User talk:Michaelbusch

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

As of March 26, 2008, I'm leaving the project - I've tried taking breaks, but whenever I come back, it takes too much time from other things. I'd like any passing Admin to put my account into stasis, just to discourage the 'wonder what's going on with ... what happened to the last hour?' incidents. Maybe I'll come back eventually, but in the meantime, here is a list of things that were in need of monitoring when I left:

• hydrino theory - User:TStolper1W is persistent and a single-purpose vandal. Unless he's blocked, need to keep cleaning up the mess.
• Disclosure Project and Steven M. Greer - I just removed a bunch of un-necessary and POV material from these two pages. Please make sure the UFO enthusiasts don't go wild on it again. Probably the same level of monitoring as Crop circle would do it.
• Kardashev scale - this is a simple idea. Keep the article brief and on topic.
• What the Bleep Do We Know - keep the TM out, make it clear the thing is nonsense, etc.
• TM - do try to get the TMers from Maharishi University of Management to stop editing a page where they have such a big conflict of interest.
• everything else on my watchlist.

I fear that Wikipedia is approaching the point where the rate of addition of new content is less than the rate of addition of new vandalism and junk - such that even with the current bots, most editing will end up being cleanup. I think I've done enough trash-picking here. Good luck. Michaelbusch (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived talk 2007 Dec 11

Please place new messages at the bottom of the page or use the + tab

Thanks

For that revert. I'n not sure what's going on. Acalamari 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That account is a transparent sock of an indefinitely banned user. I've noted it on WP:AIV. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Theory"

Hi, Michael. Just wanted to note that you reverted a change that was based on consensus, including Naturezak. See, for example, the outline that he created, which included the word "theory" in that heading. TimidGuy (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I do not agree with that consensus - for the reasons I described. I'm a stickler for proper use of the word theory - because of all the pseudoscience I deal with. Only when it is unavoidable will I use the term to mean anything other than a set of ideas that have been tested by observational evidence - which doesn't really work for matters of meditation and states of consciousness. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration on cold fusion

Please note that you are cited in an arbitration request. See here. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This happens to be the second most ridiculous ArbCom request I've ever seen, but I won't stop you from having your fun. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randell Mills

A reply to your message on my talk page: Can you please be more specific? Reading between the lines quite a bit, I am guessing that you refer to your views on "matters of meditation and states of consciousness" (cf. MWI) mentioned in "Theory" just above -- is that a correct interpretation? Dave Fafarman (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above sentences do not make sense - meditation and consciousness are unrelated to interpretations of quantum mechanics. What I refer to is your statements about the many worlds interpretation. They are irrelevant to the Randell Mills article. I'd assumed this was obvious - that was, after all, the subject of your last few posts to Talk:Randell Mills. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleep revert warring

Are you pushing to have the article protected again? Stop the revert warring. There is no scientific consensus for the movie. Period. Dreadstar † 18:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not revert warring - I have reverted the article once since it was unlocked. Dreadstar, you statements refusing to accept the existence of the consensus on What the Bleep have approached the point where I feel justified in invoking don't be dense. I have explained the sources and how they reflect consensus and the non-existence of any contrary statements three times, as have others. If you do not accept the consensus, that is your concern. Refusing to acknowledge its existence is folly, however. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're engaging in a revert war over that wording, the wording was added, it was then reverted and taken again to the talk page, and yet still reverted back into the article once again without consensus - that is revert warring. As far scientific consensus, yes I'm sure if the scientific community were polled on this movie there were would indeed be the consensus that some of the aspects of the movie are pseudoscience...but this polling hasn't been done for this movie, there are no sources for it, and so it violates WP:NOR. There are no two ways about it. And please watch who you're calling dense. First, it cuts both ways, and is also an unnecessary, uncivil personal attack. Dreadstar † 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar, don't be dense. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelbusch: Your edit summaries here and here are hardly civil. Please be more careful. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found that I had lost all patience with the refusal of Dreadstar and TimidGuy to accept that the scientific community uniformly condemns What the Bleep, and thus I became uncivil. This is one reason I'm taking a break - the other is that I am enjoying my vacation. Michaelbusch (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Randell Mills

An article that you have been involved in editing, Randell Mills, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randell Mills. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kardashev Scale

Hi, I'm a new user so I apologize if this is an inappropriate way of talking about my concerns. My intent today was to add some critisisms about the timeline as well as supercivilizations Class IV and above, cuz I was doing some independent reading.

Well I come back to the page and a lot of it disappeared, your revisions. I kind of looked at what changes you made and realized that you pretty much deleted speculative content and much of the timeline which of course borders on psuedo-science, so I can understand why you made the revisions. However part of why I was reading independent material on the subject was that I found it interesting, and alot of the speculation is interesting. And it's not as if the speculation wasn't backed up, it's just that whoever added it in, didn't cite the work properly. Which is fine, cuz I now know where the timeline came from...

Carl Sagan's (1973) book Cosmic Connection An Extraterrestrial Perspective discusses possible timelines for astroengineering feats and talks a little about what you'd expect from an advanced civilization. This is speculation, but it's speculation done from a well-known cosmologist; who inspired millions of people to be serious about SETI projects around the world. And it can be cited. The last part of the book chapters 27. Extraterrestrial life: an idea whose time has come 30. If we succeed … 33. Astroengineering; 34. Twenty questions: a classification of cosmic civilisations 38. Starfolk II. A future; 39. Starfolk III. The cosmic Cheshire cats; talks about nothing else other than how we would detect, talk to, and become an advanced civilization and what we'd have to do, in order to get there.

As far as the sub section Extensions of the Original Scale that is an extension of Kardashev's work in his lecture Kardashev, Nikolai (1985). "On the Inevitability and the Possible Structures of Supercivilizations" in "The search for extraterrestrial life: Recent developments; Proceedings of the Symposium, Boston, MA,June 18-21, 1984", as well as a paper he did later... that I'm still searching for.

So I guess, what I'm saying is, I'd like the timeline, the extensions to the original scale, and the contact constraints back in. I'm cool if you add a big-whomping... this is psuedoscience, and speculation sticker on it cuz I can agree with that totally, but I think it does have value.

But I found the article to be interesting because of the speculation... the speculation is important in referenced sci-fiction works and I think the whole idea of wikipedia is not only to give factual information... which I think can still be done with the timeline, etc, but also to inspire people to read, and look up information that isn't just in the wikipedia files.... And I'm telling you, that had the speculation portion of the timeline not been in this article, I would never have read Carl Sagan's book or searched for Kardashev's and others material.

So what do you want to do? --Sparkygravity (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review reliable sources and Wikipedia:Undue Weight. The article is just fine without long paragraphs of whole-cloth discussion of one person's ideas. Please don't add back the material unless you have consensus for putting it back (which you will most likely not get). Michaelbusch (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, I think I have a better understanding now of how we might improve this entry. Concerning reliable resources and Wikipedia:Undue Weight I feel that much of the articles construction has seemed like original research because it's hard to find laymen terms to civilizations IV and above, most of it's talked about in Sci-fi circles, which I'm not interested in advancing. So, your absolutely right, we're looking for scientific research, which I think, I might be able to provide with the assistance of the community. I've made some progress in seeing scientific discussions by Dr. Michio Kaku, Dr. John Barrow, and Alan Guth to name a few, talking about advanced civilizations. So I think the article can be expanded in that area.

As far as interests of the majority vs. the minority, and the development of information based on the majority view, I think the idea of advanced civilizations is a concept that most Sci-Fi enthusiasts are very familiar with and do represent a significant proportion of majority interests. On that basis alone, I think the material could be reinstated. As for scientific majority, I'm really not sure, I know that inflationary cosmology isn't a new idea being extended by both Guth, Steve Hawking and a myriad of others. I think that if John Barrow is talking about advanced civilization in terms of K-IV, K-V... I must only assume that other scientist are doing the same.[1] Through the help of the community I hope we can find others.

Finally, I think talking about the reinstatement of the material by consensus is a great idea, in fact I'm a little confused why there wasn't more discussion on the removal. So I'll go ahead and start a thread on the Talk:Kardashev scale page. As for people agreeing with me in consensus, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. And no I don't intend on starting an edit war by reinstating the material before a discussion can be made... hopefully soon.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements above are verbose, and I'm afraid I don't understand them. Please don't post here - post to Talk:Kardashev scale. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, grasshopper--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: Your recent edits

I'm pretty new to edits on Wikipedia. You completely deleted all my contributions to the Kardashev scale talk page. I thought what I had to say was pertinent to the fictional nature of the discussions already present on the page. I want to present my thoughts in a manner that will be accepted in the Wikipedia community. Given the ideas I intended to present, how would you have handled the situation? Also, if there's a way to send private messages on Wikipedia, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExarPalantas (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private messages may be sent by email (e.g. see the 'e-mail this user' link on the left-hand side of my userpage). Now, your thoughts are your own and you may say what you will, but talk pages are not general forums. They are for discussion of the articles subject. Unrelated threads should be removed with prejudice. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleep

Hi, Michaelbusch. I feel bad to always be opposing you in Bleep. It's nothing personal. And I respect your desire to improve Wikipedia. No doubt in the end truth will triumph, whatever truth that turns out to be. Wikipedia is an odd situation, and not at all comfortable for me. Wish you all the best in 2008. TimidGuy (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You speak truth when you say that Wikipedia is strange. But it is unavoidable these days. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Wikipedia has become a playground for dedicated fringers to push psuedoscientific and fringe nonsense such as "Bleep", among many other subjects, that would never probably not even worth an article in a conventional encyclopedia, nor would the obvious COI, POVing and misapplication of science be tolerated. The primary weakness of Wikipedia has been demonstrated all too well, that it assumes that an article is mainly based on a signficant number of neutral, academic sources and that neutral editors hold the balance in in RFCs and consensus, which is often only the case for more well established subjects. Accuracy comparisons with Britanica, for example, do not accurately present that there is no comparison for the multitude of fring articles no other encylopedia encourages. Fringe topics and claims simply draw dedicated fringe editing support while balanced editors simply don't put the same amount of effort into pointing out the subject is fringe and refuting the nonsense as fringers put into creating "sources", nor do academics put the same effort into refuting the nonsense as fringers and cultist put into trying to find some academics willing to accept exploitation, thus seemingly reasonable Wikipedian principles simply breakdown in such extreme situations. That NPOV is to be valued first before civility according to Wikipedian policies is simply ignored. It seems that those boards who should be policing these articles simply accept that fringe articles can contain fringe nonsense because discerning readers will be turned off and that fringe friendly admins are more likely to engage and aid in frustrating true NPOV as you can see from this example. Only when you can engage a majority of editors coming from a more balanced view willing to hang together along with more balanced admins to take on these fringe editors one article at a time and trim obscure articles can you really accomplish much. That hasn't happened yet, and it may not until Wikipedia begins to lose more credibility, as it should. I no longer have time for such uphill struggles to support NPOV, better to let Wikipedia lose credibility than give the false appearance of meaningful consensus with fringers. Good luck. --Dseer (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therein is the problem: people use Wikipedia. Therefore we must make it better. We make it better, it gets used more. It gets used more, it becomes more of a target for fringe ideas, POV-pushing, and other forms of vandalism. More bad editing equals more time spent cleaning up and less time spent adding content. Eventually, Wikipedia will reach a limit where the amount of good content flat lines. I don't think we're there yet, but even if that is the case, this is an interesting sociological experiment. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tags

Just a heads up, but db-repost is only articles deleted through Articles for Deletion (or other XFD's), not speedy deletions. --Michael Greiner 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are correct. It did not matter in this case, but I must try to get out of that habit (I initially read 'other deletion discussion' to include speedy). Michaelbusch (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also users can delete warnings from their user talk pages if they want, as seen at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages. I personally think they shouldn't, but it's a guideline. --Michael Greiner 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidude57

I reverted your reverts on the talk page of Wikidude57. WP:DRC is pretty clear that users may put just about anything, or delete anything on their user pages. Deleting stuff on their talk pages clearly proves they read it. I know its a common mistake to think they should keep warnings on their talk page, but you can still read them on the history of the page, and it is their page to do with as they like, as long as it doesn't interfere with wikipedia. Pharmboy (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hold the opinion that warning messages, unless obviously spurious, should not be deleted. It makes it a lot easier to keep track of the warning history. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine as your opinion, but the POLICY here clearly states the opposite, via WP:TALK, which is expressed pretty clearly in the essay WP:DRC. I'm not giving you my opinion, I'm trying to politely say you accidently violated policy, granted with good intentions. User pages are pretty much off limits unless they are disruptive, and users clearly and unambiguously have the right to delete any warnings on their page. Pharmboy (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This I understand. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

I apologize for this and this. I talked to my adoptee, and I'm sorry it happened. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^Care to share? 07:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also EXTREMELY sorry for doing that to your userpage.

Wikidude 57Join The Brawl!!! P.S. IM unblocked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude57 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments

I appreciate your response and for removing the contribution to global warming. I think you were right. But the poster in national geographic is really something to see and it raises many questions and would be a great reference for the global warming page. Best Regards, SoilMan2007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it myself, but if you think it should be added, please describe why on the talk page and give a reference so that other editors can evaluate it. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Gold

Jesus! - I should have checked who I was talking with. You're one of the last people I would want to pick a fight with (at Super-Earth). But I'm also shocked that you of all people you would start on the defending side of assumptions: I guess someone had to play devil's advocate to the devil's advocate. I think I said it in my last comments at Super-Earth, and you'll read that when you get back, so I will leave it at that. There is a lot I could learn from you as I am heading in that direction, and I dare say a least I've learn not to overlook userpages anymore when I get into discussions. A sheepish Thanks. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a coach?

I noticed your name over at WP:ADCO. Have you been matched with a coach yet?

The Transhumanist 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but since I won't be editing much for a while, it may not be necessary. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jon Hess

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jon Hess, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Hess. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kardashev Scale

I've restored the article to a previous version, I've talked about the additions to the article at length and why I feel they are needed, but I haven't seen your input on the Talk:Kardashev_scale. I'm afraid I'm against block removal of large sections with minimal discussion about why your feel justified to do so... I hope to see you on the talk page. thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed material that was flagged as original research, unsupported, or was otherwise irrelevant. I've been out of circulation for the last several weeks, but I see no reason that my edits should be blanket reverted. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've removed more material from the article, don't you think it might be wise to settle the current dispute over material before you continue to remove more? I'm asking you to restore it all, until issue is settled. Please see Talk:Kardashev_scale for request.--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have explained each of my edits. You have not provided any rationale for the material I removed being included. If you can provide sufficiently compelling reasons, then the material can go back in. But in many cases, that isn't going to be possible. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag on Ferranti Argus

Given your user page I'll guess that you don't believe in telepathy, so may I humbly suggest that if you tag an article as unclear you mention on the talk page what you find unclear? After all, I can't read your mind! Maury (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads like a technical service manual, rather than an encyclopedia entry. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit it again. Maury (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still bad. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and you still haven't illustrated any examples of the unclear language or how it "reads like a technical service manual". Again, can you be specific? I can't fix it if the criticism is simply "its bad". Maury (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Ferranti Argus. Michaelbusch (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TStolper at it again

TStolper is filling up Hydrino with Mills glorification again. I've taken a couple of whacks at cutting the nonsense back, but could use a more experienced Wiki hand for advice. JohnAspinall (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michaelbusch. Can you say whether there are still problems with this article? I've only seen the discussion at WP:COIN, and I have noted the new article restriction imposed on editor TStolper by MastCell, but besides that I don't know if the article itself has issues that other editors could address. I can imagine that some people might prefer a shorter article, and I notice some direct quotes are given in full, but other than that I don't know what is amiss. The article seems to clearly make the point that Mills' theories aren't accepted by mainstream scientists. I notice that the references might be tidied up and put into citation templates. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, there aren't any problems with the current version of the article because it is not the version TStolper1W would like. The pattern for the last week has been that Stolper puts up his version, which I describe as bollocks, and that another editor removes it completely a few hours later. Stolper then puts back his version a day or so later, and claims that the editor who removed it is part of an organized campaign against Mills. Now, Stolper's COI and POV issues are obvious, and given his unwillingness to cooperate and lack of any contributions elsewhere on the encyclopedia, I would ban him completely. If you examine the article history, you can view the version of the article he would like. Stylistically, it is quite bad. Scientifically, it is bogus - it includes a flat statement that quantum mechanics is wrong. This is what Stolper keeps putting in place. Fortunately, other editors are savvy and remove it. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College of Chinese Physical Culture and Nationwide Network of Classes

Maybe I'm too fast...? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warn users

There's maintenance text that you only need to copy-paste to their talk pages, letting them know their page has been speedied. Unless I'm working too fast (dang caffeine!!!) and beating you to the punch... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like to put in the {{uw-xx#}} tags as well. They are more specific than just 'your page has been speedied'. Thanks for patrolling recent changes. 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jane Daniel

Hallo - you tagged the article Jane Daniel. After all now I think there are enough published sources mentioned in the article ! yours Pinus pinea (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching request update

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at the Coachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 07:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not editing enough at the moment for an Admin coach to be useful, I suspect. Thanks for the notice. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I'm new to the Wiki Editing stuff, and I got your message, but I'm confused on what it is about and what I should do. Sorry for being nieve.

--Bradboulton (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it too much - just write articles that respect WP:NPOV and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tunguska event, uh, again

An anonymous user added the claim that Tunguska-like impacts in ocean areas would have gone unnoticed before satellite monitoring, justifying his changing the wording to that the Tunguska event is believed to be the largest natural explosion in recent history...True? I figured you'd be the one to know. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Tunguska-like impact might have gone unnoticed in some parts of the Arctic ocean at that time, but anywhere else is problematic. Michaelbusch (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

revert Kardashev scale

please address my comments in Talk:Kardashev_Scale#Revisions_Feb_19,_and_a_summary. Edit 3--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, but you're going to have to explain how the distribution of power usage is at all relevant to the sum of it. 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see, response. THX--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you feel you have to go

Hey, Michael, sorry to hear that you're leaving. I can relate to the time thing... hopefully, you'll be able to stick around in some capacity as it would be a real shame to lose you altogether. Best of luck, and hope to see you here again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what do you mean by "stasis" - would you like your pages semi-protected against vandalism, or what? (Just let me know.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the pages semi-protected, and the account rendered inactive - I've already changed the password to something I won't remember. Michaelbusch via DHCP. 131.215.220.133 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of quick responses. Hope to see you back.

• Protection is generally only employed when vandalism becomes a problem and isn't usually done unless there is a known threat. I'll add your page to my watchlist and intervene if there is a problem.
• W.r.t. the requested block, I'd like to suggest that you look at WP:SELFBLOCK for a java-script wikibreak enforcer that you can run yourself. Ronnotel (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael your contributions to the astronomical articles will not be forgotten. Take care of yourself. An extended break from wikipedia could be a good thing. Some times we all need a fresh perspective on life. My father recently passed away and I know I am re-considering a lot of things... -- Kheider (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA sweeps: 3 Juno

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 3 Juno, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1999 RQ36 answer

Michaelbusch, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability rules. I not believe to value of uncertain 50%, because this is too much (from 300m to 900m). Thus and so i believe in public NASA sources. Your source (book in prep.) is not available now, and so its not verifiable (for now). If you work in JPL, then you may post to NASA more correct data. Wikipedia base on sources, reliable verifiable sources. Sorry for this bureaucratism. Please do not delete text with links to current reliable sources. Sorry for my English.--Камень (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Камень for my response to this. Here, I will simply quote from the page Камень is getting the 560 m diameter estimate from: "... the diameter estimate should be considered only approximate, but in most cases will be accurate to within a factor of two." The risk page is not designed to be the final source of information. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that measurement by albedo is very uncertain. But Wikipedia base on source. You book has in-prep. status. No book - no source! Sorry. Next your action will call sys-op justice.--Камень (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sys-admins would agree with me on this, I'm afraid. Please do not make a scene. As I have said, there are electronic sources describing the radar observations, which I have linked on 1999 RQ36. And please note that I am not pushing a paper that I am a co-author on. I merely know the field. 03:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not new, and you need to review the civil policy

"Welcome to Wikipedia. I recommend you to review the civility guidelines. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)"

Reviewed, and since I've always been so civil, why would you suggest I review it, unless you were implying that I've not been civil at some point? Since that is not true, I'd say your implicitly and ironically making an uncivil remark. Looking at your talk page, I see you have become uncivil with other editors when they have simply disagreed with you, as I have. So that is the pattern.76.14.42.191 (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of United Nation of Islam

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is United Nation of Islam. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nation of Islam. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Michaelbusch! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 14 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Alessandro Morbidelli (astronomer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global account

Hi Michaelbusch! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:03, 18 January 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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Michaelbusch. 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]

1. http://books.google.com/books?id=0jRa1a4pD5IC&pg=PA133&dq=%22is+capable+of+manipulating+the+most+elementary+particles&sig=qilR_CGErLINTCc8dde2da76oV8