User talk:Brews ohare: Difference between revisions

Sandstein enforces request by Blackburne “Consequently, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted, I am hereby banning Brews ohare indefinitely from editing the article Speed of light and its talk page.”

Original appeal to limit length of Sandstein's ban denied as misfiled

Change of venue from AI/N to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement apparently implies different arbitrators

Appeal to limit Sandstein's indefinite ban Moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Ruling based on complete sidestepping of appeal Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.

Discussion of inappropriate ruling

AN/I request to revert Headbomb's burying of pre-existing threads on Talk:Matter.

Headbomb takes me to ArbCom for protesting his actions on AN/I

All attempts to gain explanation of ArbCom action are stonewalled

Exchange with Ed Johnston leads to no clarification

Closed with a warning

Summary of status

Blackburne takes me to WP:AE for posting a revision of an article he set up for AfD

Physchim62 and rollback.

To set things straight concerning this, Psychim62 did not rollback anything, Happy-melon oversighted. (See this.) This is typically done to remove personal information that identifies users who wishes to keep anonymous. If you want to make sure oversight was appropriate and complied with the oversight policy, ask Happy-melon about it. It you still think it was inappropriate, make a request at the Audit Subcommitee. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great to have you back!

Hey Brews. I just noticed you'd returned to editing and wanted to let you know that it's great having you back. I was never too clear on exactly what the ArbCom drama was all about and didn't want to interfere, but I'm glad that it's finally over. Anyway, hope you weren't too discouraged and that we'll be able to work on some articles again in the future. -Roger (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger. Thanks for the welcome. Of course, I still have a couple of months of sanctions, but for the moment the hornets chasing my every step have left. However, my enthusiasm for WP has been seriously wounded, as I never before had any idea of the population in its upper bureaucracy. Had I explored the web, I'd have learned much sooner and more easily. It taints the whole enterprise, and makes it exactly like dealing with city hall: no utopia, just venal politicking and posturing. As it is, I am struggling still to adjust to the idea that WP has such clay feet. Brews ohare (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's it Hanging Brews?

Hey I was checking out the Citzendieum started by Larry Sanger. I'm not suggesting you leave wikipedia or anything of the sort but the way that site is set up with your credentials I think you would make a excellent addition to their Editor ranks. They require you to be a expert but you would have a part in reviewing submitted content and making sure it is correct. Not advocating for you, just figured to point out that you could also contribute there with your qualifications. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi H in a B: That is Likebox's decision, I take it. Who knows how it will roll out in the long run? If WP can limp along with misguided allocation of arbitration to the uninformed and ineducable, it may remain more or less as it now is. If it adopts new methods based upon accommodating outside agencies like the British Museum, giving them WP "editors in residence" with greater control than other editors, where will that lead? Added authority for those embedded in expert environments may make sense, but how about the creation of ever more layers of bureaucracy that insulate decision makers from responsible behavior? If new authority for admins like "pending changes" further empowers cabals to enforce dubious "principles" and dubious judgment, who knows? My present guess is that it still is early to jump ship. Brews ohare (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to physics!

		Welcome back to physics!
		Count Iblis (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Count Iblis: Thanks for the welcome back. I think it may still be a few days for it to officially happen.

I'd note that this episode has had its effect upon me, though. I believe there are a number of changes in the way things are done that would greatly improve matters on WP. I also believe they aren't going to happen, mainly because there are very few involved in the WP bureaucracy that have an interest in improving the encyclopedia editing environment, and even fewer with any idea of how to do it. Brews ohare (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceleration Image

I've left a comment on your image for acceleration. I can't figure out how you got 1/mag(v) as the coefficient. It can't be right, because then the units on acceleration would be 1/length (a = 1/mag(v)*d/dt ut = 1/(length/time)*(unit-less/time) = 1/length). I suggest correcting the image to be v*v/R.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.245.78.2 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this problem. Thank you. Brews ohare (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about interferometer picture

An interferometric determination of length. Top: constructive interference; bottom: destructive interference.

I had some questions about this picture. The first is very mundane: could you do an SVG version of this to make it scale better?

The second is more involved. Although I get the general gist of the diagram, the details are a bit confusing. The bottom part of each interferometer seems to suggest that the interference is determined by have the beams entire some cavity from opposite sides and forming a standing wave there. This is not the most usual setup for an interferometer, most use the Michelson setup where the different beams are united and project on a screen where they form one of the familiar ring interference patterns. I'm assuming that this suggestion is not intentional, but since I'm a bit confused by it others maybe as well. Maybe something can be done to make it clearer?TimothyRias (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timothy: You bring up some good points. As for SVG, I confess to not understanding how to to that, and having some misgivings about how long it might take me to learn how.

As for the structure of the diagram, it is very schematic. As you know, there are a number of interferometers out there: the Michelson interferometer, the Rayleigh interferometer, the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, the Sagnac interferometer being the most often discussed. The diagram doesn't approximate any of these in anything like the complexity they really involve. It is simply intended to get the idea across of path-difference and its relation to constructive and destructive interference. The issues of Newton's rings or other types of fringe patterns is not even envisioned.

It may be that another diagram could incorporate more real-world complications without involving one in a maze of explanation: you never know what artistic conception can do. However, at the moment I've got no great ideas. Brews ohare (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the SVG bit. What program did you use to make this graphic? I assume it is some vector based drawing package ala illustrator or corel draw. I would be surprised if modern versions of these did not have the ability to export to SVG. As for the rest, I'll see if I can come up with any good ideas. TimothyRias (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim: What I've been doing is making pictures in Excel and saving them as JPEG or PING files. My options don't include SVG. They do include GIF or TIFF. Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unconventional, but I guess it works. May I suggest you try Inkscape, it is pretty good freeware vector based graphics package. Functionality is similar to using the rudimentary graphics capabilities of MS office, but more user friendly, which can output SVG graphics. (You might even try copying and pasting your office graphics into the program, I'm always surprised in how many situations that actually works. In the meantime I think I have an idea for graphic based on a simple diagram of a michelson interferometer. I'll make a quick mock up tomorrow.TimothyRias (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something like this. (Some labels need to added, maybe some arrows to indicate the direction of the rays. TimothyRias (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Brews ohare disruptive editing at Talk:Speed of light. Thank you.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arb enforcement request

You recent editing behaviour has been raised here--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement article ban

This is to inform you that you are indefinitely banned from editing the article Speed of light and its talk page, as explained at this AE thread. Sandstein 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of a related request for clarification, [1]. Sandstein 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brews - a couple of observations in response to your note at my talk page. There appear to be two separate issues at play: i. can administrators impose sanctions at arbitration enforcement that outlast the remedy under whose auspices the sanctions are being imposed? ii. was the specific sanction imposed by Sandstein appropriate? The arbitration clarification request deals only with the first issues; I have answered the question in the negative, and Carcharoth appears to be of similar mind. I don't think it's fair to describe the clarification request as "stalled"; these things usually stay open for a while to allow arbitrators to provide their views, and are then usually closed without action (clarification requests are usually intended to make formal action unnecessary, by getting all editors on the same page). However, the second issue remains, regardless of what emerges as the view of ArbCom on the first one. Sandstein's sanction requires a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to overturn. As yet that consensus obviously has not emerged, but it may yet do so. But I see no reason that discussion on the appropriateness of the page ban needs to await the closure of the request for clarification; either editors view the notion of banning you from Speed of light as appropriate or they don't, and I don't see what bearing the clarification request has on that one way or another. Steve Smith (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is disconcerting that even with a consensus among admins that Sandstein's action overreaches the authority granted him under the authorizing restriction, you feel that this does not constitute a “clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors” as needed to overturn, or at least modify. In fact, there seems to be no uninvolved admin whatsoever to even discuss the issues at the appeal_by_Brews_ohare. Brews ohare (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus speaks only to the first issue, as I understand it, which is the one being examined in the request for clarification (and on which I take the same position as you do, I believe). My point is that discussion on the second issue needn't wait until the first is resolved. Steve Smith (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out clearly that the appeal need wait no further upon the clarification. My hope was that you administrators involved in the clarification might deliberate over the appeal_by_Brews_ohare as well. What about that? And, also, what do you make of Sandstein's view that Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is the incorrect venue for this appeal? Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first question was answered at the clarification page at 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC): that appeals should not be made on the clarification page. I've responded to your second question here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC) I sympathise with the fact you are being bullied, especially by Jehochman, but as long as admins are openly being treated differently to editors, I'm not in a position where I can help you get a fair hearing (note: a fair hearing doesn't support a particular outcome, but it does give you the right to be heard without being swamped with bureaucracy). I'm sorry that I could not help you get that much as of the time of writing this comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist: I appreciate your comments. Are you aware of this appeal in progress? Brews ohare (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research - revisited again

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please don't add original research to articles as you did with this edit on Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), and as you did before with this edit on the same page, and with this string of edits on Redefinition of the metre in 1983. I have removed the section and left a note on the talk page. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTTR Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've restored the edits as there is no trace of OR in the usual meaning for this type of article. DVdm and Blackburne stick to a very narrow concept of OR which would make it impossible to have anything more than a small stub for the more technical Wiki-subjects. Count Iblis (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see from DVdm's message above that I have been warned of a blocking action. Brews ohare (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman's warnings

Brews, next time you engage in non-collegial editing of any physics article or talk page, I will block you. Don't add original research. Don't revert war (seek consensus instead). Don't post walls of text to talk pages or dominate conversations by posting excessive or repetitive comments. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This statement appears to be a statement of permanent bias in advance. Your suggestion that I have engaged in “non-collegial editing of any physics article or talk page” is incorrect, and offensive. What I have done recently is posted two RfC's, one at the request of another editor. I suspect that threats of this nature by an administrator are actionable as bad behavior. Brews ohare (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my statement is just a warning that you're testing limits, repeating past mistakes, and moving perilously close to a siteban. The community only has so much time and patience for dealing with problems. You've exceeded your quota. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of my "testing limits" and "repeating past mistakes". From my perspective, recently I have had some extended talk page discussion with DVdm and JohnBlackburne concerning whether an innocuous proposed addition to the article on Centrifugal force is WP:OR. Only DVdm and Blackburne think it is: DickLyon, Pieter Kuiper and CountIblis do not. DVdm and Blackburne have simply refused to explain why their opinion differs. What on earth is the problem? How is that testing limits? Why pick on me? Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you gone back to editing speed of light? The tone of the section you're attempting to add to centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) seems like it could be subject to a legitimate objection. Why are you refusing to add references when challenged by two editors? (I'm not taking a position on it. Rather, I'm saying that the complaints about that content do not appear to be frivolous or vexatious.) Having a posse of friends that support you is not a way to circumvent consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman: I returned to speed of light because some items could be clarified, and some were. I also raised some metrology issues on the Talk page that were apparently "hot buttons" and as a result Blackburne persuaded Sandstein to block my further participation altogether, regardless of the positive accomplishments obtained on other matters on this page. IMO if further discussion wasn't of interest, the better action would be to leave me in a corner talking to myself. There is no need to engage on a thread where you think a crackpot is babbling. (Of course, the reason they did engage is that my proposals had merit but weren't digestible.) The complaints about the Centrifugal force contribution are, in fact ‘frivolous’, and are not supported by the three other editors I mentioned. The hostile reaction of DVdm and Blackburne to innocent requests for explanation of their views is ‘vexatious’ on their part. I do not have a posse of friends, and characterizing the views of those that share my opinion in this way is simply to denigrate all opinion like my own as somehow "less" than the contrary views. I do not think you can justify the notion that these editors are simply acting out of some loyalty to me regardless of the facts: a little investigation of the record shows that isn't so. Brews ohare (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been accused of something (again) I will reply. No, the best response is not to ignore a "babbling crackpot" when they are repeatedly disrupting talk pages, articles and RfC process, as well as disparaging other editors contributions. Asking that you supply references for your contributions is standard WP practice, not "frivolous", "hostile" or "vexatious". If editors replies are short and to the point it's usually because they've already explained their concerns repeatedly and at length, and because there are policy pages like WP:OR that do a much better job of explaining it. and you can't have this both ways: you can't expect editors to "leave you in a corner", and at the same time expect detailed replies every time you repost the same OR with slightly different wording or emphasis.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking to supply references with no specification of what the references are to support and refusal to answer any questions about what is in need of support is vexatious in my vocabulary and hostility in the face of requests for what is wanted is very non-collaborative. Bringing ArbCom action to avoid response to requests for guidance also is hostile. Brews ohare (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The arbcom process is the arbcom process. If you're unhappy with your current block or the recent enforcement action there's a perfectly good appeals process; complaining here about it will achieve little result.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is pertinent how? Brews ohare (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman: BTW, is it your view that your above “warning in advance of activity” constitutes a warning under the terms of the sanction still outstanding against me? In other words, do you believe that should something I do in the future strike you as meeting your criteria, in your judgment, that action needs no further warning to me that I have crossed a line, in your judgment, and so you have met the criteria for fair warning and can institute a block without an ArbCom review? Such a view seems to me to gut the notion of a warning of all meaning: it means that I have to read your mind as to what might offend your instincts, and not do that. Inasmuch as I cannot understand many of your actions, that will be difficult. Brews ohare (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my warning should not be interpreted as active under the sanction, because that was not my intention. Also, I've decided not to block you under any circumstances because I don't think you would agree that I was being impartial. There are plenty of other things for me to do that would be less controversial. Jehochman ^Talk 08:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving perilously close to a siteban

Jehochman: Your recent response to my objections to a “warning in advance of violation” says that I am “moving perilously close to a siteban”. Assuming that is meant as kind advice (which is a stretch), just what on earth (specifically) have I done that warrants such a threat, in your opinion? IMO, I have made a huge number of contributions to WP, and engaging in some extended Talk page discussions is hardly disruptive and is far from indicative of a site ban action. Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is obviously trying to Salting the fields as it were on your case Jehochman has a clear and announced bias and would be better off letting a uninvolved administrator perform any blocking. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the issue at AN/I. Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point you lot are missing is that I am totally WP:UNINVOLVED. Attempts to resolve a controversy or limit disruptive activity do not cause an admin to become involved. I requested arbitration because a community ban discussion became deadlocked, not because I was in conflict with Brews. Jehochman ^Talk 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman: No-one can read your mind to see what your motivations are at this particular moment, but you have a long history of advocacy against me at every possible turn. That record would suggest that this instance is not unusual. Brews ohare (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that when you weren't disrupting speed of light, I was not "advocating" against you? Quiet as a church mouse, I was. Jehochman ^Talk 18:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember far enough back to recall when you weren't in the “advocacy against me” mode. It's years ago. In any event, you have been in this mode long enough to create uncertainty about your “uninvolved” status. Brews ohare (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to stop disrupting science pages. I want you to listen to feedback from other editors. I want you to stop recruiting a posse of friends to back you up at every turn. You're leading them into trouble too. Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements about "recruiting a posse of friends" I'd guess means that there are some who support me. They weren't recruited, however, they simply reacted according to their personal assessments. My "disruption of science pages" is your assessment based upon vociferous screams by DVdm and Blackburne, whose validity is not to be based upon their volume. My "disruption" on Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) consists of asking them what they mean and, in effect, they reply only and in toto that I am disingenuous. When I ask very specific questions, they do not answer but say I am disruptive. In short, they stonewall and issue threats of blocks. More recently, DVdm says his stonewalling was deliberate in just so many words. Please take the time to look at matters more closely. You are shooting from the hip, making snap judgments, and overreacting. Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed

In line with the procedural notes I made here, this is a notification: Brews ohare (talk · contribs) has made an appeal to the Community at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Brews_ohare. In order to determine whether there is a clear community consensus (of uninvolved editors), input is required (and welcome). Note: I hold no view on the content of the appeal and this note has been made to fix a purely procedural issue that was missed at some point down the track. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that discussion is closed, where is the next gigantic waste of time with everyone's favorite physicist and wiki-lawyer going to be hosted? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's closed now; it appears he is no longer appealing to the Community but has made an ArbCom appeal for amendment‎ (all of which makes the notification moot). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of light clarification

Hi there I just wanted to let you know that the Speed of Light clarification has been merged with Wikipedia:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Speed of light. NW (Talk) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove material from the page, as the page says, "Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one." I've replaced it. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides ignoring the original purpose of this appeal, also ignored in this ArbCom process is (i) the lack of evidence for disturbance of ‘decorum or standards of behavior’ , that is, there was no crime, (ii) the lack of notice that ArbCom action would be sought, that is, conditions required for activating the appealed action were not satisfied, nevermind conditions for implementing a general hearing of this kind, and (iii) there is no stated basis for the motions considered in terms of WP guidelines, that is the proposed remedies are not related to the five pillars or guidelines. There is every appearance that this hearing was hijacked to alleviate preexisting prejudices, and all rules and the good of WP were set aside to accomplish that aim. That impression should be corrected, for the good of WP and of the reputations of its administrators. Brews ohare (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to administrator Carcharoth

ArbCom has been extremely selective in evaluating my activities, ignoring myriads of helpful contributions I have made to instead value complaints in a few instances by a few editors with a history of altercation, and blow them up into a huge topic ban. ArbCom's one-sided view of matters and overreaction to complaints appears to be an idée fixe, unlikely to change. Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 16:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The original appeal concerning Sandstein's indefinite block has not been discussed or ruled upon, so the entire purpose of this appeal has been completely side-stepped in exchange for a meaningless remedy treating an imaginary problem. Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews ohare. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirac delta function

Hi Brews,

The recently rewritten section on quantum mechanics could probably use some touches, if you have the time. Best, Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sławomir Biały: I'd like to help out, but ArbCom has decided I am a crackpot and has denied me access to such matters. Brews ohare (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is most unfortunate. I'm sorry to hear that. Best, Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci

Merci pour la reconnaissance :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars³

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In recognition of your inspirational, tireless and enthusiastic contributions in many diverse areas of Wikipedia. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		In recognition of your many fine, tasteful and meticulous technical drawings which illuminate and illustrate so many scientific concepts. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Technology Barnstar
		For your excellent contributions to science articles. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they are well deserved. Brews ohare, please learn Portuguese and start editing in the Portuguese Wikipedia, because unlike here, there you will be welcome! AmigoDoPaulo (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Quadruple product

The article Quadruple product has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Trivial recreation of a deleted page. During the deletion discussion for Vector quadruple product this page was created on the same topic, consisting of the same content + trivial working, i.e. a content fork of a now deleted article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John; This article Quadruple product is correctly named to allow both the scalar and vector products to be included, unlike the misnamed deleted article. It is intended, as you know, to be a rather complete discussion of various products involving four vectors, in analogy to Triple product, and you have been invited on your talk page to contribute content in your area of expertise, rather than simply sniping at a work in progress. Brews ohare (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement request

This is to inform you that I have raised your recent editing behaviour here. Please take time to review what has been posted and add your own comments.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Quadruple product for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Quadruple product, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadruple product until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Your comment here is insightful. Yes, Wikipedia is for simple articles. Our goal is to provide an accessible overview with links to references that can provide more details. Your idea of commenting briefly, rather than getting into long debates, would be an excellent tactic. If you sense other editors getting annoyed, then it may be time to disengage and go do something else. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman: Thanks for your observations. I have arrived at much the same ideas about the scope of WP. I'd like to digress a bit on my education at WP.

I came to WP in the area of circuits, and contributed what now appear to be very much too technical articles on devices and design. They passed muster with little discussion because only other experts read them. Then I went to centrifugal force (I've forgotten how that happened) and discovered this rather technical topic was an interest of many with no concept of physics, and of others with very determined opinions on the subject. One of these was D Tombe, who was again unusual in that he was someone with opposed views who could accept arguments and respond to them.

Unfortunately those long analytical discussions (which I found engaging because D Tombe was very resourceful) were totally outside the norm of WP, leading me to false expectations of the community as a whole. When I proceeded to Speed of light I ran instead into a combination of religious fervor and viciousness that brooked no argument and soon landed me in court as disruptive. From that time forth I have been harassed by a few from those days who want more to bother me than to make use of my talents. I acquired a symbolical persona as a mad scientist that is still with me, and has nothing to do with me.

At the moment, a band of administrators, those like Sandstein, are happy to support ill-conceived actions by Blackburne and Headbomb with knee-jerk sanctions. I attribute Blackburne's and Headbomb's animosity to a few arguments that stuck in their craws and offended their personal images as savants. I have made overtures to Blackburne, who steadfastly ignores them, and combined with administrator incapacity for assessment, I believe my days here will remain difficult, regardless of my future actions or interests in contributing. Brews ohare (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Do your best not to engage in long debates, and I will do my best to encourage people to keep open minds. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prolix responses are not required for complex articles. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could try to find articles were the type of contributions you like to make would be welcome. I can e.g. think of Perturbation theory. Quite some time ago, I wrote the section on second order singular perturbation theory, but this contains a purely algebraic example. What is far more interesting is to explain how this works for differential equations. There are articles on Method of matched asymptotic expansions and Singular perturbation but they don't explain the "signifcant degeneration" issue that is described in the algebraic example in Perturbation theory.

Then perturbation series are often divergent, and resummation methods are commonly used. However the resummation is a small stub and needs to be expanded a lot. Many examples can be given in that article. Then the articles on specific resummation methods like Borel summation don't have much content and can be expanded too. What should be done first is to make the stub article resummation the main article that gives the overview and lists all the other articles on specific resummation methods. Count Iblis (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Count: There may be areas where less controversy is likely, and Perturbation theory may be one of them, though I have little experience in that arena. As you know, Balckburne pursued me to Idée fixe a topic of absolutely no interest to anyone (oddly, psychology seems to have very few active participants) and to Substance theory (again, philosophy appears to have absolutely no interest to anyone: an RfC inflicted by Blackburne received zero attention for an entire month), to Seven dimensional cross product where he nit-picked the presentation of a multiplication table and Fano diagrams, to Octonion where he argued about formatting a multiplication table for weeks, to Lagrange identity where he argued over trivial algebra, and to Bivector where he actually rolled up his sleeves and did something useful instead of taking me to AN/I. Maybe perturbation theory would escape his attention. Brews ohare (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:52, 3 October 2010 edit Count Iblis (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 12,818 edits →‎Suggestion ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:32, 3 October 2010 edit undo Brews ohare (talk \| contribs) 47,831 edits →‎Suggestion: Reply to Count Iblis Next edit →
Line 299:		Line 299:

	Then perturbation series are often divergent, and [[resummation]] methods are commonly used. However the [[resummation]] is a small stub and needs to be expanded a lot. Many examples can be given in that article. Then the articles on specific resummation methods like [[Borel summation]] don't have much content and can be expanded too. What should be done first is to make the stub article [[resummation]] the main article that gives the overview and lists all the other articles on specific resummation methods. [[User:Count Iblis\|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis\|talk]]) 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)		Then perturbation series are often divergent, and [[resummation]] methods are commonly used. However the [[resummation]] is a small stub and needs to be expanded a lot. Many examples can be given in that article. Then the articles on specific resummation methods like [[Borel summation]] don't have much content and can be expanded too. What should be done first is to make the stub article [[resummation]] the main article that gives the overview and lists all the other articles on specific resummation methods. [[User:Count Iblis\|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis\|talk]]) 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

			:Hi Count: There may be areas where less controversy is likely, and [[Perturbation theory]] may be one of them, though I have little experience in that arena. As you know, Balckburne pursued me to [[Idée fixe (psychology)\|Idée fixe]] a topic of absolutely no interest to anyone (oddly, psychology seems to have very few active participants) and to [[Substance theory]] (again, philosophy appears to have absolutely no interest to anyone: an RfC inflicted by Blackburne received zero attention for an entire month), to [[Seven dimensional cross product]] where he nit-picked the presentation of a multiplication table and Fano diagrams, to [[Octonion]] where he argued about formatting a multiplication table for weeks, to [[Lagrange identity]] where he argued over trivial algebra, and to [[Bivector]] where he actually rolled up his sleeves and did something useful instead of taking me to AN/I. Maybe perturbation theory would escape his attention. [[User:Brews ohare\|Brews ohare]] ([[User talk:Brews ohare#top\|talk]]) 17:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:32, 3 October 2010

On improving the editing climate

Arbitration notes