User talk:Martin Hogbin/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

BP Canadian oil sands

Hi Martin, thanks again for replying to my request about the Canadian oil sands section of the BP article. Beagel has now replied again and since it seems that you are both in agreement regarding my shortened version, I was wondering if you would be willing to make the change? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Beagel just added this so it's done. Thanks for your input! Arturo at BP (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

BP Mist mountain section removal

Hi Martin, thanks again for looking at my last request for BP. I have been continuing to look for improvements to the Environmental record section and I have made a new request for the removal of the Mist mountain project subsection. The site the subsection focuses on was not operational when it was owned by BP and it was sold to another company in 2010. For these reasons, I feel that discussion of the project does not merit inclusion in the article. If you are able, please can you share your views about the section on the BP Talk page? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up Madonna

I do sincerely apologise. Entirely my fault. I did not mean to delete your edits at all. I pressed "Restore this version" not thinking that it would effect all edits afterwards. Stupid of me. I have (attempted) to restore your three edits and I would be grateful if you would just double-check them. I really am sorry. I was just removing an un-encyclodedic statement insinuating that this singer had somehow single-handedly influenced the clothes choice of every impressionable female on the planet! Keep up the excellent work. Manxwoman (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I understand what you are trying to do, the article does have a very strong pro-Madonna gloss on it but it is also well sourced and well written so we should be careful.

I think your wording was a bit harsh. I have toned down the original wording so that it should be acceptable to everyone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and also thank you for understanding my serious concern about the article. I very much like what you have done so far. I found the original article so laudatory as to turn my stomach and I think we uncovered/upset some serious die-hard Madonna fans who do not like anything to colour their rose-tinted vision of her! As you may see from my edits on other subjects, I am a big fan of Wiki and its properly encyclopaedic tone, but every so often one comes across an apparent fan-driven or PR-worded article that is a carry-over from the old days when little editorial care was taken. A very amusing instance that I sat back and watched was the Donald Trump article during the recent US election, when ANYTHING that questioned his god-like status was instantly removed. Politics!! But once again, thank you for your consideration. Best wishes Manxwoman (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent new edits, by the way. Well done. Manxwoman (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Since you are toning down the promotional gloss on the Madonna article, I was wondering if you could do the same on the Cher article and/or give some helpful comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Cher/archive1? Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I could give it a a go, but let us see how Madonna goes first. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Trembulo

You do realize that the sources you showed are user-submitted, and the book you found is from a company that republishes Wikipedia articles in book form? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Also, if this were a real instrmuent, surely a real valid source would exist, not just dubious looking websites. Surely a real instrument would get more than 130-some unique hits on Google, and none on Google Books outside a republication of Wikipedia articles. Given that the trembulo article has been up for a while, it's likely that most of the other sources just picked up on what Wikipedia said. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You could be right, see my reply on the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Trembulo

Saw your note on someone else's talk page. If you truly have found anything on this instrument in the library, then the article can always be restored via WP:REFUND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Regarding your comment at the synchronous motor article, do you have a link to that RfC? I ask because there is talk at WP:V of starting an RfC on this very subject. SpinningSpark 18:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the synchronous motor RfC, but I will keep an eye out for the WP:V RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion notice

There is a discussion here regarding Cantaloupe2's editing behaviour. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

BP structure suggestion

Hi Martin, I hope you had a pleasant holiday season. Discussions have calmed down again on the BP Talk page and I have taken the opportunity to propose a suggestion for a new structure for the "Environmental record" and "Accidents" sections. I had originally proposed this in December, however it was overshadowed by discussion of the introduction and I am now looking for further feedback. I would be interested to hear your thoughts if you have a moment. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, it seems like there's a consensus emerging regarding the use of "Incidents" as a heading. From re-reading the discussion I think that the only issue was with the heading. What do you think is necessary consensus before the restructuring can be implemented? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Optical Express Talk

Hi, I have posted a few comments requesting a review by independent editors. I would appreciate if you could take a look when you get a second, please. Thanks. Hardlygone (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You have a new mesage

here Talk:Monty_Hall_problem/Arguments#Cont:_Refusal_to_believe --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Again MHP: Martin, in response to Nijdam's question on the MHP talk page, you wrote today The 'usual assumptions' referred to are that the player always opens a door to reveal a goat and that when he has a choice of two doors he chooses uniformly between them. Please can you have a look there? Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are getting at. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It certainly should read "the host always opens a door to reveal a goat ..." Gerhardvalentin (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, thanks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Financial capital of the world

Hello Martin. Just to let you know, I have directly invited the editor who reverted your NYC alterations to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page. Best wishes, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, let us hope he joins the discussion. It makes WP look silly to have two cities both claiming to be the financial capital of the world. We need a way to decide if any city can claim this title and if so which city. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I don't want to act like your nanny or anything, but if you don't know already you have a reply from Makazukabloke on Talk:London. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

After looking at some of the sources i've added a sixth outcome Martin. Let me know what you think. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have combined your outcome with 5 because, in practical WP terms, they amount to the same think, which is that we cannot call any city the 'Financial capital of the world' without qualification. I am thinking of making this into an RfC so we do not want too many options.

Looking at the sources, I came to much the same conclusion as you seem to have. The term is ill defined and it would tale OR to define it and then decide which city best meets our definition. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Tau

Do you think edit warring alongside two other editors who appear to be meatpuppets, while there is a discussion on this very topic elsewhere and against the current consensus which was established here: Talk:Tau_(2π)/Archive_3#Request_for_comment, is the best way to proceed? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, there was never a proper process (RfD) for the deletion of the Tau article. It was deleted because some people did not like it. Deleting an article then having an RfC to decide whether to restore it is not the proper way to do things. By all means restore the article then start an RfD.

I am not supporting the Tau article in its current form. It is far too promotional of an extreme minority and insignificant topic. The answer to this is not to delete it but to improve it. By all normal WP standards this article should exist; we have many far crazier articles on a wide variety of subjects. It seems that, for some reasons that I do not understand, some editors have a passionate and irrational objection to the existence of this article. From a mathematical point of view it really does not matter whether we use pi or tau. From a historical point of view pi is used almost always and tau hardly ever. None of this means that we should not have an article on the subject.

I defy you to give any reason, based on WP policy why this article should have been deleted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it wasn't deleted. Secondly, there is no such thing as RfD, it is called AfD. If you are going to try and argue based on policy, make sure you know policy. Did you not look at the link I posted? There was an RfC for the merge, that is standard procedure. The result was weighed up and summarized by an administrator; that is also fairly standard. Read Wikipedia:MERGE#Proposing_a_merger. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a letter wrong. The 'merge' was as good as a deletion and clearly a way round the failed AfD. It also transfers all this craziness to a serious mathematical article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Moon landing conspiracy

Thank you! You beat me to the punch on reverting that one. My thought was basically "so what?!?!" Trumpeting this as an example that the moon landing could be faked simply because one rock that was probably handled by dozens of people is fake would be the same as saying that Rembrandt never painted any of his master pieces simply because one of them turns out to be an expert fake. What really probably happened is someone swapped out the rock and never said anything. Come on... Ckruschke (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Exactly. The sources themselves were worded that way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

BP Article

While I agree with you and with the unregistered user that the BP article is unbalanced and is largely an attack, the unregistered user was engaged in a personal attack on one of its editors. It seems that the unregistered user posted an anti-Semitic comment on an editor's talk page and has been blocked. We will just have to try to persuade. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of that. I was agreeing only with the IP's comments about the balance of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comparisons between BP and others

Hi Martin,

I know you've asked for months, numerous times, for sources comparing BP to other oil majors. I assume due to difference in geo-locations, you were unable to find them using your country's search engine. Just wanted to let you know I've satisfied your request here. petrarchan47tc 19:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That is the problem Petrarchan, you really think that represents a reliable source on the subject. It is actually very bad OR. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you not have seen the correct section (though I admit the link does jump around a bit). If indeed you consider this to be WP:OR, you may need to reread the definition. These are the references I dug up to quench your months-long thirst for RS comparing BP to others. You're welcome! petrarchan47tc 20:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• This ProPublica article has 2 charts (1/5 down the page) that make comparison with fellow oil companies easy to see.

• From ABC news: BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

The violations are determined when an employer demonstrated either an "intentional disregard for the requirements of the [law], or showed plain indifference to employee safety and health."

OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation.

• From NYT: There is a reason Exxon Mobil has not had a serious accident in the subsequent 21 years. Unlike BP, it used the accident to transform itself.

• NYT: BP compared with Exxon But BP, the nation’s biggest oil and gas producer, has a worse health, environment and safety record than many other major oil companies, according to Yulia Reuter, the head of the energy research team at RiskMetrics, a consulting group that assigns scores to companies based on their performance in various categories, including safety.

The industry standard for safety, analysts say, is set by Exxon Mobil, which displays an obsessive attention to detail, monitors the smallest spill and imposes scripted procedures on managers.

• From the Houston Chronicle: BP leads the nation in refinery deaths, Chronicle analysis shows "Records show big gap between company and top U.S.-based peer" petrarchan47tc 17:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Separately and collectively, (the reviews) show that when it comes to companies operating in the Gulf, BP is the exception and not the rule. The 50,000-plus wells other firms have successfully drilled in federal waters of the Gulf offer further evidence of how rare these instances are... Forbes
• There is a widespread sense in the industry and in government that BP was a worse operator, a more dangerous operator, than other oil companies, even before the spill happened. Bloomberg
• BP was fined $87 million last year for safety violations. According to ProPublica, it’s the largest reparation in the history of the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Over the last three years, BP racked up 760 violations. By way of comparison, Exxon had just three. “Exxon could get 70 times the willful, egregious safety violations and still be 90 percent safer than BP” Vanity Fair
• Government probes, court filings and BP’s own confidential investigations paint a picture of a company that ignored repeated warnings about the plant’s deteriorating condition and instead remained focused on minimizing costs and maximizing profits. According to a safety audit BP conducted just before the 2005 blast, many of the plant’s more than 2,000 employees arrived at work each day with an “exceptional degree of fear of catastrophic incidents.” ProPublica
• A review of BP’s history, however, shows a pattern of ethically questionable and illegal behavior that goes back decades… McClatchy
• “Some investors and analysts say BP’s culture encourages greater risk-taking than rivals, contributing to more higher returns. Critics have also blamed this culture for the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon CNBC

That is the problem Petrarchan, you really think that represents a reliable source on the subject. It is actually very bad OR. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want me to explain what I mean, Petrarchan, I would be very happy to do so, away from the heat of the BP page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What would convince me to treat BP differently from Microsoft

To explain what I mean, let me start at the other end of the question. What do I believe would constitute a valid reason under WP policy to treat BP completely differently from the FA Microsoft?

I believe that we would need to see a proper report comparing the overall safety and environmental record of the whole, or a substantial part, of BP's activities over a considerable period of time with that of the other supermajors. Such a report could only be produced by an independent organisation with knowledge and expertise in the oil industry. This could be an independent oil industry organisation, an inter-governmental organisation or a academic institution.

The report would be many pages long and would systematically cover the whole of each companies business sectors over a period of time and ideally be updated regularly. The report would be long and boring, full of jargon and technical terms, and full of tables, charts, and statistics. It would describe the methodology by which the input data was obtained and have a summary of its conclusions.

I have no idea if such a report exists, but if there is one, and it shows that BP has a greatly worse (say twice as bad) record and its nearest rival then I would accept that we should treat the BP article differently from the Microsoft one. If there is no such source then, however much we may feel that BP are a bad lot, we cannot treat them differently from other companies. WP deals in verifiable facts not personal opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Monty Hall Problem Tag

See my response on my talk page. I should add, that if I am wrong, the statement in question needs to be expanded as it is not self explanatory. Yabti (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

a request

In this comment you wrote: "I was responding to an RfC."

Excuse me? Did you mean a formal RfC directed you to Talk:Rob Ford? If so, I request you return to Talk:Rob Ford and provide a link to that RfC. Whoever initiated that RfC had an obligation to leave a heads-up at Talk:Rob Ford of the formal RfC.

If you really meant to say you got an informal request to look in, then please don't use the acronym RfC -- which implies a formal WP:RfC. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

BP RfC

Hi Martin, I'm looking at the RfC through the eyes of the closing editor (not that I would close it myself) to see which responses s/he might have problems evaluating. Would you mind clarifying yours? You wrote: "Oppose excessive content." Did you mean "oppose, excessive content," i.e. you oppose including it at all, because you believe it would be excessive? Or did you mean "Oppose excessive content," but that some inclusion, per WP:SUMMARY, would be acceptable? Any clarification would help, so that hopefully the RfC will resolve the issue. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity, I meant, '"Oppose excessive content," but some inclusion, per WP:SUMMARY, would be acceptable? I will clarify in the RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the extra comment; it's clear now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

MHP

Martin, on the arguments page you wrote:

4) Taking a frequentist approach and assuming the standard game rules but taking the undefined distributions in the problem to be unknown, the problem is insoluble (the probability of winning by switching can be from 0 to 1).

5) Without assuming any specific game rules the problem is insoluble (the probability of winning by switching can be from 0 to 1).

Please help me understand what you say.

IMO the "rules" as per MvS say that the guest selected one of those three doors and that the host had to open a different door in order to show a goat and to offer a switch to the other non selected still closed door. Her question: Is it to the contestant's favour to switch?

Your items 4 and 5 are not clear to me, please help me to grasp what you say. Thanks, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Frequentists take it that there are real distributions for the random processes. For example a Bayesian would say that because we have no information to the contrary we must take the car to be initially equally likely to be behind any of the three doors. Frequentists say that there is a frequency distribution with which the car may be found behind each door, say out of 900 tries, it will be behind door 1 450 times, door 2 300 times and door 3 150 times. In order to arrive at a distribution they may choose to apply the principle of indifference which says that we should assume the car will be found equally often behind each door, thus they assume the same probabilities as a Bayesian. However a frequentist may choose not to apply this principle and just say we have no idea how often the car will be found behind each door so we cannot make any assumptions so, for example, the car might be always behind door 2. Similarly the player might always choose door 1 and the host might always open door 3 so swapping always wins. I do not think this is a sensible approach to the problem but some strict frequentists may say it represents reality.

If the game rules are variable it gets even worse. The Whitaker/vS statement does not say that the host always offers the swap. Maybe the host only offers the swap when the player is sure to win by swapping, maybe he does the opposite. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Martin, now I see what you said. But, as to the statement of Marilyn vos Savant, she explicitly said in describing the intended scenario of the clean "paradox" that the host "always" is to show a loser and thereafter in any case offers to swap, no "maybe". Now everything is clear. Thak you once more. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree that was her intended problem but unfortunately she do not make that completely clear in her parade statement, although it is how most people understand the problem. I do agree that people who interpret it differently are just being awkward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Martin, I want to apologize again for having moved your comment out of the survey section. I misread it and jumped the gun. I'm sorry for causing confusion. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Letting you know

I feel that I ought to make sure that you know about User talk:Tryptofish#Re: March Against Monsanto. I don't like to talk about anyone behind their back, so there's the heads-up. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I am beginning to lose faith in Wikipedia and its ability to remain an encyclopedia rather than a forum/soapbox for opinions and pressure groups. Perhaps some people today have never read a printed encyclopedia and therefore have no idea of what an encyclopedic style looks like and they therefore prefer the style of tabloid or investigative journalism. If left unabated I think this will result in a serious degradation of the authority of WP.

I will respond to the actual comments on you talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Numbers

Re [1], if you add # before the :: by writing #:: then you don't mess the numbers up, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your revert

I think that perhaps you need to consider WP:NPA before reverting me as you did. Just look at the previous post by that contributor on that talk page - the person is not here to contribute constructively. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it is generally not appropriate to remove comments from the talk pages. There are exceptions but just being uncivil is not one of them. Best to leave the comment in place for others to observe the editor's behaviour.

Please note that I am not in any way supporting the comment that I restored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

FCPS

Respectfully did you read what I wrote? First of all there was a consensus to LEAVE IT AS IT WAS, not change it to have the section removed. Again, the consensus was to leave the section in there. And it was left in there. It is a tedious Talk to read but that was indeed the case. It was LATER removed without consensus. I do not have the technical skill to find when the actual section was removed. Perhaps you can do this? Can you also see who deleted the six sources? That would be helpful if you could see that. I think you will find that the editor wanting the article removed was the one who removed it after some time passed and was against the consensus to leave the section in.

I have done some research...have a look at this. It regards the editor fighting to have the section removed:

cur | prev) 04:32, 15 January 2010‎ Tcncv (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,921 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (full protection for one week - content dispute) (cur | prev) 04:28, 15 January 2010‎ Tcncv (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (26,906 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected Fairfax County Public Schools: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 04:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 04:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)))) (cur | prev) 03:35, 15 January 2010‎ 71.91.18.218 (talk)‎ . . (26,906 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎No contact rule controversy: typo) (cur | prev) 03:34, 15 January 2010‎ 71.91.18.218 (talk)‎ . . (26,906 bytes) (+473)‎ . . (→‎No contact rule controversy: cleaned up any copyright vio, reworded article.) (cur | prev) 05:41, 14 January 2010‎ BaronLarf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,433 bytes) (-321)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 71.91.18.218; Remove unencyclopedic addition (and apparent copyvio). Watch out for WP:3RR.. (TW)) (cur | prev) 05:27, 14 January 2010‎ 71.91.18.218 (talk)‎ . . (26,754 bytes) (+321)‎ . . (revert from POV pushing. Have no idea what editor Ted is talking about. I pasted and sourced from the source in the article. Shouting?) (cur | prev) 09:09, 13 January 2010‎ Tedickey (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,433 bytes) (-321)‎ . . (rv - suggest someone c/e that to make it useful with WP's standards (coi-editor insists on shouting his point of view))

---

Okay more research indicates Tedickey has been involved and warring this issue since at least 2010. In fact the section was left in as of

(cur | prev) 04:31, 4 March 2010‎ 68.119.67.154 (talk)‎ . . (24,914 bytes) (+1,057)‎ . . (Undid revision 347504469 Consensus not established. Myself and at least one other editor do not agree. Edited and reverted in good faith effort for NPOV).

Since the above date it was left in until the same two who wanted it removed ganged up and cam back from 2 years ago and made edits together. (cur | prev) 10:42, 5 June 2013‎ JamesBWatson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,775 bytes) (-1,548)‎ . . (One incident in one of the district's schools, six years ago: this is undue weight.) (cur | prev) 00:15, 31 May 2013‎ Tedickey (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,323 bytes) (-33)‎ . . (revert - already in list)

Second, another question is why would you want it removed? Logically, if another issue, such as SUICIDES, relates to a school rule in the FCPS and is left on the page, clearly a rule at another school in the same system which prohibits Freedom of Expression, the 1st Amendment - in case you are not from America, that does not allow high five or hugs or handshakes, which is of course freedom of expression, needs to be left in. There is a pattern and practice of a callous disregard for how these children are being treated in the fcps system. When kids can't hug, or weren't allowed to hug or shake hands, then the system gets a "zero tolerance" policy that leads to suicides of TWO students...I think we can all agree something is wrong. Do you see the connection? Relevant to the people( the board) who made the decisions. And FYI, students do have rights. And THAT is why a Goolge search indicates the issue was apparently covered world wide. Including, CNN, Time, The Guardian, Washington Post, the list goes on and on. Just some food for thought.

And for your further reading; School speech In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969),[123] the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to students in school. The case involved several students who were punished for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not "materially and substantially" interrupt school activities.[124] Justice Abe Fortas wrote, [S]chools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students ... are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.[125] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.1.204 (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think maybe you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is intended to be an encyclopedia not a soapbox or an organ to right great wrongs. I agree with you that the action taken by the school in 2007 was very bad but that does not mean that we must mention it in a general article, however well sourced it might be. It is already mentioned in the specific school article; leave it at that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the criteria to be in wiki? I believe it does. It does have "notability" and it is "sourced", in fact it had many sources that were removed. The Notability ranged from The Guardian, Time, CNN, HNN, The Washington Post, the list goes on. Kilmer's policy was accepted by the FCSB as they were the ones who had the power to rescind it, they chose not to and ended up in the news and creating Notability for the FCSB system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.1.204 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

DCI Group

Hi Martin Hogbin. I've responded to your third opinion comment on the DCI Group talk page. I'm hoping you can help find a solution to the issues being discussed.

Thank you. Willemite (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Martin. I've replied again at the DCI Group talk page.

Thank you. Willemite (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin. I've responded to your query on the DCI Group talk page.

Thank you. Willemite (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Crown Princess Victoria

Hello! Flabbergasted now. What else can I do to get this corrected? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Just for old time's sake :-) - DVdm (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

I have copied the discussion with Desiderata9 to here where anyone interested can join in.

There are some serious points on improving the article though which I have stated on the article talk page.

Bell's spaceship paradox

Do we (and the sources) agree on this?

Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Martin, at least in most sources published in peer-reviewed journals such as AJP or EJP as mentioned above and in the article (the article already cites about 20 examples of them, much of them in the last decade), as well as the PhysicsFAQ. The point where one finds disagreement lies in the question whether this result has something to do with the "reality" of "physicality" of length contraction, or not (Petkov, Franklin). But even those physicists agree that the rest length will increase. --D.H (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I will come to that point soon. At the moment I amtrying to find something that we can all agree on. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I disagree (as do many other physicists), they will stay a fixed distance apart anyway if the rockets are identical etc. - Why do you think that the rope will break ? Desiderata9 (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Because, if the distance stays fixed in the original frame, then the proper length must increase in order for length contraction to do its work and keep the measured coordinate distance constant in that original frame, in which the system is moving faster and faster. If the proper length keeps increasing, the rope must —trivially— break. - DVdm (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Below is an example of DVdn' argument for Desiderata9 .

Consider this case. At the start the leading spaceship tows a rope of length $L$ (as measured in the starting inertial frame S), which just reaches the rear spaceship which is exactly a distance $L$ (in frame S) behind the first ship but is not attached to it. The two spaceships start simultaneously (in frame S) and then are defined to both accelerate so maintain a distance $L$ between them as measured in frame S.

Some time later, when measured in frame S, the distance between the two spaceships is still $L$ (because we have defined the spaceships to move so that this is the case) but the rope will be measured to have contracted to a length$L/\gamma$. Do you agree so far? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I see where you are going, but in your scenario these are not identical spaceships. Dbfirs 09:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I will come to that. Do you not agree that, in the above example, the rope will contract? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the rope will not really contract (of course) but I agree that it will be measured to be shorter. Apologies for butting into the argument. I don't want to confuse the flow, and I'm not expert in relativity, so I'll allow DVdm to continue. Dbfirs 09:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll just turn the argument around. If the rope would not break, then the proper distance between the rockets would not increase. So, in the original frame, in which the system is moving faster and faster, the measured coordinate distance would decrease. But —by design— it does not decrease. So the rope will break. A trivial no-brainer, really. - DVdm (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we agree but I would like to get the agreement of others on this page if possible. Note that in my example the rope will not break because it is not attached to the rear spaceship. It simply will not reach the rear spaceship because, in frame S it will be contracted but the distance between the sips will be the same (by definition).

So Dbfirs and Desiderata9, do you agree that the rope will be measured to have contracted to $L/\gamma$? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't actually disagreeing with the (now clarified) statement of the paradox, but I was supporting Desiderata9's argument about pre-programmed identical accelerations (measured in their own frames). I can see five different sets of instructions for the pilots: 1) Follow the commands from base station and adjust accelerations so that base-station measures the separation to be constant (and the string will break, as in the basic paradox); 2) Follow the acceleration instructions given before leaving (and identical for both craft); 3) The first pilot adjusts his acceleration so that his measured distance ahead of the second ship remains constant in his reference frame; 4) The second pilot adjusts her acceleration so that her ship remains a constant distance behind the lead craft in her (second ship) reference frame; 5) Follow the commands from base station (who are aware of Lorentz contraction) and aim to keep the rope taut without breaking. (They can also think ahead and issue instructions ahead of time so that communications are not a limitation). The more I think about the situation, the more complicated it gets. Will any of my five sets of instructions produce the same result? Dbfirs 12:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Is my mis-statement of the paradox although it turns out to be true for the correct statement so the rope breaks.

2) This is the correct statement of the paradox and it results in the condition described in 1 (see my comments on the article talk page) so the rope breaks.

3,4, 5. I do not think any of these is the intended paradox setup but I would suggest that If the controllers do their jobs properly the rope will not break. Measurements in accelerating frames are weird. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Dbfirs, I appreciate that you accept that the string breaks in scenario 1. Let's go to all of your scenarios: [1 and 2] are principally same and increase the rest length between the ships (string breaks); [3 and 4 and 5] are the same and maintain equal distance (Born rigidity) between the ships (string doesn't break); as explained in the references given.

Clarifying the "disputed" scenario 2: It's an important result of relativity, that clocks which are initially synchronous in an inertial frame, are falling out of sync. in a co-accelerated frame during acceleration (see again the references). Therefore "identical" acceleration programs are only "identical" in exactly that frame, in which the clocks and the related programs remain synchronous (which is the initial frame only), and are of course asynchronous in any other relatively moving frame (since the clocks and the connected programs are falling out of sync. there). In contrast, in order to maintain the same rest distance or Born rigidity during acceleration, you have to use different acceleration profiles, exactly as you suggest in [3 and 4 and 5], of course leading to a constant decrease of length between the ships in the start frame until acceleration stops.

All of this can simply demonstrated by using the contraction formula $L=L'_{0}/\gamma$, with $L$ being the contracted length in S and $L'_{0}$ the rest length in a comoving frame. If $L'_{0}$ remains constant at increasing velocity, then $L$ decreases by $L'_{0}/\gamma$ (string does not break). If $L$ remains constant at increasing velocity, than $L'_{0}$ increases by $L\gamma$ (string breaks). Therefore, DVdm said it's a "no-brainer". --D.H (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with Born rigididty, which is a red herring. We are talking about two individual objects accelerating identically & becoming inertial (either by cutting engines or running out of fuel). The identical setup, identical pre-program & simultaneous launch in S means that they will also become inertial simultaneously in S the same distance apart L as they were at launch. This much I think is not in dispute. Otherwise one would have to relinquish translational symmetry (the spacescraft together with its (x,t) trajectory could be swapped over by sliding the launch positions forward or backwards) & the assumed isotropy of space (we are launching in the absence of any gravitational fields etc)

Now using the standard Lorentz transformation formulae: x' = γ.( x - v.t ) & t' = γ.( t - v.x ) ...in units where c=1 for convenience, we have:

Forward spacecraft: x' = γ.( x+L - v.t ) = γ.x + γ.L - γ.v.t & t' = γ.( t - v.[x+L] ) = γ.t - γ.v.x - γ.v.L

Rear spaceraft: x' = γ.( x - v.t ) = γ.x - γ.v.t & t' = γ.( t - v.x ) = γ.t - γ.v.x

So subtracting the coordinates to get Δx' and Δt' between the spacecraft in the comoving frame we get:

Δx' = γ.L & Δt' = -γ.v.L (Note: the -γvL corresponds to the time gap between B' & the dotted line in the article 2nd. diagram)

[ which also agrees with the differential Lorentz formulae: δx' = γ.( δx - v.δt ) & δt' = γ.( δt - v.δx ) ]

Now we can calculate the 'proper' distance in the comoving frame S' from: Δs² = Δx² - Δt²

Proper distance in S' = Δs = sqrt[ γ².L² - γ².v².L² ] = sqrt[ L².γ².(1-v²) ] = L

Thus the spaceships have not in fact moved apart in the comoving frame S' so the string does not break ! Desiderata9 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You are measuring the distances to the end points of the moving system at different times. That is a very silly thing to do when you are measuring the length of a moving target. End of story. - DVdm (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No I am not ! You apparently have not studied the role of Lorentz transformations in SR. What the LT's show is that the spacecraft (at A' & B' in the diagram) are at different time coordinates in the comoving frame S'. The standard textbook formula for proper distance takes account of that in the quadratic function of the space and time coordinates. My calculation is exactly "by the book" standard, basic Special Relativity as can be found in almost any mathematical text on the subject !

Remember that we are only changing coordinates. Changing to a moving system of coordinates is not materially different from changing to spherical coordinates or ellipsoidal coordinates etc. - there is no reason to expect the absolute distance between the spacecraft to change, and it does not. Desiderata9 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just check what the variables that you are (ab)using actually represent. - DVdm (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The question again

Desiderata9, what is your answer to this question?

At the start the leading spaceship tows a rope of length $L$ (as measured in the starting inertial frame S), which just reaches the rear spaceship which is exactly a distance $L$ (in frame S) behind the first ship but is not attached to it. The two spaceships start simultaneously (in frame S) and then are defined to both accelerate so maintain a distance $L$ between them as measured in frame S.

Some time later, when measured in frame S, the distance between the two spaceships is still $L$ (because we have defined the spaceships to move so that this is the case) but the rope will be measured to have contracted to a length$L/\gamma$. Do you agree so far? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Because length contraction is a spacetime effect & not a physical effect on the object itself, then the rope will always be measured as the same length as the distance between the spaceships, provided they are identical etc etc.

For example here is a typical reference to that: http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/ The point is that being a spacetime effect there is no difference in the measurement of a connected length (the rope) and the distance between two points moving congruently with the rope ends. It's an effect on the measurement process arising from the "relativity of simultaneity" between two inertial systems in relative motion.

Now we've established that the spaceships must stay a distance L apart in S, so also will the rope length remain as L in S because they are one and the same spacetime interval. The "relativity of simultaneity" in this case arises from the (re)synchronisation of clocks in the spaceship frame S', so all lengths & distances in frame S will appear contracted when measured from the spaceship frame S'.

Furthermore, if the spaceships now define a distance either by using their resynchronised clocks, or by a to-and-fro light signal in a measured time in S', then observers in S will disagree and find those distances to be shorter. Thus we have the "reciprocity" expected of measurements between two inertial frames in relative motion. Desiderata9 (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Desiderata9, there is absolutely no point in trying to use the language of relativity (for example 'spacetime interval') if you are going to replace it with a theory of your own. The predictions of SR are pretty clear; SR says that a rod in relative motion to the observer will be measured to have a shorter length than that measured by an observer in its rest frame. This is a fundamental and basic result and, if you chose to ignore this, you are clearly not talking about relativity but about some original research of your own. WP is based on established mainstream theories as given in reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me but I absolutely agree with your statement that in SR: "a rod in relative motion to the observer will be measured to have a shorter length than that measured by an observer in its rest frame" !

Have I not already indicated that the x'-coordinates of the spaceships in S' differ by γL ? And thus L, the difference in x-coordinates in S, is the shorter measurement. So the same applies for the rope - L is the shorter length measured in S.

The point is that 'length contraction' in Special Relativity is only "apparent" and not physically real - I wonder that you don't ask how the spaceship observers could measure distances or lengths in the launch frame to be shorter, when we know (or I hope we know !) that the spaceship launch cannot physically affect or 'shorten' lengths or distances in the launch frame !

Clearly, the 'contraction' must arise from the necessary re-synchronisation of clocks between the spaceships in order to setup a coherent system of x',t' coordinates in the moving frame S'. So if the front spaceship clock is turned back a little to 'synchronise' with the rear spaceship clock, then it will 'map' the spaceship distance in S' onto a longer distance in S, because the rear spaceship records its position before the front spaceship does so. Thus a longer distance in S is 'matched' with a shorter distance in S'. Desiderata9 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I asked (with some clarification) whether you agreed that , ' the rope will be measured [in frame S] to have contracted to a length$L/\gamma$.

Do you agree? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I answered that before, no it doesn't. Special relativity does not say that an object of length L when accelerated to speed v 'becomes' an object of length L/γ. Your statement above that "an object is measured shorter from a relatively moving inertial frame than it measures in its own rest frame" is correct & does not mean the same thing. Strictly speaking special relativity doesn't deal with acceleration at all. Attempts to 'patch' acceleration into special relativity invariably lead to paradoxes when they fall into the trap of supposing Lorentz contraction to be a physical shrinkage as in the earlier 'aether' theory.

That 'length contraction' in special relativity is a 'spacetime effect' and not a physical change in the object, is mentioned in nearly all modern textbooks on the subject. This must be so because of at least three separate & unavoidable considerations:

(1) Locality: An observer accelerated to speed v cannot possibly have caused all lengths and distances in the frame he departed from, that he now measures as shorter, to have become physically contracted as a result of his change of motion.

(2) Reciprocity: In SR two inertial observers in relative motion measure equivalent lengths (eg. metre rods) in each other's frame to be shorter than those in their own frame. Thus the shorter observation must be the result of an effect on the measurement.

(3) Infinite multiplicity: Since there are a potentially infinite number of different inertial observers travelling at speeds ...v-ε, v, v+ε, v+2ε...etc. one would have to suppose an object to have a potentially infinite number of coexisting physical lengths.

The only rational view is that length 'contraction' is a result of "relativity of simultaneity" which manifests itself in the measurement procedure as a difference in clock synchronisation between any two inertial frames in relative motion. It turns out that this is mathematically consistent in that the difference in clock synchronisation arising at a given relative speed v, corresponds precisely to timing differences in recording the endpoints of lengths or distances such that the ratio of the different measurements is the Lorentz factor, γ (gamma).

In the case of Bell's spaceships, no change has taken place in the synchronisation of clocks in the launch frame S, so there is no reason why either the spaceship distance or the rope length should measure any shorter when in motion. On the other hand, we know the spaceships have had to readjust their mutual clock synchronisation in order to setup a new coordinate system (x',t') in S'. In this (oblique) system of coordinates we know the difference in the spaceship's x' coordinates is γL. This would also be the measured x'-coordinate length of a rope between the spaceships that measures L in the frame S. Desiderata9 (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be making things up. Nowhere have I said that, "an object of length L when accelerated to speed v 'becomes' an object of length L/γ". I have said exactly what you have. If a rope has a length of L in its own rest frame then in a relatively moving frame it will be measured to have a length of L/γ. Do you not agree.? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree with that statement. I'm not making things up but simply making careful distinction between similar sounding statements that do not quite imply the same thing. What I disagreed with was the expression in the second paragraph of your description at the start of this section: "The question again". Since i am claiming the string does not break then naturally as we agree the x' distance of the spaceships in S' is γL then that will also be the x' rope length in S'. Consequently the length in S is just L in accordance with your latter statement. Desiderata9 (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The statement you refer to is '...when measured in frame S,... the rope will be measured to have contracted to a length$L/\gamma$'. If the word 'contracted' offends you I am happy to leave it out. In my example, by the way, the rope can never break since it is not attached to the rear spaceship. So just to be clear, do you agree that, '...when measured in frame S,... the rope will be measured to have a length$L/\gamma$'?

No, I don't agree with that. Look, I don't think we have the same idea of the term "rest system" which I think is ambiguous & we are using it differently to mean different things.

Consider the 2nd. diagram in the article showing the spacetime trajectories of A & B. Now let me ask you a couple of questions:

(1) At the moment they become inertial, is the 'front' spaceship at B' or at B" ?

(2) What is the distance between A & B in their launch positions, for a pre-arranged observer already moving at v in S' ? Desiderata9 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not mentioned any 'rest system'. The rope has a proper length of L. That is just its ordinary length; how long it would be if you laid it out along the ground and measured it. Is there anything you do not understand about that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's not go ape

Hi Martin. Happy Monday to you, plus a much belated thank-you for your work at Human and its talk page over the years. My reading of Dontreader's last comment is that he or she is no longer challenging use of the word in the article. If that is correct, it seems unnecessary and probably undesirable to press the user as to why the usage might be "insensitive". There was no "fight"—just an uncommonly civil discussion that seemed to me to have reached at least a tentative conclusion. I can't speak for Andy but I'lll speak for myself when I say I'd rather you didn't publicly state presumptions about what I suspect about other editors. For the record, I have no idea whether the user is a creationist or not, and I don't much care. Judging by the user page, it would appear he or she is a demonologist (!)—but I hadn't looked yet and didn't know that when I replied at Talk:Human yesterday. Rivertorch (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It was a bit naughty of me to make allegations about other editors and I apologise. I will drop the subject unless somebody else stirs it up. I think you can see where I was coming from. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What is a Theory

Martin, I saw your two reversals on Tom Van Flandern. One of them, saying that the face on mars belief is not a theory confuses me. What does that belief need in order to be called a theory? I did a google search for "face on mars theory" and came up with a whole page of items referencing the face of mars as a theory. It isn't a big deal to me one way or the other, and I know it has said "belief" for a long time, but if an editor made the change I think it deserves due weight. I also take exception to the "discredited" reversal. I thought we agreed that discredited carries a negative connotation, as if the scientists who came up with wrong theories were tared and feathered for thinking such nonsense. the articles on Magellan, Galileo and Copernicus don't list their theories as "discredited" as if they were fools for having thought such nonsense. Thanks Akuvar (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I used the term 'discredited' to meant no longer accepted as valid. It is not intended to be derogatory to the originator of the theory. If you object to it perhaps you could suggest a different word which clearly indicates that the theory is no longer current.

The word 'theory' is used with a wide range of meaning from well verified and accepted theories to more speculative ones. Generally though, the word is used to give the proposal some scientific credence. The face on Mars 'theory' is clearly absurd in the light of knowledge of the day and in my opinion even the word 'theory' gives it too much credibility. What is wrong with 'belief'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, a theory is never a fact, and shouldn't be mistaken for one, it almost works itself as a word describing a belief, it just lacks scale or quality. Creationism and Evolution are a good analogy, they are both theories, we just know which one is more likely. The wikipedia article on creationism doesn't say "theory" but that it is a belief. Is a belief less than a theory? I think "discredited" carries a negative connotation, and "no longer current" doesn't really describe this if people who are current are still spouting that it is possible. But I ultimately have no good solution to this problem.

I have no problem with belief for face of mars, I was only noting that you changed it from theory and I thought you therefore owed a better explanation to that editor for reverting his/her change. I then did a google search that kind of proved a lot of people out there refer to it as a theory. A similar search on google for "mace on mars belief" comes up with more hits that include, "...he believes the outcropping..." Based on Google alone I would say that the world believes its a theory....Akuvar (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for your thoughts.

Just wanted to say thanks for your input on the amph talk page. I cant imagine many people would have been willing to read through a thread that long. Seppi333 (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I hope you can now resolve your disagreement. Let me know if you would like any more input from me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Marie Curie nationality, new options.

Hello, Could you please go back to [2] and indicate if any of the newly provided options are preferred? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I still prefer my original choice. Do I need to do anything to indicate this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this closed before I replied. I'd say in that case you probably should have indicated you'd considered the new options but still prefer another one. Hobit (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Invention of radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Two-phase (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Q code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page QFE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference details

Some time ago you inserted in the Two envelopes problem a reference to Chen, Jeff as an online publication but without an URI. Could you please fill up the details?

― 200.219.132.103 (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that was me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Invention of radio

I liked your cleanup of the Invention of radio article. I did not like User:Reddi reverting the primary sourced Tesla material back without comment[3] so I went back to your version and expanded it from there with secondary source material. The rest of the article could use some looking at. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. There seem to be a few editors who want push the work of one particular contributor the the invention of radio. Often it is Tesla but there have been others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you maybe going to delete everything related to Tesla in that article, little by little?Nikolas Tales (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, of course not. The section that I deleted was not about the invention of radio at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I note that User:Reddi is back making similar edits over at History of electromagnetic theory[4]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Do not remove relevant Tesla information, Fountains of Bryn Mawr. --J. D. Redding 15:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)