User talk:Count Iblis

Entropy

Dear Count: Please consider a dispensation to a lowly idiot. Since entropy is related to the dissipation of energy from nonconservative forces which is not available to do work, isn't the quantity somehow related to the curl of F or the line integral by Stoke's Theorem? Is this quantity only significant if it is zero and the force is conservative? If the curl of F is not equal to zero, then what is it equal to? If I should know this I sincerely apologize that I do not.Kissnmakeup (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Also, I chose my handle after reading the discussion about the entropy article. As I delve more and more into this wiki thing, I keep finding snipits that I don't really have the time to address, however, this will bother me until I ask someone. I know that there is a separate article about information entropy, but are there two other different articles on entropy, one which is considered "general" and one which is considered "thermodynamic?" The reason I ask is because I don't really understand why an IT hacker (Linas) is having the final say about what an article about thermodynamic entropy says. It seems clear to me that he has this egotistical determination to stick his nose where it does not belong and force the example of information entropy on the rest of us poor human earth idiots who don't know everything yet, and who want to stay focused on thermo for now.Kissnmakeup (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But these topics are politically very sensitive and there are equally valid but completely different opinions in the reliable sources. Compare PR's behavior to your own behavior some time ago on the Global Warming page. In that case the reliable sources (i.e. the peer reviewed sources and not the unreliable blogs) are very clear, yet we have to put up with editors who refuse to recognize the basic facts. See here for a recent RFC on such a problematic editor. Count Iblis (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

gee, thanks. not only do i get a whole new editor casting aspersions on me, it's on a whole new topic to boot. thanks so much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to your Armada? :) Count Iblis (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis, your insertion of irrelevancies and non sequitirs here, in order to throw aspersions at me, seems a bit uncivil and not completely appropriate here. We are trying to discuss specific topics here. (By the way, if your armada reference was meant to be humorous, I can take some wry humor here as well as anyone here, but it did not appear that way, and seemed like an unfriendly act. I don't mind some off-topic conversation, but it seemed like some sudden negative material unrelated to the topic at hand. if you are trying to strike a light note, I feel you should try to do so differently.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me exlain this a bit better then. You wrote "Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas". My reply to you, based on your conduct on the GW page can be found here Count Iblis (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your remarks ARE AD HOMINEM AND TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. I would appreciate it if you would please try to stck to the point. Your remarks have no relation to the topic under discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me stick to the point then. If you think it is ok. to invite editors from the "Conservatism in the US" page to come over to the Global Warming page, which is primarily about the science of Global Warming, not politics, and then defend that by saying "I guess our main difference is that I don't view this only as a science article, but as a societal/political topic as well.", then what is PR doing wrong when he brings the Palestinian POV in articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, it sure is great to see how well-expressed you are...(sarcasm). your entire approach to this is completely counter-productive. you are beuing extremely contentious. ok, I have no desire to reply to anything which you have stated. are you trying to send the message that you disagree with my action? ok, you win, since I have no desire to reply to your questions which are phrased in a completely non-productive and contentious way.

you have completely ignored the issue here, and brought up my concerns about my past actions in a way which is completely counter to any norms of productive discussions. I find your approach completely unhelpfu, and decline to reply. Ok, you win. Yay! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:59, 7

August 2008 (UTC)

But, Steve, dear, THIS IS a reply. Kissnmakeup (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. that's true. however, it is a reply which in no way refute the laser-like incisiveness of Count Iblis's well-aimed points. it is mere petulance on my part. Therefore, and I say this again, he wins. Yay! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is required

On the TGGWS talk page, see [1], Badger Drink is asserting ArbCom rulings do not set precedents. Since this obviously has implications for your argument regarding the ArbCom ruling on pseudo-science requiring peer-reviewed sources in science articles (when no official wikipedia policy includes such a requirement), I thought you might want to weigh in there. --GoRight (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What is your interpretation of WP:0RR?

I find the description confusing. What exactly, in your opinion of course, is someone allowed to do under WP:0RR?

It seems it allows me to add new material but never revert anything. And your discussion on WP:ANI seems to view anything that I change as a revert. So in your view I could add only new material and never make changes to any existing content? And so once others touched my additions I would be forbidden from ever touching them again? Nor could I ever touch anything anyone else wrote? This seems a rather odd scenario to me. --GoRight (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Student's t

I think your comments at talk:Student's t-distribution are wrong; please see what I wrote there. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

... oh.... maybe you just meant the first row of the table at that time? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The sklar quotes are wrong

Space and time are modified, but they are very well defined, that is what the Lorentz transformation does. The sklar quote says they are not, this completely, utterly wrong. Blablablob (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

you are not paying attention,

• your reason for edit: "Nowhere is it mentioned that space and time are not well defined"
• from the quote: absolute time separation between event locations is not well defined

that's pretty clear.

There are two problems with the sklar quote:

• 'well defined': we do know how to make all calculations in space and time for inertial observers; this part of the quote only clouds the issue.
• There is simply no such thing as "the distance" between events that are nonsimultaneous: this is completely, and utterly wrong - the Lorentz Transform is the means by which you can calculate and compare distances between different events, and for different inertial observers.

Please revert your edit, as I have already done so twice. Blablablob (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you for reverting - the article is actually pretty good, and it covers all of the key concepts of SR. If there is something that you feel is missing or not very well explained, I offer to help as time and energy allow. Blablablob (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion?

Here is a possible approach: new page. Let me know what you think. Brews ohare (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lagrange multiplier and the normal force

Thanks for the encouragement. I'd also like to modify the curvilinear part to approach it from a Lagrangian viewpoint. Do you have some suggestions for references or links to other Wiki articles on the Lagrange methods? Brews ohare (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Source for science article

Re: this - "This is actually the norm for almost all articles on scientific topics on wikipedia, although it is not official policy" -- not true. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such. -- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience Raul654 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Derivations and verifiability

You wrote: What matters is that statements in Wikipedia are verifiable. So, a mathematical derivation can serve as the verification of a statement. Is there a citable Wiki policy to this effect? It interests me because my short derivation at Fictitious force got flagged for not flying any citations, and I interpreted that as disbelief in my derivation using the general formula. Maybe I could just cite the source for the general formula (again)? Brews ohare (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

what Wikipedia is supposed to be

Thanks for the input on derivations and verifiability.

This topic requires a very clear head, clearer than mine at the moment. One problem to be faced is that some derivations will be wrong. I have found Wikibooks to be more prone to this problem than Wikipedia, not a good omen. And some derivations will derive wrong results. This last could be fixed by requiring that the results be supported by citation.

A related item is that some think Wikipedia is not a textbook, and so should not try teach how to do things (like solving mechanics problems, or using vectors), but should just state results. For myself, if I'm to be limited to simply stating results already in print by paraphrasing words already in print, I have absolutely no interest in contributing.

You mention "wikipedia is a multidimensional sequence". That is a very crucial point. In talking casually with people who use Wiki, the universal strong positive point people make is that it leads the reader to related topics widening their perspective. I'd add to that, that Wiki has articles of varying depth and sophistication, even on the same subject (an example is relativity), so one can develop expertise through linking this way.

Unfortunately the other universal response of people to Wiki is that it cannot be trusted. That is my personal experience with technical matters. The "verifiability" thing just is not working. Brews ohare (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Category State functions

I created a new category Category:State functions, where I add some pages and categories. See it and eventually revert to my version. --Aushulz (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

God's existence

Regardless of how you feel about matters theological, a mass-mailing about the (lack of) existence of God is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. Please don't continue to do that after your block expires, but do continue your admirable work in other areas on the project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheism

Hello Count Iblis,

there is a fine line between religion and faith. Interpretation of faith is diffrent for every person. Even atheism is a type of faith. Nonetheless, my dear adviser, religion does not necessarily constitute a faith. I agree that the cause of all of the chaos in the world right now and in the past is due to diffrence of opinions which were intertreted through some kind of religion. But let us instead of converting each other try to listen and understand. Happy Victory Day!!! Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Iblis, considering your on a mission to enlighten people i think you would at least acknowledge that believing in God does not mean you believe in religion or the actions it has caused; meaning half of your ramble is irrelevant. Try again next time champ :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to the Wiki Court of Appeals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I think the point has been made and acknowledged that this was a poor idea. Theological conversations have no place here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

---

{{unblock|I wrote to the few dozen of people who have the userbox indicating that they believe in God. So, my message was directed toward those people who are open about their belief here on wikipedia, it was not a mass mailing to everyone. If this is still judged to be inappropriate, then I will accept that judgement and not continue (I had only a few more editors to go anyway). But I don't agree with the immediate banning, because I wasn't acting in a very destructive way on Wikipedia (like e.g. vandalism on massive scale requiring immediate action). I would have stopped as soon as I got negative feedback, regardless of my own personal opinion of this being appropriate. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis#top|talk]]) 18:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)}}

kso, basically? It wasn't cool. That said, I just dropped a short block to clean it up and to make sure it stopped. I'm happy to unblock if you're happy to not do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will stop writing to people with the "God userbox". Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okie doke. Unblocked. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think if you were going to do a mass mailing to everyone with a point of view that differs to your own you could at least of attempted to less "am right your wrong" and preachy. If you wanted a discussion why not pose a philosophical question in place of attempting to "convert" them to a differing point of view?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that wouldn't really be appropriate either, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. This sort of conversation has no place at all here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Count Iblis. I just noticed that you had tried to convert me and others to your religion called “Atheism”. You are right; Atheist is a religion, which people want to believe in at all cost. No matter how much proof a person is shown, some will still not believe in G-d. You use as an argument against the existence of G-d, that people have murdered and still do today in the name of religion. You have chosen the poorest argument that there is for “proving” that G-d doesn’t exist. If you would have come up with a brainstorm argument then that would tell me that you are a serious student of this subject. Now that you have tried to conquer the world with such a poor argument, I would recommend that you sit down and study. Maybe oh maybe, if you are true to yourself, and you choose to see the truth instead of believing in a religion for which there is no proof, then maybe you too might believe in G-d. You see, if G-d doesn’t exist then “sin” doesn’t exist either, right? Therefore the human mind needs to have a clean conscience at any price and could make someone believe in Atheism. There was a German philosopher, an atheist and also an anti-Semite who said something like “Judeo-Christianity has destroyed the world”. What he meant was that religion has destroyed his justification of leading a dirty life.

I always wonder how it is that there are still people who don’t believe in G-d. Could our beautiful universe been created in chaos? Is there anyone who believes so? Could chaos have created such a perfect thing as the body of a man and woman? Look at every part and particle of your body and study what it is made of, all its properties and attributes. Why are the eyes in the highest part of the body and head? Why are the fingers in different sizes? Why is your nose protected when you walk into the wall? Another trillion why’s, and there is only one answer to them all, and that is that “In the beginning G-d created heaven and earth… A master designer has designed a masterful piece of art. Chaos can only produce more chaos, but G-d can produce anything, even what is called "nature" and even an "Atheist". Itzse (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Internal energy

Hi Count Iblis

• A transformation can be endothermic Q>0 or exothermic Q<0, not only for chemical reactions but also for physical processes: for instance phase transition, state change.

If you write heat absorbed or added into the system, you restrict the transfer only to an endothermic process. It is the reason why I propose heat exchanged or transferred, that is more general.

• As for the sign rule:

See: Heat

Heat is the process of energy transfer from one body or system to another due to a difference in temperature. The total amount of energy transferred through heat transfer is conventionally abbreviated as Q. The conventional sign convention is that when a body releases heat into its surroundings, Q < 0 (-); when a body absorbs heat from its surroundings, Q > 0 (+).

Sincerely Yours; Maghemite (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

radical alterations to the intro to quantum mechanics article

Hi,

A new editor has unilaterally made many drastic changes to the article Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics to which you have made contributions. I do not think that the changes are desirable. I do not want to start an edit war. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks. P0M (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I may be the "new editor" at issue. Introduction to quantum mechanics is a very important article, because its job is to communicate to educated general readers something about a large and highly counterintuitive body of theory lying at the very core of modern science. I quicky concluded that this entry was falling down on the job, because its prose left a good deal to be desired. Some ideas stated more than once, because someone editing a section overlooked that a point had already been made in another section. Paragraphs and sentences too long. Confusing ordering of ideas. Insufficient links. Further Reading omits classic books. Spelling and grammatical errors. Writing that clearly attempted to be clear to nonspecialists, but mainly tumbled into the long winded and condescending. Sentences whose meaning I really could not sort out, in which case I made a guess at what the author meant, then rewrote the sentence to reflect my surmise. All this is the sort of writing one finds in the typical undergrad term paper. I rarely add inline references, because doing so requires searching through a university library and checking out a book or two. That's real work!

So I went to work supplying my usual "style edit with no intended change in content" fix. Anybody who is ABD in physics or better should feel entirely free to edit my edits. An important part of the production process for hard copy textbooks and encyclopedias is style and copyediting of draft prose submitted by the acknowledged authors. This is why the articles in a hard copy reference pretty much all read the same way despite there being hundreds of contributors. The prose idiosyncrasies are edited away. I know about this rewrite function because I am married to someone who has done it for a living!

The stylistic flaws I am pointing out were by no means peculiar to this entry, but are quite common in Wikipedia entries on many academic topics. My working hypothesis is that a lot of Wikipedia editors are Ph.D. students, even bright undergrads, and/or are not native speakers of English. I should not here that Wikipedia has improved since I began using it in 2005. Wikipedia's intro science entries should, IMHO, emulate the style and difficulty of Goldstein & Goldstein's The Refrigerator and the Universe.

I see that entropy has also proved controversial (edit warring, I fear) and that you and your buddies have taken a close interest in this. Rest assured that I am only a casual spectator to this controversy. The problem is that entropy is one of the slipperiest concepts in classical macroscopic physics. This difficulty means that entropy and the Second Law of thermodynamics attract their full share of pseudoscientific kooks. There is also a healthy debate among physicists, chemists, and philosophers of science about just what entropy means. At the heart of this discussion are the ideas of the physical chemist Frank Lambert (emeritus at Occidental College), whose approach to entropy (as energy dispersion rather than a scalar measure of possible microstates) rightly has its own entry. Lambert is on a mission to change how entropy is explained to undergrads, and he's had fair success thus far (in particular, he recently converted textbook author Peter Atkins). But nearly all Wiki editors learned entropy in the pre-Lambert way, and are likely to get hot and bothered by edits by a Lambertian. Lambert has vigorously complained to me in private about vandalism and edit warring by people who, in his considered opinion, understand neither his nor conventional thermodynamics. For more on Lambert's ideas and his attitude re Wikipedia, see here.123.255.31.3 (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion

that only peer-reviewed academic sources be used as RSs in Middle East articles does not solve the problem. There are plenty of peer-reviewed books and articles that refer, for example, to Hamas as a terrorist organization, or that refer to the expulsion of Arabs from Lydda as "the Lydda Death March".

The point is that the words "terrorist" and "massacre" and "death march" are editorial, regardless of where and when they are used. They are meant to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys, even when they are used by the most reliable academics.

The question of reliability relates only to facts, not to editorializing. Did Israelis use white phosphorus in the Gaza War? This is a question of fact. Was this a violation of human rights? That is a question of opinion. But these distinctions between fact and opinion get inexorably mixed in the narrative war, and moving the argument to the realm of reliability of sources is just baiting the issue. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I actually encountered this very same problem when I still was editing these pages. I wanted to argue that simply citing from a book that "Hamas is best known for suicide attacks" is problematic. But I got nowhere with my argument. I suggested that we could simply write that "Hamas is responsible for suicide attacks", as that is a clear fact that can be cited from numerous sources. But the other editors did not like my suggestion (presumably because they did not want to limit their freedom to abuse sources).

Now, I do think this problem can be solved. We should require that wikipedia editors, when they write articles here, behave like real academics when they cite the literature. Example: if I write an article for a peer reviewed physics journal on dark matter, then any result that I do not derive myself has to be cited from the literature. The article I cite has to prove the point I'm making, or it has to cite that from yet another article. Then suppose that I would like to write that "The most popular DM candidates are supersymmetric particles". Then I could do that as long as it is clear that this is my personal opinion (I could ad the word "arguably" to make that clear).

But it would be very misleading to write that sentence and give a citation to an article where this opinion is repeated. Because the sentence "The most popular DM candidates are supersymmetric particles [X]" looks like it is a fact and that it is shown to be the case in Ref. [X], while all that Ref. [X] does is repeat this opinion.

So, perhaps the Wikipdia policy pages need to be rewritten to close this loophole that the edit warriors are exploiting. Count Iblis (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Defining entropy

Thanks for your recent edits on Entropy. I too was bothered by the rewrite to the lede, but I was foolishly looking for a more subtle way of fixing it, rather than just reverting and starting from there. Best regards. Plastikspork (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Count, I see that you have made another edit to entropy but it is not clear to me how the article lead has been changed. The material is not properly sourced and there is no clear definition of entropy in the introduction. Thank you for your comments about trying to write for the layman in the encyclopedia. I am beginning to understand the importance of that approach.

Since the last revert destroyed a lot of my work, I am going to revert back again and then edit to remove all references to quantum mechanics from the introduction. I will present a simple definition of entropy and add another source to help clarify the introductory equations. Ultimately I plan to retrieve the Fermi reference and add it into the appropriate part of the article as well.

Please do not revert anymore. My references make these equations verifiable and must be preserved. I look forward to seeing the future changes and improvements to the entropy article as we work together constructively. Quantumechanic (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Count, I cannot abide your repeated changes to the definition of entropy. If my writing does not make sense to you let's work together to get it right. But simply changing the page back to the way you see fit is not constructive. If your definition was physically correct I would not care. But the entropy accounts for the internal energy and that energy is not available to do work. Quantumechanic (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Two reverts are required

Hi again. Now that you have made your recent edit, I can no longer simply revert to recover my work. I would greatly appreciate it if you would do your own revert so that I can make an effort to incorporate the changes we have discussed. Many thanks. Quantumechanic (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Global warming

Hi, I notice that you and the user Darkohead have been edit warring on the Global warming article. I invite you to discuss the edits on the talk page, talk:global warming. --TS 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Boltzmann's discoveries and lost sources

Don't you think the fact that all of the states tend toward the lowest energy possible is useful to understand entropy? When I enter a source reference, I am standing on the shoulders of giants. Each time you delete such a reference you are denying this community the right to do the same. You do not have the all-encompassing authority to take away such rights. In fact your actions are in violation of wikipedia policy. Quantumechanic (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Hi Count Iblis. I was perusing Talk:Entropy and I was surprised to see a new topic titled: Quantummechanic, do you understand this topic at all? I was disappointed to realise that Quantummechanic is a new Wikipedia user, having made his or her first edit on 6 August.

I see that the above title was created by you on 9 August. In my opinion, your actions in using this approach to Quantummechanic is unacceptable on Wikipedia. The foundation of Wikipedia is the five pillars. The fourth of these pillars is Wikipedia’s code of conduct. Please see WP:Civility. In particular, at WP:Civility#Engaging in incivility there is the example of condescending language as being something that is unacceptable on Wikipedia. In my opinion, the rhetorical question Do you understand this topic at all? is condescending language and therefore inappropriate on Wikipedia.

If you feel you can assist a new editor, or improve Wikipedia, by communicating directly with that editor to point out errors in his edits or shortcomings in his understanding of Wikipedia, the only appropriate thing to do is to write to him in the relative privacy of his User talk page. By writing to Quantummechanic in this way, on a much-visited Talk page, you have probably embarrassed him in a way that is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have a policy of publicly naming and shaming editors who make mistakes or offend experienced editors.

I see that you have written to Quantummechanic on his User talk page on numerous occasions, mostly in a civil fashion. That is good. Unfortunately, on 10 August you wrote Why don't you first study the topic yourself and pass the exams on thermodynamcs and statistical physics at university level before you pretend to understand this topic? That is condescending language and unacceptable on Wikipedia because it contravenes WP:Civility.

I see that you have published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. You will be familiar with the principle that in peer-review, the reviewer may be as critical as he likes towards the technical content of article, but must avoid all temptations to make ad hominem attacks on the author. I see evidence that you are prepared to make ad hominem attacks on Quantummechanic. Because he is a newcomer he is unaware that he does not have to endure attacks of this kind, and he doesn't have the experience to strike back. I am pleased to act on behalf of Quantummechanic and all other newcomers and young people.

Wikipedia does not have a rank structure. There are no Generals or Colonels or Sergeants. All users are equal and deserve to be treated as such. From time to time we all become exasperated at the work done by vandals, newcomers and others but there is nothing written in Wikipedia to authorise experienced users and technically competent users bullying others. When we see a newcomer or inexperienced user it is an opportunity to assist and mentor that user. It is not an opportunity to be a bully.

Please return to Talk:Entropy and adjust the title of your topic to something compatible with Wikipedia’s Code of Conduct as enshrined in the five pillars. Please also refrain from making personal attacks on Quantummechanic and other Wikipedia editors. Feel free to delete this message after you have digested it. Thank you in anticipation of your understanding. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we're supposed to have unlimited patience towards uninformed individuals who consistently press for the inclusion of incorrect material despite all attempts to reason with them. Randy in Boise is a rare and precious resource, whereas those with subject matter expertise are a dime a dozen. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Boris, that's indeed the problem I had here. Just to set the record straight, let me explain the exact chronology. User Quantumechanic (only one "m" in his name, I got that wrong in the thread title) made edits to the entropy page which I reverted on the grounds that they were misleading and then I decided that since the entropy page was in need of revisions anyway, why not do it right now? Now, user quantumechanic was insistent on editing the article in a different way along the lines of his first edit.

Then, I thought, why not let him have a go? It would mean entropy would be introduced from a phenomenological POV, which is not my favoriute POV, but if he is willing to spend the time to do a lot of writing, why not let him do that? I would sit on the fence and make some comments and perhaps make minor corrects myself.

I wrote to a Wiki Admin, see first paragraph of this posting here about this plan. This Wik Admin had seen my first revert of his edits and reacted to that and we discussed that a bit previously. So, I was notifying him in advance to avoid trouble. You can imagine that quantumecanic editing again starting from the version that was later reverted wold be interpreted as edit warring by that Admin.

But not long after he started editing again, did it become clear to me that his knowledge of the subject was simply way below the minimum level needed for him to be able to contribute in an effective way. The fact that he insists that "there are errors which he's correcting", while in fact there are no errors and he is editing in nonsense thinking that he's "correcting errors" and pointing that out for every instant takes a large amount of time, led me to conclude that he should not contribute at all.

I wrote on the wikiproject physics page about this, see here and on the Adminstrator's noticeboard, see here

I explained why it was now not practical for him to edit from his preferred version and that I would be editing starting from my prefered verion. Since this could look like I'm edit warring, so I thought I needed to explain myself first before doing this.

Now, let me explain that section on the entropy talk page. I did not spot the flawed integral expressions for the entropy by user quantumechanic when he first edited those in. This happened later and at that point I concluded that that my suspiciouns that I already had about him were correct: He really doesn't know much about this topic.

But because he was constantly pretending to be an expert, in the sense that he constantly argues that he has an advanced book and he has spotted erors in the entropy article and I'm removing his sourced edits etc. etc., the only way to make clear to everyone beyond a reasonable doubt that his judgement cannot be trusted, I had to write that section in that way. He choose to have a big mouth, look at his edit summaries where he says that he's correcting errors. he didn't want to consider that he's wrong, that the article is correct, and that he's editing in nonsense after detailed discussions.

So, I decided that it was now time for him to put up or shut up, so I copied and pasted his own flawed edits on the talk page and I now directly questioned his expertise. I see absolutely nothing wrong to act in this way in a case like this. Count Iblis (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Count Iblis. Thank you for your prompt and courteous response.

I see that you have defended yourself against my allegations by claiming extreme frustration and provocation. You have provided comprehensive details related to the technical content of the article Entropy, and the chronology of events which led to your feelings of frustration and provocation. I understand how this feels, and I have sympathy for all of us who feel our work is being reduced in value by other Users.

However, my allegations are unrelated to technical matters, and certainly not the technical content of Entropy. My allegations relate to your behaviour towards Quantumechanic. You have not addressed those allegations.

Wikipedia contains much advice to Users about how to behave in difficult and testing circumstances. Some sources are:

• WP:Do not insult the vandals
• WP:How to be civil
• WP:Please do not bite the newcomers
• WP:WikiBullying
• WP:Civility

This is not an exhaustive list.

I am confident there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in any of these sources to indicate that there is a circumstance when one User is authorised to use condescending language towards, or naming & shaming, another User. (If you disagree with me, please let me know the source that authorises condescending language or naming & shaming.) These forms of behaviour are incompatible with the fourth of Wikipedia’s five pillars. There is nothing to indicate that you, or any other User, is exempt from the Code of Conduct.

You concluded your reply by writing I see absolutely nothing wrong to act in this way in a case like this. There is something wrong in acting in this way. Naming & shaming a User is simply incompatible with Wikipedia’s Code of Conduct. By participating in Wikipedia, we all consent to abide by the Code of Conduct. If any of us objects to this Code of Conduct the next step is clear - write for some other encyclopedia, journal or web-site.

I am now asking only that you do one thing. Please return to Talk:Entropy and adjust the title of your topic to something compatible with Wikipedia’s Code of Conduct as enshrined in the five pillars. When we write something on Wikipedia it no longer belongs to us – it belongs to Wikipedia. When you saved the thread title in question you gave it to Wikipedia – it no longer belongs to you. As I have explained, the title is condescending and is incompatible with WP:Civility. Wikipedia should not contain statements that are in breach of its own code, and naming & shaming is such a breach.

If you make the change I have asked I will have nothing further to write on the matter. If you don’t do so I may raise the matter at WP:Wikiquette alerts so that other Users can rule on whether the title in question should be allowed to remain. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh good grief. An editor with no knowledge of the article's topic insists on his own interpretation despite the objections of multiple other editors, edit wars to preserve his erroneous material, and now it's Iblis who's at fault? Get a grip, man. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether editors should (plausibly) critique one another for not having enough expertise in a subject to rewrite parts of difficult articles safely, I believe that User:Quantumechanic was editing in a warlike manner and making no effort to achieve consensus for his edits. It seemed unlikely to me that he would be able to find *anyone* to comment on the talk page in support of his changes. I became aware of his changes since I have Entropy on my watch list, and when I saw what was going on I left him a 3RR warning. Q. had described Count Iblis's changes as user vandalism. When a brand-new user starts a major revamp of a difficult article, and in doing so gets into an edit war with long-time users, and then he proceeds to accuse them of vandalism for reverting any of his changes, I think he starts to lose some WP:AGF points. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just proposed a new guidline for editing science articles, see here. Most of the time editors intuitively stick to these guidlines, and all too often things go wrong when they don't.

User:Quantumechanic's big mistake was (if we assuming good faith) that he took the wiki policies regarding sourced information extremely serious while not having much of a scientific background, so what I wrote in my proposed guidlines was alien to him.

So, every time he read something in his source that seemed to contradict an (unsourced) statement in the article, he immediately concluded that the aticle was incorrect, and he edited in what he thought was correct. Then, when his edit was corrected by me (removed or sometimes simply rewritten), that was interpreted as "vandalism" by him, because he was thinking that I was acting contrary to the wiki rules.

Now, I have encountered similar cases a few times earlier here on wikipedia. And I have also seen examples of systematic flaws in articles that can only be explained if you assume that the writers were not self critical enough when they wrote the article. So, the guidlines are, I think, necessary as things to tend to go wrong if people don't stick to them. Count Iblis (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

'bout your (proposed) guideline

I've stopped counting how many times articles on "deep" topics are edited by editors (I guess undergraduate students or below) that have only a shallow or downright wrong understanding of a topic; the most recent example I'm aware of is lambda calculus. You cannot enforce clue with a guideline. These guys edit the topic precisely because they think they "got it", so your guideline won't really help. Pcap ping 18:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Entropy

Please do not delete talk page sections without good reason. As to the section title, even if the substance of the section matched the old title (which it substantially doesn't IMO) it certainly is not required, and reasonable alternatives can surely be found. If you object to my suggestion (and frankly it seems a trivial thing to worry about), then change it (without re-introducing unnecessary comments in the title on other editors). PS If you feel the title change requires you to amend a comment of yours, by all means do. Rd232 PPS None of this reflects on any substance at issue, which I know nothing about. It's just a courtesy thing, to avoid such section titles; and avoiding unnecessary wikidrama is always helpful. ^talk 16:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in your conclusion that presumably one can "not question the competence of an editor in the section itself". I see no reason why you would reach that conclusion from the preceding discussion - the issue was the section title. And whilst asking about the expertise of editors is always a delicate matter, it is sometimes necessary, but does not require a section title of this sort. Some less confrontational and more WP:NPA-compatible section title is perfectly reasonable for that. As for deleting the section - no. If you think it's now useless, you can archive it, but given its recency, I would suggest just leaving it, if the discussion has indeed run its course. Rd232 ^talk 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, see Wikipedia:TPG#New topics and headings on talk pages for some of the subtleties about choice of headers. Headers are unlike regular comments in that they are not owned by the person who created them. They must be neutral and are subject to consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but then Dolphin51 raised this issue specifically because of a "naming and shaming" dimension to the section. While he only considered the title, the contents of the section is actually far more problematic if the issue is "naming and shaming" , but you have to understand a little about thermodynamics to see this.

I can exlain the most offensive thing in two sentences as follows. User quantumechanic introduced the function Q(T), meaning that he doesn't know that there is no state function for heat. That's such an elementary thing that anyone who pretends to understand the subject and writes Q(T) makes him/herself ridiculous.

Now, you can be forgiven not to know this if you admit that you actually do not understand much about the topic, and I was trying to get quantumechanic to simply admit this. He didn't do that, instead he tried to argue why his derivation makes sense.

At the time I had another reason to mention user:quantumechanic explicitly in the title with a question about his understanding of the topic (note that I was unaware that this is never allowed). When this user started to edit I reverted his edits and that led to an incident of edit warring for which user Quantumechanic was warned by Admin Plastikspork, who has the entropy page on his watch list.

Then, because user quantumechanic seemed to be very enthousiastic about editing the entropy page, and he wanted to start editing from his latest version, I thought that letting him edit while I and others would watch and make (minor) corrections or communicate these on the talk page could work.

Now, I had to inform Plastikspork what the new plan was, otherwise quantumechanic might have been judged to have resumed edit warring. A day or so later, I saw the edit containing Q(T) which I had missed earlier. Then that made the whole way of proceeding the agreed way of editing the entropy article dubious. The section title mentioning the user would then make it clear to anyone with the page in his/her watchlist that there is a problem with letting user quantumechanic edit the page. Count Iblis (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Count Ibliss, It's just to say thanks for your support. The irony is that I wasn't intending to make anymore edits to the article anyway, and I hadn't even made many to begin with. The number of edits that I did make was beefed up because of grammatical corrections and re-phrasings. It was obvious that Brews had been out-gunned on the consensus issue and that no further input on my part was going to happen. My only objective all along was to work against the vilification of Brews that was going on on the talk page and other pages. Brews did have a very legitimate point. The change in the system in 1983 was important enough to mean that the general non-physics readership needed to be made aware that the concept of speed in modern SI units was not that of their traditional understanding.

What I'm more interested in now is the fact that a couple of editors, one of whom has been engaged in a lengthy campaign of undermining my edits, can come to ANI and make a malicious complaint, and that an admin instantly imposes a topic ban on the evidence contained in the samples which he listed. And if you read his edits, you will see that there is an inuendo that I have been engaging in crank or pseudo science, which is quite simply not the case. One would hope that this administrator is subject to some kind of accountability for his actions. David Tombe (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way... did you see this, followed by this, this and this? Sock? DVdm (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Count Ibliss, I can assure you that it is not me. That anon, or one with a very similar IP number, appeared at the other ANI thread last month. And just while I'm on here, I stated my final position yesterday at the wiki-physics project page and I got an edit confict with you. As such I didn't know whether or not to answer you, having just said that I have made my final statement. I will now elaborate. Frequency is indeed involved in the vibrating reed switch experiment. It is of course the frequency of the vibrating reed switch itself from which we can convert Q into I. But that experiment is not about direct measurements of the speed of light. It is about measuring the ε of the equation D = εE, through the equation C = εA/d.

You mentioned something about the frequency of light itself. I'm not really up on matters to do with how light is measured directly, but my guess is that if the method has got something to do with Michelson interferometers, then the light frequency (or more likely wavelength) will be involved in the calculation.

My entire point in this dispute can be summed up by the statement that the equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) reads from right to left and not from left to right. In other words, measured values of ε lead to the speed of light through that equation. That is the principle behind how Maxwell incorporated this numerical result into his own equations. His own equations are of course Faraday's law and Ampère's circuital law. An older variation of the experiment above was done by Weber and Kohlrausch in 1856, using a Leyden jar, and Maxwell got his numbers from their results.

As regards the speed of light page, I am not planning to return. I've made my point loud and clear, that Brews had a point. My interest then diverted to permittivity. There is nothing more to be said on the matter. David Tombe (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light

Hi Count Iblis: There is some high-handed quackery going on at speed of light. Have you been watching? Majority rule has been implemented and the lead statement now says 299792458 m/s is a fundamental constant of nature, despite sources (for example Wheeler; Jespersen; Sydenham) that state the contrary.

The facts of this matter, as you may know, are that the number 299792458 m/s was introduced as "the speed of light" in 1983 by defining the metre to make this so. However, far from being a fundamental constant, this number was decided by committee, and has a fixed and arbitrary value that (as clearly stated by NIST and CODATA) is beyond measurement, being simply a conversion factor between time and length in the SI units.

It would seem some attention should be paid to this razzle-dazzle, as the potential is there for editors to completely take over a page. Brews ohare (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

Exact value must be in the lead

You have said:

“I think the fact that the speed of light is used as a standard to define the meter, and therefore has an exact value, is such an important fact that it has to be mentioned in the first few lines in the lead.”

I hope that it will not be too annoying if I attempt to rephrase your statement in what I believe to be a somewhat more accurate manner:

“I think the fact that the metre is defined so as to make the conversion factor between time-of-transit and length exactly 299,792,458 m/s is such an important fact that it has to be mentioned in the first few lines in the lead.”

I'd like then to rewrite your statement to suit me:

“I think the fact that the metre was defined in 1983 so as to make the conversion factor between time-of-transit and length exactly 299,792,458 m/s is such an important departure from the previous usage of the terms "speed of light" and "metre" that it has to be mentioned in the first few lines in the lead.”

Could you comment upon this gradual transformation of your sentence? Brews ohare (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion regarding Quantum Mysticism

There has been some dispute on inclusion for the Hubert/Yorick thing. I was wondering if you could give a third opinion, since it is getting tedious, and you have a good understanding of the content and the background.Likebox (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the opinion, I appreciate the help. I gave a response on the talk page about the Block style argument you gave. That might also be nice to include, but since I don't really buy it, it's hard for me to write about it.Likebox (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Thanks for opening up this discussion. Some had interesting things to say. Some even read the presentation at User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example). And some even addressed the issues raised. It was a bit of an eye-opener to find that some cannot understand English, and that some want only to attack me personally, and have no interest in the topic. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Count Ibliss, After writing a proposed solution on Jehochman's talk page, I looked at AN/I to discover that you are already instigating some kind of mediation process. Have a look at what I wrote on Jehochman's talk page to see what you think. I do believe that for the sake of coherence, the article is ultimately going to have to be written by one (or at most two) persons who have a physics background, and who have not been heavily involved in the dispute. I have suggested a system of submissions to be made to the appointed arbitrators, and for those submissions to be used as assistence in writing a balanced article. David Tombe (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Please attend to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed_of_light and comment if you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguing from first principles

Count Iblis, I actually agree with your arguments about arguing from first principles on the talk pages. Sources are useless when it comes to a major argument with conflicting points of view. I made a mistake yesterday when I answered to your statement, and I've corrected it. My apologies. I remember now that I did actually quote from a source at WT:PHYS. I provided the link to Maxwell's 1861 paper on a number of occasions. But I still agree with your argment that arguing from first principles is best on the talk pages when there is a big controversy. I considered that I was arguing from first principles in that I was pointing out that deriving Maxwell's equations from first principles involves using the experimental results of Weber and Kohlrausch. Those who were arguing against me were trying to make out that the numerical linkage to the speed of light came automaically with the theoretical derivations. Christopher Thomas clearly understood the issue, but then promptly took the entire debate to AN/I as evidence of disruptive behaviour. David Tombe (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

ESCA

I've made some changes to WP:ESCA that I hope you will not find obtrusive. Brews ohare (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Departure

Count Iblis: I am leaving WP in disgust over the small-minded fabrications, distortions and ridiculous accusations. However, I do wish to thank you for your very sane contributions of late, which are a symphony in a cacophony. Brews ohare (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Nature of WIkipedia

I understand you are far more interested in getting at the truth than getting at facts and ideas that can be verified. I expect of all the places on Wikipedia the safest place to conduct SYNTH is in mathematics, since most of the SYNTH preformed falls under the category of work that mainstream sources don't take the time to show explicitly. But if you consider another situation where two relationship can be clearly combined to produce a connection/conclusion that is not represented in WP:RS it can be a problem. As an editor I expect significant connection/conclusion to meet WP:NOTE and if they don't meet WP:NOTE why is it the connection/conclusion stated in a WP:RS. Its just a bad sign.

In my experience WP:Synth has been a pain when trying to debunk WP:fringe material; mainstream science rarely comments on perpetual motion machines like Blacklight Power or Water-fuelled car proponents. It would be so easy to perform some basic calculations to demonstrate these ideas are junk but nothing would stop cranks from doing the same. It would end up as an argument over opinions in which the most persistent voice would win. In contrast WP:Synth keeps us honest and forces us to find the best sources possible. In the end good students won't use wikipedia as a reference but instead will use us to find better sources.

I'll repeat what I said on the other talk page and say we can never deffer to expert opinion on Wikipedia since its fundamentally impossible to obtain, we can't imagine what a reviewer would say even when we have reviewed papers ourselves. After all there is no way to verify our qualifications to the community nor would that be a good thing. There is enough of a hegemony of knowledge in academics as it is. I think we can only deffer to WP:RS and reasonable arguments framed with our very reasonable policies. If this means wikipedia is one or two steps behind cutting edge research I don't think that's a problem. Let the wrinkles get iron out at the conferences and peer-reviewed journal.

Finally regarding quantum mysticism my original edits tweaked the wording of the disputed text and added a few flags to request citations. Both the tweaks and flags were removed by Likebox which made me suspicious. Since then we have danced all over text and discussed a great deal of basic principles. In his text Likebox has concluded that there are only two viable outcome/interpretations. My initial edits represented a third outcome/interpretations, the existence of a third option makes the text flawed. I would be ok with including flawed text if it was properly cited and attributed to the individual who presented the flawed text. In this case there is no one to attribute the text to but Likebox, please read the Dennett text if you don't believe me. Attribution to Likebox isn't good enough for inclusion.--OMCV (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your patient attention to the quality of science articles on Wikipedia, and for raising the issue of verifiability from first principles which is absolutely essential to get recognized. The issue on the quantum mysticism page (which you know) is that OMCV inserted a text which made quantum mechanics look like statistical mechanics into the text, which I reverted, and this led to the current situation. I am sure it will work out fine.

I think OMCV has a valid point regarding SYNTH from Dennett's article, but it's a judgement call, and I happen to disagree with his assessment. I believe that Dennett makes all the points in the section, in slightly different language, with nearly identical arguments. You know the debate, and you have been helpful.

The reason I am writing is to point out a political issue with your attempts to formulate decent science/mathematics guidelines. I agree with you completely, but I think you are making a sales-pitch error. You should avoid the word "expert", replacing it with "someone who is familiar with the literature" or "conversant with the techniques". I know that this is what you mean when you say "expert", because it is described in the details of your exposition.

The loaded term "expert" will turn people off. For many people, an "expert" is defined as someone with a title given by an expertise granting center, not as a person who knows what they're talking about. In addition, people with PhD's and positions often make elementary errors in their field, and a conversant person from outside the field might be more expert than they are (as you pointed out is true of SBHarris).

Your proposals are essential for giving legitimacy to the tremendous amount of mathematical articles here which are completely unsourced (and absolutely essential). They will never be sourced, if they are any good, since verifiability in mathematics is almost by definition from first principles. I think one way to get supporters for your policy guidelines is to ask mathematical contributors to chip in, or to ask on the project mathematics pages.

On the other hand, I am afraid that calling attention to these articles might lead them to get challenged and deleted, which would destroy the main function of the encyclopedia. Anyway, thank you for your work, and good luck passing your policy.Likebox (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OMCV, I believe that when writing about technical subjects one cannot avoid violating the OR/Synth policies in the most strict interpretation. E.g., if I want to write down a derivation of Planck's law, I need to do that is suitable for Wikipedia readers, while the derivation found in some textbook is presented so that it is suitable for stiudents. The students have read the previous chapters in the book, or can consult those previous chapters, the Wikipedia readers have to do with what else is available on Wikipedia to which we can link from using internal wiki links.

Typically this means that the derivation will have to be far more self contained and thus may differ quite radically from anything that can be found in textbooks. I don't believe that this should be considered to be OR, because the theory and mathematical formalism can, of course, be found in reliable sources. The whole point of including such derivations is precisely to make whatever result is derived more verifiable, not less verifiable.

I'll write on the WP:ESCA talk page more about the necessity of first principle discussions on talk pages. Count Iblis (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Likebox, thanks for your encouragement. You and OMVC are, of course, welcome to contribute to the proposed policy. I agree that the word "expert" should be used carefully (I remember having to vigorously defend myself last year when I proposed something similar and was criticized in the way you describe). Count Iblis (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration on quantum mysticism

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Quantum mysticism article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Sorry for putting you in there, but I believe that these editors will make the case that I am a "problem editor".Likebox (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not boycott the discussions, because ignorant voices are loud. If they are not feircely opposed, they do become more fringe, rather they win.Likebox (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, as I feared, this arbitration request is an attempt to block me from editing Wikipedia further. If there are no sensible voices on the other side, I believe that this will happen.Likebox (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think there is no conflict/problems regarding Likebox's activities I request that you take some responsibility for his actions. He is already behaving non-responsively on the Talk:Quantum_mind/body_problem#Who_supports_the_connections_to_mysticism. Encourage him to develop better editor patterns or I would suggest revising your post on the RfA page.--OMCV (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy isn't everything

Count Iblis, I understand that you entered the conversation a little late. I started discussing Quantum Mysticism the text August 14th [2]. I made a few comments on the accuracy of some text which included requests for citation. The contended text was poorly thought out and looked like it could be a fabricated. The contended text ran counter to what Wigner, Dennett, and many others would attribute to a classical perspective. The language was leading and the conclusions forced. It wasn't as much a matter of first principles but a matter of history, definitions, and underlying philosophy. Frankly the text does not need to be true, it just needs to be attributed to a reliable source. In an effort to help Likebox I actually took the time to read where am i, have you? If you doubt I have philosophically debated Likebox (the Quantum Mysticism talk page is not enough) take a look at my talk page. I also participated in a Talk:Quantum mysticism#scientific discussion with User:MichaelCPrice but he abandoned the discussion. I suspect that Price left because he didn't want to render a judgment against Likebox since Likebox is a volatile editor he has to work with on other pages. I could go on and on. The fact that it took five weeks for Likebox to marginally improve his text combined with his propensity to revert text is the primary problem at this point. If I have to explain an idea more than three times its not a conversation worth having. I abandoned blurry philosophical discussions for more cut and dry policy considerations over the weeks and I'm not sorry for doing so. I'm not twisting policy in anyway I'm applying it in it most simple and basic form, this should be a non-issue. The Dennett material isn't remotely important to the subject of Quantum Mysticism except in Likebox's private perspective. Likebox's efforts to own such material demonstrate that he at least had a misguide perspective on how Wikipedia should work even as outlined by your desired policy.--OMCV (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(moved form here) OMCV, you have to understand that all this wikilawyering by you is counterproductive. E.g., You start with an argument about nondeterminsim in classical physics, which then becomes an argument about OR/Synth simply because what Dennet may or may not have written. This already is a step in the wrong direction, because what Likebox wrote is almost trivially true based on the physics. Now, Likebox did go along (I think he shouldn't have) and then because he is still approaching the problem from the point of view of the physics you got an ever escalating dispute.

Another example. When I removed the citations tag on the article relations between specific heats and you restored it, you again did not discuss anything about the content and argued purely on the basis of wiki-law. That causes irritation. There are always cases that are not covered by wiki-law and WP:IAR explicitely mentions this. You went as far as suggesting that the article could be deleted. What you need to get into your head is that some limited amount of OR and Synth is unavoidable if we want to have a Wikipedia that also contains subjects above Kindergarten level. Count Iblis (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If it can be cited it should be cited, there is no excuse not to cite such material except laziness. Wikipedia is the beginning of research not the end. As the beginning it should always point to a WP:RS. Furthermore the WP:RS demonstrates WP:NOTE. Providing a source has value hiding behind WP:IAR has none. My tag was appropriate and since I added another editor has added a source. I'm not the only one with concerns about how relations between specific heats fits into Wikipedia, please check its talk page.

I have never made an argument for "nondeterminsim in classical physics" in fact I have always argued against Likebox misrepresenting the postulates of classical physics as non-deterministic through his misapplication of Dennett's work.--OMCV (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Be careful please... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There are others watching William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Iblis, Calling my good faith restoration of the discussion "vandalism" is incredibly poor form. Since William M. Connolley has created a pointer to the other discussion, I'll refrain from pursuing this further, but your behavior here was over the line, and I came within inches of opening an ANI over it. Gigs (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't. Removing comments that have nothing to do with improving the page is good. But in this case it is fairly clear that people are going to keep talking about this and need to blow off steam William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about my 3 reverts. My opinion is that the section should have been deleted earlier per the talk page guidelines we adhere too. Instead someone placed the "don't feed the Trolls" icon there to prevent the discussion from going off the rails any further. Clearly that did not work (Gigs actually removed that icon before writing his off topic comment). I think we should simply be more disciplined and "not feed the trolls" at all.

I tried to propose that as a general wiki rule here, but I didn't get much support for that. Count Iblis (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A comment pointing out a new source to be considered for inclusion in the article is anything but off-topic. If you didn't think the source was reliable, then that's something you discuss on the talk page. You don't just delete the discussion because you don't agree with it. Gigs (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Only peer reviewed sources are allowed. If the Hockey Stick were a case of scientific fraud, then you could write a wiki article about it similar to this one. Count Iblis (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever local consensus you all have on the talk page for that article does not override the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Peer review is not required of sources used on Wikipedia, active talk page discussions about the article are not suppressed, and calling people you disagree with "trolls" and "vandals" is seriously out of line. Gigs (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Using newspapers

"If we allow this statement with this particular source, then we also have to allow in other newspaper articles that e.g. claim that there is no consensus on climate change" - so what? Remember, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we don't care if global warming is actually happening or not. All we do is report on what people are doing and saying about it. That's what the NPOV policy means. Readers should not be able to tell what position Wikipedia is taking on any particular issue, because we're not supposed to have a position. If an editor cannot edit a topic neutrally, then I'm afraid that he/she needs to stop editing it. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers are notoriously unreliable when they report on science. Even the best quality newspapers make big errors regularly. Then, if we have a wiki article that focusses on some scientific topic, it would be difficult to use a newspaper story as a source, even if for that particular case the story seems to be ok. Because you could not do that as a rule. Rather, you would have to make a judgement on a case by case basis. But then that judgement would be Original Research.

At the discussion on the RS board, I linked to an old discusssion on the Special Relativity talk page where I also noted the tension between letting not so reliable sources in and the policy against OR. Therefore it is better to only allow high quality peer reviewed journals to be used as sources. Now, if a statement can be sourced from a peer reviewed source and there also exists a well written newspaper article that makes the same statement, you could decide to also give a citation to the newspaper article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That might actually be true about newspapers. The fact is, however, that WP's current RS policy is very clear, even mentioning the NYTimes by name, that major newspapers are reliable sources and are allowed, even encouraged. The policy does not prohibit the use of newspapers in science or any other article, except maybe BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Placement

Please revisit the placement of your comment at ANI. I believe it is in the wrong section. –xeno^talk 14:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Global warming

Go ahead and reply if you want to. Just because someone archives the discussion doesn't mean that it isn't still viable. In fact, I allege that you and Tony are trying to suppress a media report that you don't want people to see. I'll readd it just to see if this is the case. Cla68 (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Godel's incompleteness theorems

I have been trying to introduce a streamlined proof into this article for a while now, and meeting with opposition. I think that this might be a good test for WP:ESCA.Likebox (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Same idea at Halting problem. This one is getting reverted by another user, who has opposed a modernized proof in the past. Modernizing the proof in this article is more of a question of taste, because the usual method is just as transparent as the modern method.Likebox (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Scharnhost

Can't say I'm entirely happy with [3]. If this was going into GW, it would get ripped out again as only a preprint. I notice that it is "to appear" in Annals of Physics, and that was in 2002. Did it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, it was published. We can also give the original references (dating back to the 1970s, I think). I prefer the aticle by Liberati et al. because it gives a detailed introduction in which they explain the real issues associated with faster than light travel in a rigorous yet easily understandable way. Note that the third author is Matt Visser, clearly not someone whose expertise one has to doubt.

One could perhaps qualify the statement that the Scharnhorst effect is well established as it only has been shown to exist on paper. But then, its existence only depends on well established physics (quantum electrodynamics), not on speculative ideas. Although, there may be some physicists who doubt the validity of the calculations. Count Iblis (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the Scharnhorst effect article is in agreement about the faster than light transfer of info. Brews ohare (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the disagreement. See e.g. here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107091v2 Count Iblis (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The last section of the article says that "However, several authors argue that the Scharnhorst effect cannot be used to create causal paradoxes." Maybe that has nothing to do with faster-than-light signaling? Brews ohare (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC) On reading the article you linked, I see that that is the contention. Sorry. Brews ohare (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, what happens is that there is still a nontrivial step to take from faster than light signals to contructing a real causality paradox. In the generic case, you can do that e.g. in this way. It is no good to simply say that faster than light signals means that in some frame cause and effect is reversed as explained in the article by Visser et al. (and I'm not sure if that happens at all in the Scharnhorts case, I'll have to re-read that article). The point is that when you attempt to contruct a real causality paradox, it doesn't work in the Scharnhorst case. Count Iblis (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several proofs that no causality paradox can occur in QED, the simplest of course is that local commutativity still works. The paradox itself is just some stupid wave business, like phase velocity.Likebox (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Bold is good

...but after I revert, you need to discuss. See WP:BRD. As I said in the edit summary, I can't find the support in the cited source. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I just started a new section on the SOL talk page. I think the article is quite clear... Count Iblis (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Chaitin and Godel

Chaitin never proves Godel's theorem, he just asserts that it is easy to prove from undecidability (that's absolutely true). If you were to take his proof of undecidability and turn it into a Godel theorem proof, you would end up with essentially what is called "Boolos short proof" on the Godel incompleteness theorem page. His argument uses "Berry's paradox", and he also doesn't care to use "Print your own code". But sources are not really a big issue--- people are not unhappy that this is unoriginal. People found sources for similar arguments, and this stuff is old enough that nobody is too upset. The real issue is that they don't like it because it doesn't sound like what they already know from textbooks, although it is filling in intermediate steps in well known results, in a clear and correct way.Likebox (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon

Hi Count Iblis: As one who has tried to work with Dick several times I have this advice: If it is a matched debate between equal numbers. it may be worth a try, although it will take a week or more of back and forth. He will argue that it is "bloat", "complexity creep", or "symbol soup", and would be better in a completely different article. Dick will insist that you find a source you can quote verbatim as saying exactly what you want to say before he lets anything into this article. There is a good chance he will dispute the source as being a "primary" rather than a "secondary" source, or is not authoritative for some reason, or conflicts with other sources. He will say your Talk page arguments do not satisfy WP main-page guidelines WP:POV or WP:SYN or WP:NOR. He will not say specifically how the guidelines are violated. He will snipe, but not roll up his sleeves to propose an acceptable version (to him) of what you want to say. If you are outmatched, forget it; let WP take the fall. Brews ohare (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like odd advice when I'm just looking for a bit WP:verifiability. Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And to verify you must actually read the sources. That can be a non-trivial exercise, which is not appreciated all that much on Wikipedia. This is one of the reasons I wrote WP:ESCA. Count Iblis (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be great advice for you to follow in this instance. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I read both articles, you did not. You admitted that and that you wouldn't be able to read the articles (at least not when we were discussing that yesterday). It takes two to tango. Count Iblis (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the advice on WP:ESCA, about discussion and such. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Which says among other things:

If you find yourself in a dispute with other editors about a technical point, then discuss the issues as much as possible from first principles using the underlying theory and/or from the empirical evidence. That approach often brings out the needed context, which often is the source of the dispute. Do not simply appeal to direct quotes from textbooks or scientific articles, as then the proper context may be missing.

In this case any such discussions was impossible. One party did not what to read the articles based on which the matter could be discussed. In fact, if you read the article it is hard to see how the dispute could arise at all. Instead direct quotes were demanded.

So, you could say that what happened here is the extreme opposite of what WP:ESCA says. I wrote these guidelines to deal with problems that can arise when you have one or more editors who actually do read the sources (and/or who can be experts). Even then there are potential problems if you are not careful. I've seen such problems and corrected them (particularly in many thermodynamics articles). If you then think about how these errors could ve been avoided, then you naturally arrive at sticking to WP:ESCA. Count Iblis (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The "first principles" part of your essay was the part that I and others had objected to as contrary to WP:V and WP:RS. But what about the other parts?

If you make edits to an existing article, which you have checked as described in the previous point, and you find that a statement you want to insert disagrees with other statements made in the same article, then you need to get to the bottom of this conflict. It may be that the conflicting statements are true under some conditions not explicitly mentioned in the article. That is, the conflicting statements are sometimes true; that is, despite apparent conflict, they simply apply differently. Before deciding to delete material, you need to convince yourself that the conflicting statements really are wrong in any context consistent with the way the Wikipedia article is written. In case of doubts, you need to discuss this on the talk page of the article and/or contact members of a relevant WikiProject.

and

Keep in mind that two discussions are involved: reaching an understanding of what is going on, and providing arguments for the article.

When I asked you to explain how your source supported the questionable assertions that you added, all you had to say was "read the paper". And I did volunteer to accept any other editor's verification if they could find support in the paper for what you're saying. As it turns out, that seems to be unnecessary, as A. di M. took out the unsupported "only" and toned down the rest to what looks to be more verifiable there – but looks like I still need to change "information or energy" to "signals" to agree better with the source. Dicklyon (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the guidelines only deal with the case where editors have a non-obstructive attitude. It is ok. to be sceptical of some edit but you have to actually read the article. The whole article by Visser et al. specifically deals with the potential problem posed by faster than light information transfer and considers the Sharnhorst effect as an example of such a case to see if it poses problems. When you take the attitude that you'll defend the position that information is not transferred faster than light no matter what the article is actually about, unless some direct quote can be found, I thought that any discussions would be futile. Count Iblis (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not taking or defending any position on the physics, just trying to get you to show we where the two contested points were made in your source. If they did this without using the word "information", you could point out something to help me find it, rather than "read the whole paper" and hope I come to the same interpretation that you did. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Count IBS...please stop vandalizing my webpage

Count IBS...Please cease vandalizing my webpage, or you will be reported to an administrator. TS Handon (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)