User talk:Pjacobi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 on semi-break 2 Steorn 3 Joe Cell 4 3RR Report 5 Causality article 6 Image:Natascha Kampusch 1998.jpg 7 Board Election - help needed 8 Caste 9 not floral language, but flowery language 10 Grigori Perelman 11 3RR 12 Perelman, ethnicity-based thinking 13 Caste Wars 14 Image:Nataschakampusch.jpeg 15 Knowledge techniques 16 Removal of text from citations 17 Can you please add references on Reinhart Hummel? 18 Blue Energy 19 Infoboxes 20 Discussion 21 CfD 22 Comment by Avi re Grigori Perelman 23 A wider change 24 Violation of WP:BLP by you at talk:Sathya Sai Baba? 25 thanks for jumping into the discussion at Physical constants 26 KraMuc 27 Don't mess with Stuss 28 Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles 29 Pentecostal Mission 30 Hey Pjacobi Help needed!!! 31 User:Naina Kotwal 32 Inline citations 33 Einzellagen and Großlagen 34 Theories of gravitation template 35 Renormalization and weblink 36 My mistake 37 Cold fusion RfM 38 Citationgate 39 Shashi Tharoor 40 Re: Your sorting effort 41 Mediation request 42 Louis Essen 43 2LOT 44 question 45 Tag issues 46 Rietdijk-Putnam Argument 47 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 48 mainstreaming ;) 49 Herbert_Dingle 50 Please note 51 AfD raised on Quantum theory 52 Muchas gracias 53 Heim theory 54 de:Methodischer Kulturalismus 54.1 Kann der Satz raus oder haengt jemand an ihm? 55 Neo-Lorentzian? 56 The Einstein synchronisation procedure 57 Theimer 58 Anti-gravity 59 Lead of the Prem Rawat article 60 Reinhart Hummel 61 Help On Sathya Sai Baba 62 Thank you for your patience (Brown's Gas) 63 Kdbuffalo RfC 64 There must be a means of identification (Brown's Gas) 65 Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet 66 Accusation not Substative 67 I Deserve and Explanation 68 Wikistats 69 more recent papers on GRT's Twin paradox solution 70 Note to self 71 new "KraMuc" 72 New Thermo Template 73 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 74 your recent reversion of TOE article 75 Note to self 76 Michel Janssen vs. Harvey Brown 77 Excellent overview paper of Dingle and Twin paradox 78 Thermodynamic equations 79 Robert Priddy Home Page 80 en vs. de 81 Please Stop Violating The ArbCom Ruling 82 Retrocausality 83 Category:Cycle nominated for deletion 84 Retaliatory Vandalism 85 Robert Priddy 86 WPW newsletter 87 Survey Invitation 88 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2 89 South Tyrol move request 90 WP:NPOV 91 Causal dynamical triangulation no problem 92 WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007 93 Could you take a look at Geometrized unit system? 94 Another note to self 95 Lorentzian Relativity 96 Dowsing 97 Reddi 98 Hello 99 response 100 Another response 101 History of Sri Lanka 102 Tulu Language 103 re: Oh, oh 104 Rexresearch 105 Paranormal project 106 oh yes there is 107 you know 108 From the talk page 109 Reddi on Megalith 110 Translations... 111 Apologies for the vandalism 112 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology 113 Even more notes to self 114 List of referred cults discussion 115 WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007 116 Re:Job offer 117 Re: Links to negations.net 118 Majorana, Carlebach 119 Mail 120 Note to self (3) 121 Prem Rawat at Unipaz 122 Church of Northern India (Darjeeling Diocese) 123 Reddi behavior 124 Removed image 125 German Einstein translation needed 126 Michael Brown FAC 127 The Bus Uncle featured article review 128 Christian Bartolf 129 Totallydisputed tag on Brown's gas 130 Clarification on: “you are effectively destroying the readability of Wikipedia” 131 Deletion review 132 Reason for WP:NOP 133 A thank you note 134 Sources 135 Note 136 de:Scientology 137 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal 138 hello 139 WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007 140 Sperrung von Sylvia Dackelmann 141 Anti-gravity 142 TfD nomination of Template:Sustainability and Energy Development 143 Hello 144 Replied 145 your comments on electogravity 146 And another note to self 147 Thomas E. Bearden 148 WaterDriven 149 Re: #wikimedia-admin 150 Talk:No. 1 (yacht) 151 please, mediate Magnetic monopole discussion 152 Supavadee Phangkaew 153 Other notes to self 154 WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008

[edit] on semi-break

Until further notice on perpetual semi-break. --Pjacobi 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steorn

Re: reference to Pons/Fleischmann "being pilloried" on Steorn, I added that because it shows Steorn took a huge risk - they have gambled their career and the prospects of their business. They wouldn't take that kind of risk unless they were sure about it. Which goes on to show why these conspiracy theories don't make sense. Didn't make the reference to say that it's a similar claim (I was going to edit "similar claim" to "claim")--Orangehues 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a very bad comparison for multiple reasons. Do I need to elaborate? --Pjacobi 22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please.--Orangehues 22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Cell

I noticed you immediately marked this article for deletion not long I created it. I've written a comment on the deletion page indicating why I think it should stay.

In case you are concerned, I am writing to let you know I have no connection to this device or the people involved. I am not a supporter of the device and am a sceptic.

My intention was to document the claims made about the device. If you look around on the web, rightly or wrongly it has started to gain some attention in recent years. I don't feel the best way to deal with dubious scientific claims is to erase them from history as they will ony resurface somewhere else.

I don't have the specific physics knowledge to be able to debunk this device with authority but I am sure others do and I am sure they will write their concerns in the article over time.

--User:kesfan 21:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Will answer later, logging off now. Please don't feel offended. Perhaps I was partly mistaken. --Pjacobi 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

--User:kesfan 22:06, 17 Septmber 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just writing to acknowledge your comments on my talk page. I take that onboard. I guess I've just lost interest in this a bit recently. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

[edit] 3RR Report

I realize that you are in the process of reporting someone, but could you please use the standard format listed at the bottom of the page? It really helps us a lot in reviewing the report and deciding what and if to block. Thanks so much! alphaChimp ^laudare 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The facts are clear as I'm the violator myself, so giving the diffs would only be tedious. It's a question of interpreting WP:BLP. --Pjacobi 18:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causality article

Why did you delete the whole 'See also' section? I was just reverting some vandalism, and I noticed your edit there removing the whole lot - a lot of those were quite relevant (e.g. causality loop, if you don't want to sort through them all I'd suggest just leaving it as it is, otherwise it makes a lot of work for people to get it back again. Richard001 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is not mentioned (and by that occasion linked in the text), it's more often than not peripheral to the topic. I very much disagree with using "see also" to set up large topic maps, which often detoriate into a little "random article list". In an ideal Wikipedia, the "see also" would be holding place only for those links which are highly relevant, but you feel unable to integrate them into the prose or make them accessable by category or navigation bar. --Pjacobi 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Natascha Kampusch 1998.jpg

You marked this image with the following three templates:

1. {{no license}}
2. {{PUIdisputed}}
3. {{PUInonfree}}

All three are incorrect.

1. The image does have information on its copyright status, specifically it clearly says "This work is copyrighted and unlicensed ... released by Austrian police".
2. and
3. This file has not been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, so I can't discuss it there.

The image is listed with a good fair use claim. It is the iconic image specifically released by the police in relationship to the kidnapping, specifically intended to be reprinted in the media. We're the media.

If you have issues with this image, you can actually list it on that page linked to above, and I'll be glad to discuss there. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't edit long pages like Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images for some hours (and others only painfully). I'll put the relevant details on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images as soon as possible. Yes, I've already noticed, that none of the boilerplate messages does fit will. --Pjacobi 13:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Board Election - help needed

I'm in the Board Elections as a candidate; I'm having some trouble getting a German version translated of my basic statement, to go on meta:Election candidates 2006/De. Volunteers are supposed to do this, but they seem to be tired ... and there is 48 hours to voting. So, I am going to ask some German speakers here. Charles Matthews 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd volunteer as last resort only. I donÄt have much time right now, an awful connection, and a terrible style in doing translations. These issues aside I'd glad to support you. --Pjacobi 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved by delegation. Thanks to de:User:333 and de:User:Hob Gadling. --Pjacobi 19:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply. I wasn't going to ask several people at once. Charles Matthews 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caste

I noticed your arguments against Dalitstan. Its not so obscure, infact the Indian government banned it, clearly showing its notoriety. The content matter is questionable, but the site can be used as a source for an example of anti-Hindu propaganda.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, as an example. But IMHO not representative for all Dalits. --Pjacobi 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not floral language, but flowery language

Andries 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grigori Perelman

Please do not violate WP:NOR. If there is a good source that says that someone is Jewish, that is all we need under Wikipedia policy. There is no requirement for someone to be a practising Jew.--Runcorn 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The source doesn't say, that he is Jewish. It only says that his family is Jewish. Also, newspapers aren't good sources anyway. Waint until someone writes a biography. --Pjacobi 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course newspapers are valid sources. Are we not allowed to have an article about anyone until there is a biography? But I'll add another reference if you insist. Now please stop reverting.--Runcorn 20:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A source stating, that he Perelman considers himself to a Jew? That would settle the issue. Sources of the same "quality" as your first source would not. --Pjacobi 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read Who is a Jew?. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read it carefully. It explains who can be considered a Jew for purposes of Rabbinic religion. I can also read the Nuremburg laws on the issue who was considered a Jew by NS Germany. Neither establishes an ethnicity label in modern scholarly use of ethnicity. --Pjacobi 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Two sources both stating unequivocally that he is Jewish.--Runcorn 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't revert anymore. But the sources only establish that they consider him to be Jew. --Pjacobi 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The sources say in so many words that he is Jewish. We go by what the sources say. Anything else violates WP:NOR. There is no requirement that someone must be a practising or self-identifying Jew to be described as Jewish. WP:AGF, I accept that you didn't realise that, but now you do. I do hope that this is an end of the matter.--Runcorn 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: We should remember that we are categorizing Perelman and not his family. Self-identification is, indeed, relevant to ethnicity. If Perelman says 'I am Jewish' then theres absolutely no problem or discussion even if he doesn't practice. The debate also isn't if someone is Jewish through the matrilineal line. 72.144.68.140 21:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course someone must consider himself Jewish at least in one of the meanings (religion or ethnicity) to be counted as Jew. I'm seriously disturbed that one can think otherwise. I thought that school of thinking was defeated 1945. --Pjacobi

When the life-long Lutheran Georg Cantor who never identified as a Jew is categorized as a "German Jew" you know this school of thing wasn't defeated. 72.144.68.140 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, you are in violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, neither more nor less. There are plenty of reliable sources that say that Cantor was Jewish.--Runcorn 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah? Including self-identification? I don't think so. --Pjacobi 21:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Re: Grigori Perelman. You have just crossed the 3RR line. Please do not do it again. You are alone in your arguments (not counting a novice editor and his sock puppets). Think about that first, please, before your next reversion. Rklawton 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've checked myself after the edit. I'm prepared to get my 24h block, no bad feelings about it.

But you are still wrong. Unfortunately the on en.wikipedia a lot of editors is firmly entrenched in ethnicity-centric thinking (what has to be called racism in severe cases), that I fear we can't get it right here. Fortunately, real enclopideas, like the Britannica, are with me and de: in this struggle.

Pjacobi 16:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perelman, ethnicity-based thinking

Pjacobi - thank you for your edits to the Perelman article. I happen to agree with your perspective, and with your comments above on bona-fide encyclopaedias. It is a relief to find somebody to talk to around here. Bellbird 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have just started a discussion topic in the village pump, under "tagging living people as Jews". Care to join it? Bellbird 10:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pjacobi:

it seems the compromise you are suggesting is not being accepted. At any rate - isn't _defining_ him (in the first sentence of his biography!) as "from a Jewish family" the same as tagging him as a Jew? Aren't we, furthermore, imposing a tag on his family members, and determining that Jewishness is something passed by the blood? Bellbird 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also - for what this is worth, I have no sockpuppets. Bellbird 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally - it seems apparent that some of the chaps on the other side are using sockpuppets. (Many of the recent edits are from very new editors (newer than myself!) without even user pages.) Do you know how to verify this? I would not like to make charges willy-nilly. Bellbird 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caste Wars

Hi, thanks for the message. Did you have specific articles in mind? Paul B 12:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nataschakampusch.jpeg

What is wrong with this image? Why to delete it? Is'nt it a fair use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JollyTheRoger (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no fair use in Austria. Do you want to be sued when traveling to Austria?
2. And it even doesn't meet the requirement for screenshots, as it isn't used to illustrate an article discussing this specific interview and the ORF

Pjacobi 19:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Would it save the image if I move it back to the bottom of the article, where it does discuss this speciefic interview? JollyTheRoger 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not from my delete button. But I won't start a delete-undelete-war if a license knowledgeable admin undelete this the image. For this reason I'd suggest bringing the issue to WP:DRV. --Pjacobi

[edit] Knowledge techniques

From Encyclopedic Handbook of cults in America, by J. Gordon Melton. Page 143 and 144.

"These four techniques reveal the means of experiencing the divine light, sound, word, and nectar. To experience the divine light, one places the knuckles on the eyeballs, a process which produces flashes of light inside the head. To discover the divine sound or music of the spheres, one plugs the ears with the fingers and concentrates only on internal sounds. The third technique involves concentration upon the sound of one's own breathing. Finally, to taste nectar, the tonge is curled backward and left there for a period of time. Once learned, these techniques are practiced daily."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksorg (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 19:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBN 0815311400 --Pjacobi 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See here for an more elaborate description with characterizations and comparisons.

User:Andries/Techniques_of_Knowledge#The_Techniques_according_to_Dr._Reender_Kranenborg_translated Andries 10:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of text from citations

See Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Two_problems_with_using_non-English_sources_that_I_do_not_know_how_to_solve and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Removal_of_text_from_citations. Andries 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you please add references on Reinhart Hummel?

User:Andries/Reinhart_Hummel#English Please also check for translation, grammar, and spelling mistakes. Does the German "bis 1994" mean "until 1993" in English? Andries 20:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Energy

Good point: See : Talk:Blue energy, the point is also that the systems are not exactly the same in the DE and the EN version. Lets have a discussion on the talkpage reg. Mion 07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

Glad to see that you have made a start removing those silly infoboxes. :-) While you are at it: Bunzil has not only inserted those infoboxes, but I found out that there are also several instances where he copied text verbatim from Nobelprize.org or other places; clearly a case of copyright violation. If you have a chance you may want to check that out as well. JdH 19:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember which articles? --Pjacobi 19:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

David Gross (someone else reverted that in the mean time)
Gustaf Dalén
Heinrich Burkhardt
Charles Glover Barkla (reverted by me to pre-copyvio version)
Johannes Diderik van der Waals (reverted by me as well)
Pieter Zeeman (also reverted by me)
There could very well be more instances; I did not do an exhaustive search. JdH 21:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, my bad. It is true there are some pieces of prose as you say. It was a good faith intention that they were merely "place holders" waiting to be rewritten. It was not the intention leave copy hanging around, however I got distracted by more pressing duties. Go ahead and delete such prose if you wish. Perhaps a good solution is if you guys could help re-write those parts, then we could all get it done quicker? Best regards, bunix 11:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like you to understand that there are no alternatives for the hard work required to write a good article or biography. It requires that you immerse yourself in the subject, read articles about it, and write it from scratch. The are no quick and dirty solutions, such as infoboxes or copy/paste or placeholders or whatever you call it. In fact, it only distracts, as it requires us to go back, correct the misinformation you put in, and take out to copyvio's. For that reason alone I firmly believe it is best to delete that silly Infobox_Scientist template, as it is entirely counterproductive. The best contribution you can make for now is to take out those infoboxes you have improperly inserted, and focus on writing good articles instead. JdH 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that infoboxes can be abused, just like people abuse articles by importing whole foreign articles into the Wikipedia, but that has little to do with the utility of infoboxes. Work with bunix to gently correct his over-zealeous tendancies. I like well-done info boxes because they allow me to focus directly on the piece of information that I am seeking. But other times, I too find them a distraction, particularly when I am more interested more in context than in a particular fact. Nonetheless, I believe that text and info boxes can legitimately co-exist. Bejnar 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, Pjacobi. There is a reasonable request for you to desist from deletion until the TfD is complete. I admit that I would not have noticed the TfD if you hadn't deleted the infobox. However, I would have noticed the change a whole lot sooner (i.e. without historical digging) if you had simply placed a message on the talk page indicating that you believed that the infobox served no useful purpose. Bejnar 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Hi Pjacobi, I have responded to your comment at: [4].Also, we have started a discussion at [5] and would like to politely negotiate with you. Please can you also enter a reponse there. Best regards, bunix 11:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CfD

Hi Pjacobi -

I will probably put several categories under "Categories for Deletion" quite soon - today or tomorrow. Your opinions will be appreciated. Also - there's the general discussion going on in the Village pump. Bellbird 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, but it won't work here. --Pjacobi 14:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What won't work? Also, do you know of some other people here who share our position (broadly understood)? Bellbird 14:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I consider Wikipedia -- and especially en.wikipedia -- to be beyond hope. Except -- thanks to the GFDL -- for using it as a quarry for a more focused project. It's just too fat. Too many silly categories, lists, infoboxes, navbars, "X in fiction" sections, references allegedly sourcing an article by pointing to newspaper articles or worse.

More specifically, list and category building by ethnicity or religion on en.wikipedia is out of control. For now, we were able to prevent this on de:, but it seems unlikely to be able to rollback here. For example, see this CfD.

At Talk:Who is a Jew?#Who is a Jew for purposes of Wikipedia_articles, senior editor, ArbCom member, etc, User:Jayjg expressed some sympathy [6] for the German solution, but I don't think he'll be eager to actively advocate it.

--Pjacobi 15:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well - would you mind at least stating your opinion in the CfD page? I believe there is more support for what seems to be our position than you may think. Also - Wikipedia is becoming one of the main sources (alas!) that individuals have for information in the English-speaking world; this sort of issue is of importance. Bellbird 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Avi re Grigori Perelman

Your “position” happens to go against wiki's policy of verfiability and reliability. Information may not be removed because you just don't like it. That goes against WP:NPOV. -- Avi 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. For example every major article about a sciencitific subjects unfortunately attracts an "X in popular culture.." subject, naming every occurence of the topic in TV series and a every garage punk pank which had the glorious idea to use the name. Whether or not this can be sources, it can be removed because it is off topic. --Pjacobi 15:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

But one's background is important, otherwise we should remove all bithplace and birthdate references as well. -- Avi 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to the purer stance of User:Bellbird, I'll tolerate a "Jewish family" in the "Early life and education" chapter. But not the category without any evidence of self-identification. --Pjacobi 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • I would rather have a smaller set of useful, verifiable (and verified), clean articles than a large set of borderline trash.

Oh, yes. Do you see any chance of making this policy ;-)

Pjacobi 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That is what I work for, but verified ethnicity passes my test -- Avi 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two rather different arguments against that:

• Should religion or ethnicity be mentioned in bigraphies of persons with no notability linked to their religion or ethnicity?
• Ethnicity includes self identification. Without sources for self identification, you may assume descent, but not ethnicity. In the special case of Who is a Jew?, things get rather complicated by the divergent notions of Jewishness. See Talk:Who is a Jew?#Who is a Jew for purposes of Wikipedia_articles

Pjacobi 16:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A wider change

Pjacobi -

what do you suppose we shall do? I don't have many edits to my name (and they are all on this subject!) - thus it is doubtful that I can get anywhere alone. See my proposal on SlimVirgin's page. Bellbird 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to invest the time needed, if oneself assume failure nearly certain.

I'd suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories (seems semi-dead as a project) or Wikipedia talk:Categorization. If a minimal crowd can be gathered, a well written proposal should be drafted. The use the mailing list an Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to get more eyeballs. If at this point there still seems to be chances to succeed, add standard voting sections and transclude the proposal at TfD.

Pjacobi 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally: I cannot agree with your proposal to let "of a Jewish family" stand. Of course one's immediate family is a basic formative force. If we are speaking of, say, Akiva Rubinstein, and we are writing an extended biography of him, it makes sense that we mention that he was brought up in an intensely religious household, and that he broke with his father over his obsession with chess (over religious texts...). However, as a tag, "of a Jewish family" is simply a euphemism and a statement about bloodlines. As a sociological category, in and of itself, it is worthless. What does a "Jewish family" (if that is what it is) in Russia in 2006 have in common with an Orthodox family in Manhattan in 1920, a Communist family in one place or the other in the 1930s, a Reform Jewish family in Ontario in 1980, a Polish Catholic family in 1970 - one of whose founders, say, happened to be "born Jewish" - or a Sephardic family in Israel in 1960? They share neither experiences, nor creed, nor language.

Shall we discuss the matter? I have seen that the habit of using such a phrase has been carried over to the German wikipedia. Perhaps a stricter policy has some chance of passing there? See the comment I recently left in SlimVirgin's talk page. Bellbird 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a pragmatic decision of mine, shaped by what can be expected to gather consensus. --Pjacobi 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of WP:BLP by you at talk:Sathya Sai Baba?

I asked whether your behavior at talk:Sathya Sai Baba is a violation of WP:BLP See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 17:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for jumping into the discussion at Physical constants

i hope you stick around and help. we need it. r b-j 04:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KraMuc

IMO there is little doubt that 84.153.105.61 (and 84.154.94.153?) is used by KraMuc, and also User_talk:PaolaDiApulia appears to be a sockpuppet (but it may be wise to let that last line of communication "open" for a little while). Who should I ask to take action? Harald88 19:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO this can only be solved by more people watching the affected articles. Blocking a large variety of dialup IPs won't be done or will have too many collateral damage.

If the intensity of his actions becoms unbearable, I'll try to call together some admins for monitoring, but for now I'll message only the german and english physics projects and direct to discussion to the CH's KraMuc page if he agrees.

Pjacobi 09:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for jumping in here out of the blue, but I have a personal interest, in that my name was mentioned by KraMuc in this diff. It's unfortunate and beyond my control that my name^[1] was mentioned, both in that diff and in a comment on this talk page which Harald88 graciously removed. However, both of you are complicit to some degree in this hideous piece of original research. This never was any such discipline as MGR, and both of you knew that it was just a code name for the deleted Anti-relativity, which was also, apparently, mostly original research by KraMuc. Until you are willing to propose and campaign for deletion of MGR, your pleas to take action against the antics of KraMuc could quite understandably be seen to ring hollow. Tim Shuba 03:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

@Tim: Strange things like modern galilean gravity exists, it got even its sort of journal Galilean relativity. Whether it's notable enough for Wikipedia is disputable. That it is totally out of contact with modern science is nearly indisputable (they've managed to get some papers accepted at arXiv, but that's not such a task). --Pjacobi 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnote

1. ^ Tim Shuba had published in the Internet an article entitled "Harry and the Natural Philosophy Alliance", in which he released that Harald88 contributes to NPA pages under the name Harrylinch. Shuba called the contributions of the latter author "demagogical", probably a misjudgement. The general tenor of Shuba's remarkable essay was roughly that all members of NPA and all persons having similar interests are "cranks", with one single exception of course: Tim Shuba.

I have reported the suspected socks at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/KraMuc (2nd). Unfortunately, despite diligently following the instructions (or so I believe), my evidence page was apparently too complex and the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets has become slightly munged (the sections after the KraMuc case are indented one level too deep and I was unable to fix this). ---CH 04:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll block on sight in the future, but it is hard to detect where he starts new fronts. --Pjacobi 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you get my email? I suggest that you and Crum copy User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc to your own user pages, or somewhere in Wikipedia namespace, and edit that. Right now I think several possibly out-of-synch pages are preferable to one easily corrupted page. Therefore, I prefer to be the only user legitimately editing my dig usersubpages.---CH 02:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's one you may want to consider for your block on sight: Graf Grauenstein (talk · contribs) (after a TV actor?). Same thoughtprint, in fact first edit of this user is to comment on my comment on KraMuc's vandalization of User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc, so I think it's pretty clear.---CH 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Pjacobi 08:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Thanks!
2. Did you get any of my emails?
3. Can you take a look at my 2nd case against KraMuc at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets? I did a heck of a lot of work and it seem to have been closed with a very odd comment almost immediately. Either I don't understand the purpose of that page, or else that user (not even an admin?) did something incorrect. Also, can you help me persaude them that they need to clean up their directions? In the case of a second nomination they are very confusing, although I almost figured it out by trial error. Also important: the directions should state that the evidence page should have such and such a format, because I didn't know that trying to construct a complicated case would confuse the templates. ---CH 01:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

ad 2: Two emails, answered both.

ad 3: Username block was done [7], the IPs will not be blocked (only for hours when reported right in the moment of vandalizing) as they are Deutsche Telekom dynamic IPs and will be switched often. If you mean the only one IP address had not made any contributions comment: it states that usefull contributions were done using these IPs in the past.

Pjacobi 06:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

1. Turns out that the email problem was at my end and I am getting it fixed. I didn't lose any email, fortunately, so we are still in email contact, hurrah!
2. Have all the recently active registered users listed at User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc been banned as socks for a permabanned user? I think the evidence is fully as clear as comparable cases I have seen. I recognize the difficulty of banning IPs and I wasn't suggesting that. I do think that recent instances of KraMuc as an IP anon should be promptly blocked for a few days or whatever. He seems to be such a pest that devising a special template a la bogdablock might be useful.
3. Sorry, I still don't understand the comment in KraMuc (2nd). The problem appears to be that the Sockpuppet page desperately needs to more clearly describe the true procedure/policy/purpose of that page, e.g. clearly answering the question: where does one report a suspected sock of a permabanned user? I did a lot of work there and got a very garbled response, e.g. the commentator didn't clarify what IPs he was talking about, didn't look at the registered users, etc., didn't explain what he meant by "useful work". I see a huge disparity between the work I did and the apparent lack of work he did, and I am still not clear if he acted improperly in closing the case so quickly.
4. I just left a relevant message in User talk:SCZenz. ---CH 20:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm logging off in a few minutes and will be offline one or two days.

The Sockpuppet page is a rather new invention and doesn't work that smoothly. Only post simple, short reports. Or post at AN/I, the Physics project page, an admin talk page you know.

--Pjacobi 21:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi KraMuc,

Always nice to hear from you and sorry for the capitalization error in your nick. The funny (sort of) thing is, that I think you would be able to contribute constructively and help rather than disturb Wikipedia, if you just stop to the missionary attitude. --Pjacobi 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

KraMuc has vandalized User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc. I didn't log in for several days so only just noticed and reverted this. Please help me watch and revert any non-User:Hillman edits to my Dig pages promptly. ---CH 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pjacobi,

It is neither my intention to disturb Wikipedia nor do I have an exaggerated missionary attitude, I believe. It is simply that my stomach hurts if I read somewhere that classical physics does not predict the transverse Doppler effect. Some years ago I tried to publish a short letter on the subject in AJP. The reviewer answered that I was right, but that this fact is "already well known". His proof: a photocopy of the corresponding page of the section on acoustics from the book Theoretical Physics by G. Joos. The nonsensible assertion you find in almost any textbook on SRT (the most radical version of the nonsensible statement may be found in Robert Resnick's book on special relativity). It is something similar as asserting that the Sun does not have the shape of a sphere but rather of s cube.

--84.154.113.237 19:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re the transversal Doppler effect in classical physics: I'll look things up, but it may take some time.

Re the other two paragraphs you wrote: I've taken the liberty to remove them, as (a) every edit from a blocked user may be removed and (b) everybody can "re-factor" his user talk page anyway (short of mis-representing other user's postings). The very curious only need to have a look into the version history to read them anyway. But I'm just not inclined to discuss such matters.

07:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not very much inclined to discuss such matters either, but perhaps you could persuede Hillman to stop his irresponsible nonsense. --84.154.104.165 09:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't mess with Stuss

Since I have been banned from editing on de:Main_page for deleting nonsense, would you be so kind and check de:Kroaten from time to time? It appears that several people or sock puppets insist on the legend of the Aryan Croats from Persia. Fossa 19:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Henriette has unblocked you:

• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=Benutzer%3AFossa

Pjacobi 09:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [8]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [9] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pentecostal Mission

Thanks for getting involved, I noticed it turning into a personal website advertising a church but wasn't quite sure what I could do about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jason237 (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

Hey Jacob I have done this page from the scratch. I would like you to have a look at it and then may be you could do the necessary. Rencin Matthew.rencin24 14:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Here's the link to that page.[[10]]

[edit] Hey Pjacobi Help needed!!!

Hey this is Rencin. I worked in doing the page from the scratch. Now some unknown users are messing up the site please do something. I have just given them a warning. Will love to see you help in this page. have a look at this page.

[edit] User:Naina Kotwal

Can you please also revert all the edits that she has made [11]. She has left an abusive message in all the talk pages. It would be easier for you as you have the revert button. Tintin (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some has edited (substed the template) after her, so it's not easy reverting. OTOH it seems, that all the accounts she left messages at, have zero edits. Perhaps someone is just stockpiling accounts? Also, what's the translation of her message? --Pjacobi 12:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My Hindi is very weak, so I don't know meaning of the whole thing. But I can identify mention of a certain part of human body in the second line, which is a common term of abuse. Tintin (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inline citations

Hi, I had a look at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates, Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. There seems to be little discussion on mandating inline citations, and it seems to have been rushed before checking against consensus. --Kjoonlee 11:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Einzellagen and Großlagen

Hello Großmeister Jacobi, as I told Agne it would be very usfull to have the german article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einzellage here. Without that knowledge the anlosaxons won't get ahead understanding German and Austrian wine classifications. Weil mein Englisch aber nicht hinreicht, eine wirklich saubere Übersetzung des Lemmas hinzukriegen wäre ich dir sehr verbunden, wenn du oder ein anderer Deutsch5-Enlisch5 native oder beinahe native speaker das stubben könnte. I like Burke's Peerage 07:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theories of gravitation template

Why do you want to delete it? It was created by Mpatel and at a glance looks useful. ---CH 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Because these templates grow as mad. It now includes Heim theory and whatsnot. Also the idea of hypertext is to link in the text. I don't like the and here are another 50 articles style, but that's of course a matter of personal preference. --Pjacobi 15:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you ask Mpatel if he knows that someone has added Heim theory to the template? I am sure he knows "Heim theory" [sic] is thoroughly loopy, so most likely it was added by some crank. ---CH 02:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renormalization and weblink

Hi, I don't know if you watched but I responded to your question about Chris Oakley, here. He has complained that my eventual actions in removing the link were unfair.--Jpod2 10:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The debate has rumbled on. I'm not sure what more I can say, there.--Jpod2 10:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My mistake

I was going somewhere else with that thought originally (and then realised I was about to miss the bus). Guettarda 14:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cold fusion RfM

Does the phrasing of the questions in the Cold fusion RfM sound, well, horribly slanted to you? Anville 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not more than I expected. Not even suppression or censoring mentioned. --Pjacobi 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Anville 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citationgate

I was vaguely aware of it, but I didn't pay enough attention... If I had paid more attention then, I would have been less surprised now, so it's my own fault ;)

What I find ridiculous about all this is that GAs came up because there were good articles that were short of FA status because, for example, they lacked adequate references. Now GAs seem to have all the problems of the FAC process, without the redeeming factors (like a process for removal that doesn't make it trivial to remove them, and perhaps more importantly, a benign dictator overseeing the process. Guettarda 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wise words; I second the comment about the Benevolent Dictator. In digging up stuff for the "Pseudoscience vs. Pseudoskepticism" RfArb, I discovered that I'd been making comments about citations in science articles last December, but I never imagined this much bandwidth would be wasted on the issue. Anville 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert space (zero in-line cites) and Order theory (two in-line cites) have been nominated for GA, see Wikipedia:Good article candidates#Mathematics and Physical Sciences (Astronomy, Theory). Watch the news... --Pjacobi 16:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't resist ruining the experiment. Hilbert space now has five footnotes — all I did was stick the information already there into <ref> tags and {{cite}} templates. Makes it read a little more smoothly, even. But it's still nowhere near what the most frantic "citation adders" would like to see. Anville 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't set it up as experiment, but wasn't motivated to do conversions to in-line cites myself. But now it is an even better experiment: You inserted in-line cites where they make sense. Will more be requested? --Pjacobi 16:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But two of them are in German and none of them are online - based on some of the comments you come across, that's like -2 citations - after all, it isn't like anyone would go the the library, or worse yet, be able to understand such an obscure language ;) Guettarda 17:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, look at all the references to the Bogdanov Affair which are in some ancient, dead language. . . . Anville 18:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shashi Tharoor

Pjacobi, can you kindly look at this issue and comment on it? On the Shashi Tharoor article, there is a discussion on Talk:Shashi Tharoor, it appears that some editors think that an online email bulletin from a rationalist site is a reputable source that can be cited on the Tharooor article. See the bulletin here and the page where the bulletin is described as nothing more than an email bulletin sent to subscribers of the site. There is also some contention on whether or not an interview that has not been published by secondary sources or by reputable media can be cited. Tharoor's site links to the article in question [12], but the article itself has never been officially published. It is purely an internet source published on belief.net. See about Belief.net. Your feeback would be appreciated. Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of Sanal Edamaruku may be notable, irrespective of how it is published. The other issue looks more difficult. --Pjacobi 07:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your sorting effort

(Re: your comments on my talk page.) Thanks for your comments. Yes, a bot should pick up the pages I've tagged and add them to the stats. Most won't be categorized according to their class or importance until someone updates the templates, though. (I'm just focusing on tagging the physics articles atm.) Thanks for the heads-up about the stub bug. I'm tagging using a plugin that automatically tags stub articles - this seems to be a bug in that process, which I've now reported. If the articles cover most of what they're supposed to, then I'd classify them as B-class, with the aim of getting them up to Good Article status at some point. Mike Peel 22:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's turned out that the bug isn't a bug, but me thinking that the feature did something more intelligently than it does. I've now gone through the affected articles, and have re-tagged them as start-class (or in the case of the nobel prize, B-class). Again, thanks for the heads-up. Mike Peel 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

Pjacobi, your mediation help on the Talk:Second law of thermodynamics was helpful, e.g. where you said:

Please don't use Wikipedia talk pages as physics discussion forum. They should be used to co-ordinate the enhancement of the article, which by WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS can only done using reliable, published sources. Not your own research --Pjacobi 19:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you do the same for this problem: Talk page problems regarding original research and the entropy page. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 14:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't care much about rough language, as long as it is not directed agains editors. But the content issue is quite clear, the private theory of Frank Lambert has to go -- withing the main articles and as a separate article. --Pjacobi 14:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Frank Lambert needs a Wikipedia article, Herr Löschtroll? Byrgenwulf 15:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on his achievements before becoming Emeritus. Of which the article is silent. Also Occidental College doesn't look like a hotbed of research in thermodynamics. On de:, for avoiding tedious notability disputes, all professors are considered welcome, but Occidental College doesn't look comparable to a Hochschule. --Pjacobi 15:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Essen

Hi, Peter, I don't want to deal with this myself, but can you take a look at the talk page? A KraMuc anonsock has violated WP:NPA-WP:CIV-WP:HAR wrt myself (e.g.: harrassment: he called for my being blocked). I am beginning to think the admin community has little interest in trying to enforce policies like these, since KraMuc is allowed to carry on freely, just as an anon (I notice he longer signs his pseudonym, but it is quite clear who this anon is). I have had no luck posting at WP:AN/I regarding similar incidents in the past. ---CH 20:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert KraMuc socks on sight. I do, too. Blocking the IPs is typically not worth the effort. Ask at WikiProject Physics for help in reverting (you've done this already). You may call me crazy or naive or both, but I still see a remote possibility to come to an understanding with KraMuc, but this has to be discussed off Wikipedia.

Pjacobi 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2LOT

I should have commented, sorry -- I left a comment answering your concerns. •Jim62sch• 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question

Might I ask why you didnt notify me (the creator) of Category:Massacres when you put it up for CFD? I'm going to assume good faith that you forgot.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This category was already CfD'ed and deleted in 2005 [13]. As such, your re-creation of the category was rather questionable. But assuming good faith, perhaps you didn't know. --Pjacobi 19:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually never looked at the deletion log. I thought it was a good category for a page I created for the Marad Massacre which really inflamed religious tensions in the homeland. Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag issues

I assumed that since I the tag saved on the edit that I had the rights to use it. Whatever the case, being that the entropy page has been reverted close to a dozen times, by multiple seasoned editors, someone should have put a lock on the page long ago so that we could discuss issue properly on the talk page. There are so many issues that are awry here, e.g. self-promotion, intelligent-design issues, divine intervention comments and edits, using multiple reference links to the same website over using standard article or textbook references, using months and 100s of kilobytes of talk page space to debate someone’s pet theory, using talk page space to argue that laws of science are false, etc., that this whole situation is making a mockery the Wikipedia science section. --Sadi Carnot 11:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You should familiarize yourself with the workings of Wikipedia. You can request locking an article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. All the administrative notice boards shouldn't be used for content issues. Have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For expert attention, you can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. --Pjacobi 11:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rietdijk-Putnam Argument

Peter, I have no experience with putting articles up for RfD nor time to do so; but if you put it up for RfD I'll support that as indicated. Harald88 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you didn't add yourself before I didn't know. There were 23 statements/comments and I sure as heck didn't read them all! No problem listing yourself, cheers. Thatcher131 11:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A strange case. As User:Iantresman in some sense wants a general precedence ruling more rights for alternative views, a lot of editors are involved, essentially everybody who judges a theory's merit by academic acceptance. --Pjacobi 12:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of requests of the type, "My righteous views are being suppressed" and people should really read the old cases first so they can see how other such cases have gone in the past. :-\ Thatcher131 12:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh???? "YMMMV". I've no clue what that means. •Jim62sch• 22:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Typo. YMMV. --Pjacobi 22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Thanks for the link too...never heard that used that way...I must lead a sheltered life.  ;)

[edit] mainstreaming ;)

Hi - thanks for the comment and pointer to the RfAr case, very nice. I may not be able to be very involved due to lack of time but I'll see what I can do. Yes, I would like to think we can work together on cold fusion. My plan there will be not to revert, but rather to constructively rewrite one section at a time based on my old outline User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion redux. Let's continue on the CF page.

Your proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop seems ok, but only because of this exception: "ceding that also ideas and theories ignored or thought to be false by mainstream science, are valid subjects for Wikipedia, within their own articles only". Yes, that is rather the point, isn't it? I wouldn't ask for anything more, nor is anything more required. But when people start rewriting articles about non-mainstream theories so as to completely not represent the non-mainstream view, there is a problem, wouldn't you say?

I would only add that what is and isn't mainstream is not as clear-cut, most of the time. If several nobel-prize winner physicists support CF, is it still non-mainstream? Granted, if you did a poll of physicists (or scientists in general), a significant majority would probably say there is no such thing as CF (but no such poll exists). If you did a poll of just those who have tried a practical CF experiment, the results may be different... probably 50-70% in favor, I'd guess (but no such poll exists either). Papers do seem to have some dificulty being published, but they do get published in very reputable publications (Naturwiss. most recently), albeit at low volume. So... what does it all mean? I think the best plan for Wikipedia is simply to report fairly, and not worry so much about what is and isn't mainstream. ObsidianOrder 21:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

what is and isn't mainstream, to address this difficulty, I try to promote the contemporary textbook and university curricula test. Everything that passes this, should be bona fide citizen of the scientific mainstream.

On the exception: That's a tough point. As inviting the non-mainstream always also attracts the very crackpottish of the non-mainstream continuum. And pure sympathetic POV treatment isn't an option, we don't want the Jehova's Witnesses article written only by JW and the Hydrino theory article only by adherents either. But OTOH we don't want the anti-cult-activists take over the Jehova's Witnesses article and we won't offer the Hydrino theory to some grumpy jobless physics PhD to do OR how to best bash the theory. (That said, Hydrino theory IMHO is rather on the crackpottish end, and it even tries to find gullible investors, so sometimes I'm tempted to be grumpy myself.)

In the specific point of CF experiments: Perhaps we can concentrate on those experiments which got criticisms published by mainstreamers, leaving aside those ignored completely?

Pjacobi 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"contemporary textbook and university curricula test" - granted, anything that passes that can be explicitly desribed as mainstream in Wikipedia (with a cite or two, preferably).

"pure sympathetic POV treatment isn't an option" - nobody's asking for that (well, you seem to be asking for that for mainstream stuff, but... ;) I don't think any article should have a sympathetic POV, because I don't think they should have any POV period. some POV is inherent in the selection of material and the relative space and prominence they get, and I would err on the side of inclusion, but certainly non-mainstream stuff only gets a brief mention in articles which are not specifically about it. however, in articles which are about it, it should get at least half the space - not presented as fact, of course.

About CF: no, that proposal is no good, partly because most recent papers have never got a response of any kind, and partly because of the difficulties with publication. I would include everything which is published by a reputable scientist in a public forum... so ICCF papers or Navy tech reports would be included, for example. ObsidianOrder 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert_Dingle

Please have a look at the dispute [14], before I start an edit war. If he hears it from two people it might be more convincing... Harald88 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped! Harald88 22:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please note

Hi Pjacobi. I know the disputes on PS and vitalism have been hard to follow, and that it might seem I'm excluding criticism of chiropractic. I think that's not true, and that I simply support common, high standards of citation and referencing. See [15] I think that this is pithy, exhaustive and direct; it was constructed by myself and Dematt, a chiropractor, who works quite remarkably to the spirit and letter of NPOV. I have just come to appreciate that personal affiliation is no guide at all to NPOV and objective, careful research. Did any chiropractors object? No. They all understood that this is honest, fair reporting. Having leaned (hard) on some pages to exclude weak sources and anecdotal accounts in the past, it would have been hypocritical for me to support similarly weak cases from the "other" side.Gleng 15:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As I surely must have said elsewhere, I don't want to be involved here in anything about Chiropractic and Osteopathy. That's an US-specific problem I'm not interested in. Analogous de:Kneipp-Medizin which is only taken (sort of) seriously in Germany.

But I've seen many times the accusation that KV is pushing the POV of pseudoscience, but never a specific diff supporting this claim. That's the point which makes me nervous.

Pjacobi 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mean is he pushing junk science, he's certainly not, intentionally. He might be characterised as pseudoskepticGleng 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So you'd say the harm originating from him, is like a de:Bärendienst, i.e. acting in good faith towards a cause but (due to clumsiness, for example), achieving the contrary? --Pjacobi 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes; I really don't see bad faith in anyone here that I've encountered, quite the opposite, people have different views but honest intent. IMO it's an overzealous commitment to a cause, believing the cause to be backed by WP. But IMO, he is just impossible to work with. We've tried hard to get him to discuss his edits first, before implementing them, and gain a measure of agreement, acceptance. This he has refused to do, while insisting that others put theirs to his scrutiny or risk just being reverted by him. Anyway, I'm gone anyway so it won't affect me at all - but really this is just the worst nightmare for WPGleng 07:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi PJacobi. There is a big point missing here. That "pithy" section that Gleng is talking about is devoid of substantial criticism, and its misleadingly labeled as criticism from insiders. The points of criticism are actually from the scientific majority view, who see pseudoscience throughout chiropractic. The small amount of support chiropractic gets from the research on one of its many claims, is shaky. Other conventional treatments have been found to be more effective and more practical (free). Thus, the section Gleng and Dematt have presented is devoid of substantial criticism, and of course reasons for the criticism are left out. Whenever real criticism is presented on that article, a scramble of editorialism is used to mislead the reader. When substantial peer reviewed evidence is presented, all excuses are used (by Gleng and others) in order to stifle negative views. Chiropractic is fraught with practitioners (the majority of them) who still push other PS practices (chi flows and daft vitamin therapies for cancer) and who claim that it can treat all conditions. But after continued quizzing of these so-called chiropractic experts, they are unable (perhaps) to provide the list of the conditions that chiropractors treat outside of the one that it receives some weak support for (one kind of back pain). In addition, if verifiable and reliable peer reviewed negative views are presented, demands are made as to quoting the whole article, no assumption of good faith is made, and accusations of dishonesty have been regular on the presenter of those facts. Then, when I honestly point out Gleng and co's bias, they tell me not to. It is a ridiculous situation. I believe that the problem group on that article (chiropractic) have been following me around Wikipedia in order to stifle criticism of their interests. I also believe, looking at the abuse that I have got for complying with demands and complying with NPOV policy, that they really can't help themselves. Its just one of those cults. Solution: mediation, then arbitration. Any other suggestions or solutions from you are welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 03:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD raised on Quantum theory

If you have view on this please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum_theory and cast your vote / make your opinions known. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muchas gracias

Hey Pjacobi, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heim theory

I've rewritten Heim theory to make it more NPOV. If you've time, keep an eye on the article. I've removed some content about some irrelevant details of the theory. There is no point in quoting impressive looking formulas if it can't be explained where they come from and how they should be used. Count Iblis 21:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] de:Methodischer Kulturalismus

Since I was banned from editing de, because I dared to revert an IP revert on an edit that I explained at length with no replies:

Since paradigms are incommensurable according to Kuhn, we can never be sure, if the current paradigm explains nature properly: Hence: There always is a very high chance that that the current paradigm is false (we THOUGHT that Newton was right, but then along comes Mr. Heisenberg ...). Thus we are pretty certain that we are wrong ... Boom. Relativism ("Anything goes"). I know that there is a logical fallacy in this argument, but that's life: Philosophy seems to be full of such fallacies. (Disclaimer: I am fairly aware of epistemology, but my conclusion of the paucity of philosophy stems from my expereience with political philosophy). Fossa 18:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kann der Satz raus oder haengt jemand an ihm?

Schlechter Joke, ich wurde 3 Mal von Markus Mueller wegen Entfernen des Satzes gesperrt. Fossa 18:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Vielleicht war das ja nur wegen der Bapperl... --Pjacobi 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Lorentzian?

That's interesting! I must confess that I never heard of Craig eventhough I know the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity theory very well, and IMO in any case Lorentzian relativity/Physical relativity deserves an article of its own, as I suggested to Biophys (see User_talk:Biophys#Non-postulated_relativity_by_Lev_Lomize). When you call Craig an "anti-relativist" I suppose you mean his philosophy and not his physics (what on earth is Neo-Lorentzian?! Next we're bound to get "Neo-Einsteinian" as well...).

Note: I still have in mind to get ahead with the replacement for the trashed anti-relativity article, and it's not clear to me if Craig should be mentioned in an article about criticism on relativity theory. . I was held up for a while due to other occupations and because I needed time to figure out how to deal with citations to scientifically unreliabale sources for verifiability, without suggesting that they are reliable - but that's all clear now.

Regards, Harald88 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, meanwhile I stumbled on Mauro Dorato[16], whose account you may also find useful. And that simultaneity is conventional was already argued by Poincare and Einstein. Regards, Harald88 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

PS at first glance (if it isn't an illusion die to lack of sleep) there is a serious error in the paper in which Janssen is a co-author - even the best make mistakes. Anyway, it isn't wise to rely on a single source. Harald88 23:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Einstein synchronisation procedure

Hi Pjacobi,

I came across the article Einstein synchronisation

I have two questions:
What is meant by the statement: "One can easily forget that it is only a convention (see Relativity of simultaneity)."? How is the Einstein synchronisation procedure supposed to be just a convention?

Why is it claimed that "The same synchronisation is achieved by "slowly" transporting a third clock from clock 1 to clock 2, in the limit of vanishing transport velocity." Why this restriction to vanishing transport velocity? Any transporting velocity will do. It may make the calculations harder, but that's it.

Most of the content of the current Sagnac effect article was written by me. (The section 'calculations' wasn't written by me, and I think it is superfluous.) Synchronisation of terrestrial clocks is discussed in the section Synchronisation procedures Of course, the Einstein synchronisation procedure does not apply in the case of the loop topology of that situation.

The Einstein synchronisation procedure is designed/intended for the case of linear topology. In the context of euclidean spatial topology, the Einstein synchronisation applies. The Einstein synchronisation procedure yields consistent result if and only if the two clocks that are being synchronized are both in inertial motion, and have no velocity relative to each other.

Clearly, in the context of euclidean spatial topology (no loops) the Einstein synchronisation is not 'only a convention'. To my knowledge the general consensus in the physics community is that the Einstein synchronisation procedure is (when considered in its proper context) not 'only a convention', but physically meaningful. --Cleonis | Talk 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• About conventionality: pls check the linked literature and the exposition at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There's also more literature given. I'm -- without traveling to the other end of thy city -- without online journal access, so I was limited to the papers available free on the net. If you find something interesting in other sources pls add. I've read Reichenbach's The philosophy of space & time, another important exposition of the conventionality thesis is said to found in A. Grünbaum, Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, but I didn't read ot yet.
• About "slowly" transporting a third clock: Pre-supposing STR and using its equations, any clock transport will do. But in then limit of slowly transporting, no correction is necessary. Referring to this simpler means is part of the de:Protophysik programme.
• About consensus in the physics community: As you can see from the references, the philosophy community begs to differ. Even that faction which understands relativity theory. To my best knowledge, using either the Einstein synchronisation or a consistent alternative, gives no falsifiable predictions. The latter only gives a more complicated theory, so Occam's and Leibniz' arguments apply.

Pjacobi 08:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

After I posted my comment I read the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia about conventionality of simultaneity by Allen Janis. My inclination (borrowing an expression from Einstein) is to qualify that kind of literature as "überflüssige gelehrsamkeit". (Well, since the literature is produced by people of reputation I guess I should suspend my judgement.)

I think it is important to distinguish levels of conventionality. At one extreme of the spectrum there is full arbitrariness of a particular convention, such as defining the unit of one second as a particular number of cycles of a particular emission-line of Cesium. The Einstein synchronisation procedure (that presupposes validity of special relativity) is at the other end of that spectrum; alternatives are more complicated.

I operate under the assessment that in order to contemplate simultaneity one must either presuppose Newtonian space and time, or Minkowski spacetime. I regard considerations that try to be uncommitted to either Newtonian or Minkowskian structure as non-viable.

A second step in my assessment is that when Minkowski spacetime is granted, then it follows that the Einstein synchronisation procedure is sufficient. I do not regard any of the specific synchronisation procedures as particularly significant, to me the key factor is that (the theory asserts that) all procedures will yield matching results.

In summary: I propose to add to the article a discussion of where in the spectrum of degrees of arbitrariness the relativistic assessment of simultaneity stands. At one extreme there is full blown arbitrariness of a convention. If the relativistic definition of simultanetiy is a convention at all, it is at the opposite end of that spectrum. --Cleonis | Talk 10:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can share your reservations avout philosophers doing relativity to some extent. But believe, those involved in the concenventionality of Einstein synchronisation discussion are the already the better ones (except possibly for William Lane Craig, who wants to have absolute space and time to allow for the existence of God).

When adding something into the article space voicing your doubts, it is -- as ever -- important to find a reliable published source with an at least similiar argument.

--Pjacobi 10:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is my worry: the literature that proceeds in the kind of way that Allen Janis proceeds in his article is a conversation among a very small group of people who can afford to gloss over some common agreed-upon aspects. My supposition is that Allen Janis and colleagues do not need to assert everytime that "If the relativistic definition of simultaneity is a convention at all, it is at the opposite end of that spectrum." because that aspect of the situation is generally granted. It's not an argument that is either voiced or not, among experts it is obvious background and hence not written down explicitly. --Cleonis | Talk 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theimer

You asked:

Do you know/can you recommend:

• Walter Theimer, Die Relativitätstheorie Lehre-Wirkung-Kritik, ISBN 3900800022

Seems to be a KraMuc recommendation, which gives me some reservations. --Pjacobi 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, no sorry, never heard of him or that book...

You made me curious, thus Google:

-> Amazon -> Many books! Among others: Der Marxismus. Lehre - Wirkung - Kritik as well as Handbuch naturwissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe. => mostly socio-politics but also physics. Apparently right-wing and anti-SRT.

From http://www.politikforum.de/forum/showthread.php?t=130648&page=128

-> Hat Einstein die Welt genarrt? (Did Einstein fool the world?)

Professor Dr. Walter Theimer

[...]

He seems to first criticize Einstein's philosophy. Possibly insightful. But then:

Ein Beispiel: Die von Einstein postu- lierte "Zeitdehnung" (langsameres Ab- laufen der "Zeit" bei hoher Geschwin- digkeit) ist ein rein theoretischer Gedanke, der - niemals experimentell nachgewiesen - oft in physikalischen Versuchen zur "Anwendung" kommt, um dort für Effekte die "Verantwortung" zu übernehmen, die beim näheren Hin- schauen ihre Ursache in sehr viel konkreteren Fehlerquellen haben.

(Time dilation is a purely theoretical idea, never shown experimentally, many error sources).

Need I say that I'm NOT impressed about the physics?

-> in view of http://www.datadiwan.de/moch/moch_1.htm , there is no shortage of such books...

Cheers, Harald88 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-gravity

Hi Pjacobi,

I have got to learn how to navigate through Wikipedia. Thank you for the welcome and quick response. I have no problems with abstaining from incorporating UFO articles with the Anti-gravity article. I removed the corresponding citations from the list of references after discovering your deletions. My goal was to provide a wealth of literature that evinces the existence of a nation-wide effort to develop gravity control propulsion that had continued for at least eleven years. The articles, books, and newspapers were free of retractions and denials. And, there were no indications of failure. It would not have taken eleven years to discover shortcomings in the gravitic segment of the Biefeld-Brown Effect. But, it would have taken eleven or more years to develop substances with high dielectric constants and/or invent high voltage, light-weight, power supplies. The engineers' success would not have necessitated flight for all. "G-cars" may be very expensive. If the flight characteristics of "G-cars" approximated those of documented UFO incidents, the Department of Defense would use them for covert operations and keep them from the public for as long as possible.

Best regards,

Tcisco 19:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your sportsmanlike attitude. I can't pretend, that I'm buying your arguments re Bielefeld-Brown etc. And be warned, I'm one of those pro-mainstream, suppression of alternative views, ..., editors. But I can stay calm and reasonable as long as the otehr side does (and even a bit longer). We'll see.

One personal opionion: I'm very of much the opinion that the scientific community (speaking for physics, chemistry, math) is not "suppressing" the truth and evidence contradicting current textbook knowledge. Quite the contrary! They liked to be disproved and shell out great honours to everybody able to bury a theory under new evidence. But only when presented with repeatable, convincing evidence. Not stuff working only in the inventor's garage or in sealed boxes.

Pjacobi 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead of the Prem Rawat article

Is this better [17]? I am afraid that my edits will get reverted very soon. I oppose reverts justified by lack of consensus regardless of the quality of the edits. Andries 16:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've somehow started to get my Wikipedia frustration mostly from then science (and pseudoscience) area, as I feel I'm of more use there. Can't promise that I enter the swampland of the Prem Rawat article series again. --Pjacobi 22:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine, because it is clear that editing such controversial articles is extremely tedious. In other non-religious subject the rules are quite clear, but it seems that Wikipedia has difficulty with these kind of rather obscure controversial subjects. Andries 22:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW: If you want to have some vacation from these struggles, I can offer the "job" of looking for and incorporating Dutch sources for Familists and Henry Nicholas. --Pjacobi 22:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in to your talk page, Pjacobi, but I find Andries complaints to be quite quite peculiar as he misses to address the fact of his own impact in making these articles tedious to edit (just pay a short visit to Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba to see his latest achievements there), or the lack of willingness to engage in a constructive dialog and seek consensus. It must be human nature, I guess, that we only see fault in others but fail to acknowledge our own. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Josssi, constructive dialog means for me discussing the quality of edits. I have done that far more than you regarding my latest edits on talk:Prem Rawat. Andries 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinhart Hummel

Can you please check? It is a translation of the German article added with

1. some clarifications for the English language reader
2. digression on the EZW that does not have an English language article.

Andries 21:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This I will give a look. --Pjacobi 22:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help On Sathya Sai Baba

Pjacobi, your help and expertise would be greatly appreciated on the Sathya Sai Baba article. I know it is contentious, but it seems experienced editors are not interested. I would also appreciate your opinion regarding Andries attempt to cite material from books by referencing a compendium instead of the actual books he taking the material from! Who does this? SSS108 ^talk-email 20:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your patience (Brown's Gas)

I have updates the Brown's Gas article with great detail and substantive secondary references. If its ok with you, I will continue to update this article to maintain and pursue a greater level of integrity. I understand that I am a primary source, but I have clearly references a variety of secondary sources to maintain my objectivity. Frankly, if reasonbale material exists in the article prior to my inclusions, I would have not needed to participate. But since no-one was able to add reliable, credible, or substantive information I felt it necessary for become involved. --Nseidm1 13:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but that's not your fault. --Pjacobi

Not convinced as to whether this article should remain, or as to the extraordinary nature of Brown's Gas? If its the nature of Brown's Gas, I totally understand, which is exactly why I became involved with Brown's Gas. I wanted to shed light on an extremely un-clarified, and stereotype rich phenomena. The nature of science is not to convince people of things, but to provide enough information so that people can come to their own conclusions. Thank you very much for having patients with my upgrades to the article, and I hope that the article is now more likely to be consistent with Wikipedias deletion policies. Nseidm1 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kdbuffalo RfC

FYI, since you've shown some interest in the past: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2 The Crow 02:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There must be a means of identification (Brown's Gas)

There must be a way of identifying a user, as the claim that subsequent "keep" votes, in the deletion debate page are sockpuppets of mine. Frankly, it is clear that my additions to the article are from secondary sources, because of the sited references and additional in text citations. Please do not look for every little reseaon to discredit my additions, as it is a shame that such quality, ubiased, and objective additions are the focus of such an accusation of "sock puppetering". Please verify the other "keep" votes as being done by a separate entity, there must be a means of verifying what is the truth. Nseidm1 14:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't accuse you of sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LazyDaisy. Unfortunately there are no technical means to find evicence ruling out sockpuppetry. --Pjacobi 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I do understand now what you are referring to. --Nseidm1 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

Thanks for finishing the cleanup job. I had no idea what I was in for when I closed the AfD last night. ~ trialsanderrors 21:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

All praise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch --Pjacobi 21:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation not Substative

Just because a person may have a conflict of interest dousnt mean it is guaranteed they a users contributions will be self serving. None of my contributions are self serving, as they are designed to shed light on a very murkey and hitherto unclarfied series of articles. If you want to adjust particluar sentence structure, that you feel to be overly self serving, you are welcome to do so as it is not my intention to gain anything from my contributions other than clarifying the situation. Noah Seidman 20:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I will comment later on this. Sorry for my harsh reaction, but I considered it necessary. --Pjacobi 20:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the Korean manufactuer is a multi-million dollar company producing 10's of thousands of generators/month. They have no need for investors as the entire Korean peninsula, and China for that matter are extenively involved with common ducted electrolyzer technologies. The only reason common ducted electrolyzers have a lot of stereotypes is because of entrenced carbon infrastructure; in China and Korea they have no infrastructure and common ducted electrolysis systems are quickly becomes the foundation of fuel consumption in those countries. Noah Seidman 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Deserve and Explanation

If you think everything I post is crap, what do you think is the difference between Brown's Gas production and Oxy-Hydrogen production? Do you think a "special" electrolysis process is happening rather than what I have distinguised clearly? Rationality dictates that a person follow logic, and "special" is not logic is its faithful and unsubstantial. Noah Seidman 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rationality has established the merits of the scientific method. This includes both the ability to both measure and reproduce results. To that end, "Brown's Gas" is utter bunk. Just to be clear. Rklawton 23:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only is Brown's Gas measurable, it has been measured, and is most definetly reproducible. The Korean Manufacturer produced 10's of thousands of units per month, and Arizona Hydrogen has NASA, Ratheon, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, GE and Motorola as clients. All attacks against Brown's Gas consist an attempt to maintain stereotypes based on uneducated and biased opinions. Noah Seidman 05:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Arizona Hydrogen produces hydrogen and oxygen. They make no claims to producing Brown's gas. The Koreans are the one's currently promoting this particular fraud, so it's no surprise they ship their "product". Rklawton 14:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Arizona Hydrogen produces common ducted electrolytic generators that clearly do not have independent ducting as per pictures that are linked to within the Brown's Gas article. If you cannot distinguish between a common ducted electrolyzer and an independently ducted electrolyzer, the Brown's Gas articles will help clarify this to you. Please read up as you are perpetuating stereotypes that are merely based on your opinion. Hmmm, BEST Korea, multi-million dollar company, booming industry, or the opinions of Rklawton; I thinks its clear whom is not in the know. Its ok to have your own thoughts and not just perpetuate others. Noah Seidman 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Noah, you said: Arizona Hydrogen has NASA, Ratheon, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, GE and Motorola as clients, don't you remember? If not, look at your comments immediately above mine. Now, what was your point in naming them and their clients? They certainly don't support "Brown's gas" - so why did you bring them up? Rklawton 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The generators produced by Arizona Hydrogen cannot produce Oxy-Hydrogen because of the common ducted design; Oxy-Hydrogen is a production of an independently ducted electrolyzer. Plus, the company was founded by William Rhodes, whom is a predecessor of Yull Brown and is mentioned in the Brown's Gas article. Noah Seidman 20:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen is mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. How it is produced is irrelevant. --Pjacobi 20:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Then how do you explain their different behavior if not by the method of production? Noah Seidman 20:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

By fraud or wishfull thinking. --Pjacobi 20:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Duplicatable phenomena inherently cannot be fraudulent. What University are you at? I want to speak with your supervisor! Noah Seidman 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would love to hear what a tenured Ph.D. here in the U.S. has to say to a "Brown's gas" proponent proudly sporting his crowning achievement - his undergraduate degree. I'll tell you what, why don't you invite some of your professors from Hofstra University to join in the conversation? The fact that you have zero support from your professors - or any Wikipedians - should tell you something. Rklawton 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Graduate school welcomes this sort of research. Specifically to debunk the layperson whom cannot peform simple scientific experimentation, or see with their own eyes video of others that have conducted the research. I'm no professor, I'm a soon to be graduate student on the verge of groundbreaking scientific research that I have been conducting since last year. Noah Seidman 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You're soon to make a fool of yourself. Now, what of my suggestion that you enlist the aid of one of your Ph.D.s? If you don't have their support, you don't have squat. Rklawton 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, finally a token of good advice. I appreciate your opinion on this matter, and plans are already in the works for various letters of recommendation. I understand your position on the whole subject matter, but all I ask is that you understand that more reasearch is required before definitively labeling something a hoax. If my research reveals that it indeed is, I will be shocked, but I am a scientist therefore I beleive what experimentation shows. Best regards in your Wikipedia additions. Noah Seidman 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistats

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I just read your question. To make a long story short, wikistats are back. Cheers, Erik Zachte 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for your efforts. You must have got quite a number of questions regarding this. --Pjacobi 14:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more recent papers on GRT's Twin paradox solution

Hi Peter, about the GRT solution of the Twin paradox, if you know another recent peer-reviewed paper that has a similar opinion about Einstein's 1918 paper but is better or more detailed (this is the most detailed one I know), please substitute it. And if it has a differing opinion, please add it (as you know, deleting one peer-reviewed opinion and then replacing it by a differing one is an obvious WP:NPOV violation).

Regards, Harald88 23:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to self

• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22hadronic+chemistry%22
• http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaleditorialboard.cws_home/485/editorialboard
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V3F-4HVDJBT-1/2/caac20938f0ff6b82af859a01de4fc35
• Citebase Santilli
• http://www.i-b-r.org/
• http://i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm
• http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/sanbook.pdf
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i-b-r.org%2F
• http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/08/brownkleinhho.html

Pjacobi 07:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new "KraMuc"

We have what looks like a "KraMuc" incarnation, but this time the person is of the opposite camp: very similar editing behaviour, however, not an "Antirelativist" but a "Relativist". Apart of picking up policy expressions that come in handy, he/she puts a deaf ear to explanations of policy (even a deaf ear to almost everything) and my warning to read the policies before getting into trouble was countered with "sounds like you are threatening me", so that I knew what would be coming. Good thing though that that person tends to write only short pieces of opiniated text. Of course, this is a newcomer, and newcomers sometimes require patience. But how long should we be patient? Harald88 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We already had a bunch of "anti-crank-cranks" as CH put it. But I'm busy doing finishing touches to an important RL project and will be away soon for some days. So you need to find help elsewhere fo now. --Pjacobi 20:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not a crank, I am a professional physicist. My first edits have stepped on "harry's toes". Apparently I hit a raw nerve with his spreading of the "Einstein was wrong about..." mantra. The Unnikrishnan paper User:Harald88 keeps plastering all over the posts is incorrect. I was not the only one to remark that and to remove it, other people rightfully removed it repeatedly (User: Tim Shuba, User:DVdm,User:Ems57fcva ). The paper is an embarassment to both Unnikrishnan (who started attacking Einstein about 2 years ago, he's a laughing stock in the professional physics on this subject) and for wiki, it should be expunged from the Twins paradox as it was already expunged from the Luminiferous aether because of its multiple errors in both math and physics. When you have time try reading the Unnikrishnan paper (harry has supplied a link to the pdf, if you get past the gross errors in the introduction, you can start laughing when Unnikrishna starts writing his "math". I have also shown "harry" that his entry on Maurice Allais analysis of Dayton Miller is both wrong and non-peered reviewed.In both cases, over the objections of several users , "harry" has stubbornly reinserted the same erroneous paragraphs over and over. You can look at the history of the different posts edited recently by User:Harald88.They tell a very telling story.Thank you for your attention Moroder 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that he used that expression, that's indeed a good one! And just like Kramuc not all his/her interventions are bad (it sometimes helps to have a fresh look) and I now realise that I have been spending far too much time on Wikipedia lately... so I'll just let it go for a while, put some banners where needed and come back to it later.

Cheers, Harald88 21:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter, in addition, in view of the remarks below: you may use that paper by Unnikrishan (which is, IMO, indeed flawed on some points) as a test device for crankiness. The paper ("not on topic"?) is "On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox". Also, the first equations 1-8 have nothing to do with a "refutation", quite to the contrary: after quoting Einstein, the author confirms there that Einstein's GRT calculation works.

Regards, Harald88 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

P - I advise that we keep an eye on both of these characters. Moroder is new and some of edits are "interesting". Let's just say that he needs to learn that less is often better and that personal opinions are best placed in the talk pages. OTOH I seem to agree with him on content issues. Harald88 by contrast is an excellent bibliographer but is weak on the science and can be misled by articles like Unnikrishnan's. As a result I find myself involved in content disputes with him occasionally, sometimes on issues of basic science (where Harald is often wrong) and other times on more detail-related issues (where he often turns out to be right). So neither is 100% right, nor is either 100% wrong. Instead any disputes between then need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, considering not just the science but also the needs of this encyclopedia. --EMS | Talk 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

EMS, it would be good if you edited out the Unnikrishan paper from the Twins paradox. The paper is dead wrong and it is off topic: it starts by making an argument that Einstein's didactic paper on the subject gives the wrong GR treatment. Unnikrishnan proceeds by an...SR refutation (eqs (2)(3)). His equations are not even wrong, they are ridiculous, he was laughed out of the Marcel Grossman conference this summer with this kind of argument. Unnikrishnan proceeds with affirming that his (bogus) refutation of Einstein's didactical proof on the thought experiment is somehow proof that CMBR is the "universal reference frame", one of the classical rookie mistakes. How wrong does a guy have to be before it gets thrown out of wiki? The darn paper is not even on topic. Moroder 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Morodoer - Kindly remember that I have a talk page too. --EMS | Talk 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Thermo Template

Hello - could you look at the discussion page for the thermodynamics template? (HERE) - thanks PAR 06:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tommysun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
• Tommysun and Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. *Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your recent reversion of TOE article

Dear Pjacobi,

Thank you sincerely for your interest in the article on the theory of everything. It is certainly a fascinating subject concerning the reciprocal of 0. I have revised your reversion so as to take away some inaccuracies such as the statement that "no theory of everything has held up to experimental scrutiny." If you'll please read dilligently and carefully my revision with all due respect you will see at the end I have stated that "if the wikipedia community is sufficiently pleased with how I have made this article more accurate then I will upload the video file showing my device which converts the energy of time itself directly into useable mechanical motion via the force of magnetism." Therefore, as you can see, there is experimental proof (and in this case it is much more fantastic then the recent claims made by Steorn, which may or may not be bunk). The wikipedia community cannot have this opportunity to see the experimental proof if they do not allow the article to remain in good faith based on their own understanding of the reciprocal of 0 which should be quite clear to anybody who seriously thinks about it. These things are important. Please see to it then that you do not revert this article and I will upload the video file as promised. You and all others owe it to themselves to see this for themselves. Thank you kindly in advance,

sincerely, Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.20.121 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Please provide sources! This is the key requirement for Wikipedia contributions, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. WP:5P is also a good start to read. --Pjacobi 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1/0 is the only source. THank you for asking.

sincerely, Archetype

[edit] Note to self

• http://www.numdam.org/
• http://projecteuclid.org/

Pjacobi 00:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michel Janssen vs. Harvey Brown

Peter, some time ago you brought an article by Michel Janssen under my attention. I also came across a counter commentary by Harvey Brown, on http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/.

Regards, Harald88 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent overview paper of Dingle and Twin paradox

Hi Peter, here is one more: I stumbled on an excellent paper on Dingle and the Twin paradox, it is by H. Chang, STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 24 (5): 741-790 DEC 1993 "A misunderstood rebellion - the twin-paradox controversy and herbert dingle's vision of science". I am reading it now; possibly it doesn't contain anything new for me (I just skipped through it), but it's the only paper I know of that gives a good and fair overview of the Twin paradox debates (thus perfect as Wikipedia reference). Do you know it?

PS I now started reading it and There are some things I didn't know, such as that Dingle had been considered an authority on the subject of relativity. And it's real fun to read, especially concerning human psychology: He cites twice Max Born to Dingle, first in 1941 about Dingle's textbook on relativity: "your explanations of the difficult subject are very clear and well presented. I hope the book will find many readers"; and next in 1957: "You should read a good book on relativity"! Harald88 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Herbert Dingle already has a page dedicated to him. Feel free to add the above reference to that page. While you are at it, you might want to add this reference as well http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm Moroder 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. --Pjacobi 08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! It is also thanks to you and EMS, as it was spurred by your request for more and better references. Harald88 22:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thermodynamic equations

Hi - I recently completed a rewrite of the Thermodynamics equations page and there is discussion of whether it is appropriate. Your input would be appreciated. Please see

• Talk:Thermodynamic equations#Rewrite
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics section "Your edits..."

Thanks - PAR 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Priddy Home Page

I think I pinpointed the misunderstanding. Priddy's home-page link had an misleading description attached to it. The link in question was not the index page. This is. As you will notice, Priddy said himself, "Welcome To Robert Priddy's Homepage". SSS108 ^talk-email 03:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, Priddy has two websites. He prefers to keep his personal site and the Anti-SBB separated. --Pjacobi 14:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Priddy has 1 personal website and 3 attacking Sathya Sai Baba. You just don't get it? Do you? Explore the link you are trying to include. You will see how the links have different domains. There are 3. Formerly he had 6 additional websites attacking Sathya Sai Baba (on angeltowns and tripod) and all of them were deleted for defamatory content for violating the hosting company's term and conditions. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] en vs. de

I decided to have another try at en and it's going better than I expected: People appear to be afraid to delete sourced sentences. Nevertheless, as you can imagine, there are a number of activists in my topics (I even encountered the occasional Scientologist). So, if your watchlist needs company:

• cult apologist
• anti-cult movement
• opposition to cults and new religious movements

I don't try cults/NRMs themselves, as that seems pretty hopeless at this time, but maybe these lemmas can be rendered a bit more scientific. Fossa_?! 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Stop Violating The ArbCom Ruling

Your inclusion of critical links to Robert Priddy's websites attacking Sathya Sai Baba is a violation of an ArbCom ruling: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba and two subsequent comments by Admin: [18][19].

You have added these prohibited links to his wiki-page [20] (as well as in the edit summary) and on his talk page [21][22][23]. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You are severely mis-reading the ArbCom ruling. The ArbCom ruling restricts Andries and you, but not other editors in good standing. --Pjacobi 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is untrue. It does not matter who includes the information or the links, the material is not to be included on the talk pages or the articles pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba. It's clearly worded. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop violating the arbcom ruling. You have readded a link that ArbCom and Admin said could not be added to the talk pages or articles pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba: [24][25] SSS108 ^talk-email 22:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are ignoring my arguments.
• You don't comprehend the ArbCom ruling
• Admins don't rule (BTW, I'm an admin, too). They enforce policy, ArbCom rulings and community consensus.

Pjacobi 22:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retrocausality

FYI, as someone else pointed out earlier in the discussion, this concept is in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (as "backward causation - sometimes known as retrocausation") - see the link I just added to the afd Bwithh 01:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cycle nominated for deletion

I have nominated the above category for deletion. As you were involved as the nominator in a related CfD in 2005, I want to make you aware of this one. Tim Shuba 14:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retaliatory Vandalism

Lunokhod has made major edits to the the "Anti-gravity" article as retaliation for comments in the discussion section of "Transient Lunar Phenomenon." Lunokhod left a request for a list of transient lunar phenomena (TLP) that had been documented by multiple witnesses. On January 25, 2007, I cited the comprehensive NASA catelog by Winifred Sawtell Cameron as a source of reports by astronomers of the same TLP events. Also, I indicated, in the "Other Theories" section of the discussion page, the TLP article had omitted notable papers about wide area lunar luminescence. I cited the references. Lunokhod responded within a couple of days to those comments by maliciously vandalizing the "Anti-gravity" article. The history page does not yield any prior contributions/edits by Lunokhod to "Anti-gravity." His recent edits seem to be retaliatory and superficial. His expertise in general relativity history is very limited. I did record comments about his edits in the discussion page of "Anti-gravity." Please look into this matter. Thank you. Tcisco 216.125.49.252 14:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Priddy

Priddy must have seen the discussion and now combines his anti-SSB website on his other homepage. Andries 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPW newsletter

The Writing systems WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - December 2006
News Welcome to the newsletter of the Writing systems WikiProject, everyone. Our project currently has 29 members. Any questions or requests for assistance on writing system articles can be posted at WT:WPW. Our Article Assessment Project is currently underway. Feel free to contribute by assessing and improving all unassessed articles according to the assessment page. Any help is appreciated. We would like to bring all mid-, high-, and top-importance articles to at least B class by the end of the year. We are working on implementing writing systems templates into appropriate articles. Try to help out!	Writing system articles Importance Top High Mid Low None Total Quality FA 1 1 2 A 1 1 2 GA 1 2 3 B 16 17 40 19 19 111 Start 11 29 57 70 42 209 Stub 7 27 110 28 172 List 1 2 1 6 10 Assessed 30 58 126 200 95 509 Unassessed 1 2 36 780 819 Total 31 60 126 236 875 1328
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to edit the next issue, please drop a message on the discussion page.

This is the project's first newsletter. If you have any questions, comments, or ideas about it, feel free to post it on WT:WPW. Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The Arbitration Committee committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Tyrol move request

Hi Pjacobi, on your vote to oppose the move, you wrote, "Oppose, the article isn't about the province alone. Split would be an option.". If you look at the request at the top of the poll, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. The idea is that we move South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano and then have a redirect from the former to the latter. Then change something like History of South Tyrol to South Tyrol (historical), and focus that article on the relevant history. But this page now South Tyrol has core content that should be on the provincial page. Even on the provinces of Italy page it points to South Tyrol instead of the Province of Bolzano. It doesn't make sense. Anyway, any problems with this route? Taalo 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it. Complications lurk everywhere. --09:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV

A revert is not an option. State the opposite. Fossa_?! 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Causal dynamical triangulation no problem

No problem! It would seem that nothing essential was changed on this entry, but I welcome informed collaboration, and editing that doesn't cut out the heart of topics. I will create subheadings later today, and delete the stub tag from this article. I'm considering how to weave in Discrete Lorentzian QG info, but I wanted to sub-divide first. I've been doing plenty of research on CDT, and have a promise of content review from two of the principle authors of the theory. I would be happy with input and edits, if you feel that you can improve the entry or delete meaningless crap. I tend to be too wordy, but this topic was too spare and cryptic before.

All the best: JonathanD 18:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you take a look at Geometrized unit system?

I think a rather major revert is in order, but I'd like a second opinion and possibly some support. My impression is that we have a user who is sincere, but misguided. I noticed the edits to this article because the (anonymous) user sent me a note on my wiki home page. I hate to reward him by reverting his article. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I see any better alternative. Pervect 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I've reverted. --Pjacobi 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another note to self

Alternative physics --Pjacobi 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lorentzian Relativity

Dnarby (talk • contribs) is continuing to rapidly add references to his/her Lorentzian Relativity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) article to Wikipedia. You might want to explain WP:NOR to him/her before too much damage is done. --Christopher Thomas 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on his trail. --Pjacobi 21:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD'ed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorentzian Relativity. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Van Flandern. --Pjacobi 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the redirect-that-isn't, Lorentzian relativity. --Christopher Thomas 21:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Should I bring this nest in line with article name policy or jsut axe? Will have to toss a coin.

And, holy shit, Galilean Electrodynamics has now made it into the list of sources spidered by http://scholar.google.com. Great. Now you need access to a real citation server more than ever -- and I haven't.

Pjacobi 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall Neuroquantology (haven for quantum consciousness loonballs) was also spidered by Google Scholar. Sigh. Anville 19:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dowsing

Thank you. I think we have a live one here. — BillC ^talk 09:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There's much to watch. Fortunately they cannot suppress appearing on the watchlists by paranormal means. --Pjacobi 10:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reddi

Hi. As per your request, I took a look at Reddi's edit that you mentioned, but consensus at CN appears to be that dispute resolution should be pursued at this point. Would you like to comment there? Sandstein 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

you wanted me to say hello here... now what? --Hob Gadling 10:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to invite you for the preparation of the Berliner76 case, but as you've seen, that's done already. But if you are interested in banging your head against some wall -- User:Reddi has started a new drive of activity, e.g at Dendera Temple complex. --Pjacobi 10:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response

I've responded to your comment.

perfectblue 19:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another response

I've also responded to your comment about the Morlet wavelet. I'd appreciate it if you would put the reference and information back. I'm sorry for being a little abrupt with Requestion but he posts that kind of crap everywhere I contribute now. Jon Harrop 04:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pjacobi. Have you seen this [26]. Jon Harrop did that to me too about a week ago when I deleted some of his spam. You might also be interested in a COI and Notability discussion going over at Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet. Cheers. (Requestion 23:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Requestion I know I've joined all this a little late in the game but it is starting to look quite vindictive to me. You follow Jon Harrop around the wiki making sometimes quite nasty and personal comments. Please explain to me what makes you an expert on all these subjects. Jon Harrop makes his identity and crudentials/interests/work freely available but it's impossible to to tell who you are and what great works you have obviously done (apart from spam fighting of course). All he asked, when you deleted his spam, was for you to explain a few points. You were removing his book reference alone and leaving all other book links (to commercial pages) up. When all books links were removed by User:Femto this made it fair and solved any dispute. Marie Mason 23:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "All he asked, when you deleted his spam, was for you to explain a few points." Jon Harrop never asked for me to explain a "few points" to him. It wasn't until the fifth violation of the final spam4 warning, 9 strikes, that we finally had an open communication channel. I've been trying to explain the WP:RULES to Jon but either he doesn't care to read them or he doesn't think they apply to him. I'm also not the only editor who has deleted Jon Harrop's spam. (Requestion 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

I'd say no speculation about the motives of Jon is necessary (and for this reason should be avoided). There is only one relevant point: The research done in PhD work hasn't yet entered the established knowledged in the field. So bold inclusions of his conclusions aren't suitable for Wikipedia. My name is Peter Jacobi. I live in Hamburg, Germany. I work for a small manufacturer of medical equipment, predominantly EEG related. I hold a diplom in physics from the University of Hamburg, about a topic in Quantum field theory. Marie, does any of this really help you or affect the case? --Pjacobi 12:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree that speculation about Jon's motives should be avoided. That was the point I was trying to make to Requestion. Jon has written on one of the numerous threads that he just wanted an explanation as to why some links/text were removed. He didn't need an explanation of the rules I'm sure but an explanation of why specific things were removed (e.g. at the start, why the link to his book was removed but the links to all the other books on Ocaml remained). I wasn't asking for you to tell me anything about yourself. I wanted to know about Requestion as he has made some very personal comments about Jon, his motives and his work and I don't think that is fair. But I agree it best to always assume that peoples intentions are good. I hope you do decide to try Jon's wavelet. We have been very pleased with it.Marie Mason 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(replying the Jacobi) Hell yes, that affects the case. I don't mind going through my old work with someone who might understand it but I'm not going to waste my time with that god forsaken self-proclaimed "spam-fighting" lunatic Requestion.

With regard to "established knowledge", I understand completely where you are coming from. I cited several published papers that show groups from all around the world using my work independently. I have also been in contact with many people who are using it. I do not know of their publications but I do know that many of them are using it to analyze EEGs, so you may be better placed than I to find out about recent academic publications in the area (I left academia three years ago and no longer have access to their journals). Rick Gustavsen at Los Alamos National Laboratories in the USA recently wrote to me to ask how I would like to be cited in his forthcoming paper which uses my wavelet to analyze heterodyne velocimetry data (whatever that is!).

Having said that, none of these citations will justify my claim that "the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet supercedes the Morlet wavelet". I had presumpuously assumed that people would just take my word for it. Given that they are not, I can only ask that the wording be changed to something like "the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet was designed to avoid the problems of Morlet wavelet".

Anyway, thank you for being forthcoming and, if you would like to contact me about the use of wavelets in EEG analysis I am more than happy to give some free consultancy. Perhaps it would give your company more of an edge over the competition. Jon Harrop 10:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a simple saying: If you/your work/your project/your website is relevant enough for Wikipedia, somebody alse will add it. There will be never the need to do it yourself.

Compromising "the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet was designed to avoid the problems of Morlet wavelet" is a good solution and will do for some years, until newer printings of the textbooks acknowledge the fact.

Pjacobi 10:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And please don't convert your frustration over Requestion into making personal attacks yourself. Spamfighting is a necessary and frustrating component of Wikipedia editing. I do it myself, wasting time which could otherwise be used for more content-related edits. But Wikipedia is just to attractive for promoting your perpetuum mobile and your very own private theory of everything... (But in these areas the offenders tend to name equations and devices after themselves).

Pjacobi 10:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying but I believe that too few people contribute positively to Wikipedia as it is. Objectively, I wrote most of the related articles and several people have expressed gratitude for that work. See the discussion page on time-frequency representation, for example. Perhaps it is because of this that I have only ever been bothered by spam fighters and not by spam itself.

Also, I would like to note that the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet page was originally justified by a peer reviewed, published secondary source but User:Requestion deleted it. Then other people understandably questioned the content because it was unreferenced. Jon Harrop 11:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference if your published thesis is a primary or a secondary source. You can't use it as a self-reference since that would be a violation NPOV and undue weight. I agree with Pjacobi about the important point being that the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet described in your thesis "hasn't yet entered the established knowledged in the field." I have started the thread Talk:Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet#Notability_criteria. Please feel free to comment. (Requestion 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

Hello Pjacobi. Since you were involved in the notability discussion I thought it should be mentioned that someone nominated the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet article of deletion. (Requestion 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] History of Sri Lanka

Hey Pjacobi,

could you look at the article and at what Bodhi dhana is doing to it? I'm quite speechless. Cheers, Krankman 10:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd try to pass this to another volunteer as I'm short on time and actual knowledge in this field. --Pjacobi 13:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I've already contacted a few others. Can you recommend someone? Krankman 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tulu Language

Thanks for removing that line, it was really stupid --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Oh, oh

I'm trying my best to bring down the tempers. Let's see if people do come down and start editing productively. People are trying to use citations selectively to their advantage. Citing some single author to counter a lot of subsequent findings to support a POV taking advantage of NOR is frustrating. It's amazing to see how even reasonable people employ all kinds of "work-arounds" to logic to convince themselves and others of their nationalistic fantasies. I'm myself trying to come out of this tendency. :p -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I agree that moving detailed treatments on such contradictory issues to subarticles is a good solution to preserve summary style. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rexresearch

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Rexresearch, comments? - The site was suggested for the spam blacklist, any comments? Femto 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal project

I tried to reply to you but someone moved your comment. i had already typed out my reply, so I hope you don't mind me adding it here since it was really only directed to you. here it is:

well, I've not clashed with you so could you perhaps at least assume good faith on my part? On the megalith issue, I would be happy to disclose via email to anyone who wants to know where I got my degrees in Archaeology/Anthropology & Linguistics and what museum I used to work at. I'm a rational skeptic with an interest in folklore and new religious movements. My goal in editing at wikipedia is just to try and include as much good info as possible and to beef up references for articles in my area of interest. I joined this project because it was the most active in cleaning up existing articles. I've learned an awful lot from the other editors here about proper sourcing and I've seen members of this project really grow in that regard. Prefect Blue is a great example of a reliable source wiki Gnome, having personally transformed a dozen or so article in the past several months from absolute messes into coherent and well-sourced articles. This project cataches a lot of undeserved flack and if some editors have maybe not behaved as well as they would like, it may be due to that. Let's all cut eachother some slack, put aside any past differences and try and spread some wiki love, eh? Pjacobi , consider joining us! We could use another passionate editor. I'm working on the Carlos Castaneda article right now, trying to find a way to delicately include the material about the cult of personailty he was running for decades. Salon had a fascinating article a few days ago which I used as a references for some of the material I added. I could use help on that article since it's a touchy subject. Even though he was widely know to be a fraud when I was in graduate school (mid 1980s), there was nothing at all about that in the article until recently. I suspect that any heavy handed changes in thatarticle will get reverted, so I'm trying to carefully build on the structure of the article itself, inserting facts where I can. That's what I'm up to anyway. Consider coming on board this project. We could use you! LiPollis 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and have a great day. Sorry you have had clashes with others. I know what that's like.LiPollis 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For sure I was more grumpy than needed, but User:Reddi being my curse on Wikipedia since years (and I'm for sure not alone in this assessment), with some recent dashes of Martinphi in the cocktail, add to my WikiStress.

I'd very much prefer to at least partially give this a constructive turn, but I'm not convinced.

I'll answer in more details later, I'm in short supply of WikiTime in the moment.

Pjacobi 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oh yes there is

[27] 3RR

Edit made by him, look in history: [28]

Look in older and newer. CINEGroup 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not the form needed for 3RR verification, See WP:AN/3RR. --Pjacobi 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you know

you know edit warring is frowned upon. One look at the pages history can show you it is an edit war from 3 people. You say he hasnt edited in the last 24 hours (or maybe he stated that)( Today IS still April 18th 2007 is it not? [29]

I'm not surprised that 2 editors are having an edit war and once I bang both for 3rr rule (Which they DID violate according to the time stamps on wikipedia) that I'm barraged by editors all over from wikipedia. Is this a meatpuppet account or do you honestly NOT see the history of the page within the last 24 hours? CINEGroup 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the talk page

Yes, I edited the page, but I didn't revert it. You are allowed to edit a page as many times as you want in one day. You just can't revert it four times. See WP:3RR. --ScienceApologist 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NOT when you are in an edit war CINEGroup 18:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'd disagree with this Pjacobi, I'm sure there is an admin who can plainly see the edit war going on and the continuos edits back and forth as 2 editors basically use that page to harass each other. That is not what wikipedia is for. If your checking for abuse, maybe you should go on over there and take a look yourself. CINEGroup 18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bring it to WP:AN/3RR and follow the procedures. --Pjacobi 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reddi on Megalith

See my note on his talk page, in which I ask exactly the same questions. There's no sensible reply. Regards, — BillC ^talk 11:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translations...

i am currently a bit busy so couldn't respond immediately on the translations. When i get some time I'll try to see what I can do. Thanks. Idleguy 10:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thx. No hurry needed. --Pjacobi 11:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies for the vandalism

In case you were wondering what started the recent attack on your user page and talk page, I'm afraid it was my fault. For some reason, some editors at Infantry (computer game) where I was doing some informal mediation misunderstood what I was doing and decided to launch an attack on my user page (see [30]). Unfortunately, they also managed to get the impression that we were sock puppets, probably from some old accusations (I'm surprised they didn't attack WMC, the usual innocent victim in attacks against me). --Philosophus ^T 11:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, the watchers were effective. --Pjacobi 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And thanks to all reverters, of course! --Pjacobi 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology

Hi, if you want to propose several articles for deletion at the same time you need to place a notice in each article (WP:BUNDLE). Have a nice day! Pax:Vobiscum 18:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read that part, but also the advice, to first address only one of the series. --Pjacobi 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood the "This AfD is representative..." and interpreted it as if you were proposing all of them. Pax:Vobiscum 21:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not an optimal choice of word. I didn't want to disturb such a large number of articles in case consensus turns out to be keep. If it ends as delete/move, I'll nominate the rest. --Pjacobi 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Even more notes to self

• Quasiturbine
• Air engine
• Air car
• Moteur Developpement International
• Eolo Car
• Gerotor
• electron economy
• methanol economy
• ethanol economy
• zinc economy
• lithium economy
• vegetable oil economy
• liquid nitrogen economy

Pjacobi 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of referred cults discussion

Hey there. I participated in the latest AfD for List of groups referred to as cults, leaning strongly toward delete. I don't see any way for the list to exist in that form (though I'd have a completely different opinion if there was a proper List of cults, although it might be impossible). Anyway, although the article does have many problems, such as editors struggling to apply POV -- that seems to be a dead end for any AfD. Focusing on the As you pointed out, it flunks WP:OR, but that is pretty hard to articulate that seeing as the article is covered in links to what seem to be reliable sources. Notability for this list doesn't seem to be given anywhere, only defense of notability for List of cults (which is a redirect to the list.) Anyway, I'm just looking for an opinion on how to properly approach the debate. Ichibani 03:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, that was exactly my rationale in one if the previous AfD:

• "List of cults" may be very difficult to maintain and reach consensus but in line with policy (you'll have to quote in the intro that a significant faction of sociologists disapproves the concept entirely, etc, ...)
• But "List of groups referred to as cults", although seeminglier easier to do, is just original research

Pjacobi 09:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 05:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Job offer

I'm in the middle of finals and paper-writing, but I'll take a look at everything and start digging through journals when the storm is over (May 10). I should warn you that I've not done any research in philosophy of physics. My interest in philosophy of science is mainly targeted at scientific method. On the other hand, I know of no Wikipedian with an interest in philosophy of physics, so I suppose I'm as qualified as any other phil-sci fellow.Simões (^talk/_contribs) 17:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitively no need to hurry. The problem is with us since years. --Pjacobi 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Links to negations.net

Hi. That was my first time seeing links to the site. I noticed it because the user had added it to East Village, Manhattan with no explanation, and was a highly POV site without context in the article. I can see how the site could be useful for some topics, though they probably work better as inline cites than as external link items. --Ytny (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majorana, Carlebach

Lieber Pjacobi,
danke dir für die Nachfrage auf de. Doch, ich muss zugeben, dass ich meine Mitarbeit auf de mindestens vorläufig eingestellt habe. Den Anlass findest du hier. Und mein Unmut hält leider immer noch an, wann immer ich über den Vorgang nachdenke, auch wenn dieses wahrscheinlich kleinlich ist und nicht die nötige Gelassenheit zeigt. Ein wenig lässt der Groll zwar nach, aber er ist jetzt noch zu groß.

Deswegen bringt mich dein Wunsch nach einer Stellungnahme zu Majorana in der Lesenswert-Diskussion derzeit ein wenig in die Klemme. Ich werde in den nächsten Tagen noch ein paar Kleinigkeiten ändern, vielleicht ohne Anmeldung. Ich denke aber mal darüber nach, ob ich etwas zur Abstimmung beitragen kann. Ich hatte mir nach der oben verlinkten Erfahrung vorgenommen, wenn überhaupt, dann nur noch Artikel zu bearbeiten. Wie die Lesenswert-Diskussionen ablaufen, empfinde ich als abschreckend, wenn Ansprüche weit über den Kriterienkatalog hinaus gestellt werden. Deswegen würde ich mich bei Joseph Carlebach auch zurückhalten, zumal ich selbst nur ganz wenig zum Artikel beigetragen habe. Ich fände es wenig hilfreich, wenn andere Benutzer, die wahrscheinlich nicht weniger empfindlich sind als ich, durch eine Lesenswert-Diskussion die Freude an der Mitarbeit verlieren würden. Herzliche Grüße --MrsMyer 09:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oje. Nee, dann sag einfach mir Deine Meinung und lass' KLA links liegen. Die Lesenswert-Diskussion sind unvorhersehbar und im schlimmsten Fall die reine Mitarbeitervertreibung. Trotzdem möchte ich manchmal gerne sonst eher unbeachtete Artikel dort lancieren, um das Übergewicht einiger regulars abzubauen.

Pjacobi 09:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia bildet ungemein, und der Artikel trägt dazu bei - Naturwissenschaftler und Naturwissenschaften sind nämlich sonst gar nicht mein Wissensgebiet. Ich finde den Artikel schon deswegen lesenswert. ;-) Ein paar Kleinigkeiten: Ich würde unter "Leben" eingangs Segrè gleich als Nobelpreisträger einführen, auch wenn er den Preis vielleicht erst später bekommen hat, aber die Auszeichnung putzt doch ungemein und erläutert seine Bedeutung im Zusammenhang mit Majorana. Im zweiten Absatz findest sich ein doppeltes Verb "Er besuchte trat", eine Kleinigkeit. Ansonsten würde ich versuchen, lange Sätze noch aufzulösen und dadurch in Klammern eingeschobene Erläuterungen anders einzufügen, zum Beispiel bei "(...) Fermi (der u. a. ...)" So würde ich auch einen neuen Satz beginnen mit "Majorana beschäftigte sich dort...". Nicht ganz klar ist mir geworden, was "über Nacht" bedeuten soll - tatsächlich von einem Tag auf den anderen, oder ist es eher bildlich gemeint? Ich persönlich mag Abkürzungen gar nicht und würde sie möglichst ganz herausnehmen - ich habe gerade ein d. h. und ein u. a. in Erinnerung - , aber das ist nun wirklich Geschmackssache und hat mit einer Lesenswert-Kandidatur nichts zu tun. Wenn du mir ein wenig Zeit gibt, gehe ich vielleicht heute Abend selbst daran; tagsüber kann ich die deWP nicht bearbeiten. Kann man zu Vermutungen, warum er untergetaucht ist, noch mehr sagen? Das ist für Nichtnaturwissenschaftler doch spannend. Ich würde deswegen Sciascias Überlegungen in den Artikel aufnehmen und nicht nur als Fußnote anführen. Oh, Fußnoten statt Fussnoten. ;-) Und was hatte der Vatikan damit zu tun? Vielleicht würde ich die Einleitung noch erweitern und dort kurz seine Bedeutung für die Physik zusammenfassen sowie sein bis heute ungeklärtes Verschwinden anreißen. Weil es zu Feenberg keinen Artikel gibt, könnte man vielleicht ganz kurz sagen, wer er war? Zahlwörter wie 9 "Neben seinen 9 veröffentlichten Arbeiten ..." sollten ausgeschrieben sein, obwohl einen entsprechenden Beitrag von mir kürzlich jemand zurückgesetzt hat. Zum Abschnitt "Werk" kann ich wenig sagen. Müsste dort Majorana Form gekoppelt werden? Hoffentlich habe ich nun nicht auch schon gemeckert?! Das soll jedenfalls nicht sein. Herzliche Grüße --MrsMyer 11:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keine Eile nötig. Es würde mich natürlich freuen, wenn Du selbst den Feinschliff erledigst.

Ja, die "Vermutungen zum Verschwinden" sind natürlich spannend, obwohl meines Erachtens unter Physikern die prosaische Erklärung Selbstmord stark überwiegt. Ein untergetauchter Majorana wäre irgendwann wieder in der Physik auffällig geworden.

Die Zuverlässigkeit Sciascias ist meines Erachtens gering, das Problem ist nur, das alle anderen größeren Abhandlungen zum Verschwinden nur auf Italienisch vorliegen. Wenn man jetzt nur die Sciascia-Theorie ausführt, wäre das irgenwie undue weight.

Danke fürs Durchsehen!

Pjacobi 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Das Fräulein hat's erledigt. Aber bitte noch einmal ganz genau drauf gucken, die Deern kann zwar Pferde stemmen, hat aber von Physik theoretisch keinen blassen Schimmer. Ein bisschen waghalsig ist es, die Quellenangaben in "Werk" runter zu nehmen, aber solche Angaben habe ich sonst in WP nie im Artikeltext selbst gesehen. Kann sein, dass diese Form den Lesenswert-Beurteilern nicht als richtig erscheint.

Bitte prüfe doch insbesondere im "Werk" noch einmal auf inhaltliche Richtigkeit und Zusammenhänge. Wäre ja schlimm, wenn der Artikel verschlimmbessert wäre. Wie gesagt, würde ich in der Einleitung seine Bedeutung für die Physik noch herausarbeiten, aber das hat sich Fäuleinchen nicht zugetraut. Und wenn Selbstmord wahrscheinlich ist, und so liest es sich durchaus, könnte man das meiner Meinung nach auch vorsichtig andeuten. Und wie wär's mit einer Andeutung auf Selbstmord wegen der Sorge über die Folgen der Atomforschung? Das wäre doch in der deWP schon wegen anderer Forscher, die sich keinen Kopp gemacht haben über die Auswirkungen ihrer Arbeit, ganz interessant.

Danke für den Hinweis auf den Artikel, hat dem Fräulein Spaß gemacht! :-) --MrsMyer 17:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dankeschön. Ich frag noch mal bei den Physikern rum und versuche ich KLA. --Pjacobi 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Eugene Feenberg ist noch von hier kurz ergänzt, weiß nicht genau, ob es so passt. Und die Einleitung ist ergänzt - ich finde, das sollte so oder so ähnlich sein. Vielleicht ist es sinnvoll, zu roten Links wie Feenberg noch stubs anzulegen, der scheint ja auch nicht ganz ohne zu sein. Sonst würde ich vielleicht zunächst rote Links rausnehmen. Ist schon lustig, wenn sich eine Kapitänstochter mit Quantenphysikern beschäftigt. ;-) Mir ist inhaltlich noch die Fußnote zu Schopenhauer aufgefallen. Bei dem habe ich herauszulesen versucht, was ein Schopenhauerscher Selbstmord sein könnte und habe nichts dazu gefunden. Das könnte KLA-Kommentatoren übel aufstoßen. Dann vielleicht lieber herausnehmen? Mir klingt's so jedenfalls nicht ganz schlüssig. Und, wie gesagt, ist mir auch noch nicht klar, warum der Vatikan involviert war. Dafür sollte es eine zumindest nachvollziehbare kurze Begründung geben, fürchte ich (nach meinen Erfahrungen). Herzliche Grüße und good luck --MrsMyer 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Die Ergänzugen sind im Großen und Ganzen gut, habe wieder etwas gekürzt und "Folgen der Atomphysik" durch "Folgen der Kernphysik" ersetzt -- hier gibt es durch die Unterschiede von Umgangs- und Fachsprache immer ein Durcheinander.

Bloß nicht rote Links rausnehmen! Es muss doch noch was zum Schreiben übrigbleiben. Die Idee, dass ein guter Artikel keine roten Links haben dürfe, halte ich für verfehlt.

Schopenhauer? Muss ich selber mal recherchieren.

Vatikan? Ich glaube, dass ist ein Steckenopferd von Sciascia

Beste Grüße, Pjacobi 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Pärt, Dylan und die Dietrich -- seltsame Mischung...

Am schrägsten finde ich "Gu' Nach' für heute". ;-) Mit Marlene Dietrich (und Zarah Leander) kann man aufwachsen, wenn auf dem Dachboden Schellack-Platten aufbewahrt werden und man sie noch anhören kann, mit Dylan kann man halb erwachsen werden (und ihn nach langem Zögern, um nicht enttäuscht zu werden, am 4. April 2007 doch noch on stage zu erleben und nicht enttäuscht sein), und Pärt kann man spät entdecken und sogar persönlich kennenlernen, wenn es direkte Anknüpfungspunkte gibt. In der vergangenen Woche bekam ich noch eine CD mit persönlicher Widmung zugeschickt. Welch große Freude. Der Mann ist zu Herzen gehend bescheiden und brach beinahe in Tränen aus, als ich sagte, wie großartig ich seinen Einsatz für Anna Politkovskaya finde. Und zu den Damen der Vergangenheit: Anfang des Jahres besuchte ich ein Programm, in dem eine Sopranistin (!) mit rutschendem Kleidchenoberteil im Stil der 50er Jahre Lieder sowohl der einen als auch der anderen vortrug. Wenn man jeden Ton gespeichert hat, und das wohl bis in die persönlich endliche Ewigkeit, tut's ein bisschen weh. Ich habe nur noch den Pausenbeginn abgewartet. Das nur am Rande.

Ist völlig in Ordnung, ob Atom- oder Kernphysik - das ist dein Thema, meines gewiss nicht. Und rote Links dürfen natürlich sein. Jetzt habe ich noch nicht geguckt, was deinem kritischen Blick nicht standgehalten hat. Es ist doch schwierig, eine Göre in Texten wüten zu lassen, die sie nicht versteht. ;-). Herzliche Grüße und Gu' Nach' für heute --MrsMyer 22:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurze Meldung: Meine de:Benutzerseite ist wieder blau. Lass mich bitte wissen, wenn du Majorana kandidieren lässt. Einen schönen Feiertag wünscht --MrsMyer 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! Ich habe den Artikel mal unter "Review" eingestellt. Ich tendiere ja eher dazu, dass Lesenswert vor Review kommt, aber anscheinend hat sich da die Einstellung auch schon geändert. --Pjacobi 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Schon entdeckt! LZ 7 ist jetzt auch im Review, nicht weit unter dem Herrn Physiker. --MrsMyer 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Auch gesehen. Also meine Theorie zu der unerfreulicher Diskussion beim letzten Mal: Benutzer:Lord Flashheart war einfach ein wenig aus der geistigen Balance geworfen, weil ein Zeppelin-Artikel mit so wenig technischen Details vorgestellt wurde. Immerhin ist ja noch nicht mal der Hersteller der Motoren angegeben etc. (ich habe mal zum Vergleich durch ein paar Zeppelin-Artikel gezapt). Dass nicht alle die Fülle der technischen Details als das wichtigste ansehen, kann in dem Moment schon einmal unterm Tisch fallen. Naja, Hauptsache es geht jetzt konstruktiv weiter. --Pjacobi 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Der Review hat leider auch keine Erweiterungen gebracht - präzise gesagt: Niemand hat etwas beigetragen. Scheint so zu sein, dass es außer meiner (mageren, was technische Details betrifft) Quelle keine weiteren gibt. Selbst ein Luftschiff-Fachmann, den Stahlkocher (mein früher Unterstützer in de) sehr dankenswerterweise angesprochen hat, und den ich selbst angemorst habe, schweigt stille. Ist auch egal. Mir ist wichtiger, dass ein Ereignis, das im kollektiven Gedächtnis der Region eine Rolle spielt, nicht verloren geht. Es wäre doch schade, eine Quelle nicht zu benutzen - für de:WP kann ich mich auch damit bescheiden. Übrigens habe ich Konzert I entdeckt. Ob MrMyer (der gerade außer Landes ist), mitkommen kann, ist noch nicht klar. Nach einer fiesen Woche (wichtiger Zweitchef, den ich als Raubolz mit gutem Herzen bezeichne, ist erkrankt. Ob er zurückkommt, hängt von vielerlei Faktoren ab, auch davon, ob er starken Willen hat und von seiner Disziplin, die Männern manchmal abgeht: Eine Pille macht mich gesund) ist die Freude darauf doch erstmal groß. --MrsMyer 15:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ja, diese Reviews sind sehr oft die reine Enttäuschung mangels Feedback. Meit gibt es mehr Feedback, wenn man es rotzfrech gleich kandidieren lässt -- wie Du auch gemerkt hast. Vom rauhen Diskussionsstil dort muss man dann aber abstrahieren können, wenn man es so herum macht.

Konzert: Wenn ich nicht so träge wär...

--Pjacobi 22:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Mach mal! Ich wedele vorm Dom auch noch mit ner Karte als Erkennungszeichen. Es wird mit Sicherheit noch welche geben. --MrsMyer 23:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Eigentlich ist der so heftig attackierte Artikel mein persönliches Denkmal. Für einen Klassenkameraden einer Vorfahrin, dessen plattdeutsches Zitat kritisiert wurde. Dessen Nachfahr war mein Mitschüler. Ein anderer, R. v. B., hat mich bei einem Schulausflug zum eigentlichen Denkmal, dem Zeppelinstein, über eine große Pfütze getragen, wie es ungefähr Siebenjährige machen. Was große Gefühlsverwirrungen in einer Siebenjährigen verursachte. R. v. B. traf ich als junge Erwachsene, nachdem er früh fortgezogen war, durch einen großen Zufall wieder. Er starb jung, weil manche Krankheiten noch unbeherrschbar waren. Ich bin bei dem Thema also nicht ganz neutral. Ich sag's einfach mal, um hier deutlich zu machen, dass Artikel zu schreiben (war ja mein zweiter in WP), auch etwas mit Gefühlen zu tun haben kann. Mit meinem ersten] (getauft, konfirmiert, spät getraut) ist es ebenso. ;-) Ich finde, dass diese keine schlechten Gründe sind, einem Lexikon beizutragen. Aber dann kann es natürlich an der Objektivität mangeln. Herzliche Grüße --MrsMyer 18:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ich denke Artikelchen die einem wegen eines persönlichen Bezuges am Herzen liegen, sie gar nicht so unüblich. Kommt einfach meistens nie heraus. --Pjacobi 22:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Naja, MrsMyer war schon als kleines Mädchen ein bisschen anders als Mädchen, die den von Mama und Papa vorher bestimmten Weg gingen - und geniert sich bis heute nicht. Auch gut, eine extreme Revoluzzerin war sie auch nicht. Ist halt alles Relativitätstheorie. Magst du nebenbei mal hier gucken? Ist ja vielleicht aufrüttelnder als ein Konzärtchen. --MrsMyer 23:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Stichwort Politisch angemessen oder nicht: Den Artikel habe ich nicht mitbekommen - ich wünsche dir auf jeden Fall stabile Nerven in der Diskussion. Aber die hast du offenbar.

(Bei LZ 7 hat sich übrigens gar nix mehr getan, abgesehen von Kresspahls Vorschlag, Karten über die Fahrt und Wetterbedingungsdiagramme anzufertigen, was ich nicht kann. Leider hat der offenbar einzige de:Fachmann für Zeppeline, den Stahlkocher angesprochen hat, offenbar auch kein Interesse; jedenfalls hat er gar nicht reagiert. Es scheint wohl so zu sein, dass es über meine Quelle hinaus keine weitere Literatur gibt.)

Das Konzert im Dom übrigens war nicht so übel, allerdings hat mir Arvo Pärts Annum per Annum weniger gefallen als anderes, das ich von ihm gehört habe. Der Abend endete allerdings nett und spät, mit einem kleinen Umtrunk mit der örtlichen Kritikerin. Was wir nebenbei ausgeheckt haben, erscheint eines Tages in meinen Memoiren. ;-) --MrsMyer 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a talkpage, not a users talkpage, so why are you talking German? Speak English in these more "public" pages..Mallerd 10:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is in fact a user's talkpage, did you miss that? Nevertheless you are right in so far, that I prefer to communicate in English here. --Pjacobi 16:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, you're right. :P Excuse me, I must have clicked on a link and didn't notice it or something..strange. Mallerd 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

Did you get my mail? J. D. Redding 23:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I already gave a short answer, but I switched mail accounts -- perhaps I mismanaged something. I'll resend from the original account. --Pjacobi 09:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to self (3)

• Kurt O. Friedrichs
• Friedrichs extension

Pjacobi 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Rawat at Unipaz

If you'd followed the link supplied in the article http://tprf.org/Prem_Rawat_press_releases/Prem_Rawat_Honored_by_University_of_Peace.htm you'd find that the Rector Pierre Weil said: “On behalf of the University of Peace, I grant you the title of Ambassador for Peace.Momento 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that Unipaz uses the self labelling "University" in Brazil, but it is misleading and as it would be against the law, otehr chapters of Unipaz abstain from using. --Pjacobi 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because Unipaz has only three universities - Costa Rica, Brasil and Japan. Headquartered in Costa Rica, the United Nations-mandated University for Peace was established in December 1980 as a Treaty Organization by the UN General Assembly. Momento 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Compare university. Which academic degree, accepted outside Unipas, can be achieved in this pseudo-universities? --Pjacobi 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse the pun, but its academic, because I want to replace the current bloated Rawat article with this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal

Can you have a look and give me your opinion.Momento 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Northern India (Darjeeling Diocese)

Hi Pjacobi, could you please undo my latest move ? It is the move to an apparently outdated name (see external link in article) Sarcelles 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Now at Diocese of Eastern Himalaya again. Greetings to all Stammtisch participants, if you still show up there. --Pjacobi

[edit] Reddi behavior

Please comment. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed image

Why did you claim that the image I uploaded to the Teletubbies page wasn't fair use? It follows the criteria for uploading an image from a magazine, and it helps to illustrate the article. Thanks. WikiJoeH 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read Template:Non-free newspaper image carefully. The image use would only be fair-use, for a Wikipedia article about the newspaper (article). --Pjacobi 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the Teletubbies' visit to New York City and the Mayor's dedication of the Key to the City. The image should be fair use. WikiJoeH 14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that isn't the point. Only if we use the image to illustrate a Wikipedia article about the reporting in the Daily Intelligencer it is fair use. Not in a Wikipedia article which happens to be about the same topic. --Pjacobi 16:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Template:Non-free newspaper image tag states "to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question". Wouldn't this fit under "issue in question"? WikiJoeH 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Issue as in issue of this newspaper. Compare also Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use. --Pjacobi 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the photo isn't being used simply because it's an image of Teletubbies, but because it is a depiction of a newsworthy event. The image is originally from Getty Images, would that make a difference? Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, I'm just trying to understand so I don't cause similar problems in the future. WikiJoeH 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I may not be the best person, neither to know all judical details (I am not a lawyer) nor to explain it most clearly (I am a lousy teacher). You may get more and better explanations if you try the talk pages of the policy pages or the Wikipedia:Village pump.

But I'll try once more: If using a newspaper photograph (by fair use exemption of copyright law), the article must be at least in part about the newspaper or the photograph. As not the smallest part of the Teletubbies article is about Getty Images, the photograph, or the Daily Intelligencer, you are out of luck.

Pjacobi 20:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Einstein translation needed

To use in the Hermann von Helmholtz article, could you translate this for me:

”Ich bewundere den originellen, freien Kopf Helmh[oltz].”

-Albert Einstein, August 1899

Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"I admire the original, free (or independent) mind [of] Helmholtz."

Without context it cannot be seen whether Helmholtz stands as genitive or accusative case here.

Pjacobi 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

original as in creative, just to resolve ambiguities, imho :) --Abdull 12:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, to cite another translation, __meco, says it translates as: “I admire the original, free head Helmh[oltz].” --Sadi Carnot 15:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, as to context, the quote is the opening quote for David Cahan’s 666-page book Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science. In his bibliography section he has one Einstein reference (I assume this is where the quote comes from):

• Einstein, Albert. [Review of Hermann von Helmholtz. Zwei Vortrage uber Goethe. W. Konig, ed. (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1917).] Die Naturwissenschaften 5 (1917): 675.

If anyone has access to this, that would be great. I doubt there is an English translation? --Sadi Carnot 15:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone’s help, I added the quote and a short overview to the intro of the Hermann von Helmholtz article. --Sadi Carnot 13:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Brown FAC

I answered your comment on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident. I hope that I can resolve your concerns about the article. CLA 06:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bus Uncle featured article review

The Bus Uncle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Jonel | Speak 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Bartolf

Entspricht der Artikel eigentlich den hiesigen Relevanzkritierien? Ich kann's nicht beurteilen - mich wundert allerdings sehr, dass es in de keinen Artikel gibt, auch nicht über das Gandhi Information Center. --MrsMyer 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totallydisputed tag on Brown's gas

Hi. Can you explain why you're tagging the article as such?

I understand the skepticism on HHO; that's clearly pseudoscience. Brown's gas is not - it's just a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen gases, and it has a clear historical and industrial and scientific pedigree. Many engineering and chemistry professionals will be completely aware of it.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm writing my statement this very moment. --Pjacobi 20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on: “you are effectively destroying the readability of Wikipedia”

Pjacobi, you are misunderstood. I just arrived at this page (energy) a few day ago. It was a new novice editor: User: Hallenrm, that turned the original 40-50 kb energy article into a disambig page. I haven’t done anything to the page. As you see it is basically how I found it when I got here. You might want to review Talk:Energy (physics) and this and this to get a clearer picture of what’s going on here. Later: --Sadi Carnot 12:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But you presented on that talk page your newly created article series about the topic.

I may be victim to misunderstanding here, but my impression is, that by expanding and splitting the topic into an article series, energy may fall victim to the same problem as entropy.

Pjacobi 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify your position, is your view such that you do not want the English version of Wikipedia to have an energy article, but that you want to leave it as a disambig (or two disambigs, for that matter)? If this is your position, you are in the minority. As for comparing energy to entropy, there is no inherent debate about energy, everyone knows what it is. Also, I don’t know what you mean by “article series”? I’m simply going to write up a nice overview of energy, from all of the related sciences and then link this overview to sub-pages accordingly. Moreover, if you still think my actions (even though I haven't done anything yet) are disrupting the readability of Wikipedia, then why don’t you go and fix the problem at the energy article (please same save me the trouble and your insults). --Sadi Carnot 12:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Energy should be an article about energy in the sciences. A summary mention of industrial energy conversion would be fine too. E.g. da:Energi and es:Energía look OK, de:Energie generally speaking also, but it has grown a bit messy. I assume they all derive from a rather old version of the English article. --Pjacobi 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Energy (German, w/Google translation) is interesting, especially the table. I hope we are one the same page now. If so, please cast your vote at the straw poll at Talk:Energy. --Sadi Carnot 18:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

HHO gas and Brown's gas were deleted, despite a majority of editors voting to keep. As an admin who voted in the AfD, can you comment on the deletion review? — Omegatron 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for WP:NOP

In Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 12#HHO gas, you wrote: "WP:NOR was invented to show the physics cranks the door, now it is used by them to eliminate any counter argument from their articles.". Who were the "physics cranks"? Were they people who thought they knew the laws of physics but did not and were talking rubbish? Or were they people making valid scientific reasoning and were the people complaining about them non-scientists who could not understand the scientific reasoning? (See the next message after your message in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 12#HHO gas.) Anthony Appleyard 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This must have been before July 2004 (when I joinded Wikipedia), so I know it only second hand from mailing list postings of the old guard. Originally it was thought, that Wikipedia would also be ideal to post original research, as an alternative to non-free academic publishing (fortunately we now have some open source journals, nearly all physics paper can be found on arXiv, etc). But it was found that nearly only the crackpots (in the sense of Baez' crackpot index) were interested in this. So NOR was created. Ask Jimbo (or if you don't want to disturb him, I remember User:The Cunctator talking about this lately. --Pjacobi 08:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A thank you note

Thanks Pjacobi for pointing me to the talk page about the Aethometry article. --Joesteels phd 08:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I have added a nice list of sources for the hydrogen fuel injection article to the talk page. Reliable Sources Noah Seidman 05:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Yes, I'm also Pjacobi on the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia. --Pjacobi 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] de:Scientology

In case you didn't notice: I revamped the article entirely and it's now up for election in the lower of the two "least worst articles" categories. Fossa_?! 12:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hello

Hi Peter, i hope you get this

Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.194 (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sperrung von Sylvia Dackelmann

Aus welchen Gründen hast du Sylvia Dackelmann gesperrt? Ich bin nicht mit ihr identisch. Linespilot 20:23, 18. Sep. 2007 (CEST)

Aus dem gleichen Grund, aus dem ich jetzt auch Deinen Account gesperrt habe. Frisch für kontroverse Diskussionen angelegte Accounts passen m.E. zum Zweck dieses Projekts. --Pjacobi 20:32, 18. Sep. 2007 (CEST)

Dilettantisch-Eitle Leute wie du sind in einem Projekt wie einer Enzyklopädie fehl am Platz. Vielleicht siehst Du im Vergleich zu dem noch größeren Dilettantenverein innerhalb der Deutschen WP-Admins noch relativ gut aus. Inzwischen ist das aber für mich kein Argument mehr. Im Vergleich zu Trotteln kommt auch Halbbildung als Weisheit daher. Linespilot 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-gravity

Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 00:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Sustainability and Energy Development

Template:Sustainability and Energy Development has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

[edit] Hello

I am a new user to wikipedia and I was wondering if I could get your input on an article that I have just posted. Any comments or feedback would be very helpful to me. Thanks. The article is titled Automated Quality control of meteorological observations. Or this should link to it Automated Quality control of meteorological observations --Amanrye 16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replied

On my talk page.--CSTAR 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your comments on electogravity

I noticed your debate on the talk page on Electrogravity. I'm not sure if you are sincerely interested in the subject. I guarantee that the frustration you are encountering is due entirely to intentional disinformation. I've noticed this is a common tactic, to take an open forum and mix in all sorts of specious and fraudulent information, which renders the communication channel worthless to any layman. Wikipedia is infested with this kind of activity. Electrogravity seems to be a touchy subject in some circles.

If you have been researching the subject for a while, I would be interested in a reading list from you in regards to electrogravity. Thanks, --Edombane (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess that you are wrong here. I'm a skeptic and a physicist and don't have specific knowledge or interest in electrogravity -- only to keep bold claims out of Wikipedia, until extraordinary evidence is presented. --Pjacobi 16:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And another note to self

Check: [31]. --Pjacobi (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas E. Bearden

Concerning your edit, is it acceptable to replace no support in the scientific community with no noteworthy support.. (without specifying any supporters or sources)? Greetings --Ponte (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In contrast to Evans, who tries hard to gather some support, I'm not aware of any support for Bearden. Put perhaps I'm mistaken. Do you about someone specific or do you simply prepare a more defensive formulation? --Pjacobi (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For a scientist it's like pressing a self destruction button to support Bearden. So you probably don't find any accredited (and WP suitable) physicists who support Bearden - it's kind of a vicious circle. I think (not know) that there is some support in Russia, but I'm not sure about that.

If we could replace no support with no noteworthy support (or similar) it would be a more defensive formulation and I would prefer it. --Ponte (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. An absolute no is a dubious statement, despite it may be true in this case. --Pjacobi (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WaterDriven

Please understand that websites like waterdriven.com are a blight on the industry. That entire website is a "marketing" tacktick of the like that is typically seen in "make money online" websites!!!!!!! Any website that does not put the time and effort in to make it "reasonable", most likely has an unscrupulous agenda. Websites like that are basically junk, if not outright scams. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the information, and aesthetic appeal of waterdriven.com versus waterfuel.us Noah Seidman (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the difference. But even total scams can have very good looking websites and overall professional operation, which makes them even more problematic, so I

I'm still clueless about the merits and while I'm practically sitting in view of technical university, they don't have a department working on combustion engines and consequently next to no coverage in the lib.

Lacking so much information I won't do any rush steps (assuming that you watch yourself regarding WP:COI), but my general distrust is still fuelled by pragmatic version of Occam's Razor: "Why aren't the inventors of this not rich and famous?" and "Why isn't it used by any car manufacturer?".

--Pjacobi (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Because no body cares". I've been working on this tech since my Sophomore year in college. Its been five years now, and no body listens. I have called everyone, every senator, every representative, local government, Corporations, Companies, Government Agencies. Its sooo simple "no body cares". Noah Seidman (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I promise I will be extremely cautious with my COI; this article isn't for me its for everyone involved; all the real companies, all the real researchers. Maybe we can find a NPOV way of explaining the difference between the "real" and the "manipulative" websites. You can be quite rational, which is extremely appreciated. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific a φ_h of .24 is 201% hydrogen/gasoline [% in mass]. This info is on table #3 of the article (pseudo reference). Noah Seidman (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"201%", this must be a typo, or am I misssing somthing? Do you mean 201 gram of hydrogen per 100 gram of gasoline? --Pjacobi (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The number is correct. 201%. 2 parts of hydrogen to 1 part of gasoline by mass. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are two scanned pages from (2002-01-2196) SAE technical paper series. [32][33] Noah Seidman (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also remember that this is a hydrogen reformer and not Brown's Gas. The gas coming from the hydrogen reformer is derived from gasoline therefore it has other molecular components; whereas Brown's Gas is solely hydrogen and oxygen. Note that on table #3 it also says a φ_h of .2 is 15% hydrogen/gasoline by mass; this is relatively very small, while still effecting gas mileage in double digit percentages.Noah Seidman (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: #wikimedia-admin

Hi, I saw your msg over on Cbrown1023's Meta talk page. For access to #wikimedia-admin you'll need to provide us with your nick on freenode, and if you haven't done so already have it registered it with freenode's services. For more information on how to do this, see http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#userregistration. Once that's done we'll add your nick to the access list and you should be able to join. --1568 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll looking at the freenode instructions. --Pjacobi (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:No. 1 (yacht)

Would you be so kind as to offer a third opinion on the (rather trivial) dispute here, if you have a moment? Thanks, Jfire (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] please, mediate Magnetic monopole discussion

At Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Nondimensionalized.2C_SI.2C_and_CGI_comparison and Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Emphasis_here_is_to_the_symmetry.21 -- 12 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.230.53 (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supavadee Phangkaew

Deprodded by anon. I don't think the "references" added meet WP:RS or WP:V. Dlohcierekim 14:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other notes to self

• Paris–Harrington theorem
• Second-order arithmetic
• Presburger arithmetic
• Robinson arithmetic
• Compactness theorem

--Pjacobi (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Background and genesis of topos theory

--Pjacobi (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

unrelated

• Image:Répartition_vraisemblable_de_la_Wikipédia_francophone.png
• Image:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png

and another topic

Colossally Abundant Number --Pjacobi (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)