User talk:Isambard Kingdom

This user may have left Wikipedia. Isambard Kingdom has not edited Wikipedia since 14 April 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

Archive 1

Thank you

I will make my contributions less explicit following the advice of Anachronist.--Jahurtado (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not ever revert my edits (re: UFOs) without discussion again

Please comment here publicly and declare any conflicts of interest you have re: UFOs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.92.173 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I have no conflicts regarding UFOs. Thanks for asking, though. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus revert

A true Christian believes the word as gospel; one cannot truly claim to be a Christian if a distinction is made between a historical and biblical Jesus. Ledboots (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, of course, but other Christians interpret the Bible in a more figurative sense, often believing that it has a higher level of meaning than just historical. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sand picture

hi, i answered in this page about deleting sand picture article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sand_picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 868,383,950edits (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Hello again, I deleted links to shopping pages, and added new links. please check the article sand picture.868,383,950edits (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum harmonic oscillator with an applied linear field

Dear Isambard Kingdom, I see from the history of the 'List of quantum-mechanical systems with analytical solutions' page that you removed my reference on the 'quantum harmonic oscillator with an applied linear field'. Furthermore, you seem to have removed the same addition I made to the 'Quantum harmonic oscillator' page. Please tell me why you did this so I can improve my additions to these pages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Hodgson (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI, WP:NotHere, WP:SPA, WP:Notability. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Isambard Kingdom, I have read through the pages you have linked me here; I respectfully disagree that any of these are a valid reason to delete my contribution. First, I do not have conflict of interest (COI). Even though the reference I gave is to my own work, this is not conflict of interest for the following reason. According to Wikipedia, COI involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself. My addition to Wikipedia is not about myself, it is about a new solution to the Schrödinger equation. Second, I am trying to contribute in the most respectful and tasteful way I can to the list of solutions to the Schrödinger equation. So, how am I 'clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia'? From what I can tell, I added a summery of new information to the relevant existing page. If the summary is not brief enough, or violates Wikipedia policy in a more specific way, I would be happy to change my contribution in accordance with their rules. Third, my account is new; everyone has to start somewhere, so, of course, my account looks single-purpose. How is one to start contributing if their first contribution is not allowed because it is single-purpose? Finally, the reference I have used is made available to the public in some form, and by a third-party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Hence, as far as I can tell, it is a valid reference. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Hodgson (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an objective judge of your own work, and your work is not yet highly cited by others. This makes it non-notable. I suggest you start editing articles to which you are not personally attached. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I see your point. However, I argue that I do not need to be an objective judge of my work as it is peer-reviewed and backed by a respectful university. My contribution is simply another solution to add to the list of known solutions to the Schrödinger equation. Hence, if the reference used is valid and the list wishes to be as complete as possible, why should it not be added? I don't see why a certain solution should be missed out of a list of known solutions when it is simply considered less notable because it has fewer citations associated with it than other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Hodgson (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about documenting everything in all detail. I have restored the citation to your thesis, but I suggest you try to contribute more holistically. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the reference. Yes, you're right about the detail, hence why I aimed to summarise the solutions on the SHO page (I admit when I first attempted I did not). I feel that I managed to do this for my contribution to the QHO page based on (I think) your feedback and other Wikipedia moderators. I would like at some point, if I may, to add the full solutions to, perhaps, the existing QHO page. I am, of course, conscious that the SHO is a very big subject in quantum mechanics and hence it must be done scrupulously. Of course, I welcome any suggestions you may have on the best way to proceed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Hodgson (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many times does it need to be said? You should avoid self-serving edits. I find your persistence to be embarrassing. Please work on something else and help us build an encyclopedia. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Universe

The link I removed inserted the following text, which was definitely religious: "The God given timeline is 6000 years ago beginning from the creation of Adam and Eve. This is also known as the short age world. Scientist try to disprove God by talking about evolution and that the earth history dated back as far as 4 billion years. In Genesis chapter one and two of the bible it clearly states that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. How can evolution even be possible beginning from a single atom. Where did this one atom came from. They say that the earth was extremely dense and hot stating it must have a beginning. Time must start somewhere. The only answer is that God is the beginning and source of all life and everything in the universe whether animate or inanimate, whether principalities or powers."

The meta-text that caused this to appear was "

Nature timeline
This box: view talk edit
−13 — – −12 — – −11 — – −10 — – −9 — – −8 — – −7 — – −6 — – −5 — – −4 — – −3 — – −2 — – −1 — – 0 —	Dark Ages Reionization Matter-dominated era Accelerated expansion Water on Earth Single-celled life Photosynthesis Multicellular life Vertebrates	← Earliest Universe ← Earliest stars ← Earliest galaxy ← Earliest quasar / black hole ← Omega Centauri ← Andromeda Galaxy ← Milky Way spirals ← NGC 188 star cluster ← Alpha Centauri ← Earth / Solar System ← Earliest known life ← Earliest oxygen ← Atmospheric oxygen ← Sexual reproduction ← Earliest fungi ← Earliest animals / plants ← Cambrian explosion ← Earliest mammals ← Earliest apes / humans L i f e
(billion years ago)

". Once I removed that, the offending text above disappeared. I can't explain it.

Coordinatezero (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the religious text there now. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom and Coordinatezero: BRIEF Followup - Seems "User:Delano Mullings", a "WP:SPA" new editor, added the religious text to the "Template:Nature timeline" - the "Template:Nature timeline" has since been corrected by an IP User => 2001:14ba:21e6:c200:1c5d:2772:3851:bad6 - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea Scrolls

On an edit, you said said the Gregorian calendar is not in use for the dates of the article. I would ask what calendar are we using for this article? You also said "not a christian documents", which has no relevance to the discussion edit. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD7A:B080:B134:5510:922F:85E8 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh

Why the edit removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B02A:12B4:4DDF:3F65:3743:EDF9 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't sea an actual source for the citation to "Sproul", but I see that you've now added one. As for introducing the notion of Christian worship of Yahweh to the lead of this article, a couple things: 1. There is no discussion of this in the main body of the article, and leads normally function as a summary of the main body, 2. Yahweh was a Jewish god (Israel and Judah) long before he might have been a Christian god, so I would think the order of your text should put Christianity at the end. More generally, I'll be interested to see what other editors of Yahweh think about your proposed additions. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Field

What is it you wish to talk about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.247.101.139 (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crosleybendix: As I said [1], if you can you supply a draft paragraph that specifically addresses your concerns and which has citations to reliable sources, that would certainly help, otherwise we will continue to go in circles. So, for example, you seem to believe that fields (electric, gravitational, etc.) are not physical quantities, but, rather, just a bookkeeping tool. Is there a reliable source that makes such a description? Note that Feynman defines fields in physics as "physical quantities", and he also discusses how they can be used to calculate forces. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earth photo

Mind if I set the caption to:

"The Blue Marble" photograph of Earth,
taken by the Apollo 17 lunar mission

? A2soup (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@A2soup, no, go ahead. This is a classic picture. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! A2soup (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be interested planet images, what do you think about my suggestion concerning Uranus? This isn't as clear a case as with that terrible Earth image, so I would feel more confident with input from someone else knowledgable about the issue. A2soup (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@A2soup, I note that the Uranus image you want to use has been an Picture of the Day. In its extreme simplicity, it is actually beautiful! At the same time, I know that an editor can sometimes get kind of emotionally attached to a picture, especially if they were the one who put the picture into an article. For this reason, if you choose to replace the lead image, maybe you can move it down into the interior of the article. Just a thought. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom, I updated the banner image on the Earth article, as you noticed. I think it gives better clarity than the historically superior but technically inferior blue marble image from 1972. The newer image captured by Elektro-L also includes 80% of the world's population. Is the article attempting to convey NASA's historical achievements or is it attempting to display the most up-to-date and accurate information? Your perspective would be much appreciated. BDS2006 (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom, I understand your reasoning for reverting the image back to the 1972 Apollo 17 image. I could, however, use the same reasoning to justify the newer image as it, too, is a natural photograph of the Earth that happens to be technically superior. Lacking any further justification for maintaining the Apollo 17 image, the existing discussions on this topic appear to be NASA-centric and do not represent a worldwide view of the issue. Furthermore, Archive 14 (which predates the Elektro-L image in question), far from reaching a "consensus" contained almost no discussion at all on this topic. We need to consider all options and not just NASA images if the community is to reach an unbiased and well-informed decision on this matter. Thank you. BDS2006 (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BDS2006, if you feel strongly about all of this, then I suggest you take it to the talk page for Earth. My experience, however, is that people tend to take a wide variety of strongly held opinions on this sort of thing, and, in the end, I think you might possibly spend more time on the issue than it is actually worth. I suggest concentrating on text and content. But that is just my opinion. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Although I have no opinion on the substance of the debate, since there are other eds besides the two of you it is definitely an issue for article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom, thank you for the suggestion. I will follow your advice and start a new discussion on the Earth talk page. @NewsAndEventsGuy, I agree that more multilateral input is needed to reach an unbiased and globally inclusive decision on this issue. BDS2006 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom, there is now an active discussion about the banner image on the Earth talk page, thanks to your advice. I believe the Wikipedia community would value your input. Thank you again for inviting discussion on this topic! --BDS2006 (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your careful look at Global warming. We'll likely disagree sometimes, but if you can talk about it, I'm happy to find out when I'm wrong. Go for it! See you at the talk page or edit summaries. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy, If we improve the article (though it is already very nice), then the benefit will be mutual. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk page, don't edit war

This re-revert was done without any "discussion" as contemplated by the WP:BRD process. That makes it the opening salvo in an edit war. Please use the talk page to form a WP:CONSENSUS. Apparently that sentence needs improvement, and so far neither of us have the right answer, since we're both unhappy. Discuss please? At the article talk page though, not here. Others may want to participate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review

You don't want Wikipedia:Deletion_review, you want WP:AFD. It can be pretty tedious, though. After a while I learnt that an equivalent redirect - say, redirecting the article to Khabibullo Abdusamatov - is less trouble. I've tried that, now William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

== It's a hypothesis, and I can be tested true, and case-wise tested false. The 'unscientific tag' is a value judgement and not cited. Respected scientists like Carl Sagan have stated it's possible.

Universe/universe

In your recent edit, I think this would be the proper capitalization in an article that is otherwise using "Universe" as the name of our universe: "As such the conditional probability of observing a universe that is fine-tuned to support intelligent life is 1. This observation is known as the anthropic principle and is particularly relevant if the creation of the Universe was probabilistic or if multiple universes with a variety of properties exist (see below)." (Capital U the second time, since that reference is to our specific universe, not a generic universe.) I'm not going to make a "universe" -> "Universe" change since I've gotten into enough fights about it, but if you agree that that's consistent with the rest of the article, you might consider self-reverting that one. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashill, I made the suggested change. No problem. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake prediction

Hi, I think you delete about my killer wales news and earthquake relation paragraph is irresponsible. 1. The Japan times and Sankei Shimbun are main stream. I even listed the wiki reference. Forgive me, I would think you might define only CNN, BBC or any english only media as "main Stream" which is kind of biased. They both are well-known in media world. You can google the name before you quickly defined that a not main stream media. 2. This is the lastest news and "observation-artical of conversation-earthquake this morning", those 3 steps are very well related. 3. Until now the official relation between animal behavior and earthquake is not well established. I agree there could be an alternative way to put this paragraph under class of "possible case". But this latest phenomenon and consequence listed in Wiki is a good and easy way for someone to dig into and find the potential relation or a proof/theory of no-relation. Either way, just by deleting that based on saing no value because no main stream under your personal definition of mainstream is biased. Have you ever click the ref link i gave for each sentence i wrote?

Without strong valid theory, non animal prediction case could stand on wiki page under your criteria then. Again. my purpose to list that here because a significant phenomenon related to animal prediction could drive more scholar to dig into either support or object by proof. This is just a description. Easily remove any potential cases under that items won't help to develop animal prediction part at all.

Moreover, I know in academic field, people like to/prefer to cite from academic journal or IEEE or Science or Papers. It makes the academic wiki-page looks more authentic and convincing. Well, usually, authors from those journal also make conclusion based on their experiment or original observation plus theory support. I never said i listed that and made a conclusion that this is the a proved case of animal behavior towards earthquake. I listed this case as significant phenomena and "possible case" under this item as an description. There is no summary or conclusion made that this is the proof and case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitguy (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you give me a more valid reason for deleting it or please undo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitguy (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Summitguy: Well, I'm only the second editor to remove this material on whales and earthquake prediction. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you take it to the Talk page at Earthquake Prediction. You would probably get some useful feedback that way. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided are not of sufficient quality to show that the observations was treated as a prediction of today's earthquake, so I've reverted it again - please take it to the talk page if you disagree. Mikenorton (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mikenorton, I just replied on your talk page, please check — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitguy (talk • contribs) 17:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement vs estimate

Just to clarify the difference between a "measurement" and an "estimate", an analogy: a radar gun measures speed with the prior assumption that the Doppler shift of the radar signal is due to the motion of the object it's bounced against. So even though you strictly measure the wavelength of the radio beam that the radar's receiver measures (which in turn is really measuring changes in current over time and assuming that they are due to variations in the electromagnetic field which we call the frequency), it's normally called a measurement. Similarly, we measure the location of the peaks in the cosmic microwave background power spectrum as well as the redshift of Type Ia supernovae as a function of brightness (which is calibrated to a distance by other observations). Once you have those measurements and the prior of the lambda-CDM model, there is no further free parameter: you get one number out for the age. So that's why it's generally considered a measurement. The prior that lambda-CDM is correct is not quite as well-established as the prior that our understanding of electricity and magnetism is correct (though lambda-CDM sure predicts a ton of observations very well), so it's good practice to bother to mention explicitly that the prior exists, but I think that changing the wording from "measurement" to "estimate" actually indicates uncertainty that isn't there. Remember that the quoted uncertainty (13.798 ± 0.037 billion years) already includes a systematic contribution, which accounts for several things including an estimate of the probability that the underlying model is wrong. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashill: Well, as long as there is an additional assumption, and especially if there is a probability model, then those assumptions plus the data add up to an "inference". Admittedly, scientists tend to think of their measurements as representing a model that they often think is reality. This over confidence can lead to problems, unless we take a more modest stance on our perceptions. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "if there is a probability model"? Every measurement involves a set of assumptions and a probability model (often called an uncertainty). It is excellent practice for scientists (and everyone else!) to be explicit about the assumptions and the probability model they're using instead of brushing it under the rug. That's the main thing that's going on here. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I'm looking under the rug. I believe that you are talking about would be an "inference" in most settings. I suggested using the word "estimate" as a soft compromise. Something with an error bar can reasonably be called an "estimate". Note, however, that I haven't undone your reverting of my edit, as I'm not actually seeking an argument. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that by stating the assumptions before referring to the measurement, the article leads the readers under the rug much more helpfully than a weasel word like "inferred" (which suggests that there isn't a compelling reason to believe the quoted number). By that standard, there's no such thing as a measurement, since every measurement has an error bar (whether quantified and stated or not). That usage would also be entirely inconsistent with usage of the word measurement in science. I too don't mean to be arguing; just wanted to explain where I was coming from in a revert that may not have been obvious. In the Universe article, we could just drop the whole bit about the context and say "The age of the Universe is inferred to be 13.798 billion years", but I think that misses crucial context.

There was a clause in the lede about scientists using measurements to infer stuff about the Universe; that was removed by another editor today. It seems from this discussion like it should go back in. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And my edit used the word "estimate" not "inference", as I've explained. I was using that as a compromise of these issues. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I also think that "estimate" is a weasel word in this context for the reasons stated above. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And from what you describe, what we actually have is an "estimate", an accurate one, sure, as expressed by the "error bars". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I really think you misunderstand the meaning of the words estimate and measurement. If I stand up against a wall with a tape measure, I find that my height is 183 ± 1 cm. Is that an estimate because there's an error bar? And if I'm less honest and just report 183 cm, does that make it a measurement? Similarly, would it be a measurement if we just called it 13.798 billion years? (Of course not.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, probably good to avoid "don't understand" expressions. Not helpful. I'm expressing my understanding of what is done. The age of the universe, as I understand it, is not directly measured. Instead data, of several types, you can explain them to me, are used to make what I am calling an "estimate" of "age". I'm just trying to be honest about what I know, honest about what we write in the article. I will say that I think I know quite a bit about "inference". Just saying. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to say that something that has an uncertainty is an estimate, not a measurement. If I interpret what you said correctly, it is frankly true that you misunderstand the use of the words. If I misunderstood your statement, I apologize. To my understanding, estimation generally implies incomplete information or a rough calculation. The measurement of the age of the Universe with the prior of the Lambda-CDM model has neither; there are no free parameters (ie the information is complete) and the uncertainty of <0.3% is hardly a rough calculation.

(If this discussion seems contentious, again, I apologize. I don't mean it that way and it is leading me to think more critically about what is meant by measurement, so thank you for your edit that brought it up and the discussion. I certainly don't mean that you misunderstand simply by claiming that estimate is the right word here; that's a reasonable statement that I just disagree with. My strong disagreement is with the statement that a quoted uncertainty implies an estimate, not a measurement.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Age of the universe uses, in my opinion an inconsistent set of terms, which I think might be "fixed": "measurement", for example, but I won't argue about it. Still, in that article the uncertainties and the assumptions (which it is acknowledged might not be true) are discussed. Data with errors plus assumptions, only inferences can be made from those. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of Bayesian analysis on that page uses terms that are flat wrong. Bayesian analysis is about parameter estimation of "inference", not about estimating measurement error. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that an often-used distinction is "measurements" vs "derived parameters". In this terminology, the age of the Universe is a derived parameter. But definitely not an estimate. An estimate, essentially by definition, cannot have an uncertainty, since the very word estimate means that there are unquantified assumptions or unquantified unknowns which preclude a quantified uncertainty. I think the age of the Universe article does a pretty good job going through what is directly measured and what is calculated/derived from those measurements. In particular, the "assumption of strong priors" section is much of the basis of my arguments in this discussion. Maybe Universe could have some of that detail, but I think leaving it mostly to the specific article is better.

Bayesian analysis is one of the best tools for estimating measurement error (see particularly the earlier Planck and WMAP papers; the later ones don't bother to repeat it), so I don't know what you mean by saying it's not used for that. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume strong priors are treated as if they have no uncertainty (no errors), even though it is understood that they are actually only as accurate as the assumptions motivating their use. Of course, that uncertainty is usually real, and "strong" does not necessarily mean "correct", and my reading of the age of the universe article seems to confirm this. Also, measurements, in normal usage, are certainly not parameters, parameters are the model. Again, in normal usage, Bayesian analysis has input as data (measurements) and priors (expressed with some degree of confidence) about what the parameters might be; from this, one makes an (output) inference about model parameters in light of the data available. In this type of analysis, parameters are treated as statistical, but they are certainly not data - they are not measurements either. And, almost finally, I have never heard anyone say that an "estimate" has no uncertainty. And finally, whether or not an error estimate is large or small depends on how the estimate is to be use. In some respects the estimated age of the universe is accurate. Good. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "inference" is what scientist often do with "measurements", so not inconsistent as you suggest. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the section in the Universe article to describe the details of how the age is measured a bit more (which I certainly think is merited; there's no doubt that there are a lot of relevant details hidden by either the word "measurement" or "estimate"). I think/hope this is better than arguing further about which word is better. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as you have removed my edit for "estimate", while I have not undone your edit, I don't feel like I'm arguing. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing would have been a better word. But I was referring to myself more than you. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion in statistical significance

Hi Isambard, I wasn't disagreeing with you when I reverted your edit in statistical significance. It was just that those were two separate issues (more power vs appropriate use of test) that were not mutually exclusive. In light of your edit, I added a clarification on the use of a one-tailed over a two-tailed test, supported by a reference. Hope that clarifies it. danielkueh (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking pages up for deletion

Hi! So I was recently voting on an Articles for Deletion discussion you had also voted in, and I noticed that you had previously blanked the page under discussion. To quote the notice that's on the article, [f]eel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. I really appreciate your contributions to Articles for Deletion, and it would be great in the future if you didn't blank pages that are up for deletion. Thank you! APerson (talk!) 18:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@APerson, I understand. My actions may not have been in the right order, and maybe even not in order. If so, I apologize. So you know, I opened the talk page for the article Vortex Science, and I suggested that the article be deleted. I also blanked the page. My actions were part of a back and forth with the author of this page (Derenek), and a couple other editors (not just me) who were removing odd content contributed by Derenek. After all of this, the page was officially put up for deletion (after the page had already been blanked). I did not, myself, put the page up for deletion, as I was unfamiliar with the procedure. Of course, I also understand where you coming from, and in the future I will act differently. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 13 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Poloidal–toroidal decomposition page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template syntax

Thanks for your edits on Universe. Just a note: the correct way to express the cleanup tags (and all templates) is with "{{"; you've been using "{". Eg {{clarify}}^[clarification needed] or {{citationneeded}}^[citation needed]. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 10:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly blanking a section

You recently blanked the "Bennett and the Hyparchic Future" section on the Omega Point page with the edit summary "An entire section copied from a book is removed." I would like to point you to Wikipedia's copyright policy. It reads: "Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine in accordance with our guidelines for non-free content. In Wikipedia, such "fair use" material should be identified as from an external source by an appropriate method (on the image description page, or history page, as appropriate; quotations should be denoted with quotation marks or block quotation in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style)." The section you blanked properly identified the external source of the text, and all the text was included in a block quotation. This is exactly what Wikipedia policy calls for, so I restored the section. I would recommend that if you ever intend to blank a section like this again, you should instead use the {{copypaste}} template to prevent yourself from wrongfully blanking a section. Abierma3 (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. He is perfectly right in this instance. Either explain the point of view and reference it, or the quote will justifiably be deleted. I.e Where is the confirmation of the actual quote here? None of what you say here Abierma3 is relevant to the deletion. and presumed copyrighted material is also irrelevant. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arianewiki1: The quote was properly introduced as a critical view of what the article is about, and the quote was referenced. This means that the quote's relevance was explained. I agree the copyright policy is irrelevant, so your only complaint is the quote is too long? Why even include the block quote in manual of style if the policy is to automatically delete quotes for being too long? If you look over the entire article, it is not dominated by quotes. WP:QUOTEFARM says,"Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit." Perhaps the quote would be better paraphrased, but this doesn't mean the section should be blanked in the meantime. Take your issues to the talk page and ask editors to paraphrase it if that is your grievance. Abierma3 (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Physics

Hello, Isambard Kingdom. You have new messages at FT2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See also section

I would like to point you to the Manual of Style since you have been deleting links in a See Also section and wrongly stating in the edit summary that links are required to have direct relevance and be mentioned in the article. From MOS:SEEALSO: "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics... The 'See also' section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page). As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Notice that it says the links "might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." To decide which links deserve inclusion or not, the MoS says that it is "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Now keep in mind that Wikipedia operates based on consensus, not on Isambard Kingdom's opinion. So for links that you want removed, this needs to be discussed and removed only if consensus is reached to do so. I just wanted to inform you so that you do not keep deleting See Also links on other pages without proper justification. Abierma3 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hey

are you able to respect and accept other people's edit sometimes? Buckbill10 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have we met in a previous life? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Odain Howell (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Energy

Dark energy is a very important thing in our universe. It is an article that deserves to be well-illustrated and stuff. The image in the lead is just there to cause a good impression on the readers. Most people will just read the lead, and it is important to me that an illustration be on top. What do you think? It won't cost anything Buckbill10 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sound familiar. Have we met in a previous life? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will add the lead image there. There is nothing wrong with it Buckbill10 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect block avoidance. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave the image there. It makes the article more welcoming to the reader. Buckbill10 (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

advice

I've said this to Ashill, but here it goes again. Mind to stop caring so much about details? Unfortunately this is a free encyclopedia and you have to deal with other people's opinions sometimes. Undo an edit only if it really necessary (for example, when a wrong information was added). If not, don't bother too much about details. It is necessary to accept other people's edits sometimes. Cheers. Buckbill10 (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd totally ignore Buckbill10 here. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Way mass confusing

I agree, that sentence is confusing, but you added a non-existent template name that caused a red link in the main article; I fixed it. However, it would help if you added the "reason=" parameter to the template to assist others in resolving the issue. Mathglot (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. One thing about that template, its language seems to imply that the whole article is confusing. Really, it is just that one messy sentence. So, I was looking for a way to label that one sentence. Still, I know the wikieditors will get it when they see the template attached, in the source code, to that sentence. As for "why" it is such a confusing sentence, it is extremely convoluted. Although I think that is obvious, I will try to put the reason= parameter in. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^[clarification needed (convoluted structure)]

What an entertaining username 104.229.142.212 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've visited your namesake's museum in London. Are you in any way related? LouScheffer (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Extraterrestrial life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humanity. 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) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fermi paradox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modulations. 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) 08:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 2 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Transhumanism page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on SETI page

Hi Isambard Kingdom,

I noticed your recent reversion of my edit on the SETI article. Since I made these edits in response to the tag you posted about the excess level of detail, it'd be good to have a discussion about how you think the page could best be improved. Drop in on the SETI talk page where I made the original post relating to these proposed edits a few days ago, and let me know what you think about what I suggested and if you have any other ideas. Nren4237 (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your motivation, but the "section" on history in the SETI article is only part of the material on history, which is actually dispersed across many sections of the article. As for the article having too much detail, there is lots of detailed stuff about how many channels are being searched, the exact specification of radio dish diameters, and odd anecdotes, etc. etc., much of which doesn't really contribute to the concepts that need to be brought forward in the article. So, I'm not in favor of dividing off parts of the article. I am in favor of giving the article a working over. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Thank you for cleaning so many articles I happen to follow. As Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, I often am shy to delete entries that seem out of place nd borderline fringe. I perceive most of your edits quite sober. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life articles

I apologize if I have seemed rather...eccentric in my life articles. I sometimes have a hard time telling fringe from legitimate in certain scenarios. I had not realized Mysterious Universe was fringe. However, there are certain levels of fringe.

1. Completely and entirely fringe - Outright rejecting scientific fact, no basis in reality. Examples include Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, Roswell UFO theories, Bigfoot Hunting.

2. Some basis in fact - Attempts to stick to scientific fact, but the science either does not or cannot back them up. Examples include Evidence of God and ghost/paranormal subjects.

3. Relies on reputable sources, or is itself reputable - Is a legitimate, well-meaning effort, but due to being in a gray area of science, their attempts are typically drowned out or the majority has a different viewpoint, where both could be valid but the evidence points to the majority. Examples include anthropologists such as Geoffrey Krantz's investigations into Bigfoot, possibility that Viking did detect life, and UFO sightings by reputable sources such as astronauts, law enforcement officials, Air Force pilots, etc.

If/when I do unintentionally include fringe sources, it's typically from type 3 - due to being sometimes indistinguishable from non-fringe content in some cases. I apologize if I have seemed like I am a fringe theorist, and if my efforts to create various Life articles have been an annoyance. However, I feel that any cases where life is possible or has been hypothesized, it is worthy of its own article, even a stub. Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, and Callisto in particular - those four are MAJOR contenders for life.

Once again, I apologize if my sources have been fringe at times. DN-boards1 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DN-boards1, we don't need lots of runt articles about speculation of life on all these moons, Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, and Callisto, when the issue of life between these moons are (at current levels of understanding) fairly similar, namely, brine water with interesting chemistry and source of heat. Beyond that we don't know much about "life" on these moons. I suggest that you consult with experienced editors with knowledge on this subject, editors like @BatteryIncluded, for example. Perhaps a single article that consolidate all of the life-possibilities about all these moon into one article, just a suggestion. But right now, lots of separate articles that are only a few sentences long are not useful, and they are likely to be deleted. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Idrisi Montes‎

Hi. You have added an AfD tag but not started the linked discussion. Please do so straight away, providing the reasons why you think this should be deleted. --Mirokado (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirokado, Understood, and immediately after inserting the AfD on Al-Idrisi Montes‎, my screen gave me information about what to do. I contacted Savonneux at talk:Savonneux asking for a bit of guidance, since I've not navigated the AfD procedure before, and since he/she requested a similar AfD for a related article. I haven't heard back from Savonneux just yet (no pressure from me). In an effort to be responsive, I will, for now, take the AfD tag off. Alternatively, perhaps you would support deletion yourself? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that response. I have never requested a deletion as far as I remember, but I have just posted on the creator's talk page "encouraging" him to stop creating any more similar articles for now. The relevant pages are Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Deletion process and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. I normally look through such pages before attempting to use a new process (in my case moving and merging for example). It may be that Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion would be a good place to ask for any clarification. --Mirokado (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on this, I see that you have posted to some of the deletion discussions, but the contributions are not votes and the closer does not count votes, he weighs the arguments pro and con that have been presented. So just saying "delete" (or "keep") will be ignored. --Mirokado (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Hi. If I could, I wanna ask why shouldn't we add Organisms template to Life article? It includes internal link to "Life" article and is used in Eukarya etc. articles. Thank you. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TaurenMoonlighting, I'm sorry, it looks like I removed the wrong thing. I will revert my own edit. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. :) Thank you for good collaboration and have a nice day! Greetings. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solar dynamo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faraday's law. 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) 11:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging

Hi,

I see that you tried to ping me and several other editors at Talk:Sun#Lead and other images. Just saying @Ashill doesn't do anything, so I didn't see the comment until I happened upon Talk:Sun for other reasons; you have to use either {{u|Ashill}} or {{reply to|Ashill}} to generate a notification. See the template documentation and WP:PING for documentation. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashill, okay, thank you. I'm trying to encourage some *informed* involvement with Sun. It is an important article, and while I've tried to improve it, it still needs lots of work. One of several issues that might attract popular involvement is images. I've put in a white-light picture of the Sun in the lead. Some people don't like this because it doesn't look exciting enough, but I've suggested that the white-light image is kind of analogous to the visual true-color images we have for the planets of our Solar System. More generally, I'd like to see some images of the Sun taken simultaneously, but at different wavelengths so that people can see how similar features show up when viewed in different light, so sunspots look different in white-light, from UV, from X-ray, etc. Such a sort of comparison mini-gallery would, I think, satisfy an expectation that there be some visually interesting representation of the Sun. Then, after that, I'm reasonably certain that an astronomer familiar with stellar physics could help us with the written content, and it is written content that is important and needing attention, I think, in this article. Some other editors have been working on the article recently, some of it good, but read between those lines. I'm prepared to move away from the article, so that is why I tried to send around an invite to other technically minded editors. Thanks, and everything, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, this ping worked). Honestly, Sun has looked like a quite good article to me in the past, from my memory, and it's a featured article, so at least a number of editors in 2006 and 2009 (when reviewed) thought it was excellent. So maybe I'll take a look, but I don't think it would be a high priority for me unless it looks bad on closer inspection. Thanks for asking, though. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashill, okay, understood. By the way, I'm having some difficult exchanges with an editor over at Escape velocity. He keeps erasing the content of his talk page, but I see from View History, that you've corresponded with him before. ;-( Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've had issues with that editor before (including just now on Sun). His/her edits tend to be just constructive enough so that reverting them wholesale is not fair, but the edits tend to do more harm than good and take much more time to clean up than vandalism, unfortunately. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turing Test

The paragraph in question reads:

Turing wanted to provide a clear and understandable example to aid in the discussion of the philosophy of artificial intelligence.[87] John McCarthy observes that the philosophy of AI is "unlikely to have any more effect on the practice of AI research than philosophy of science generally has on the practice of science."[88]

The second sentence, which is quite a general comment, is only relevant at all if the first sentence is suitable. The reference for the first sentence is Turing's well known 1950 paper. The author of the first sentence appears to know exactly what Turing wanted, that being (according to the author) not to introduce an actual test but rather to 'aid in the discussion of the philosophy of AI'. Turing himself said nothing of the kind in this paper, in his presentations or in discussions. This is pure conjecture on the part of the author.

Hence it was removed. Bradka (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradka: In the reference to the first sentence, in [87], Turing says that he wants to consider the question "Can machines think?". In the Wiki article linked in the first sentence under question, the philosophy of artificial intelligence is described as being concerned with "Can a machine act intelligently?" and "Can it solve any problem that a person would solve by thinking?". These two points, one by Turing and one in the linked Wiki article, seem very similar to me. I don't see a problem. The sentence that quotes John McCarthy, while perhaps not directly related to the first sentence, is an accurate representation of what is said in the reference [88]. Again, I don't see a problem. In light of these observations, I don't understand why you want to remove this material. Perhaps you can explain this in more detail? Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the tense (observed rather than observes) I don't have an issue with John's statement. But it is only relevant to the article if the first sentence is there. The first sentence is implying that the Turing test is irrelevant (this is the section heading) because Turing merely wanted to stir up philosophical discussion. This is not what Turing said at all. Turing did not state what he wanted in this case. It is pure conjecture and should not be there. If the sentence actually started "I believe that what Turing wanted ...." then it would be accurate but should be removed as a POV. The point is here that the author of this sentence (whoever it was) cannot know what Turing wanted and in particular that when introducing the test he was just doing it as a philosophical exercise. If they have evidence that this is what Turing wanted then that should be cited - but it is certainly not in his 1950 paper. Bradka (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradka:, in circumstances like this, I think the best thing to do is fix the text and retain the citations to source material. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with my edits?

You undid my edit at Genesis Flood Narrative. What is wrong with it? I redid it, only to be accused of disruptive editing by another user. So I want to ask you why you undid my edit. I did delete important information. The details are discussed in the section "Comparative mythology". What then was wrong? You can leave an answer at my talk page.--68.100.116.118 (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.116.118 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury

The real target is here: [2] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life on Venus

Life on Venus is indeed likely, and is closer to reality than you think, for a few reasons:

• It's hypothesized to exist in the clouds. Earth bacteria is known to exist in clouds as well, so it's not unheard of.
• There are unexplained amounts of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, as in they should not be in the same place.
• There is an unusual deficiency of carbon monoxide.
• The activity of solely Maat Mons is not enough to explain the levels of carbonyl sulfide.

Essentially, Life on Venus is closer to reality than you're saying. The chances are good, not quite as good as Mars, Europa, or Titan - but still good. DN-boards1 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DN-boards1: Of all the currently proposed missions to Venus, not one mentions astrobiology as an objective or goal. Think about that and stop your fantasy/OR campaign. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BatteryIncluded: I'm pretty certain VSTAR or whatever it is - one of those Disovery Pogram missions - has astrobiology as a goal.

And it's not "fringe" any more than Titan is. @Double sharp: agrees that the page stays. It's two for, two against. The compromise is to keep it in the template. Why are you so belittling of me as a whole? DN-boards1 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are a bull in a china shop, and because vehemently refuse to quote reliable references to your OR, which you acknowledge is fringe POv. Because you go for the extreme BS and quote it as a gospel of science, and because I care for Wikipedia's standards I feel a responsibility to cleanup after your trolling campaign. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DN-boards1 mentioned his source for Venus as being Venus Revealed (presumably the book by David Grinspoon), after some pushing. I don't know for sure if this is reliable, but given the WP article on the author, it does not look bad. I don't know if anyone else thinks this, but it's gone close enough for me to decide to leave the judgement to someone who knows more about Venus. Double sharp (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grinspoon's book might be considered to be a reliable source for "life on Venus". My concern, however, is the disproportionate (and unbalanced) focus DN-boards1 is making for inserting speculative stuff about extraterrestrial life into Wiki. One needs to ask whether we need it when so many other aspects of Wiki need attention. And, indeed, many of the edits of DN-boards1 need to be fixed, the language made more accurate, citations need to be added etc. It becomes a burden for other editors who actually want to bring up the level of content in Wiki. On a more specific point, some of his/her recent back-and-forth edits on templates are clearly edit warring. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Higgs boson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 23.233.86.86 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Introduction to gauge theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton. 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) 12:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VIRUS; ANTHROPOCENE; CLIMATE CHANGE; GLOBAL WARMING > Tiptree's "The Last Flight of Dr. Ain"

I disagree with you because the story is seminal climate science fiction written by a scientist, coming just a few years after Rachel Carter's Silent Spring, and because— well, isn't it just highly likely that, as our so-called leaders ignore this problem and ignore the scientists, and as the extinctions and pressure builds, one or a few scientists will try something like this in the hope of saving at least some of the life on Earth?

I agree it doesn't fit in neatly with what is there already, but surely there must be a place for this famous story in either the pages themselves or in new pages on fiction depicting these topics. Which I'd like you to make in that case because I have no idea how. :) Kaecyy (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaecyy: I came here anticipating to support Isambard Kingdom with whatever he says to you about your recent links. But having got here first, I will lead off (begging his/her pardon).

Your desire to find "a place for this famous story" is the wrong rationale. Links (like other material) are added to an article on the basis of what they bring to the article, not to enhance the exposure of the linked material. That a story is famous might be sufficient reason to have an article on it, but promotion is not allowed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. The fame of the story was an offhand comment, not the rationale, which you ignored. The rationale is the story's high relevance to the topics, and its early, seminal nature on the topics. Kaecyy (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaecyy , There is relatively little material on The Last Flight of Dr. Ain at James Tiptree, Jr.. Why don't you address that there? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keycyy: what high relevance to the topics? Or early, seminal nature"? To take just one topic: I see no evidence at all that this story has had any relevance or effect (seminal or otherwise) on the phenomenon of global warming, the study of same, possible remediation, or the ensuing public discussion. That the story has an interesting insight on any of this is certainly something that can be covered in connection with the story. But in regard of these other topics there is not indication of any relevance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Do you, by chance happen to use WP:IRC? If so, what is your nick? It would make communication much faster and easier for us. Thanks! --DN-boards1 (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mesopotamian mythology

I've undone them all, as there appears to be a lack of consensus. But you might want to take a look at Mesopotamian mythology, which has been moved to Ancient Mesopotamian religion. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^Che dicono a Signa?_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm investigating these things. Point being, religion and mythology are not always the same thing. So moving categories needs to be done on a careful, case-by-case basis. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree - I'm not the one who moved it. I let it be for a few days, but nobody appeared to object to the change; I saw nothing when I did my searching prior to moving articles. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^Che dicono a Signa?_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's core and the geodynamo

Could you please explain what is the confusion you refer to, related to the initiation of the currents that would be amplified by the geodynamo?[1] I believe your edit was unwarranted. Thank you. 98.217.158.136 (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well that research paper you cite, here on my talk page, is fine, albeit overly technical for Wikipedia. What I deleted from the article on the Earth's magnetic field was not good material. Let me summarize the situation with planetary dynamos. These are (almost always) rotating and electrically conducting fluids that are thermally unstable. Convection is the fluid motion that results from that instability, with a minuscule "seed" perturbation leading to growing fluid motion and the transport of heat. Rotation constrains the fluid pattern of convection, with the Coriolis force essentially reducing motional freedom. But, in response to this constraint, another instability sneaks in, with the electrically conducting fluid amplifying a minuscule "seed" magnetic field. Fluid motion acts by induction to amplify this tiny field, with the Lorentz force partially offsetting the restrictive Coriolis force. In this respect, the magnetic field actually facilitates convection. The field grows and grows until the Lorentz force approximately equals the Coriolis force, at which point the field attains a rough maximum strength, and with convection efficiently moving heat from the planetary interior. That, in a nutshell, is planetary dynamo theory. I imagine, however, that you might be wondering where the seed motion and seed magnetic fields come from. Well, it doesn't take much to send an unstable physical system into time dependence, and, indeed, all of this discussion is idealized. In fact, the pre-motional pre-dynamo state probably never really existed in the first place. Planetary and stellar evolution is far more complicated and messy than our simple models. And, then, finally, it is worth recognizing that simple self-sustaining dynamo systems can be built in a laboratory, although the simplest such dynamos are not fluid-mechanical, but, rather, consist of cleverly connected solid conductors that move relative to each other. They are, in some respects, just fancy versions of electric generators. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your summary, however you vaguely address the issues I presented, adding your own theory instead, by saying that an “instability sneaks in, with the electrically conducting fluid amplifying a minuscule ‘seed’ magnetic field” arising from your “it doesn't take much to send an unstable physical system into time dependence”. None of what you say contradicts or invalidates what I wrote in the article. There is a big difference though: I am presenting referenced research material (Dr. Livermore’s) as opposed to your original research. Furthermore, the article as it is, takes for granted the existence of the electric currents without addressing where, or how, or why they started, restarted, and the nature of the mysterious “minuscule ‘seed’ magnetic field”. I don’t want to speculate about it. The research is out there, and it is worth bringing it into the article to clarify what I consider an important omission. This makes what you deleted from the article to be better material than its absence. Remember that you can move a conductor all you want and not generate any current, until you immerse it into a magnetic field for example. And the dynamo then starts working. This may not be obvious to all readers. I request that you leave what I wrote in the article, and invite you to improve it, instead of just eliminating it. Thank you. 98.217.158.136 (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then go ahead and reintroduce your material, then. But you do need to recognize two important issues: 1. for dynamo theory it is the "self-sustaining" quality that is important, not the original seed field. and 2. the dynamics are important (you are talking about "kinematics" only), and my summary is about both of these. Please recognize that this is my talk page, where giving a standard summary is not "original research" of concern, per se, since I'm not introducing this material to an article. Indeed, even if I did put this material into an article, it would be relatively straightforward to cite significant sources to back it up. I just don't have time to do that right now. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a section at Talk:Earth's magnetic field# Earth's core and the geodynamo on this subject. That is where a discussion on content should be located. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. "Simulating the geodynamo" (PDF). Retrieved September 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Genesis Creation Narrative

Would you care to join me in requesting permanent semi-protection for the page? It's been semi-protected several times, but that protection keeps expiring, bringing the origin problem right back. Let me know here or on my talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Yes, sure, I would support that. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the request.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hai

Hai. Thanks for helping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milku3459 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exponential Integral Function [Approximations Section]

Why was the subsection "Approximations" removed? Is there a problem citing your won work if it is the only work? or is it the language of citing it? Please explain. (Abdurrahman.Ala.Abu.Alkheir) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdurrahman.Ala.Abu.Alkheir (talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming

I would like to express my sincere appreciation towards your efforts on solving problems that earth is facing. I'm disappointed seeing people continue destroying the earth yet they know the effects of their actions. They are putting money before the lives of other people. They are selfish and only have greedy intentions. If there is any way you can adress this please do so. If this persists I'll do my best to get a ticket to another planet. Good day... McCartney's (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terradactyl (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a DRAFT for the RfC mentioned on the recent DR/N case

I am creating a page on my userspace's sandbox to discuss the creation of an RfC and its wording to settle the dispute filed at the DR/N here, since there seemed to be 3 out 4 (5?) editors that agreed to using an RfC to settle the contested changes. The draft page can be found at User:Drcrazy102/sandbox/Draft_RfC_for_Earth_System_Science. Please do not comment on the RfC on this talkpage, comment on the Discussion section on the Sandbox page. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic religions

That revert left some very poor English. Doug Weller (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller: Do you think the second edit of Haim Shah at Abrahamic religions should have been reverted? I'm just trying not to perpetually undo things I don't like, and, so, defer to other editors (at times). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His first change replaced poor English with more poor English, the next two I proposed the English. Doug Weller (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for 'Saved21', there is a King James Only movement and LDS and JW followers insist on the KJV. Doug Weller (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just out of curiosity...

How can my edit possibly introduce inconsistency? The period should be outside the parenthesis, it's a simple rule and everyone knows it. Cheers, Huritisho 15:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are some sentences in the article that end in a period, followed by a citation number, followed by a parenthesis. Unless Wiki has a particular style, the ordering of periods and parentheses is not necessarily the simple rule that you know. See, for example: [3]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link you put in the edit summary says exactly what I did. Look: If any sentence includes material that is enclosed in square or round brackets, it still must end—with a period, or a question or exclamation mark—after those brackets. When you reverted me, you added the period inside the bracket. It is pretty obvious that the period goes after the bracket, unless the text in the brackets ends with "etc.". In this case, the period inside is necessary. Huritisho 17:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS says, literally, "However, if the entire sentence is within brackets, the closing punctuation falls within the brackets. (This sentence is an example.)" Seems pretty clear. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm let me check again Huritisho 17:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that seems to be correct. It looks extremely weird to me, but if that's what the MoS says... what can I do. Huritisho 17:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can self-revert your edit. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I did that already Cheers, Huritisho 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra quark sock puppets

Huritisho was another TetraQuark sock puppet: [4]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: [5].

The new user HalloweenNight emits similar vibes with less trolling. It may be him too. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New investigation: of user:Incendiary Iconoclasm as a possible sock of Tetra quark: [6]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible pair of incarnations: User_talk:Not_a_creative_person and Special:Contributions/187.107.0.247. Just monitoring things, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto's Flatenning

I apologize. I am am very tired and very sloppy. The reference exists but I'm not going to do any more editing today. I'll give you the info. If you wish you are welcome to include it yourself under Radius in the inbox

Bye..--Rudy235 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limb fits using full-disk images, combined in a joint solution, give a mean radius for Pluto of 1187 ± 4 km (5), at the larger end of a previously uncertain range of 1150 to 1200 km (6). No oblateness has been detected (5), yielding a conservative upper limit on Pluto’s polar flattening (a difference of <12 km between equatorial and polar axes) of 1%. We conclude from this that Pluto does not record significant shape evidence of an early, high-spin period after Pluto-Charon binary formation (7), presumably because it was warm and deformable during or after tidal spindown.

Under Pluto Geology and imaging

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6258/aad1815.full

Icecream

I do value the "thank you"s (and thank you for that one, by the way), but I also wish every once in a while that there was a "buy me icecream" button around here. François Robere (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere, you deserve an icecream! I appreciate your politeness despite ... well ... everything. I also admire your ability to succinctly summarize issues in writing. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra quark sock puppets II

Hi Isambard Kingdom (or should that, based on your recent diligent hunting, now Sherlock or Super Sleuth?).

I have a feeling that TQ may have returned as the possible sockpuppet GavinSlavin, whose very first edit poses the question "Is there any way where the universe does not end?" at Talk:Ultimate fate of the universe at 04:04, 10 November 2015. His Wikipedia registration was at 17:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC), being a day or so after Outedexits demise at 08:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oddly, UY Scuti happen to welcome this user to 16:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [7], which is somehow before GavinSlavin became active? Notably, the question edit was dated as 03:36, 10 November 2015‎? [8] These dates should be the same, and not appearing before it? (Forewarning?)[reply]

I do think this is possibly another TQ incarnation, because it would be very odd to pose only one very specific cosmological question [9], then do nothing else. (This a subject TQ is quote interested in, whose unlike probability in timing couldn't be a coincidence, and it also happen to be one very recently edited by you.

Just thought you might be interested. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was summoned and so, I'll clear it up. That was not a coincidence. See here. That should speak on behalf of me, I guess. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 06:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KIC 8462852

The SETI never finds ET signals, why stress it on this stars page for your own agenda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsfly (talk • contribs) 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Your recent editing history at KIC 8462852 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, Okay, I reverted twice. As did you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above notice was an error. I notified the wrong person. Reverting twice is perfectly reasonable behavior. I apoligize for the error. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Guy Macon, and thank you. I don't like to revert, but, in this case, I did it to restore simple, factual material on a subject of some interest and (to some) controversy. Have a good day. ;-) Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horrifico / DN-boards

Hello, this IP user 65.175.246.43 seems also obsessed with moons and planets' hydrostatic equilibrium as Horrifico/DN-boards was. Do you think it is worth our time starting a block-evation investigation? I have no idea of the scientific accuracy of his edits though. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BatteryIncluded, I noticed this too. Looks like DN-boards1, whom I recall admits to being a serial sock puppet. There are several editors, like JorisvS and Kheider, who know a lot about moons and other planetary objects. If 65.175.246.43 becomes a problem, I think they will notice. For now, I will just be observant. Still, I appreciate your involvement and attention to Wikipedia. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DN-boards1 sock puppet: [10]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Don't annoy this user

Isambard Kingdom didn't care for a comment I posted on a disagreement between us on a topic to which he admitted not being an expert. He retaliated by tracking down pages I edit and marking them for bias and lack of citations. In looking through this page, I notice that I'm not the first editor he has attempted to intimidate like this. I'm not taking action, but am placing this here for the record. I hope that this concludes the matter. Wikiant (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiant is referring to the article Antony Davies, which he, himself, described as his biography: [11]. It is an article that he both created: [12] and for which he is the greatest contributor: [13]. This appears to me to be contrary to the following guidelines on conflict of interest: WPCOISELF. Wikiant is also referring to the Paragon Software, which has no citations at all to any reliable source. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to it as "my biography page" as in, "I created it" - something you can readily verify. If you are claiming that I am the person in the article, then you are knowingly attempting to violate Wikipedia's outing policy. In short, your behavior in this instance (and from reading the rest of your user talk page, many other instances) constitutes harassment. I suggest you find a way to cooperate better with your fellow editors. I said above that I had hoped that this matter was concluded. Keep revisiting the issue and I'll report you for harassment. Wikiant (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt such a beautiful heart-to-heart here, but Wikiant, Isambard Kingdom isn't "outing" you if you put up a comment that reads (and I quote you Wikiant):

PS: I notice that you are now commenting on my biography page. Yes, the page does rely heavily on articles written by the subject. That's what one would expect from a biography page is it not?

You have said "my biography page" which is easily misconstrued as you meaning that it is your actual, personal biography page, not a biography page you are writing about someone else. Also, WP:OUTING says, and I quote:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia ... If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. ^(emphasis added)

So the question is now, "Have you (Wikiant) redacted - in any way, shape or form - the comment posted? Or is it merely a misunderstanding of an ambiguous statement?" If you have redacted in any way, then it is outing; if you haven't or you have clarified that you meant a biography-article on another person, then it is not outing but misunderstanding. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to interrupt. This is not a guns-blazing situation. Isambard and I had a disagreement about the definition of "economics" on the economics page. Next thing I know, he believes he has discovered who I am, and is accusing me of conflict of interest and lack of citations on unrelated pages. This clearly isn't innocent editing. Isambard is harassing. Wikiant (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, in regards to the "discovered who I am" problem (which relates to WP:COISELF), is it possible that your comment could be misconstrued as meaning it is your actual bio-page Wikiant? If it is possible, then it would be best to assume a less nefarious intention behind the alleged "outing" (which hasn't happened by Wiki-standards), and the WP:COISELF comment is based on the interpretation of the comment.

As for the "lack of citations" tagging ... well ... are the lines tagged missing, or in need of, citations? If they are, then it is hardly nefarious but can be based on an editor wanting to improve Wiki (though they could have an ulterior motive of distraction). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my comment could be misconstrued. I deleted the conflict of interest warning and noted that he had no evidence of such. Isambard then reverted. Bottom line, I'm happy to chalk this up to a misunderstanding, but he needs to remove the COI warning. Wikiant (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isambard Kingdom, would you be able to assume a good faith mistake occurred on both sides and remove the COI template? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noise

Hi, please don't remove my suggested further reaading entries without contacting me first. I can see nothing wrong with either of them. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJG639 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a book I suggested as further reading. It is at least as significant as, and more up to date than, others in that same list. How do you justify this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJG639 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MJG639, so far I would describe your account as "single purpose", intent on citing two books with which you seem to be familiar. Note that we are trying to write an encyclopedia, and as such we seek to minimize bias. Please consider these points, and you might read WP:COI and WP:SPA. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The Noise book I added is almost the only history of noise there is - the other (somwhat older) is already in the list. "Discord" is an Oxford University Press book, so it has been thoroughly "vetted", and has attracted some excellent reviews, as shown on its covers. It is being used in at least one acoustics course in the UK; I've worked in the field for over 30 years now, so I am confident it is a reasonable book to add. The other book, about New Horizons and Pluto, was written in consultation with over 20 astronomers and space scientists, including Alan Stern. It is, so far, the only book to be published post-encounter. I have a Ph D in astrophysics and have written many other books on the subject - so again, I don't really think there is any reason not to include it. While I have not used my account for some months, I have previously made many constructive edits to several sections, so it is not really "single purpose". If you decide that, despite this, you still wish to remove the two books, please respond to me first. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJG639 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MJG639, you say that you have made many "constructive edits to several sections", but your account history does not show that: [14]. Having said that, if you do add reasonable content with sources, then everybody will be happy. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added material to the M R James page, amended the Substance page and the Big Bang page, and made various additions to various Dr Who-related and variable-star related pages. If the don't appear under my MJG639 name, I must have made them anonymously I guess. Some were several years ago now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJG639 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Your recent editing history at Yahweh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ben^Yes? 17:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Ben^Yes? 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hello? The "edits" on Yahweh were not appropriate. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broach

Really? I restore a word that has been at that article for over seven years, that an IP editor had removed, and you revert? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing over it, but they did talk. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested page

I can t find the page you asked me, but according to Earth's_rotation#History: In 499 CE, the Indian astronomer Aryabhata wrote that the spherical earth rotates about its axis daily, and that the apparent movement of the stars is a relative motion caused by the rotation of the Earth. He provided the following analogy: "Just as a man in a boat going in one direction sees the stationary things on the bank as moving in the opposite direction, in the same way to a man at Lanka the fixed stars appear to be going westward."Judist (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom: Please note, this is a Balkan troll that is following me around and reverting me everywhere out of spite. Athenean (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Causality

Hi Isambard Kingdom, I saw that you erased my contribution saying that the article was not well integrated with the rest. I understand. Can we speak about it? Can we find maybe a better way to do it, or another place in the article? His researches nowadays are quiete wellknown, and they bring great meaning in the understanding of the behavior of information in time. Many mathematicians are studying the implications of Kozyrev' studies and theories from a geometrical and mathematical perspective..

            [vesprolatuna] 00:41 (UTC)

Right. I removed some of the material about Kozyrev that you put into the article on Causality which was not very well integrated into the rest of the article. You might ask yourself if the work of Kozyrev rises to the level of significance of the other material already appearing in the article, and, if it does, how it can be explained clearly at the level of the material already appearing in the article. Note that after I removed the material, you re-inserted it, and, then, another editor removed it. So, I suppose you might consider that too. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May it be that we consider another way of inserting those informations (?) I already ask myself, or else I wouldn't have done what I did. Also it would be apprechiated, when it comes about such important topics, that aknowledgments about what's missing and wich are the reasons of the few massive talking about some studies, would be done also by your side. If we're speaking about references we have a quit big amount of them.. I ask therefore some attention regarding this particular point and this particular man's work, being source of vast theoretical studies and experimental investigations of Relativity's implications and phenomena. thanks

vespro latuna 03:42, 30 november 2015 (UTC)

Off the beam

In re this edit, I'd disagree Analog isn't reliable about science. It's been printing factual articles, along with fiction, for over 30yr. TREKphiler ^any time you're ready, Uhura 02:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel strongly about this, then you can revert me. I don't think the source is reliable, nor do I think the authors are authorities on the subject. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic rays

Good evening again, Isambard, with the same spirit we ask for a discussion about your removal of our contribution concerning Kozyrev experiments. Eventhough may be that such a detailed descriptions of the biographical motivation that brought the astrophisicist to consider those cosmic rays from a different perspective than the studies conducted in Europe and in America, we defenetely think, also according to the interest that Kozyrev studies are stimulating all around the world in many Institutes and by many scientists, that his lifework (different from simple "some researches") has a great value, at least in the history of cosmic rays studies and observation. References are many and we can present more, being active in this specific aspect of physics researches history for quite some time. We are indeed not speaking about the modern point of advancement in the discipline of cosmic rays studies, but the documentation and the divulgation of historical facts with a certain specific amount of echos and conseguences in many areas. The importance of such notion is therefore beyond any doubt, as well as others, quoted in the article itself. hoping to meet the same interest on the correct divulgation of facts, Thanks for the attention ps: do not esitate in asking more references about analysis and different approaches of other scientists and/or institutes regarding Nikolai Kozyrev's works and observations.

Vespro Latuna 18:44 3 Dicembre 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vespro Latuna (talk • contribs)

A common interest

I hope you have time to respond on the Talk:Science#A common interest. I respect your contributions and hope you have time to influence the article. Reading between the lines of your edits, it appears to me that the content of science is also important to the article, which you conveyed by your edits. I phrased this viewpoint as 'inspirational'.

We get this kind of inspiration everyday, of course. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Videos about Pluto

Hello. I do not insist on this particular wording, but artificial origin of these videos must be mentioned in some way. Otherwise they are misleading. Stas (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but how is it misleading? How are videos normally constructed? Curious, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a computer-simulated flight over a computer-simulated globe. The simulation is based on several still images and, consequently, does not contain more information than these images. Actually it is an artwork without encyclopedic value at all. And if its origin is not even mentioned, people will think that it was really made by the spacecraft flying over Pluto. Stas (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain it in the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did. And now it's time for you to revert your incorrect reverting of my edit. Stas (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Isambard Kingdom. You have new messages at Talk:Johannes Vermeer.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

God in Judaism

Please join the discussion on the God in Judaism talk page, rather than reverting edits. I'm happy to explain any particular revisions that you think need further justification there. Thanks. ModernJewishThought (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas!

		Happy Christmas!
		Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

scholarly views of the Gospels

Hi Isambard Kingdom. Judging by your posts on the Talk:Jesus page, you have an informed view on the Gospels. Other editors want to minimize scholarly criticism of the Gospels. Maybe we could work together to make sure that the reader gets an informed description of the Gospels. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Best to take the high road in them. Surely you can find better ways to describe crap? Doug Weller talk 09:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism

Please see the history of this item, particularly at 15.22 and 15.23. I did NOT edit your posts in any way. Silver Shiney (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [15]. I was making a matter of fact statement about what happened, your edit put back text that I had taken out. I then tried to strike it out (leave the words, but put a line through them). That is all. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Isambard Kingdom. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fermi paradox

I warned LouScheffer on edit warring. Thank you for attempting to move the discussion to talk:Fermi paradox. You are familiar with wp:ew, so I don't need to go there. I should let both have a notice. So, here it is. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine

This is a comment I gave to another editor claiming the same thing as you (reffering to this

The State of Israel is a member of the United Nations since 1949, it is recognized by all of the members of the UN's security council and therefore a legal country. S-o-Palestine on the other-hand.. Not only their affiliated government, the Palestinian National Council, doesn't practice any governance on the land it claims (Which the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Hamas government of the Gaza Strip do), they are also facing a reocgnition dispute, since they are not reocgnized by three of the UN security council and therefore not (yet) a legitemate country. This argument created the consensus for List of terrorist incidents, 2015, not to put any flag for the West Bank since there is no internationally legal and legitemate sovereign in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, so Israeli settlements and the PA are under no legal sovereignty. In 2012 the UN have declared they will replace the name of the Palestinian Territories to "State of Palestine" to refer to the territory that was captured in 1967 and regarded as occupied since then, but after all the term Occupied Palestinian Teritory is used by the United Nations, via OHCHR, to refer to the two territories of the West Bank and Gaza, regarded as one since 1967. The term "Palestinian Terrioties" (without the "occupied") is used today by the BBC, The Guardian, US Department of State and even the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, which explains why editors choosed it as the title of the Palestinian Territories article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: This argument is nonsense. The UN has the power to admit states to membership but it doesn't have the power to decide what is a state. The principles of international law regarding statehood long precede the existence of the UN. Zero^talk 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to your logic, the Gaza Strip is a sovereign country, since the Palestinian National Council, the administrative body of the State of Palestine, doesn't practice any authority over the Gaza Strip. It is the Hamas Cabinet which administrate the Gaza Strip. Since 2013, editors created an unsourced chaos following the SoP's observer status and the 1 Jaunary name change of the PA. Editors assumed the PNA dissolved and started writing it everywhere. Even though the PNA president Abbas recently said that the PNA will never collapse. In 2014, the Palestinian president announced a plan to establish a unity government between Fatah and Hamas and stop the split between Gaza and WB. Editors assumed that it means that the Hamas governance has ended. WITHOUT ANY SOURCE. Funny enough, the Palestinians are now back in the talks to make a unity government (1 2).

The State of Palestine was declared in 1988 and up to date it has 136 UN members recognizing it. Kosovo has 108, no one doubts Kosovo is a partially reocgnized state, even though the Republic of Kosovo has full administration over the territory it claims. On the other hand, for some reason, editors doubt that "State of Palestine" is a partially recognized state even though it has no administration over anything and just like Kosovo, there is a veto in place. You can ask the US Department of State and OHCHR, they will not tell you "State of Palestine". Not even the Arabic Wikipedia regard to the "State of Palestine" as an important thing, they have "Historic Palestine" which is controlled by Israel and PNA. But "Wikipedia is not a source", so I gave you sources, and according to all sources I gave, using the BBC, The Guardian, US department of state (and also CIA factbook), United Nations and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, the term is "Palestinian Territories", referring to the West Bank and Gaza.

If you have no source to bash these sources, don't even bother arguing.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter21 and Zero0000, I have moved this discussion over to Talk:Jordan. Please don't comment further on this subject here. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1RR Violation

There is a 1RR restriction on all articles about the I-P issue, per ARBPIA(2,3). As seen in your first and second revert, You surpassed 1RR and if you do not self-revert, I will report this to AE.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter21, I have requested guidance from an administrator named Materialscientist, whom I note has previously edited Jordan. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I hate wiki editors

After being told to move the material to another article, it imediately gets deleted by the person who advised me to move it.71.174.135.36 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

71.174.135.36, of course I was only making a suggestion that you move the content over to Drake equation, not "telling" you to do anything. Once I started working on your content at Fermi paradox, I found that it wasn't that good, for all the reasons described with each trimming edit that I made. Still, you are making a good point: it is possible that many estimates from the Drake equation are "overly optimistic". Get this point sourced well and I think it would be a good addition to these articles, but please leave out all of that unnecessary detail. If I have inconvenienced you, then I apologize, but my deleting content at Drake equation was just something you copied and pasted from your work at Fermi paradox. The content requires lots of work, and, in any case, no content is permanent at Wikipedia. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted a summary at the Fermi paradox article and more content on the drake equation article. that is what I did and BAM you deleted it

Your words "How about shifting most of this content over to Drake equation? A short summary at Fermi paradox might be sufficient. Just suggesting." 71.174.135.36 (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, have a look at my edit summaries at FP, there details are explained. Good content is welcome. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE:"Get this point sourced well and I think" - How much plainer can it be that the values are optimistic? One person plainly states in one of the cites (unless you deleted it) "I want to be optimistic". That is as plain as it gets.71.174.135.36 (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Institute

Your assertions are incorrect. The OFFICIAL policy statement of the Discovery Institute has been provided in this article. It is not open for debate whether or not this is their stated, public position. It may be debatable, of course, whether or not they practice this policy. However, by removing my edit, you are covering up a factual statement. Thank you. LittleRockAg (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP24.144.1.234 (possibly you?) added the assertion: "The Discovery Institute denies that it advocates for intelligent design inclusion in public school classrooms." with this edit [16]. This is, as far as I can see, factually wrong. In fact, the DI advocates for allowing teachers to teach what they want, and that this can include ID; this is clearly stated in the document that you yourself seem to like: [17]. This is a very careful strategy intended to start ID teaching in science classes despite the fact that it is not science. And this is, already, covered in the lead under "teach the controversy". I see that you have now modified your description of the DI stance, you did this with this edit: [18], where you now conceded that the DI does not advocate a mandatory teaching of ID. Your description (above) that I am covering up a factual statement is factually incorrect. You have changed your text. And, like I say, the issue "teach the controversy" is already covered in the lead. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your above comments are rife with personal opinion in DIRECT conflict with the Discovery Institute's publicly stated policy. However, in the interest of telling a more complete story, rather than rely on your assumptions, I have provided an updated reference that once again denies the Discovery Institute actively promotes creationism or intelligent design in the public schools. You are welcome to believe what you wish about the Discovery Institute, but only in your OWN time, not to use Wikipedia as your personal vehicle for your axe-grinding. LEAVE THIS EDIT ALONE or face consequences for vandalism or edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleRockAg (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your suggestions to Talk:Discovery_Institute. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPA

Thusat has made a grand total of 2 edits - both to the Heartland article. A bit early to say he's an SPA. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. I suppose I was just reacting to the fact that his/her first edit was substantial. Still, I stand corrected, and I thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except, just a note: Thusat is a former employee of Heartland: http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=download&d=2914. And his edits are in part verbatim edits requested by the ED of Heartland in the last day or so, here: http://blog.heartland.org/2016/02/whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.23.228.34 (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thusat responded to my welcome message. WP:AGF, I've advised him to use the edit request procedure for changes he desires. – S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israel military

First of all, thanks for your edits. But I've got a problem. Look what user Avaya1 doing, once again, he overloaded section with equipment photos, like many times before. He must be a gun fanatic, military industry employer looking for free advertising, or something. I don't know. We have to do something, help! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.8.15 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Yahweh and Sanctity of HaShem

The content lies withing the scope of Wikisource as an analytical work:
'Analytical works are publications that compile information from other sources and analyze this information. Any non-fiction work which is written about a topic after the main events have occurred generally fits in this category.'
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes#exception_to_originals

'Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming
My external links are completely on topic and are in no way spam. I am not promoting a website or a product. This document utilizes the CC0 public domain copyright. A spammer would not make their research freely reproducible.

'Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_conflict_of_interest.3F
I am a subject-matter expert contributing within my area of expertise, which is theology.

'Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links
This link contains further research that is accurate and on-topic.

Calebjbaker (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently the folks at Wikisource disagree with you, as it's been deleted. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yahwey again :~|

You reverted a description on Yahweh in the Canaanite religion section to one that is poorly worded, and non-sequitur to the other entries. Without so much as a discussion. It needs a better entry than the one you reverted it to... What are your problems with the one I put in there? GESICC (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You removed sourced material about the name "Yahweh", claiming it wasn't germane, but it was germane. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read it? In what possible way is a reference to Yahweh being an Amorite name relevant to the entry? Look at the other entries, X god of Y. Yahweh is the God of Amorite names? No others have reference to there being on steeles either. Those're pretty much a definition of "not germane." If you're not going to fix it, don't ruin it. GESICC (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing edits

Hi, could you discuss any proposed edits/deletions of material with their authors please, rather than going ahead and doing them. Although you did explain in the notes why you removed my edit, it dodn't really make sense to me; you said there was "nothing wring with" my edit and just said that other similar references could be added - but then, why not add them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJG639 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC) MJG639 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding your own material to wiki is conflict of interest. We would have a serious problem if wikipedia allowed people to use this encyclopedia for self-promotion. Since you are apparently expert in these subjects, I invite you to add citations to sources that you have not written. That would be an efficient solution. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done this - I added the key texts (i.e., sources I have not written) to both the Pluto and the New Horizons page. You did say that you were aware of many other books on the subject of New Horizons - which did you have in mind? Please do add them. MJG639 (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The books by Russell and Guo are good sources. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great - many thanks,MJG639 (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please avoid 3R violations. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - what is a 3R violation? I did just google it, but no luck. Thanks MJG639 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating two principles of Wikipedia editing: WP:COI and WP:3RR. This is likely to be counterproductive. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see - I don't think there is a conflict of interests (after all, whose interests am I conflicting with? And I'm only reverting changes to my edits which I can't see any justfication for). I'd be grateful if you stop deleting the reference. MJG639 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electric field

Did you mean to remove so much content in this edit?--Srleffler (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but the whole lead appears to be a work in progress. I am uncertain about the gray-literature citation claiming that Faraday first envisioned the notion of an electric field, which would have been after Coulomb. I suggest following Feynman or similar for developing qualitative ideas for the lead. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of para 1 in Thermodynamics article.

The source is a video lecture by Professor S.K. Som in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K Sikdar (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not necessarily opposed to revising the lead paragraph of the article. The first sentence of the lead is, of course, pole position, and hence it is helpful if it is accompanied by a citation or some information that the rest of us can access so that the revision can be considered in detail. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

You are correct. I have self-reverted. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter...

... this. Sleeper account of indef blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azul411/Archive. Reported at wp:AIV. Block is on its way. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

So what do you suggest? Follow the IAU or just leave "solar system" lower case? --AYFKM (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IAU only suggests a style for their journals [19]. Other institutes and other journals have other styles. They also have a style for hyphens. Are we supposed to follow that too? I suggest not worrying about these sorts of things. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Wikipedia editing practices (Moses)

Hi Isambard. We are currently at loggerheads on Moses, but here I want to ask you a procedural question: You say "Why don't you take it there, and see how genetics-literate editors regard all this?" Are you implying that there is some administrative obstacle for e.g. a physicist to look at an archaeological discussion page (for example to provide his expertise on a radiocarbon dating controversy among archaeologists)? I cannot imagine there is any such obstacle on Wikipedia. And if that is not the case, and if you do not feel sufficiently expert in genetics yourself (which is no crime), would it not be easier for you and Doug to consult an independent "Wikipedia Genetics panel/administrator/arbitrator/whatnot" to take a look at our discussion (as I have suggested several times)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.210 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you took your proposals for content to the talk page for Y-chromosomal Aaron, you would likely encounter editors there who are relatively expert on issues of genetics. I've made this suggestion several times because I think it would help. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Moses. Let me rephrase my question: Is there or is there not an administrative or technical or practical obstacle for you to consult an independent Wikipedia geneticist whom you trust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.210 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can consult who I want. But I'm not trying to write the content on this issue. You are. What you write needs to be sourced to reliable sources that clearly support the points you want to make, and what you write can't be synthesis. Why not develop the content on a page that is directly relevant Y-chromosomal Aaron? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. So you can consult, but the reason you are not doing so is of your own choice. Now to answer your question: Yes, perhaps I will eventually sort out the Y chromosomal Aaron page, which is a mess. In fact I think it can be probably be merged. But my priority now is first to deal with Moses, because providing a scientifically based time estimate for him has long been an academic challenge prior to 1997. And widespread knowledge on Wikipedia of the biblical time depth can then help other disciplines in locating proto-historic events in the Middle East and perhaps beyond. The time depth estimate is crude in the 1997/1998 papers, but with increasing sample sizes, expanded YSTR locus batteries and demographic computer simulation, subsequent work is getting better and better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.210 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query on your qualification for commenting om genetic contributions (Moses)

Hi again. Two more questions, this time directly on your role in the Moses Talk page: 1. I have the impression you are not a geneticist, as you continue to make rather basic mistakes regarding the understanding of the Thomas 1998 article (irrespective of my edit suggestions). Do you agree? 2. It seems to me therefore that you should not involve yourself in the assessment of the edit. Instead you should put forward a genetically knowledgeable Wikiepdia colleague who can monitor my suggestions. What say you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.210 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed some content from God without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Liz ^Read! Talk! 21:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I did explain my edit. Note that there is a tag at the top of the article indicating that there is need for balance, and my edit summary alluded to that, as had some of my other edits. Somebody restored the material I removed, and that's where we are. Given all of this, is this warning merited? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noting no response from Liz. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Atlantis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{quote|But at a later time there occurred portentous earthquakes and floods, and one grievous day

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judeo Spanish

@Isambard Kingdom: As a Judeo Spanish (Ladino) speaker I have been volunteering for years to help sustain this endangered language and definitely not trying to promote myself. My problem is that I tried to do a quick minor edit so my new Wikipedia user name bears my real name, as does my email. Also I did not read carefully pages on the Wikipedia policies nor did I use pseudonyms as now I can see others do. In the edited text I tried to add an update on recent developments on the subject and all entered information was 100% true and correct. Regrettably I did cite my name as the update had to do with my recent voluntary work on sustaining Ladino language. Could you please advise what needs to be done so that the info I wanted to add to the Judeo Spanish page finds its way there. Of course my name will not be mentioned but given the current situation what would be the other prerequisites for such edit (by someone else or myself) to be accepted. Thanks, So Ingenuo

It would help if you edited other articles on other subjects, where you might feel less compelled to mention yourself. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom: Thanks for answering. Actually, I was not compelled nor am I, or will be. I think your answer breaches elementary politeness and I am vanishing from Wikipedia due to my own naivety and lack of Wikipedia editing skills. Saludos ... So Ingenue

I'm sorry that you find my response impolite. Wikipedia has policies, including policies intended to promote objectively presented articles. I didn't write them, but I try to live within them. I know that good editors are appreciated, and I suspect you could contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel of Judas

The material you reverted from Gagne is just one opinion among many scholars. The definition of "Apophasis Logos" as denial is just plain stupid. He should have known that the Gospel of THOMAS starts out with the same "Apophasis Logos" and it surely doesn't 'deny' anything there. Thomas wasn't Judas. There are many opinions and better ones. This garbage opinion should never have been put into the article to begin with.Sahansdal (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gagne is a scholar who works in this area. I have no reason not to believe him, and I see no reason not to include his interpretation of Thomas. If you have a reliable source that gives another view, then perhaps this might be included in the article? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that he HAS an opinion about the Gospel of Thomas. If he knew it had "apophasis logos" in the incipit, where it doesn't mean "denial", he would not have insisted that it means "denial" in the Gospel of Judas! Andre Gagne is an ignorant idiot, not a scholar. Why aren't Antti Marjanen or Ismo Dunderberg or Bas van Os included? Or Niclas Forster or Matteo Grosso or Kevin Sullivan? They are better scholars "working in this area" and not mentioned at all. Remove this garbage so I don't have to.Sahansdal (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have material that is backed up by reliable sources, then you might add it to the article. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Eve

I seem to have upset him with my warning but he is making a mess. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listen before you revert

I made this revert. The template says "This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts", and this is the reality, I presented reliable sources with contradicting facts. So until the dispute is settled, this statement needs to have the claim.

According to WP:DISPUTED: If you see an article with a factual accuracy warning, please do the following: Don't remove the warning simply because the material appears reasonable: please ensure that content is verifiable using reliable sources, that it is unbiased, and that it contains no original research before removing the notice."--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will use my best judgement. You are cherry picking sources, and refusing to acknowledge a lengthy RFC. I think you are wasting your time and possibly even undermining the view that you support. I now request that you refrain from commenting on my talk page. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that you accuse others of "cherry picking". I see that to be what you do reverting my edit of Gagne. Did you put it in originally? What is so sacrosanct about the original article content? Can't editors use their own judgment to make it BETTER? A source is a source, nothing more. Sahansdal (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Advent

New Advent - online version of an old (1913) Catholic encyclopedia plus other Catholic stuff. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh as a B-class vital article

Don't just remove vital article templates like that; you can go to the vital articles talk page and see the discussion there if you want to know if Yahweh is really now considered a vital article. Also, it's B-class because that's the quality level of the article as rated by editors; VA regulars just rate the article based on the ratings by other wikiprojects.Gonzales John (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzales John, Don't just edit things without explaining what you are doing. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, when I go to the page you reference, VA, I don't see any mention of the Yahweh article. Why is that? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here: [20] there is no mention of B-class for Yahweh. Why is that? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is obviously because the page I reference leads to level 3 Vital article list; Vital article is a redirect to level 3 because the level 3 list is currently the main one acknowledged since the level 4 list is incomplete and under construction. Also the B-class rating was given by editors of Yahweh, not by the VA editors; when we put VA templates on an article's talk page, we just put the rating given by other wikiprojects on the template. As I said above. Also, um, honestly, I'm not sure what to think of this comment of yours. Is this a joke?Gonzales John (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you just decided that it is B-rated? Aren't these ratings part of a discussion somewhere? If so, can you reference it? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the time of this edit [[21]], Yahweh seems to have already been rated B-class. Because the talk page's history seems to lead only up to there for some reason, I have found no discussion about the article's rating.Gonzales John (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And even if you look at Archive 1, you won't ind any discussion.Gonzales John (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this kind of thing should be discussed...right?Gonzales John (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the point, then. You were putting in a tag saying that the article was "B-class" (along with "vital" or other designations), and you do this without even providing an edit summary. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

It was undoubtedly intended to have a chilling effect, but phrased so as not to be an explicitly a legal or physical threat- just an implied one. 13:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Do not edit war

On other user's talkpages. If they remove material from their talkpage, it is confirmation they have seen it. If they choose not to respond, that is their right. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bigger issue here. An editor should not threaten another editor. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then report it at the relevant noticeboard. Edit-warring on anothers talkpage risks yourself being blocked for harrassment. There are very few exceptions as to when a user is not allowed to remove stuff from their own talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient astronaut hypothesis

Hello Isambard Kingdom.

It's better etiquette not to revert edits made on good faith, like mine. Can this hypothesis be tested? Yes, as well as most hypothesis about history. Can be it be falsified? Yes, on a case by case basis. In addition: From the Pseudoscience article:

Larry Laudan has suggested pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe our emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us".[31] Likewise, Richard McNally states, "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one's opponents in media sound-bites" and "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?"[32]

I rephrased the opening paragraph using a less charged word. I also moved Carl Sagan's contribution to this topic to its chronological place in the list.

How can this hypothesis be falsified? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

with stronger evidence for an alternative explanation, like for most historical claims. ARosa (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More accusations

See GESICC's contributions, his post to Fences and Windows user page. Doug Weller talk 06:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Henry Gage

The poem, microscope, written by Louis Ginsberg is only available to the general public on my website. It is a wonderful poem and a wonderful connection between Simon Henry Gage, Louis Ginsberg and the microscope. Perhaps you have a way of putting the poem on Gage's Wikipedia page without going through my website. If you do, please do that. I am not looking for any conflicts of interest. But if you can't, please make the poem available through my website. thanks, BinaryPhoton (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC) BinaryPhoton[reply]

 Done Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okie from Muskogee

This song has been very popular --even among string theorists--for example: https://twitter.com/lirarandall/status/720356290959003651. Maybe you could undo this one too if possible or link the song in another way that does not go through my website.

Thank you very much for the last undo!

BinaryPhoton (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)BinaryPhoton[reply]

I suggest you concentrate on developing the encyclopedia, rather than trying so hard to promote yourself. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

You think we should have Lilith page-protected to keep that inane hex-soul vandal from coming back for a while?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it has stopped now. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello Isambard Kingdom, one question: on Talk:Jesus you wrote here about the West Bank: "and yet now really part of modern Israel". This seems very surprising to me, as the West Bank is obviously NOT part of Israel. I wonder: did you perhaps mean: "and yet now NOT really part of modern Israel"? regards, Paul K. (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul K. Apologies. I meant: West Bank is NOT part of Israel! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the correction. Now that I read this again, I feel somewhat embarrassed myself as I see that in copying and pasting I made the same funny mistake that you made! My question, of course, should read: did you perhaps mean: "and yet NOT really part of modern Israel"? Cheerioh. Paul K. (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus edit

I did a search for the word "preacher" in the PDF of the book and it came back with no results. It must have been a scanned book. My bad, apologies for my error. Lipsquid (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. In Vermes, Jesus is described as a "preacher", and he is said to "preach". Just for your information. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The request for an expert banner.

In my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to add the banner asking for expert attention in articles, since every single article in Wikipedia would need one. An expert attention would always be reasonable, in every article.

But anyway, the specific problem is that in the Dark Matter, in the banner, there is a link to the talk page where the specific problem should be pointed out. The thing is that the discussion has long been archived, so it's dead. So it doesn't seem logical to keep the template there.

Cheers. EeeveeeFrost (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have we met before? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complain from D3323

Why not? I mean, I read that Hell is a place for eternal punishment for evil after death. What difference does it make?

Undid the link on transliteration in the Yiddish article - why?

Hi, I just would like to ask you why you removed the weblink again which I have added to the Yiddish page. Pod-o-mart (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, judging from your edit history, you have an unusual focus on entering links to pod-o websites. These links are similar to your user name. Are these your websites? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, podolak.net is my domain. I thought this transliteration bookmarklet to be helpful for everybody who is into Yiddish but has problems with the alphabet. I have entered the link because of its relevance to the article, something I consider more important than authorship. Or what is your opinion of the quality of the link? Pod-o-mart (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"uninformative" text on the Jesus page

Hi, I've never had my text deleted for being uninformative. What criterion are you using? It's one I don't know about. Tell me more. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Tweet, the largest section of text I removed was this:

"First, the Gospels record Jesus riding into town on a donkey in fulfillment of messianic prophecy. Historians are unsure whether Jesus intentionally fulfilled the prophecy as a messianic claim or the story is an invention of early Christians. E. P. Sanders leans toward the event being historical, though it would have been a modest event for insiders rather than a major public spectacle, as reported in the Gospels."

As far as I know, this story of the donkey ride into Jerusalem comes only from the gospels. Why is it, then, in the "historicity" section of the article? It might be an invention, the text itself says that. One historian cited, Sanders, leans towards "historical". It is a "modest event", so possibly not significant? This seems like lots of wishy-washy stuff, so I took it out. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where on the page do you suppose this information should go, if not in the historical views section? It comes from a historical source, and "we can't tell whether it happened" is a historical view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are the records we have of Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem? Are those records the gospels and only the gospels? If that is it, then don't you think that the story belongs in the gospel section (if it belongs anywhere)?

OK, how about I put that information in the Gospels section, and we'll see how that goes. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but please avoid list-like statements, and consider focussing on historical analysis. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about we move this to the talk page so other editors can benefit from it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer

I see you're chasing a bookspammer. Ethical concerns aside, some of these don't look like bad refs. This for example [22] is potentially useful but whoever is putting it into Wikipedia doesn't seem to understand where the interesting parts are and so they're quoting numbers instead (I thought figure 9 was very surprising). Geogene (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Quoting specific numerical values, with no context, explanation, or apprciation for their arbitrariness. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence Work

Hi there. I haven't met that term ever before. Does it mean copy-edit? Thnx for all of them and please excuse my german Capitals ;) Polentarion Talk 14:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Creation myth

Saw you reverted me now, went on the talk page. Polentarion Talk 23:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for all your edits to fluid mechanics, it's gotten a lot more readable now. Rmvandijk (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 16 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Earth page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Log-normal distribution

Thank you … I missed it. It is a good thing that Wikipedia has more than just one editor! 𝕃eegrc (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. It is related to something I'm working on, so I'm familiar with this paper. Cheers, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

Hello! Thanks for your message earlier, and my apologies for the lack of response. I've read through the Earth article, and I've made a few changes but I think you've made some important improvements. :-) One thing I wasn't sure of was whether it's accurate to say humans have had a greater impact on Earth than any other species; I didn't see a direct statement in the citation, and thought it was at least arguable that (for example) the first photosynthetic species may still be "ahead" of us in that regard. That said, feel free to edit/undo if you can support the claim. I also noticed that the Human geography section doesn't seem to have any counterpart section with details about life in general, so that might be an opportunity for adding more to the article in future. Sunrise (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello Isambard Kingdom, In accordance with the COI tab, I did a complete cleanup and general editing of this article to support a neutral point of view and to correct omissions and minor errors. I could not find any explanation of your revert. Would you kindly give your reasons for this revert. I would greatly appreciate understanding what is needed. Thank you.GoldCar (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of my edits

I don't know why you did this. I have provided reliable sources and explained in every possible terms to you why a one-tailed test is more powerful than a two-tailed test. Yet, you ignore my sources and have not contributed to the discussion. You even went as far as to criticize my writing. If you keep this up, we may have to consider arbitration. danielkueh (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read your own comments on the talk page of the article. There you will find some pretty rich content. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is that what this is all about? You are peeved by some of my comments on the Talk page and therefore resorted to such behavior? Very mature. danielkueh (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I removed the content because it was not written well. But if you want accuse me of being uncivil, then you should read your talk comments. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's assume for the moment that you are an arbiter of good writing. Why is it not "written well?" What do you not understand? I am willing to take constructive feedback, sentence by sentence.

I have read our comments and I think I have been very patient with you. I have gone above and beyond to address your comments. I have provided linked references and even quoted passages. This takes a lot of my time. Yet, you don't seem to reciprocate. Instead, you ignored the sources and stick to your guns. I am not concerned about winning and losing. I am concerned about the accuracy of the material on that page. And if I have offended you with my comments, then I apologize. But by not participating in the discussion and just deleting my edits because you don't like them is just not helpful. danielkueh (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all you have to say? Very disappointing, especially since I have known you for a while and I considered you an ally in this space. But unfortunately, our recent exchange has been heated and I admit I have contributed to that. If you do not wish to collaborate with me, then fine, that's your prerogative. danielkueh (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up

Sorry about that, I thought it was vandalism. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I checked on Google maps and there is such a street named after Kepler. Moving forward, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

Reported the editor at AN3. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fifollet

I was reading a story on uexpress.com about feu follet. At home my Internet is slow so I just use Wikipedia for searches there. It took some effort to find Fifollet but it has very little content, and its creator and the only person to contribute substantial content, seems to have left us. The Wikipedia search function led me to that but also to a Liszt composition that is also called Will-o'-the-wisp. Which had a hatnote. You appear to be interested in that phenomenon, and if the two are synonyms, I would like to propose merging the small article into the larger one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for correcting several grammatical errors on articles. NewByzantine (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For reverting my edit and fixing vandalism on Pangaea article. Don't know what I was thinking, I apologise for being so automatic. Manytexts (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Stop vandalizing the Jesus and Moses pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergstrom (talk • contribs) 03:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 1% Rule (Internet Culture) - Isamabard Kingdom removal of highly cited peer-reviewed evidence

Without any explanation, save for "repeated introduction of spam", Isambard Kingdom continues to remove well-cited, peer-reviewed evidence of empirical studies examining The 1% rule. Specifically, a very early reference analyzing 1) Jihadist Forums, and 2) a publication from a high impact journal.

Regarding the second, here is the text that Isambard deleted:

A 2014 peer-reviewed paper entitled "The 1% Rule in Four Digital Health Social Networks: An Observational Study" was the first academic study to designed to empirically examine the 1% rule in online forums. Results indicated that the 1% rule was consistent across the four support groups, with a handful of "Superusers" generating the vast majority of content

This is from Google Scholar, where the 2014 publish article has already been reported to have been cited in 63 academic works from various disciplines: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=the+1%25+rule+in+four+digital+health+social+networks&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

The questions for Isambard are: 1) Why are you removing references to peer-reviewed articles that examine the 1% phenomenon? 2) Please explain how peer-reviewed publications are spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHS2014pub (talk • contribs) 04:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see, WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:SPAM and possibly using multiple accounts to install your edits on this and other pages: For example, as EHS2014pub [23] and as TOHB2016, [24]. And, then, there is the content, which is technical, promotional, and not well integrated into the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your answers are inflammatory red herring's and are based on your feelings and not facts. For the last time, EHS2014pub and TOHB2016 and a few other accounts you have "conjectured" as a single person are not the same people - I recall you confronting another one of those accounts in the past (not EHS2014pub), so you can drop that. You are obviously a subject-matter expert when it comes to policing Wikipedia, but your are not a subject matter expert for the 1% rule or other areas that are closely related to the subject - which content you have deleted with little or no explanation. To be productive, please be specific when you answer questions, and use facts in your response so we can have a logical discussion.

Let's start with #2: Please explain how a peer-reviewed publication is COI, SPA, or SPAM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHS2014pub (talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The interaction analysis between EHS2014pub and TOHB2016 [25] is possibly relevant, though I am still researching things. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Yahweh

The IP mentioned in the Gonzales John spi is 49.144.167.188 (talk · contribs) - the Phillipines. The new IP geolocates to Kentucky. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of reference submitted by James Johnson.

Isambard, please assure me that you read the article before coming to your conclusion that the subject is lightweight. I think it addresses an overlooked topic which is relevant to multiverse theories. It also may apply in the Laws of Nature section. Thanks, Jim Johnson.Jim Johnson 22:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

SPI notifications

Hi - I just noticed you told someone that they should notify the editor in question if an SPI is filed. However, our instructions simply say "You can notify the suspected accounts by adding (the SPI notification) to the bottom of their talk pages. (Notification is courteous but isn’t mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.)". I haven't checked but I'm not sure that notification is done with most SPIs. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral

I don't understand you edit summary "Work with it.". I mostly removed uncited material. The other part relates to the WP:LEAD, which is meant to summarize the rest of the article. It does not - if you are going to introduce a major change, please follow it through to the rest of the article. Maxim_(talk) 01:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making a wholesale change of the article. Rather than revert the work of several editors, you might address the issues you don't like one at a time. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a problem with the removal uncited material? Unverified material is subject to removal (see WP:V). As for the lead, the major changes by you would up to you to follow through to the rest article. Maxim_(talk) 01:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Johnson's article

Isambard, I assume this is the best way to communicate with you directly. I have already protested your deletion of my article on the conceptual model. I will be challenging your recent deletion also. Are you qualified to second guess peer review journals? I think not. Did you notice who I thanked for help on the article, Martin Harwit. I do not appreciate your unsupported statements. I am convinced Wikipedia topics should reference the articles. Please let me know your objection in specific terms. Jim Johnson 16:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Thanks, Jim J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

You don't seem to be a noteworthy authority on cosmology. But I am happy to be corrected on this perception. Normally, wikipedia cites mainstream sources by mainstream authorities. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isambard, I appreciate your understanding. I also, appreciate reviewers keeping the Wikipedia references accurate. Thanks, Jim JohnsonJim Johnson 19:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you mean. It is accurate, however, to say that your publications on cosmology are not noteworthy -- not like the other other articles being cited in Multiverse and Dimensionless physical constant. I encourage you to make broader contributions to Wiki, and not seek, so strenuously, to promote your own ideas. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isambard, I have requested others to review our exchange. Please remember that the journal is established and there are quality references in the article. If promoting the model helps clarify concepts about space, fine-tuning and the multiverse, I am satisfied - and that is the objective. Jim Johnson 22:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

1. Isambard, I have requested a formal mediation because I do not accept your logic for deletion.Jim Johnson 00:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

Okay, I will be interested to see how this goes. I assume you've kept up-to-date on other editor comments at: [26]. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Isambard, I am still in process of completing mediation form but wanted to address your concern about my knowledge of subject matter. In addition to the two published articles one that may be published soon is at http://viXra.org/abs/1604.0261 - Multiverse Assumptions. Also, I published a book titled: Comprehending the Cosmos, a Macro view of the Universe, 4th Edn., 2012, CreateSpace, ISBN-10: 1477649697. In earlier days, my first book, The Software Factory, Managing Software Development and Maintenance, Second Edition, 1991, QED Information Sciences, ISBN-10: 0-89435-348-9, was sold in US, UK and Japan (publisher translated text).

The two journal home pages are: Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology http://ispcjournal.org/en/archives.html and Physics International http://thescipub.com/journals/pi Jim Johnson 18:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

Jim, this book you've written, Comprehending the Cosmos, a Macro view of the Universe, appears to be self-published. This is also something we want to avoid citing at Wikipedia. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Isambard, have you ever looked at content?2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Thanks for asking. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. We agree on something and that is self published books are not necessarily proper references. However to use that as a reason in the current debate is inappropriate. I sent you my accomplishments as background. The peer review journal you are discarding is the issue. Have you published in a journal? it is not easy. I hope this all is included in the mediation because I think I know who the lightweight is.2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have published, yes. I have 85 publications. But that is not very relevant here. I comment on the self-published nature of your book because you mentioned your book. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Isambard, I finally correctly filed the mediation request via trial and error. I have been thinking about our conversations and believe your argument is based on your opinion that I am not an expert in the fields that I write about. As we get into mediation, your knowledge of my articles will be relevant. So, have you watch the video link I provided? Did you read either of the articles referenced? If not, please do because your opinion may change. If you do not, I think your opinion is of no value.Jim Johnson 00:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

My opinion of your articles is not very important. What is important is your standing in the scientific community and the reception your work has received. Given that you are not a professional scientist and that your work has not been cited by anybody (as far as I can see), it is difficult to imagine that your work will be legitimately cited in Wikipedia. While I think your efforts to get your papers cited in Wiki are misguided, I am willing to hear from a mediator. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for reverting you at Christ Myth theory, but every editor's opinion should be addressed, instead of just being merely dismissed instead of being dicussed. If you don't like my changes, I invite you to discuss with us at the aritcle's talk page. Can't wait for what options/solutions you'll suggest.Sexperson 23:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary at Christ Myth theory reads "editor seems intent on stirirng things up". I'd like to sy that I genuinely have a problem, as User:JerryRussell understands. A discussion is going on in the talk page, and one would think that everyone would respect the discussion and discuss there first, which is why I reverted you. Regards,Sexperson 03:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Multiverse edits deleted". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 28 November 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Multiverse edits deleted, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Isambard Kingdom. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email me?

Doug Weller talk 17:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, I sent you an email after setting up an account for Wiki communication. Just so you know. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pseudoscience

I explained the nature of the removal of the material you reverted in the talk page. Please comment there. the paragraph i removed, like many in the article, does nothing to deepen the reader's understanding of pseudoscience and is written in an academic style not fitting for an encylopedia. It needs clarity, brevity and scaling down a bit. I garnered support on the talk page before making this edit. I will wait for your comments on the talk page of the article for a few days before attempting to make any further edits. If I can get an edit accepted with regard to brevity there are a few other suggestions I'd like to make. At the moment I think the article reads like an academic paper with a "hard-sale" tone as if it is tring to push forward a view (which it isn't).

Edaham, I had not seen that you had specifically proposed, on the Pseudoscience talk page, to remove that paragraph. In the future, please provide an edit summary, that would help, but, for now, I apologize for my reversion, and I have re-removed the paragraph. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, That was an oversight on my part. I will write a summary in future. I'll be proposing one or two more edits to that partucular page over the next few days once I've read the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You are a thoughtful editor, and Wiki needs more of those. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus and abandonment of Avaris

You recently undid an edit of mine on the Wiki page of the Exodus (migration of Israelite's from Egypt). I added in that it has been recently known that during the reign of Amenhotep II, the entire Egyptian city of Avaris was suddenly abandoned all at once (which is a city that would have had 25,000-30,000 inhabitants). I cited a paper from JAIE called Toward Pinpointing The Timing Of The Egyptian Abandonment Of Avaris During The Middle Of The 18th Dynasty to establish this, one that I've read.

You undid my revision and asked "if this paper talks about the exodus".

The paper does not talk about the exodus -- the purpose of the paper of course if you've read it is to date the time of the abandonment of Avaris. I noted this research because of the fact that, if the exodus happened, we would see massive abandonments of Egyptian cities and such for such a great amount of Israelite's to have left during this time. That's exactly what has been found, and thus I noted it as evidence for the exodus. I even, in my Wiki edit wrote "some evidence" to not overplay the kind of impact this has. Furthermore, the author of this paper (Douglas Petrovich, PhD) HAS expressed that he finds this as evidence for the exodus, and the only reason I acquired access to it in the first place was because one of his colleagues at ABR e-mailed it to me because of the fact that ABR as well as himself, Douglas, find it as evidence for the exodus. He has expressed this before. By the way, the journal it was published to (Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, or JAIE) is a neutral journal that fully published this abandonment research and its dating. If you want to read it for yourself, I actually discovered just today the paper is available on academia.edu.

In light of all this, I'll wait for your response and agreement between us to include this edit to the Wikipedia page and as evidence for the exodus (as it rightfully is by any interpretation of the events that occurred at Avaris) without you undoing my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In order to" vs. "to"

Hello, I.K. - I was just looking at your recent edits to Geology. I think most of your edits represent an improvement to the article. I am puzzled, however, by your removal of "in order", in the expression "in order to" (leaving just "to") in every case where you found it. I'm just curious to learn what your reasoning is. If there is a guideline in WP:MOS, I'd be glad to learn of it. I do think the phrase "in order to" was overused in this article, but I think there are times when the full phrase increases comprehensibility and the smooth flow of the sentence. I am all for conciseness, but I think a balance needs to be struck.  – Corinne (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow style and grammar rules religiously. If you see that any edit of mine is suboptimal, you can change it back. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks for your reply. When I have time, I will go back to the Geology article and pick out one or two where I think the full phrase would sound right. I may also consult fellow copy-editors to get their thoughts on this.  – Corinne (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I prefer succinct presentations. So I tend to take out words that don't serve much function. Still, there are exceptions, and I occasionally tolerate an odd "in order to". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survival function

Hello Isambard,

I noticed that you deleted material from the article on the survival function. I would like to get your thoughts on restoring some of this material.

You indicate that the reason for deleting material is that it is too detailed. Perhaps there is a compromise between entirely deleting material versus selectively editing to remove excess detail.

It may be helpful to consider the goals of a Wikipedia page, and what users say about the Wiki pages, particularly in statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing

"The goal of a Wikipedia article is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose

"Wikipedia is intended to be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written".

"Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia; indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth."

"… a comprehensive written compendium"

A common criticism of Wikipedia statistics articles is that they are not comprehensible to non-statisticians. Here are examples from one of the survival analysis pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proportional_hazards_model

"Please, somebody, take pity on those of us who need more fundamental understanding, and write an introduction to this subject that would be useful and graspable by anybody with the basic interest to look it up. That's how to make Wikipedia better; make it useful."

"There should be a description of the assumptions needed for this model"

"it doesnt describe any details about the model"

These statements by the founders and users of Wikipedia indicate that the intent is to be comprehensive, and that detailed descriptions are desired.

As the article stands following your deletions, it lacks many items that would be required for it to be considered comprehensive, including the following.

• The definition of the survival function is not sufficient to be informative for a reader not familiar with integral calculus.

• There is no explanation of how a survival function is calculated or estimated.

• There is no explanation of the relationship between density function, cumulative distribution function, and survival function.

• There is no explanation of the hazard rate, which is a key concept for understanding parametric survival functions. There is no explanation of the relationship between hazard rate and mean time to failure.

• There are no examples of survival functions for real data.

• There are no graphs of survival functions.

All these topics were covered in the material that was deleted. For these reasons, I think that most of the material that was deleted should be restored, and that a more nuanced editing to remove excess detail would be desirable.

What are your thoughts on this? Thanks for taking the time to consider.

Michael

Michaelg2015, I removed [27] the material you developed for Survival function for reasons consistent with the discussion of the material you introduced at probability density function [28], which was also removed, though not by me [29]. While I agree that clarity and explanation are important, long and extremely detailed presentations are neither clear nor, often, read. I'm sorry to say, but I honestly think you are spending too much time developing this type of material. Of course, you can raise the specific subject of your proposed material for survival function on Talk:Survival function if you want. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi Isambard,

Thanks for your reply. The key problem with many of the statistics articles in Wikipedia, as indicated by the quotes above, is that they are incomprehensible to most readers. The current level of writing is suitable for a person already familiar with probability and statistics, not for the average readers.

Take the article on the Exponential Distribution as an example. Do you genuinely believe that the section on characterization, which starts the article and goes immediately into the Heaviside step function, is useful to anyone other than another statistician, and is the best way to introduce exponential distributions?

The need is for articles that provide sufficient detail and examples that the reader can readily understand. You have more familiarity with many of these concepts than most readers. What you find tedious, many readers will find informative and necessary to understanding. Perhaps the material could be moved to the end of the articles, so that readers who wish for a brief, mathematical, highly technical explanation can get that first, while readers who wish for a more comprehensible explanation can find it at the end.

With respect to the survival function article, could you address the points I raised, specifically that the article lacks many items that would be required for it to be considered comprehensive, that are included in the material that was deleted?

Thanks,

Michael

---

Hi Isambard,

Further thoughts on what material and level of explanation is appropriate. Here are quotes from the Talk pages of some of the most frequently-read statistics articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_deviation

"Absolutely obtuse to a lay person"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Confidence_interval

Utterly indecipherable to the lay-reader. If the general public is your audience, this article is a complete failure. I'm a reader with an advanced degree, and a well-rounded education, and I can't penetrate even the [lead].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chi-squared_test

"The explanation is completely in theoretical terms. I'm trying to understand an article better, and this piece is absolutely no help in doing so."

"The first sentence is ridiculously complicated! Statistics is very poorly explained on wikipedia, and this is one of the worst examples."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Regression_analysis

"Who is this article for? Well it isn't for me. I understood NOTHING!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binomial_distribution

"Accessibility: Would it be possible to write an introductory section that gives just a conceptual description of what the binomial distribution is about, before we enter the maths?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monte_Carlo_method "This article is quite technical. It would be nice to have a simpler layman's description too."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proportional_hazards_model

"Please, somebody, take pity on those of us who need more fundamental understanding, and write an introduction to this subject that would be useful and graspable by anybody with the basic interest to look it up. That's how to make Wikipedia better; make it useful."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Logistic_regression

"This page is utterly incomprehensible for the novice who just wants a basic idea of what logistic regression analysis *does*. The rigorous math is fine but before diving into it it would be nice to give a more comprehensible introduction and maybe a real world example that might illuminate the topic a bit."

"The point above is extremely relevant. Most people do not have a firm understanding of Applied Mathematics or Statistics in general. Quite a surprise that none of the contributing authors has ventured into making their knowledge understandable for the lay person. The ability to teach or communicate concepts to others is a distinction between an expert and an apprentice."

"Generally I've found that statistics articles not saying very much (although a few of them do) and consequently incomprehensible"

"As a novice, most wikipedia articles on statistics are useless. An encylopedia article should present basic information, and direct users to more detailed information at other entries. Someone has written a very fine statistics textbook, in wiki-form, that is useless to either laymen or novices."

" You MUST be joking. I don't think I am a dolt. However I am not a mathematician nor a statistician; I am a professional translator (also a linguist and also a contributor to Wikipedia but in language-related articles and such). I looked up this article today because I NEED to know, in a very basic LAYMAN's sort of way, what logistic regression is, what it is about, and ideally (for my purposes) an intelligible explanation of how it works which provides a model of the language that ought to be used when explaining this to someone."

"recognisable (faithful might be a better word) to those familiar working with logistic regression but completely opaque to neophytes. I cannot understand it and I'm really trying."

I think perhaps we differ on what level of explanation is desirable in Wikipedia articles. I believe the need is for articles that provide sufficient detail and examples that the lay reader can readily understand. Editors of the statistics pages have more familiarity with these concepts than most readers. What statistician-editors find tedious, many readers will find informative and necessary to understanding. Perhaps the introductory material could be moved to the end of the articles, so that readers who wish for a brief, mathematical, highly technical explanation can get that first, while readers who wish for a more comprehensible explanation can find it at the end.

Thoughts?

Michael

It is a challenge communicating ideas of statistics and probability. I know, because I taught the subjects to myself by reading books, most of which were terribly written. As always, effective communication on a technical subject depends on the technical abilities of the audience, and identifying the intended audience for a Wikipedia article is often an issue. I don't have a blanket remedy. For this reason, and as I previously suggested, you can take up discussion on the talk page of each article to which you wish to contribute. You might also consider taking your content to Simple Wikipedia [30]. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks Isambard. I'll check out Simple Wikipedia and put my comments on the discussion pages, as you suggest. Appreciate you taking the time.

Michaelg2015 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entropic gravity

At Talk:Entropic gravity, I wrote that you are spot-on correct. I deleted the citation from the article, too. Please contact me if his edit warring continues in violation of WP:NOR and the flouting of WP:RS. Greg L (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entropic gravity, part Deux

Hi. Added short bit to Entropic gravity and cited the paper. My ∆-edit is here. Dropping the matter all the way back in 2011 demanded a quick check to see if any significant developments had occurred after that. I've been relatively inactive on Wikipedia. Did I do a proper job of adding the citation? The paper was cited eight times by—I assume—people other than the cited author. Greg L (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give me until tomorrow to evaluate. For now, thanks for your efforts! Appreciated, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg L, I'm not an expert on new physics like entropic gravity, really I'm just a classical physicist/geographer of sorts (seeking to remain anonymous). Still, if I had a concern about the section of the article on experimental verification/criticism of Verlinde is that the work described is new and (it seems) rapidly changing -- what is and is not reliable might not be clearly settled. Furthermore, in my opinion, the very technical content of this section does not really develop intuitive ideas that the typical reader will relate to. And, then, I wonder if the focus on Verlinde's ideas is appropriate; note that this paper [31] and this blog [32] put focus on Jacobson's ideas. Anyway, those are my modest thoughts and observations. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the exact same thing. Beginning that section with a scientific rebuttal dating to 2011 and dropping it there doesn’t serve the readership. I found a scientific website where the author interviewed the two scientists and the best quote literally read something like “his experiment doesn’t bother me.” It wasn’t material suitable for inclusion here.

The sort of treatment that section started out as (the scientific version of tit-for-tat on Twitter) only works on articles that are less specialized, more popular with the general public, enjoy ample coverage by a wide spectrum of RSs, and receive more attention by wikipedians specializing in the subject matter. I propose that section be deleted.

Hopefully, a broad-reach RS directed to a more suitable readership, like Scientific American will soon cover entropic gravity and point us to the proper (truly meritorious) theories and quote authors who made sufficient scientific waves in the field. Greg L (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose it on the artcle's talk page. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Greg L (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction vertex edit war

Let me explain what I'm trying to achieve (not just in this example, but in others).

Event_(particle_physics) , Color_charge, feynman diagram (a huge article) all contain the phrase interaction vertex.

As a typical reader, I can make an assumption what that is. But I dont really know I'm right, do I?

So wouldn't it be great if by simply clicking a link I can have my understanding either confirmed, or corrected. Without a dedicated anchor (or glossary page definition or something) , you're telling me I have to read that whole article to figure out what it is. Are there any subtleties? are there any common misconceptions I might have fallen into ?

In future, the existence of a redirect allows more users to put more contextual information into the text (and in turn, if it's wrong, the pages , disambiguations etc) can be improved.

The beauty of Hypertext, surely, is that you can navigate the space of concepts with greater ease than is possible with simple linear text.

more .. User:Fmadd#idea

Fmadd (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

I've been here 11 years, I don't answer to you. Wikipedia:Don't be a dick can be found here. Thank you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kintetsubuffalo, I'm just asking that you provide edit summaries: [33]. Since you've been here for 11 years, you understand that such summaries are a courtesy to your fellow editors, helping them understand the changes you've made. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi, what do you think of this idea, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Automatic_1-line_edit_summary something like this should be very simple to implement, and would save many people time.

Instead of you and me going round in circles adding and reversing (for the sake of writing "LINK"), we could put time into improving the system. The purpose of computers is to streamline/automate menial tasks, so that humans dont have to do them.

Fmadd (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this meet with so much friction?????

It should be trivially easy: I see an unfamiliar term; I hover over it (hovercards beta feature) or click, and I get a clear definition right there. Writers of an article will not be burdened having to over-explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_field_theory_in_curved_spacetime&oldid=764875989 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S-matrix&oldid=764765500

We run into controversy between anchors, trivial articles, and glossary pages /lists. In this specific instance I dont even know where the best place would be to go to define it, but I'm sure someone more familiar with the subject would.

Fmadd (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing for you to do would be to slow down and make more thoughtful and meaningful edits to articles. Simply marching through lots of articles, spending little more than a minute per page, inserting a link, and moving on does not amount to a significant contribution to Wikipedia. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not agree that wikipedia is an awesome resource for training AI? Even link is a labels, and AI relies on labelled data. Wikipedia seems to me to be the foremost repository of labelled text that we have; Machines cannot interpret natural language easily, until trained. (imagine extending an algorithm like this Word embedding to include the wikipedia page titles and redirects as parts of the vocabulary, with some relation between the individual words & complete phrases) This is why I like making redirects where pairs of words provide the dismabiguation (individual words are highly ambiguous, pairs a little less so, but a machine has no idea how they group).  ; Links also help human discovery.. finding connections beyond the context the original authors are familiar with. There are also many ways the platform itself can be improved. Some of the friction here could be resolved if we had the ability to automatically assemble a glossary page from trivial articles (that would streamline the other markup, and alleviate confusion when a term makes sense in 2 or more domains) Fmadd (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I note that you have made a number of edits reverting good faith (and valid) edits where no edit summary has been left. While it is helpful to other editors to leave an edit summary, there never has been any requirement to do so. Reverting edits solely because no edit summary has been left is disruptive editing. I also note that your reversions, in some cases, have reversed an improvement. HasAnyoneSeenMyMarbles (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: [34]. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That has a link to an information page. It is not a policy. There is no policy requiring edit summaries - unless, that is, you can find one. HasAnyoneSeenMyMarbles (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit broke hatnote link to Earth (disambiguation) - Please take care

Hi,

I don't know if you double-checked your edit to Earth, but did you notice that in updating to the hatnote template you removed the link to Earth (disambiguation)?

Please take care to check this sort of thing. Thank you,

Ubcule (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had not noticed that I did that. Apologies, my mistake. Thank you for fixing it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4 Vesta

Referring to this edit (The JPL Small-Body Database Browser: 4 Vesta says 1807 (cited in lead). Is this wrong?), even though the article is about Vesta, the statement is about Pallas, which was discovered in 1802. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tarl N., oh my, my embarrassing confusion. I apologise. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least partially my fault, my edit comment was singularly uninformative. I complain about uninformative edit summaries, and then get hoist on my own petard. To be honest, I didn't even notice that the article was Vesta - I just noticed the false year on Pallas, which I knew off the top of my head (and did then verify, I assure you :-). I took it as yet another inexplicable random IP vandalism, not realizing why they picked 1807. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium edits

Hi, nice work on Uranium. I've given your account Rollback rights, but have a read of WP:Rollback before you use it - basically it is only to deal with blatant vandalism and self reverts. ϢereSpielChequers 00:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hung vs hanged

I'm not sure about your edit to Judas Iscariot. Consider the phrase "we may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb". On the other hand the old wives' question "will he be hanged or saved?". I think either participle may be used, but generally "hanged" is where there is a clear transitive action: "the court ordered that he be hanged until dead" but for the reflexive "despairing, he hung himself". It may even be a transatlantic thing, I'm not sure which shore you reside on! I would suggest though in this case that "having hung himself" seems to trip more naturally off the tongue than "having hanged himself". I'll leave it to you though. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up in a dictionary, and thought "hanged" was correct, since it gives the example: "she hanged herself in her cell". Then I see in Matthew 27:5 (KJV) referring to Judas "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." But neither of these is the same as saying "having" hanged himself. And I'm not an expert on these sorts of things, so please, I leave it to you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I can't think of what might follow "having hanged himself". After that, he can't do much more, can he? But seriously, these might be of help:

Merriam-Webster on-line

Merriam-Webster unabridged on-line dictionary

A usage note from Merriam-Webster

 – Corinne (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Corinne. From both the first and third (second needs a subscription) it appears that hanged is for a formal execution and hung "more appropriate for less formal hangings"! On the basis that Isambard handed the baton back to me, and that suicide is pretty informal, I'll revert this. Regards both, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Isambard. Re your recent edit, have you had a change of heart? BTW, where was this consensus? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just going with the flow, Cited sources and the biblical "hanged". Two votes, here, for "hanged", just you for "hung". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional English usage has "hanged" for the form of execution, otherwise "hung", though it's observed less often today. The capital sentence was to be hanged (never hung), though thankfully those days are now gone.

I looked up 25 English bible translations: 24 x "hanged" and 1 x "strangled". Q.v. http://biblehub.com/matthew/27-5.htm Let's go with "hanged" :) Oliver Low (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it didn't sound too bad on my part

I'll explain what I am so worried about with prose quality.

Generally, I've seen you do, well, something. I don't know if your deeds were a net positive or a net negative---I liked some, disliked some, generally tried to maintain neutrality (it wouldn't sound smart if I---a non-native speaker---gave you lessons of English, right?), so I presumed you knew better. Prior to FAC1, I've asked Sandbh, whose language skills I have no doubt in, to copyedit the article. I've seen you do similar work at the time. Our prose quality didn't go through, and I am worried it could because you two could've stepped on each other's toes. This is the situation I want to avoid here.

I don't think badly of your skills, not at all (as I said, I have not formulated an opinion)---as I said, I just want to go with a safe ticket.--R8R (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're doing great. Don't worry about treading on my toes, they are pretty tough. Great edits. --John (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John, thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial minerals

Hi there, I was also reverting changes to various rock type pages, but I just thought that I ought to check with the relevant article - found it unreferenced, went looking for sources and found that indeed some rock types are included under the "industrial mineral" heading. The quote from Scott & Bristow 2002 is "These are industrial minerals, which by definition are those rocks and minerals used in products as a rock or mineral, and as raw materials for making other non-metallic products such as inorganic chemicals and ceramics. It includes those often referred to as 'non-metallic' (e,g, Harben & Bates 1984; Atkinson & Brassington 1983) as well as construction raw materials such as sand and gravel, crushed rock, building stone and slate." It surprised me, but if that's the definition that is used I think we have to accept it. Mikenorton (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikenorton, thank you for correcting me on this. I have apologised to Sanya3. I have learned something slightly odd today. Cheers, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of get why pumice is included, but I do have problems with nepheline syenite, but there is no doubt that it is included. There are arguments for including granite and gabbro as well, but I'm leaving those out for now. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much like Wikipedia lists. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Özhan Öztürk

This is the author added by the editor, who wrote his article and is adding his work to articles. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much, but I hadn't checked for such a correlation. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Cycle

You reverted my additions on the progress of the current solar cycle. The rapid decline since the March 2014 peak is recognised by all who follow these things, OK the link I gave shows this graphically, not in words. What I have done now is simply remove the statement that as of March 2014 the number was still rising - as the graph and rest of the text shows it was clearly descending soon afterwards. If you visit ref 1 [[35]] you will see that the text there has been amended to remove that now misleading comment. Stub Mandrel (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I follow these sorts of things too, but for Wiki I think we need a citation to a source for some of this. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stub Mandrel: Now I see that what you inserted violated copyright. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So long and thanks for all the fish!

Sorry to see you go. Yours was one of the great usernames. — jmcgnh^(talk) (contribs) 15:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps consider editing under your real name?

Hi!

Perhaps consider editing under your real name? I've had no problems with doing this, at least on technical topics, on Wikipedia. LouScheffer (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker here). Counterpoint... For a long time, I edited under my full name, which it is still available on my user page. But I found that google searches of my name were coming up primarily with Wikipedia talk page discussions, which all too often involved pissing matches with skunks. While I don't shy away from owning my own comments, I found that prospective employers googling me would find obnoxious comments anonymous editors made at me, and stop there. I decided I needed to change things so those didn't pop up on a quick background search. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I checked this out for myself. On google, the searches for "LouScheffer", "Lou Scheffer", "Louis Scheffer", with and without the quotes, always found various professional stuff and other discussion forums well before Wikipedia talk pages. But on Bing, using the user name directly, with or without quotes, starts with Wikipedia talk pages. Which ones it chose seem somewhat odd - they are mostly ones that have been pretty stable for the last 7 years or so. But even Bing, using a full or short name, with or without the quotes, found lots of other stuff first. I'd give more points to Google here - stale Wikipedia talk pages don't seem like the most useful of all possible references. LouScheffer (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry to hear you're retiring

Hello, Isambard Kingdom - I was very sorry to see the "Retired" banner on your user page today. I think you are one of the best editors on Wikipedia, and I really hope you will reconsider your decision to retire. Is there any way you can ask admins for help with whatever the issue is? Your participation is needed here, and I hope you will stay in the project. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRN notice: Jesus

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Isambard Kingdom. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]