGK have requested, would you please recuse yourself from this matter. You're giving out bad advice. Though this may not be your intention, you're actively hampering our efforts to teach editors better ways to handle their content disputes. Jehochman Talk 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Creating a FORK is allowed, a POV FORK is, of course, not allowed. Didn't I just write that Likebox needs to have some level of support before creating such an article or not? Didn't I write something about it needing to be able to survive an AFD (during which the issue of it being a content fork can be raised) or not?
- Note that I've interacted with Brews Ohare and with Likebox for quite some time. It is then not ok. for you or AGK to tell me not to talk to these persons just because everything is now part of some dispute and you two have just stepped in to police the dispute. You come here and interpret things from the perspective of the dispute while my perspective may be a bit different. It is then understandable that your advice will be more negative (don't do this, don't do that, to keep out of trouble), my advice may be more positive (you can do X, provided you take into account Y and Z).
- The whole idea of "teaching" Likebox or Brews by simply telling telling them not do something is just nonsensical. They are grown up people (and a bit older than me, I think). I think we can explain some processes here at Wikipedia and explain how and why things work the way they work. If Likebox in fact has no support to create the article on Wiki project math, then what I wrote amounts to saying "do not create the article". It only says: "create the article", if he does have some level of support. If you do not want to see that article created, then simply saying "don't do that", will have less impact, as you're then treating Likebox like a 4 year old (he'll think, who are you to tell me that, why shouldn't I?). Count Iblis (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You're invited!
![]() New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Take a break from the drama! I hope you can make it to Columbia on Sunday.--Pharos (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Your actions regarding ESCA
Likebox, I consider your actions regarding WP:ESCA to be "tendentious and disruptive". I'd appreciate it if you'd revert yourself, and refrain from further reverts on the failed guideline. If not, I will refer your actions for administrative review. Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Jayjg, it's just an essay for gawd sake. Essay's can represent minority views. Calm down. --Michael C. Price talk 08:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
November 2009
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Likebox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User jayjg has accused me of tendentious editing for restoring an essay which he had rewritten to mean the opposite of what it originally said. The essay was trying to state a position that science editing is broken on wikipedia, because no OR policies are being interpreted in such a narrow way that they exclude the type of writing that allow a good scientific review of a field. This essay suggests that noOR needs to be interpreted in the broad context of the entire literature, since technical language is subtle and requires familiarity to understand in a deep way. User Jayjg and others believe that this essay is a bad way to interpret OR policy, but others, including the original authors of the essay, disagree. This disagreement gave rise to a lively talk page debate. I argued with Jayjg on the talk page, and when he edited out the original meaning, I restored it and made some minor condensations and alterations. Jayjg and another editor disliked the new text, and got rid of it. I restored the text and saved it to the talk page, so that people will know what the essay is actually saying. After saving to talk, I did no further editing to the page. I only wished to make sure that the original meaning of the essay was preserved. Nevertheless, Jayjg insisted that I restore his version of the essay, otherwise he would accuse me of tendentious editing, and take adminstrative action. I saw this as a counterproductive and intimidating way to deal with a dispute over the content of an essay, and I still do. It is difficult to have a debate when editors threaten other editors with sanction when no rules have been broken.
Decline reason:
Hi Likebox, and thanks for posting an unblock request. However, I'm not going to grant this request, and instead I suggest you post another request which explains what you would do if you're unblocked. For example, if you consider that another editor has acted inappropriately, you could file a request for comment on user conduct. Alternatively, if you feel the underlying problem is a content dispute, you could obtain a third opinion. Have a look at WP:Dispute resolution, which explains about the various methods of resolving disputes. PhilKnight (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Note to reviewing admin: block in response to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Likebox_again (apologies for forgetting to note this earlier). EyeSerenetalk
{{unblock|In the past, I was involved in highly contentious debates on several pages, in which I have argued forcefully for several edits which were controvertial. In some cases, such as Higgs mechanism, the debates were substantive, and the articles converged to a consensus. On other pages, notably Godel's incompleteness theorems, there were editors that opposed the type of technical presentation that I provide, and edited out the content. In addition, I have been involved in a debate of a completely different kind, on History Wars, over certain literature in Australian history which is not technical at all. This has given me some insight into the non-technical articles here too.
But the debates have been contentious, and long. This is for a good reason--- they involve strongly diverging opinions about policy and content. Other editors have followed these debates closely, including uninvolved administrators who were summoned after some administrative alarms, and the administrators who follow the debate closely have all been of the opinion that I was doing nothing wrong: that I did not engage in any dirty tricks or bad-faith editing, only in arguing for a long time. Still, the structure of punishment on Wikipedia requires only two editors to impose a block: one who brings the action and another to act on it, regardless of merit.
The disputes and blocks have given me a bad reputation of sorts, as a tendentious editor. The disputes themselves are important, as I see it, because they call attention to some patterns of editing on the encyclopedia which are damaging to content in my opinion, and which require more editors and some reflection on editing policy.
I don't like filing administrative actions, because this changes the nature of the debate from substantive issues to issues of policy and behavior, and I believe it should only be a last resort. If unblocked, I would not go around accusing Jayjg of anything at all, not because I agree with this type of behavior, but because it would perpetuate a bad-faith cycle.
I have tried to be extra careful to not violate any rules in all my recent edits, and to make sure that whenever edit warring was incipient, I would permanently save disputed content to the talk page instead of going back and forth. Despite this, I have been summarily blocked multiple times for nonexistent edit wars. I believe that these blocks and punitive measures have been imposed far too quickly, and consensus method means that it is effectively impossible to get a block overruled. I am asking for a review, to check if the punitive policies on wikipedia are actually appealeable.
If the continued blocking means that I am barred from editing, then I will do other things. I cannot contribute to a project which does not want my contributions. That's a pity, because there are too few technically minded people who have a real committment to fully open science, such as is done here. Most physicists and mathematicians are suspicious of massive collaboration, because without protections, consensus means hostility to debate.
If my behavior is unacceptable, than I don't believe that any scientist's behavior here would be acceptable, and I will reconsider my committment to this project.Likebox (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}}
Hi Likebox,
As you explained above, there is little review before banning, typically the Admin will look at how many times you have been reverting and your block log. Add to this that the complaining editor, Jayjg is an Admin who will be careful not to violate any rules, and the outcome is quite pedictable.
Therefore, it may help if you agree to stick to 1 RR. On controversial pages, like ESCA, you have a few editors on your side, so you there don't need to revert more than once yourself. If you happen to be alone with some POV against a consensus of other editors, then the probation you are under now applies anyway. So sticking to 1 RR would not make much of a difference, except that people like Jayjg would find it more difficult to put you out of action. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- To Count Iblis: I have been trying to stick to 1RR. In the case of the policy page, I placed some new content, it was reverted, and I restored the content under 1RR, and when it was deleted again, I restored it and saved to the talk page, so that I wouldn't need to revert any more. While this might be 2RR, I don't understand how this could be construed as edit warring or even tendentious editing.
- It seems that Brews Ohare's well-meaning non-crackpot contributions to scientific articles have led him to get permanently blocked too. He was guilty of nothing more than an elementary confusion about the definition of the meter and the second on speed of light, and I am sure he would have come around with patience. His contributions, particularly his diagrams, are sorely needed.
- These administrative actions concern me: it seems that the environment of the encyclopedia is becoming more hostile to long-term debates, and this means that it is also hostile to new ideas. In this type of environment the growth of articles will slow down and stop, and scientific articles cannot get written. It is demoralizing to consider that this project could end in a series of bureaucratic purges.
- Scholarpedia exists because Wikipedia does not protect science content from political interference. Instead of debating the content of science pages freely, the content rules can be applied legalistically to bar contributions and changes. This does not bode well for the future. I don't know how this can be fixed. I was taken by surprise each time I got blocked. It might be worthwhile to have a "bill of rights", so that editors do not get blocked until there is a supermajority. This will protect the less politically savvy editors from the more politically savvy ones, which is especially important because in a consensus driven political environment, nobody wants to speak up to protect the dissidents. When the political consensus can lead to blocks and banning, you end up throwing away the dissidents, just like the Soviet Union. That's not good for the project, since it intimidates editors and stifles debate.
- Science can't get written without open debate, so if I end up administratively sanctioned to the point that I cannot debate any issue without administrative action being taken, I have nothing further to contribute to the project.Likebox (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since Likebox and Count Iblis are here, as Brews' fans, let me just comment that I think the ban on Brews was justified, simply because he was not prepared to argue from first principles. I think Brews realised that he was technically incorrect quite early on, but he'd dug himself in so deep that he couldn't back down or just drop the matter. A shame, because his diagrams are a really vaulable; but it was his decision to keep on flogging the dead horse and be evasive about some of the physical issues (he would never answer my kilometer question, for example). Because he couldn't let go, the restriction was the only possible result. Had he followed ESCA he would have avoided all this trouble. --Michael C. Price talk 23:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I talked to one of the Admins and they agree that if you agree to stick to 1 RR then they'll unblock, see here. I explained what the reason of the probation was, giving the perspective of your opponents as I understand it, and I explained that these issues are not relevant in this dispute with Jayjg about ESCA. Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Likebox, you said previously that "science can't get written without open debate". We're not saying that you can't debate; in fact, you're free to debate (as long as you're not disruptive in doing so, of course). That's what the talk page is for, after all; constructive debate aiming to structure an article into a better form.
- However, do not confuse debate with reversion. Reversion should only be used, and I mean only, when a vandal has smeared a page. If it's clear vandalism (as defined here), revert it. However, editors who do not agree with you should not be reverted. If you have made a change and somebody disagrees with it or removes it, do not revert back. Instead, approach the editor and discuss it with them. The sanction is only in place to try to keep you from edit-warring and getting blocked again, but it's not going to stifle you. As long as you discuss matters with editors before you make changes, everything will be O.K. m.o.p 00:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- To Master of Puppets: advice taken. I will do this 1RR business and only save versions to the talk page instead of to the article. But please review the editing, because I do not think that I was acting tendentiousnly at all, and I was offended to be accused of this and blocked so quickly.
- You might still be autoblocked; it looks like the tool used for autoblock location is down for "scheduled maintenance". If anyone else knows how to do this manually, could you please help? Tan | 39 02:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have put a message about your editing conduct on the talk page of [[EyeSerene. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC).
- Likebox, you need to be careful with edits like this. While open debate is welcome and encouraged, it's unhelpful when it becomes a "frank exchange of views". Dismissing another editor's comments in this way does little to contribute to the collegiate atmosphere we look to foster, so it would demonstrate your good faith if you could find a more constructive way to express yourself in that thread. I haven't sanctioned you because I don't feel this comes within your editing restrictions as defined above, and you've stuck to 1RR on the article, but of course repeated incivility in future may attract sanctions. EyeSerenetalk 08:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Quantum mind/body problem
Hi. In this edit you removed the only category on Quantum mind/body problem. Articles should belong to at least one category. Could you either add Category:Philosophy of physics back in, or find a more appropriate category? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Day NYC
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Wikipedia_birthday_coin.png/220px-Wikipedia_birthday_coin.png)
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Likebox! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 873 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Steven Frautschi - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
AN discussion about you
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_topic_ban_or_extended_block_of_User:Likebox. Pcap ping 11:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Invite
![]() | Thank you for your recent contribution to a few logic articles. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well. |
Greg Bard (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
awesome paragraph
I consider this an awesome paragraph you wrote on the inflation (cosmology) talk page:
"This effect of infinite redshift is observer dependent--- if you fall through the horizon, you don't see anything peculiar happen. The observers that see infinite redshift are those that are outside the black hole. The mushing up of things near the horizon is an artifact of the mathematics--- you don't have an infinite collection of layers of stuff on the surface of a black hole. The cut-off is quantum mechanical, and the principle which governs how to fix the description of horizons so that they don't pile up layers forever is called the holographic principle. The holographic principle is the only known way to make sense of the external description of a black hole. It cuts out the interior, and tells you that the black hole is described just by the stuff outside the horizon, heuristically (meaning not rigorously) you can imagine that there is a planck-scale thin skin around the black hole, and there is nothing going on inside this skin."
Because what you wrote made sense to me, I'm curious if this makes sense to you: I see the interior of a black hole as being the same thing as the exterior of the galaxy, with the boundary of a black hole being just another external boundary of the 'set' of stuff. Inside a black hole there is no stuff; it's just another part of the empty set that surrounds everything. Would mine be a holographic interpretation? Thanks. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Unblocking Brews and David
I agree with you that Brews's topic ban does not make much sense. David is another story. Although one could argue that his topic ban was unjustified, David's efforts on physics pages were almost always directed toward including crank views. So, I think it is better not to start a single process in which both cases are appealed at the same time.
Now, most editors who participated in the speed of light Arbcom case will probably be against lifting the topic ban for Brews. This is primarily because most editors who were editing the speed of light case were guilty themselves of the mess on the speed of light page. If Brews was posting too frequently, pushing certain views against consensus, etc. etc. then of course people should have closed such discussions. Perhaps there would have been an angry reaction by Brews, a revert war on the talk page and then you would have had a regular AN/I debate about that which Wikipedia can handle quite well.
The reason why the editors could not do that was because they actually wanted to continue discussing with Brews. Now, on the Global Warming page a few years back we had a similar problem with discussions with skeptics. We made the decision that such discussions have to stop (they were dominating the talk page). We made a FAQ and everytime a sceptic comes along raising some doubts about AGW, we refer to the FAQ. In the beginning when we were just starting to implemet this policy, it turned out that the most difficult part was actually for the regulars to stop discussiong with sceptics. So, it is a matter of self-discipline.
A few editors may have other motives of opposing lifting the topic ban. Headbomb wants to become an admin, backing Brews will make that impossible for him for the forseeable future. Some other editors value the wiki-procedures more than individual editors.
The question is now how to move forward when facing so much opposition. You cannot get anything done on Wikipedia unless you have a broad consensus. This suggest getting uninvolved editors and Admins involved in any appeal. Now, they can only support any move if the proposal sound very reasonable to them. It has to involve guarantees that Brews cannot behave in a disruptive way (even if such guarantees look to be unnecessary to us, most uninvolved editors will be a priori sceptical of Brews given the fact that he was "convicted"). A while ago, I made this suggestion. Brews wrote on my talk page that he was willing to accept such a solution. You can also think of some mentoring agreement in which Brews would have to notify a mentor and wait for his/her approval prior to editing a physics article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Likebox, The bottom line is that you investigate topics, just as I do. You have just investigated the issue that got Brews and myself banned. You now see exactly what we were trying to say, and you know that it wasn't original research. You think that you can now explain it all to them, but you are encountering the very same resistance and obstinacy that Brews and I encountered, yet we can't come there to help you out. The ARBCOM ban has gamed the system.
- The irony is that you are merely repeating what I did. I saw that Brews was in trouble and so on 1st August 2009, I went to investigate the matter. I came to the conclusion that Brews was correct and I thought that I could explain the issue better. I was very swiftly bumped off the page with a page ban that was later enhanced to a broad spectrum topic ban and an indefinite probation.
- Ultimately it's not going to have much to do with how you explain it to them. The bottom line is that they don't want it explained, possibly because they know it already but don't like it.
- Hence we have a situation where the likes of Timothy Rias can state that I am wrong, but where I am not allowed to answer back. And we see the total indignation from the likes of Headbomb at the idea of any relaxing of the sanctions, yet without as much as explaining himself.
- I recall your problem about Tasmania. The problem there was not the issue of right or wrong, or that you were pushing original research, or that you were pushing unsourced material. In actual fact, you were pushing sourced material that may have been correct. You weren't breaking any wikipedia rules. The problem was that you had raised a sensitive topic. Now the admins aren't going to ban you or put you on probation for having raised a sensitive topic. They will simply sanction you on the false grounds of 'disruption' or 'misbehaviour'.
- In this case, I'm glad to see that Finell has openly admitted the real reason behind all of this. It is because I hold unorthodox views which I publish off-wiki, and as such they can't stand the thought of me contributing in any way to physics articles for fear that the edits will be brushed by the wings.
- You are dealing with a web of fear. And I can see that the wolf pack is already rounding on you over at the relevant talk page. But if you wish to open up an action, I will do what I can to help. It may not be successful but it would at least open up that can of worms that Headbomb fears so much. David Tombe (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, I appreciate your consideration of this matter. I remain unrepentant as far as my efforts to engage in discussion of Wiki policies regarding Talk page behavior, which I feel is an essential element of WP if quality articles are to result. The resistance you encounter on Talk: Speed of light is similar to what I encountered and led to a ban when a vocal group decided that they not only did not want to discuss this matter, but did not want even the topic raised in an isolated thread to which they had no obligation to contribute (it's a Talk page). You are aware of the same efforts to shut you down on this subject. Talk page discussion should be open and based upon sources, not a matter of fervor and "right-mindedness".
- I fear that any attempt to rescind the ban or maybe limit it to Talk: Speed of light will encounter severe resistance, primarily because there are many that do not wish for the kind of Talk page with rules that favor legitimate discussion over ego-tripping, pontification, and quasi-religious fervor.
- That personal animosity will prevail even after my sanctions expire, and will make it impossible for me to contribute on any topic these particular editors have an interest in. They also will pursue me into adjacent topics like Free space, Permittivity of vacuum, Ohm's law and so forth to keep me at bay.
- With all that in mind, it is a weighty matter to re-engage in the arbitration dispute, which will persist for months and resurrect nasty personal attacks and distortions of history. A decision may have no real effect, regardless of the outcome. I will have to think about this a lot before attempting an appeal. Brews ohare (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Brews, your claim that there existed "vocal group" who "did not want to discuss this matter" sounds a bit hollow since you were the one who repeatedly ducked discussion of the "kilometre question". Had you debated the physics in an honest fashion (in line with Iblis's proposal) perhaps you might not now be topic banned. The truth is that you were evasive when it suited you, and that was disruptive. That's why you were banned. --Michael C. Price talk 06:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- With all that in mind, it is a weighty matter to re-engage in the arbitration dispute, which will persist for months and resurrect nasty personal attacks and distortions of history. A decision may have no real effect, regardless of the outcome. I will have to think about this a lot before attempting an appeal. Brews ohare (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Michael C. Price: We are moving on. We could revisit your interpretation of events and try to reconcile that version with mine, but reconciliation would be a long agonizing process (assuming it could happen), and would move very little towards the present objectives. Brews ohare (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ron,
I don't know what you mean by Brews not being able to respond for "political reasons". He's topic banned now, of course, but not when the SoL / Arbcom debates were raging. I asked repeatedly for him to respond my kilometre question and never got a substantive response. Other people had other issues, of a similar nature.
FWIW Brews changed his position on the nature of C during the (long) course of the SoL affair. Initially he claimed Tombe was correct, that there was something wrong with the way the speed of light was measured and defined (which is false). Later he said that the matter was merely confusing and needed explaining better (which is true). I believe that he realised during the course of the debate that Tombe was wrong, but that he couldn't bring himself to admit this. This helped to further muddy the waters and why now you're accused of misrepresenting Brews' position, whilst you think otherwise - it depends on whether you representing Early Brews or Late Brews. Most people didn't notice Brews change of position, so this causes confusion today.
Given (I think) that Brews was being evasive, I believe the ban was justified. Of course if you think he wasn't evasive then you'll believe that the ban should be lifed immediately. Since Brews is unrepentant I think he'll start the same behaviour again, but I could be wrong. An admission of error on his part would persuade me to wholeheartedly support lifting the ban. The admission is required, not because I wish to see Brews publicly flogged but because I believe that without Brews himself realising his behaviour was unnecessarily disruptive he will just repeat his behaviour. He has to show that he has learnt from the experience; so far there is no indication of this. Of course I am not an Arbcom, so my views are pretty irrelevant, but I thought it might help you (and possibly Iblis and even Brews) to see where most of the other folks are coming from.
--Michael C. Price talk 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)