Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 17:05, 29 August 2009 editFDT (talk | contribs)7,708 edits →The Speed of Light article← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:59, 7 September 2024 edit undoWOSlinker (talk | contribs)Administrators858,401 editsm fix lint issues
Line 1:		Line 1:
			]
	== Happy First Day of Spring! ==
			==Ontology==
			Seems like you've been bumping up against some people who don't know what they are talking about while trying to improve the ontology entry. I'll try and see if my voice can help. Thanks for your efforts. Sorry to see how much trouble you've been having. - ] (]) 20:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
	{{Template:First Day Of Spring}}
			==On improving the editing climate==
	== History of science section in ] ==
	I've now started a section on the historical development of the modern conception of ] in that article. I am by no means an expert in the history of science, and I'm unsure about how the references I've cited hold together: I'd greatly appreciate it if you could please review the material I have added so far? There appears to be significant work on this topic by Domenico Bertoloni Meli (for example, , ), however, most of the interesting papers on this subject are behind a paywall and inaccessible to me. -- ] (]) 12:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
	== ] wiki is wrong about planetary motion and Euler forces ==
	Euler forces are tangential forces causing α = dω/dt? These don't go away in a constantly rotating frame-- they stay the same, since the acceleration of the particle is the same in either frame (just as in the linear case where acceleration is the same if you switch to a different inertial frame at a different linear velocity). Euler forces only appear as ficticious forces if you're in a frame with accelerated rotation rate where α = non-zero. But that's not the setup we carefully made for the centrifugal and Coriolis forces where ω is constant and dω/dt = α = 0. So in a way, the Euler forces are a different animal, and we really have to decide if we're going to stay fixed to a coordinate system or fixed on a rotating object which may not be rotating with a fixed rate. The planetary case is interesting: the Euler force is zero there, NOT because of the fact that the revolution rate doesn't change (as it states falsely in the fictious force Wiki)-- because the revolution rate of a planet DOES change for eliptical orbits! Instead, Mr. Tombe's "law of areal velocity" per Kepler kicks in (a consequence of angular momentum preservation) which causes r to decrease as ω increases, so the product stays constant and thus the Euler term stays zero even IF dω/dt is not zero: this is perhaps what confused Mr. Tombe (he as thinking about Euler forces and calling them Coriolis forces; most of what he said about one was true for the other!). Euler force = 0 ''even with'' variable rotation, and this happens any time the force is purely central, as with planets and no drag, or (say) when a skater pulls in her arms, etc. All again because of conservation of angular momentum in a system with no external angular momentum-changing influences. ]]]] 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
			]
	:Steven: I find your remarks confusing. provides a formula for the Euler force for a rotating frame as ''m'' '''r ×''' ''d'''''ω''' / ''dt'', which certainly vanishes for a constant rate of rotation, not supporting your lead sentence. Then a sentence or so later, you seem to agree with this remark. What are you trying to say here? ] (]) 15:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
			]
			<center>
	== Articles about Dynamics ==
			*]&emsp;&emsp;
			*]&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;
	I've noticed that you are working a lot on the Kinematics article. A few months ago I compiled a list of all (maybe there are more) articles related to Dynamics. This list is located in the ]. I thought this list would be useful for you if you are planning on working on more articles related to Kinematics. Some of those articles need to be merged. I would like to work on some of these articles but my focus right now is on other topics. Cheers!!! ] (]) 23:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
			*]&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;
	== coriolis diagram ==
			*]&emsp;
	I reverted again. Diagram is wrong. Best not to advise others to "take time to think about the issue" -- it assumes bad faith. ] (]) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
			*
	== Improved simulation methods for loop gain (return ratio) ==
	I noticed your interest in electronic feedback, so I thought you might be interested to learn about two improved simulation methods for loop gain (or return ratio, as you prefer to call it), which I present on my webpage http://www.geocities.com/frank_wiedmann/loopgain.html. The method developed by Michael Tian is basically an improved version of Middlebrook's method from 1975. Middlebrook's General Feedback Theorem is very closely related to the "Asymptotic gain model" entry on Misplaced Pages. Regarding the issue of loop gain versus return ratio, you can find some comments from me at http://www.designers-guide.org/Forum/YaBB.pl?num=1124688329.
			“Increased democratic deliberation, based upon rewarding good political judgment ... harnesses the contest among ambitious leaders to the necessity of giving good advice” --- Peter Breiner
	Frank <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			</center>
	== Talk: Centrifugal force ==
			{{clear}}
	In this edit, are you sincerely asking whether you should do some math, or is your intent to be sarcastic and insulting to the other editors? Please beware that it is very easily interpreted as the latter, and people may take offense. --] (]) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
			<center>►&emsp; &emsp; &emsp; …&emsp; &emsp; &emsp; ♫ &emsp; &emsp; &emsp; … &emsp; &emsp; &emsp; ◄&emsp; &emsp; &emsp;</center>
	:I've done the math; it's time some others did too. ] (]) 21:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
			==Tar babies==
	:: OK, but please be ]. Besides, I think the issue at hand can be easily resolved without doing any math. See my entry on ]
			] meets the tar baby; an encounter with enforcement.]]
			Arbitration ‘hearings’ are ]. Once you attract administrators' attention, residual attacks and arbitration follow you 'round like ] in the Quebec woods.
	== What is Wiki stance on related articles? (answer) ==
			== Great to have you back! ==
	Answering :
	:] is the ].
	:] has examples.
	Awesome illustrations on your ], BTW.
			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. ] (]) 20:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	--] (]) 14:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
	== Lab centrifuge ==		== How's it Hanging Brews? ==
			Hey I was checking out the Citzendieum started by Larry Sanger. '''I'm not''' suggesting you leave[REDACTED] 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. ] (]) 08:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
	Hi there
			== Welcome back to physics! ==
	I was wondering about your latest edits. Is a 10 m centrifuge accurately described as a "laboratory centrifuge"? --] (]) 17:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
			{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #cdda00;"
	:I don't know: it is for lab experiments and simulations. Is a cyclotron lab equipment? I guess the real question is whether this material fits best here, or would be more easily found elsewhere. Any suggestions? ] (]) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
			|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
			|rowspan="2" |
			|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Welcome back to physics!'''
			|-
			|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |
			] (]) 21:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
			|}
			== Merci ==
	::I think ] might be a better spot for it. --] (]) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
			{{mono|:)}} ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
			== Barnstars<sup>3</sup> ==
	:::I have moved this material to ]. ] (]) 18:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
			{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	==Tide==
			|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
	I reverted your edit to Tide. Possibly I was too impulsive, so I'll just explain myself and you can rerevert if you really know what you're talking about. The centrifugal force explanation has been debated extensively on the Talk page. I was not involved in that discussion, but it appears that the centrifugal-version lost out. The only other mention of centrifugal in the article is a link explaining why its the wrong way to explain tides. As the intro is supposed to be a summary of the article, it should be consistent with the main body. ] (]) 03:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
			|rowspan="2" |
			|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
			|-
			|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In recognition of your inspirational, tireless and enthusiastic contributions in many diverse areas of Misplaced Pages. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
			|}
			{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	Oh... you edit faster than I do. I understand your point; the article is not so well referenced. Please do what you can to make the article self-consistent, though. ] (]) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
			|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
			|rowspan="2" |
			|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Graphic Designer's Barnstar'''
			|-
			|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In recognition of your many fine, tasteful and meticulous technical drawings which illuminate and illustrate so many scientific concepts. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
			|}
			{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
			|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ]
			|rowspan="2" |
			|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Technology Barnstar'''
			|-
			|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your excellent contributions to science articles. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
			|}
			:*I agree, they are well deserved. Brews ohare, please learn Portuguese and start editing in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, because unlike here, there you will be welcome! ] (]) 14:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
	In my experience, when centrifugal force is used to explain a phenomenon then there is also a valid alternative which does not use centrifugal force. Sometimes, one is much clearer than the other. I'm kind of on the fence as far as tides are concerned. Best of luck... ] (]) 03:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
			== Needed image ==
	== Centrifugal force and precession ==
	Brews, I do know that precession can be (and typically is) a rotation about a '''rotating''' axis. Sorry for my ambiguous edit summary. But the picture you added showed a rotation about a '''fixed''' vertical axis (i.e. a precession with same angular velocity as the rotation about the "south-north" axis of the object). Besides that, the example about precession is too difficult to understand for an introduction about centrifugal force (because people thinks that the instantaneous axis of rotation is the "south-north" axis, which is never true). A much better example about rotation about a non-fixed axis was about the "particle along S-shaped trajectory".
			Hi Brews ohare! I need an image representing a positive feedback system (dual to ], simply with "plus" instead the "minus" of the lower summer input). I would like to use it in ], ] and ] pages. I also need an image representing 100% negative feedback system (without β in the feedback loop) to place it in ] and ]. Also, do you have any idea how to recreate this image using vector graphics as an SVG file? I have already installed Inkscape but I don't know how to open an existing image to edit it. Would you help me? Regards, ] (], ], ]) 06:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
	However, I fail to understand the reason why you want to talk about rigid bodies and Newton-Euler equations ''in the introduction''. I suggest to open a new section at the end of the article about this topic. But it would just say that:
			:Hi Circuit dreamer: My approach has been to use Microsoft Excel to draw the image and save it as a png or jpg file in Microsoft paint. For example, you possible can load the existing diagram and simply block out labels you don't want and re-save the file on WP commons using a new file name. I haven't learned how to do SVG, and haven't used Inkscape. I'd be happy to hear your advice about these tools. ] (]) 14:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
	#either you study the motion of the body CM, and in this case centrifugal force is computed as if the body were a point mass, or
	#you study the motion of a particle in the rigid body which does not coincide with the CM; then you just compute the kinematics of that particle, then you again use the formula for particles.
			::Thank you for the responsiveness. Today I started working with ''Inkscape''. I noted that if I right-click directly the image in the page, I can save it only as ''png'' or ''bitmap''. But if I left-click it, then go to its page and left-click the link below the image, I can save it as ''svg'' and then to open it with ''Inkscape''. I tried also to convert your bitmap image into curves using ''trace bitmap'' options of the program. But I haven't managed to select a separate object to duplicate or to delete it. Obviously, there is a lot to learn... Regards, ] (], ], ]) 17:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
	I mean, the same formulas for centrifugal force as those you use for particles can be applied to rigid bodies. IMO, this is not something worth mention in the introduction. By the way, I guess you agree that inertial couples (appearing together with fictitious forces in adjusted Newton-Euler equations used within non-inertial frames) definitely do not belong in this article! ] (]) 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
			----
	Please answer in this page, if you want to answer. ] (]) 10:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
			http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_04.html
	== Misunderstandings ==
			http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.4704v1.pdf
	Brews, believe me, I have a high esteem for you. I only think that you should clean up your edits on A-class articles, before saving or immediately after saving, and should read with more attention comments on talk pages before answering.
			http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0646v2.pdf
			http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0404/0404617v2.pdf
			== ] ==
	Please read with attention our discussion. I will do the same. It will take some time. Let's both take some time before engulfing the discussion with other useless statements. ] (]) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
			Here we go again. Since you can't help but violate your topic ban, I've requested that you get blocked for the rest of it. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
	== Moon article image size ==
			:Please see of this enforcement request, and let me know if you have any further comments. My conclusion is that you have agreed to make no more than one revert per article per week on anything in the natural sciences. In my mind, that includes mathematics. Your binding-voluntary ban expires at the same time as your topic ban from physics, that is, 22 August 2011. We have agreed to your stipulation that you may be blocked up to one week each time we decide that the new ban is violated. Thank you, ] (]) 18:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
			::EdJohnston: Regardless of your personal definition of "natural sciences", they do not include mathematics according to the everyday understanding of this term. See . The "natural sciences" are empirical in nature; mathematics is not. ] (]) 15:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
			::Obviously, my voluntary restriction was volunteered on the basis of the common interpretation of ordinary English. ] (]) 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
			:::Very well. Please see ]. ] (]) 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
			::::This escalation of a minor dispute to the level of a ''Request to amend a prior case'' is unwarranted. The whole matter could be settled without such drama. As it turns out, this request for amendment has since been transformed into a completely different matter, that can no longer be viewed as a ''Request for amendment'', but is in fact an entirely new Case based upon who knows what (no discovery has been done; it's all based upon gossip in secret among admins and bald assertions by vested interests). ] (]) 20:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
			== Proposed one-year ban ==
	Are you are aware that personal image preferences can be set under "my preferences" at the top of this page? Your forced image sizes were causing the image to go over the top of writing in the article from my persepective.] (]) 19:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
			Following up on the above notification of the request, I'm leaving you this note to let you know that in response to the above amendment request, one of my colleagues has for you. You may not have seen that proposal, so I'm formally notifying you here that this motion has been proposed, and to also give you a chance to make a statement. I, for one, will delay voting until you have had a chance to make a statement at that amendment page. ] (]) 02:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
	== Inertial frame of reference ==
	Congratulations for your work in ] :-)
			:This one-year ban exceeds by far the actual proposal by Timotheus Canens, already far in excess of the voluntary restriction agreed to. There is no proportion here, but punishment without regard for the crime, a shucking of propriety and responsible adjudication. ] (]) 00:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
	...is defined as:
	An inertial frame of reference is one in which the motion of a particle not subject to forces is a straight line.
			::It's not punishment, and there's no crime. It's just that you've made it more clear to more people that you and WP need some time apart. ] (]) 06:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
	Isn't "constant speed" missing? ] (]) 09:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
			:::What's clear to me is that you, Blackburne and Headbomb need to find a different target for your nonsense. ] (]) 06:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
	== Question about parabolic dish and coriolis effect ==
			::::Let's make one thing clear, I'm not hounding you, and I have never done so. I don't watch your page, nor do I stalk you through ] just to check if you violated your ban first thing in the morning. YOU violate your ban by doing things like editing WikiProject Physics' talk page, and making physics related edits on various articles I happen to have on my watchlist, then I react. If I was hounding you, don't you think I'd have reported you for the brouhaha you made at the Pythagorean theorem, or the cross product discussion thingamajig other people mentioned, or would have failed to notice that you edited ]'s article for weeks? If I was so hellbent on getting you banned, why did I give you a "" when you edited ] just a few weeks ago instead of jumping on the occasion to get you kicked out once again? That you insisted on screwing yourself over at ANI is your own fault.
	Hi Brews,
			::::And for general reference, the scope of ARBCOM proceedings are as wide and as flexible as the arbitrators deems the situation warrants. You had millions of chances, and you blew them all. Over the course of the last 16 or so months, you accused myself, JohnBlackburne, Sandstein, Timotheus Canens, Dicklyon, Michael C Price, Martin Hogbin, Psychim62, Finell, Dvdm, and countless others of being psychotic obsessive clueless maniacs devoid of judgment, or variants thereof, and the entirety of ARBCOM of being unable, unwilling, or otherwise unqualified to judge. Yet the possibility that ''you'' are the problem, and not ''the rest of the world'' does not even cross your mind. Even Count Iblis who stood by you most of the time wants a 0RR restriction on you and that doesn't make you flinch. You ] who dared speak against "]", in the veins of ] or ], or perhaps as the fictitious ] who gets sentenced to prison through bureaucratic means because he stood up to corporate interests, but the reality is that you are more like that ] because he can't get his way.
	about a month and a half ago you posted ]. I rarely visit[REDACTED] anymore, I just happened to notice the posting. Please visit my talk page to read my response. --] | ] 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
			::::And that's why you're getting kicked out. Reply or don't, but knowing you, you'll probably just revert this post or delete the section. Doesn't really matter to me.
	== Frame of reference ==
	Hi Paolo:
	It appears that you have drifted away from ] to discuss other articles. Maybe it's too much to say you are satisfied with ], but are going to let matters rest? ] (]) 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			::::I wish you all the best out there. A shame it had to come to this, but you forced our hand. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 08:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
	:I am too busy right now to read an article with attention. I just quickly edited some articles that I browsed to find information, not with the intention to edit. But I hope I'll find the time in the future to edit frame of reference and centrifugal force. Just one suggestion for you: remove the note about frame of reference from ]. It is not needed there, and it makes the article messy and unfocused. ] (]) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			Ive just left a note of congratulations for headbomb on his page, his manipulations and exaggerations have finally worked and you have been sitebanned. Shame it had to happen this way but maybe now he's had his pound of flesh he'll leave others alone but I doubt it. ] (]) 14:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			Headbomb: It's great that you have such a very positive self image. It is totally opposite to mine. According to me, you have hounded me incessantly over things as minor as adding a , which you claimed was a physics-related topic violation because this man wrote physics papers. You promptly brought a case against me and then as a contribution from a "banned user". Wow, what a person is forced to do! The number of trivial actions you have brought is mind boggling, and for you to feel that you were "forced" to do that is, well, amazing to put it mildly, particularly because what you "had" to do was damaging to WP and to its editing climate. However, I congratulate you on your success in eliminating me from WP. I didn't think you would succeed, but WP administrators are not always wise, again to put it mildly. ] (]) 14:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
	Hello. I'm wondering where you came up with this definition. 60 years of space travel do rarely justify the term archaeology, do they? Also, what is there to find other than ] that is already known? ] (]) 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Hi there: This is a work in progress. Please allow a little time for it to flesh out. ] (]) 22:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
			Oh, and your statement that I accused you and "countless others of being psychotic obsessive clueless maniacs devoid of judgment, or variants thereof, and the entirety of ARBCOM of being unable, unwilling, or otherwise unqualified to judge" is a fabrication from whole cloth, an accomplishment you have exhibited repeatedly in your testimony in cases, in which testimony your adherence to fact is not a strong point. ] (]) 15:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
	::Ok. Still, I find the term a bit weird. Can you provide references to read up on this? Because from scratch, I'd rather associate remote sensing with this. ] (]) 22:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Hi: I am working with an expert in this field, who will provide the meat of the article. My role here is just to introduce Misplaced Pages and get them started. 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
			== Arbitration amendment: Site banned for one year ==
	:::Now, that should become interesting. I moved the page to Space archaeology though, with the correct spelling. This "archeology" was merely a typo in the Hopkins newsletter heading - and later on they also used the right spelling. Cheers, ] (]) 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
			The ] case is supplemented as follows:
	== Groups ==
			<blockquote>{{User|Brews ohare}} is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.</blockquote>
	Hi,
			:''Passed 8 to 1 at 14:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC) On behalf of the Arbitration Committee ] (]) 14:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
			== November 2010 ==
	thanks for your recent interesting edit to ] (which I moved to the text body). As you also seem to be an image professional, could you think of a way that shows graphically the effect/presence of a group in this ] stuff you mentioned? In the b.s. article, there are some images, but none of them jumps right into my eye w.r.t. to groups (] is something, but without knowing what goes on, it is hard to grasp). Having something in this direction would be a nice addition to the groups article (we could replace one of the symmetric molecules by this, for this is a bit repetitive). Thank you for your help, ] (]) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
			<div class="user-block"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''one year'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] (]) 14:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->
			And so a sparking mathematics edit of which Headbomb claimed was a physics topic-ban violation, a claim not supported by , among others, all of whom found this to be a mathematics related edit supported by mathematics books as sources, leads to a site ban. Amazing!. Brews ohare (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
	:Hi, it's me again. I'm impressed by your contributions to the group article. However, I'm not sure whether the length and level of explanation is appropriate in an article like this. Pieces like "''accompanied by a so-called soft phonon mode, a vibrational lattice mode that goes to zero frequency at the transition''" are on the one hand difficult to understand, and, as far as I can tell from reading just this, unrelated to groups. Perhaps you might consider putting most of the explanation to the ] or ] pages? Otherwise I may do so at some point. Thanks, ] (]) 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
			:I don't expect you are particularly receptive to advice at this point, but this still need to be said so that you have an opportunity to reflect upon it before your eventual return: no single edit of yours led to a site ban; many many months of trying to skirt your restriction, of stoking old battles, and of complete refusal to accept even the ''possibility'' that your own behavior had a hand in your sanctions led to a site ban. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
			Also, just to note: Any appeal of this ban must be addressed only to the Arbitration Committee (via their procedure given ]) or to ]. ] ''(])'' 15:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
	== Nice work on Kinetics ==
			== Welcome back ==
	Thanks for the rework. It's so much more readable now. Can you lend a hand on Dynamics page, too? Even though the word "dynamics" is still used widely, it's no longer a branch of study, just like kinetics. I'm thinking that after clean-up, it makes sense to merge them. ] (]) 04:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
			Nice seeing you back Brews. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
	==]==
			:Dr K: Thanks for the welcome. I hope to steer clear of my detractors. ] (]) 20:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
	]
	This is an automated message from ]. I have performed a web search with the contents of ], and it appears to be very similar to another[REDACTED] page: ]. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
			== A word of advice ==
	This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on ]. ] (]) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
			Please consider ''easing'' back in. In particular, if you concentrate on your excellent work with illustrations and diagrams, you are very unlikely to end up in trouble. Return to editing to areas where you ran into trouble gradually, if at all, and the chances that things go amiss go down exponentially.
	== ] ==
			Welcome back. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
	You feel for it to review me, if you got the time to do so. It might be just a bold question, and I am not expecting a positive reaction, but I really need someone to do so. Thanks in advanche, ] (]) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
			:Coren: I appreciate your interest. As a "gradual" approach to areas where trouble has occurred in the past, my plan is not to avoid these areas entirely, as they are of great interest to me, but to avoid engaging in discussion with those editors that have demonstrated an unwillingness for conversation. That undoubtedly will mean abandoning some topics simply to avoid dispute, at the cost of seeing these matters inadequately presented on WP. However, it is entirely clear to me that any such engagement in which these editors choose to dispute with me can never be resolved on WP regardless of the merits, and will only result in ArbCom or ANI engagements that, in my view, are hopeless due to the unfortunate way these matters are handled here. ] (])
	== Centrifugal Force ==
			== Welcome back! ==
	Brews, first I'd like to thank you for supporting my unblock request. But since I won't be coming back in again, I want to take this opportunity to explain to you where I think that you are going wrong.
	Centrifugal force is one single topic. It can be described in the most simple terms as the outward radial force that is associated with rotation.
	It crops up in many scenarios. The classical mechanics topic 'rotating frames of reference' is only one such scenario.
	I don't see how you can see it any differently. You showed a much greater ability to comprehend matters on the electromagnetism articles. I don't know what happened to you when you came over to the centrifugal force page. One big difference of course was that there were no biased referees on the electromagnetism pages. My own belief is that you were swayed by this factor and that you were hence too willing to buy into the philosophy that centrifugal force is something that only occurs in rotating frames of reference. I know that you were genuinely trying to learn about the subject. But you were writing as you were learning. It's been as if you were learning on the job. And in my opinion you were being taught very badly by those around you.
	My advice to you is to try and listen more carefully to what Fugal is telling you. He knows what he is talking about. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #cdda00;"
	== Vector space graphic ==
			|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
			|rowspan="2" |
			|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Welcome back!'''
			|-
			|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |
			] (]) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
			|}
			::Thank you, Count. I hope we may have some interesting dialog concerning article content. ] (]) 14:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
			And from me ... welcome. ] (]) 18:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
	Hi Brews, thanks for your work on ]. I will also join in now with more content. Since you seem to be a graphic expert (among other things), I wonder whether you could help with the following (I'm a bloody idiot with Inkscape and so on, which is why I ask you): I think a graphic showing a vector bundle would be nice. More concretely I have in mind the ], which is a ] over the circle. The image should show the circle along with the M. str. and, this would be great, "zooming" in a small region and exhibiting the product structure of a little piece of the circle times the line. Could you do that? Cheers ] (]) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
			::Hey, Abrtact, thank you. I hope we can enjoy one another's contributions as before; I hope to avoid most of the drama this time around. ] (]) 20:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
			==Welcome back==
	== Centrifugal force (planar motion) ==
			I may have jumped the gun last time, but I hope I'm getting things right now. Anyway, '''welcome back'''! ] (]) 18:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
	I think it may be a good idea to save the article on your hard disk and then rewrite it a bit to make it slightly more general. The title could be changed, you don't have to mention "centrifugal force", you could perhaps call it "Classical mechanics in general coordinates".
			:Thanks Roger. I've always enjoyed working with you on our circuit interests. ] (]) 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
			== Edits to ] ==
	Anyway, I think you have done a lot of positive work here on Misplaced Pages. Don't waste time fighting stupid disputes :) ] (]) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
			Just a reminder of the arbitration decision posted to ] as archived in . You should also take note of ], which I think is especially pertinent here.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 18:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			:Hi John: I have no intention of engaging in any discussion on this topic: however, there are problems on ] that need to be addressed by those that so diligently look after this article. ] (]) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
	I have moved the article, see here:
			::John Brews, you can satisfy your need to advise on speed of light, and still abide by your indefinite ban on posting there, by posting your suggestions here on your talk page. I'm sure anyone who cares will watch and notice. ] (]) 18:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
	]
			:::Hi Dick: Thanks for that suggestion, which had not occurred to me. However, beyond to point out some difficulties with the article, I don't intend to engage. Having discovered how editors react at ], I predict that any engagement there would be futile. ] (]) 18:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
	I think we need to put less emphasis on centrifugal force and just focus on classical mechanics. ] (]) 22:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
			I would advice Brews to avoid lengthy arguments that go nowhere. It is ok. to kick off a discussion, but then read carefully what the feedback is. If you find that you need to repeat things that you have already posted, that's already a red flag. Only if you think that what you wrote was not properly understood, you could think about clarifying that, but after that point, it's best to conclude that issue. In this case, you won't be able to clarify in the lead the definition of the vacuum, some weeks ago I also made a comment about that, but the consensus is that the lead shouldn't be too technical.
	== Re: Opinion ==
			But, of course, Brews does have the right to at least raise an issue, even if it has already been discussed 2 years ago. The problem was never starting a discussion but ending it, which often involves having to accept that there is a lack of consensus for improving an article. You can't override that by arguing more, because this is ultimately a matter of taste. So, if the editors want to keep things simple in the lead, you can say that you don't agree with that, but it is then not productive to continue arguing why it should still be changed. ] (]) 19:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
	Looks good! I redirected the article I mentioned above to your article "Mechanics of planar particle motion".
			:Count: Excellent advice. I am subject to repeating myself when it really is of no use. ] (]) 19:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
	In the Lagrangian methods section, one could also write about imposing the constraint that a particle move along some curve using (time dependent) Lagrange multipliers and then mention the relation between the Lagrange multiplier and the normal force. ] (]) 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
			::Actually, the right to bring things up doesn't extend to pages from which you are indefinitely banned. ] (]) 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
	== Re: Lagrange multiplier and the normal force ==
			Note that I did edit some pages some time ago on related issue, like
	I think this can be found in most textbooks. I learned it from college notes at university, so I can't give you a specific ref. right now. This is not so important if a derivation from first principles is given. What matters is that statements in Misplaced Pages are verifiable.
			] where explicit formulae are given for the effective index of refraction in vacuum in the presence of a magnetic field. Misplaced Pages lacks a lot of content on such advanced topics, so there is a lot of work to do.
	So, a mathematical derivation can serve as the verification of a statement.
			Also, within classical electrodynamics, you could think about creating a new article based on . This is an old problem that was until recently never satisfactorily solved. After the development of quantum electrodynamics, this became an obsolete topic, so it was ignored. But, now that the problem has been solved, you could think about re-organizing all the Wiki-articles on this topic, like the one on Abraham-Lorenz force etc. etc. as they are actually wrong. ] (]) 20:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
	Making the derivation itself verifiable by giving a ref. to the literature is then besides the point because we are aiming at readers who can understand the derivation so they would be able to see that it is correct or false. Of course, when we take a derivation from a book, then we should give the ref. to that book.
			:These are interesting suggestions. Of course, the improvement of these articles involves some serious research on my part, so I'll have to see whether the itch to do that develops in me. As you may have noted, my comments on the speed of light article are in the nature of conceptual difficulties and not detailed appraisal of the experimental impact of these problems. ] (]) 14:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
	Then, because we don't need to closely follow any textbooks, we have a lot of freedom to adapt the derivation to the needs of the reader of the wiki article. I have contributed to some thermodynamics articles in this style, see e.g. ] and ]. The derivations there are similar to what you can find in books like the one by F. Reif, my old college notes and my own notes.
			==Your article has been moved to AfC space==
	The thermodynamics articles contained many elementary mistakes before I started to edit them. I still don't understand how such elementary errors could have remained in these articles for many years. I think that the wiki practice of sourcing statements could be have contributed to this. Erroneous statements were attributed to some source (in some case the source was a clone of the same wiki article) and then no one bothered to check. So, I decided that it may be better to give derivatons from first principles and not even bother to source them so that they will be scrutinized more. ] (]) 23:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
			Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: ] has been moved to ], this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ] (]) 15:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	== Re: Derivations and verifiability ==
			Hello Brews ohare, I came across ]. Did you intend to have this moved to mainspace, or did you want it in Misplaced Pages space? Best, ] ] 22:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
	This seems to be an ongoing discussion at the policy pages, ].
			:Hi Alpha Quadrant: I don't know how to answer that. Got some advice? ] (]) 22:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
	I also think that different wiki editors may disagree because they take a different view about what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be. There are people who take a very narrow view, who say that wiki articles should describe what can be found in sources in pretty much the same way as is written down in the sources. But I think that we then miss a great opportunity. With some effort we can write articles about physics that are accessible to people with less knowledge than is assumed in university textbooks.
			::Heh, I marked that essay under ''being reviewed'' since we have some new and unexperienced reviewers. I checked the essay and it looks not bad (except the case that there is a unneeded whitespace in the title and the essay notice box at the top is missing). I'm willing to move it - but OTOH I'm really not sure, if we need another essay - especially on our organization structure. Maybe the essay should be merged into a mainspace article like ], ], or any other article I might not notice. I won't do anything with the article, if you say move it, i will move it; if you say "decline it" I will decline it - I will wait on your response ;) ] 14:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
	If you think of a (physics) textbook as a linear sequence of text, then[REDACTED] is a multidimensional sequence. The wikilinks allow you to move in many different directions. So, in principle, it could be superior to a textbook. ] (]) 17:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
			:::Hi Mabdul:
	== Derivations ==
			:::I think the right place for is as a part of ]. If you agree, the nutshell banner should be removed, and that text made part of the first paragraph. I have edited the article accordingly. Hope you will transfer it. ] (]) 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
			== Your submission at ] ==
			<div style="
			border:solid 1px #57DB1E;
			background:#E6FFE6;
			padding:1em;
			padding-top:0.5em;
			padding-bottom:0.5em;
			width:20em;
			color:black;
			margin-bottom: 1.5em;
			margin-left: 1.5em;
			width: 90%;
			">] '''], which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.'''
			* The article has been assessed as '''C-Class''', which is recorded on the article's ]. You may like to take a look at the ] to see how you can improve the article.
			* You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to ]. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can ], and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to ].
			* If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the ] or on the
			* If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider {{feedback link
			|page=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation
			|text=leaving us some feedback.
			|plain=yes
			}}
			Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!
			] (]) 18:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc talk-->
			== Graphic design ==
	Hey Brews. Glad to see you doing more work on the transistor articles. I notice you're adding derivations for the different characteristics - do you really think that's necessary? I think it might be better to omit them and just refer readers to textbooks to see the derivations. Or perhaps show all the derivations in a separate article to keep the main one concise and less intimidating. What do you think? ] (]) 01:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
			Hi Brews! I am here to compliment you on your spectacular graphics, and to ask advice.
	:I guess it's clear I like some derivation, particularly if it's not too involved. There are a couple of reasons: (i) I don't find textbooks a great source of derivations. (ii) I do find a derivation adds to credibility, which Wiki can use a lot of. Simple statements that such-and-such is so, even when cited, is subject to abuse that simple logic may avoid. (iii) I find writing on the circuit diagram a great way to do it, and texts don't do it that way much; it makes the derivations very straightforward. (iv) A derivation provides insight into the material. ] (]) 06:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
			I am a very visual person and I think as much in diagrams as in words, but on Misplaced Pages I am handicapped by being completely illiterate in the area of digital graphics. I am an aeronautical engineer and I run Microsoft Windows 7 on my PC. Can you suggest how I might get into graphics with a view to ultimately being able to produce diagrams of the kind I see on your User page? Many thanks for any advice. I will watch your Talk page for your reply. ] ''(])'' 05:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
	== Vector space ==
			:Hi Dolphin: My approach to graphics is not very sophisticated. I use Microsoft Excel to draw the pictures. The early versions like '97 aren't good, but the '03 and later versions have good control over color and line widths.
	Hi Brews, I remember you made a number of physics-related edits to ]. I'm currently trying to get the article to GA standard. The last step for this, I think, is providing references for various statements. I'm trying my best to cover the mathematical aspects, but could I ask you to help out with physical facts? I marked the facts/paragraphs where I think we need some references with a {{fact}}-tag. If you could help out, I'd be grateful, since I don't have readily access to a physics library. Thank you, and see you over there, ] (]) 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
			:Once the picture is drawn, I copy it and paste it into Microsoft Paint as a .PNG file. I save that file in My Pictures folder. Then I can find it using the UPLOAD FILE link on the Wikimedia Commons and follow the directions there.
	== nu to theta ==
			:I takes a while to get the hang of the various features of Excel. Mainly I use the "Shapes" & "Text Box" icons and the various menus for adding color, adjusting linewidth and so forth. You can use Ctrl & Shift simultaneously to select multiple items and the "Group" feature to make them behave as one unit to move them around together. The right mouse button lets you move things to the front or back, so you can assemble layers of items.
	Hi. Please don't forget ]. ] (]) 10:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
	I changed the figure. It is not mathematically exact, but I hope it will do. ] (]) 12:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)		:Hope you have fun with this. ] (]) 07:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
			::Thanks Brews! That sounds like a great challenge so I am off to have a go right now. ] ''(])'' 11:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
			== Sour grapes at WP:Talk:Notability ==
	== Thanks for you drawing. ==
			Brews,
	See however ]. ] (]) 23:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
			It is clear that your are passionate about this notability issue. This statement says it all: <small>''Well, its great to see two old "nemeses" reach agreement. But about what exactly? Rather than consider the possibility that notability could be established by various means, the agreement is that notability is "what people talk about" and is quite separate from "importance". Well folks, IMO that position really just means that the status quo is so important to you all that any nonsense can be resorted to in its support. Perhaps fortunately, WP is replete with articles that do not satisfy the present notability requirements. So perhaps the de facto situation on WP is wiser than the de jure version, eh?''</small> But it comes off as a bit of sour grapes. You asked a question on a talk page and three experienced editors '''took their time''' to answer your question as they see practice in WP. The fact that you have some fundamental disagreement with WP practice is perfectly OK (I have a shopping list of such disagreement). But it is not OK to chastise individual editors for their views, especially when they are trying to explain them and help someone else understand. There are avenues for changing policies and guidelines in WP, but they aren't easy because our practice has 11 years of success behind it. The three of us that responded to your question aren't in your way, its an entire community of 136,000 active editors that you must convince. However those discussions occur, you've got to respect and understand other members of the community positions, just like we will respect and try to understand yours. Acceptance of one or the other position is above and beyond that. --] (]) 16:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
			:Mike: I do respect the participants (though not their positions) and consider it a privilege to engage in such discussions. I do not think, however, that the examples I brought forward were carefully considered, and also am of the opinion that you three express a united view neither well formed nor based upon an awareness of what is needed. Rather, it is a simple repetition of the existing policy as a sacred text without examination of its purposes and effect.
			:Thanks for engaging here. ] (]) 16:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
			== Forum shopping ==
	== Continuation behind the scenes ==
			Please be aware that much of your talk page actions of the last several days would fall under the undesirable behavior as ], seemingly based on the simple movement of ] from main space to Misplaced Pages space; from there you took it to WT:NOR () (and an attempt to delete ] ), to ] () to creating your own notability guideline ], and now back again to WT:NOR ().
	Brews, I've just activated the e-mail user option. I've decided that this debate would best be carried out on a one-to-one behind the scenes. It is about trying to master an overall comprehension of the topic. I wouldn't have stayed here so long if I hadn't believed that you were genuinely trying to understand the topic. But[REDACTED] is not the right medium for that purpose.
	When you were on the EM articles, I saw that you were interested in the '''A''' vector. Basically the -(partial)d'''A'''/dt in the Lorentz force is the Euler force. But we can't discuss that here. I had a difficult time even trying to get the third term of the Lorentz force overtly recognized even though it is in modern literature, so there'd be no point in quoting Maxwell to get the fourth term mentioned. The fourth term is centrifugal force grad('''A'''.'''v''').
	Try and e-mail me. If it doesn't work, let me know on my talk page.
	There is no point in carrying on on the centrifugal force talk page because there are too many people working at cross purposes.
	There is a very simple pattern to all this. It is four Lorentz force terms. Two tangential and two radial. In EM, the tangential terms are Faraday's law (and also the radial terms which give zero curl). In Gravity, Kepler's second law balances them to zero. ] (]) 19:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
			This is a classic definition of forum shopping because you are not getting the answers you want for a specific case. This type of behavior is not appropriate and if you continue to engage in it, you may be blocked from editing.
	== Mediation requested ==
			On the specific issue, several editors including myself have tried to explain what the consensus is, and - ultimately back to the original point - why the Formal Organization article was moved out of mainspace. You need to recognize that the consensus weighs towards keeping this in Misplaced Pages space. Several pieces of advice for potentially bringing this article or something like it into mainspace have been given and you should how you could write such an article knowing this advice. --] (]) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
	A ] has been filed with the ] that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at ], and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to ]. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, ] ] 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC) ] ] 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
			:Masem:You totally mischaracterize my discussions in your lead paragraph, trying to make my discussion of various policies part of a ridiculous lobbying activity. I frankly cannot fathom where you got these ideas. In addition, you have completely ignored my stated intentions and falsely claim that I tried to have ] deleted. Please notice that I made comments on its Talk page and elsewhere that flatly contradict your statements.
			:I don't give a hoot what happens to ]. I regard this article as a gift of mine to WP to help it explain itself, an article it needs and no-one was interested in writing, and WP can use it to explain its organization or trash it as WP sees fit. I am not going to lobby for its introduction to mainspace.
			:My purpose in writing on ], ] and ] is to make these guidelines make sense. Sometimes I have used ] as an example to illustrate where I think these policies need revision.
			:That is the ''only'' reason I have brought this article up.
			:I am really disappointed that you should search for some strange motive in my actions. I am even more disturbed that you should overture a violation of WP conduct. That is really a nasty step.
			:If you feel that discussion of possible revisions of WP policies is so distasteful that you must resist reform not on the merits but by actions like you have begun here, that is indeed sad. An administrator like yourself should be among those anxious to see the discussion of policies vigorously pursued to help WP evolve.
			:] (]) 21:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
			::But it clearly follows the typical pattern of forum shopping. Each step can been seen trying to get the answer you want to bring back the Formal Organization back to mainspace, by first challenging the primary sourcing policy, to challenging exceptions to notability, to trying to create your own notability guideline, to challenging what the definition of primary/secondary sources are. You've abandoned the previous discussions in moving to the next one.
			::Mind you, you may not be doing this intentionally, and that's why I wrote this as a caution and not an ultimatum. But the reason I wrote it is that, say, if you start another discussion from the current WT:OR one about what are primary sources on yet another talk page, you will likely see yourself blocked for this.
			::Note that there's a difference between "making sure the guidelines make sense" and "changing the guidelines". The former is completely acceptable, but that's not what you're doing. You're challenging the guidelines - which is fine, we are to be open to new ideas - but doing it in a manner that begs "I want it this way", and seemingly when you get a rejection, take it elsewhere. Again, you may be doing it unintentionally or without realizing that forum shopping is discouraged, which is understandable, but you are now aware this is not a good practice to do. The better way to try to gain consensus on what you are doing is to create a ] and notify appropriate talk pages to bring discussion there. But you should figure out and spell out what exactly you want to change or add on specific pages, instead of just challenging "this guideline is a problem" which is what your current approach is doing. --] (]) 21:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
	==Request for mediation not accepted==		===Backoff - both of you ===
			Unfortunately I didn't get this in before Masem's last edit but it still applies.
	{| class="messagebox" style="width:90%"
			Masem, you raised the point civily, you need not further elaborate or respond.
	|-
			Brews, a member of the community perceived you were forum shopping. Only you can decide whether you were or not, I don't care, but perceptions can sometimes be warning signs to be considered. But aggressively defending yourself as you did isn't necessary either. Its actual behavior that counts here. Neither of you need respond to this other than continue productively editing the encyclopedia. --] (]) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
	|]
			:Mike: Thanks for your comment. My reaction is strong because threats of misconduct are both alarming and misplaced, and I have been subject in the past to arbitrary actions taken on slight pretext.
	|A ] to which you were are a party was ] and has been delisted.<br>You can find more information on the case subpage, ].</center><br>
			:I will not comment further upon policy at this time. Of course, policy should be vigorously examined, but acts of intimidation like this suppress discussion. ] (]) 21:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
	::''For the Mediation Committee,'' <span style="font-variant: small-caps">'''] ]'''</span> 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
			===Notes===
			I have included these notes for use in the event of some sudden administrative action.
			My attempts at policy modification began on WP:NOR with an that led to the suggestion that Notability was the issue. Discussion on Notability led to , something whose existence I was unaware of, and as a result . That can be found among . Discussion on that Talk page led Blueboar to with ]. At that point I went to the Talk page there to bring up that issue, and that I had done so. proceeded normally, and I discovered following comments by Paul Siebert that the distinction between primary and secondary sources was really important only to the policy ], bringing me back to that policy. This evolution of discussion was just too much for Masem, who then decided to interrupt these actions of mine. Ignoring WP policy ], Masem challenged my explicitly stated reasons for a change in policy, suggesting my actions were not genuine, but stemmed from desire to move ] to mainspace. His 'clairvoyance' reclassified my actions as misconduct, even my creation of a ]. The basis for his insight into my motives is a so-called explicable in Masem's mind not as a natural progression of discussion, but more probably explained as Forum shopping that required his administrative intervention. My explicitly stated reasons for why I thought policy changes were needed were classified as subterfuge, not policy deficiency. In a rather unrelated accusation intended to buttress his view that I was disruptive, Masem that I had attempted deletion of ], in flat contradiction to on its Talk page and, of course, despite there being no formal request for deletion. Administrator Masem's interruption apparently was encouraged by editor Fifelfoo's substantial contribution that this discussion of policy was , a view bandwagoned later by editor Djathinkimacowboy.
			It is apparent that any further attempt to clarify these policies will be taken as disruptive, so the matter must be dropped. All of my interactions have been on Talk pages or in my own user space, arenas nominally reserved for open discussion, ostensibly intended for civil exchanges of viewpoint, free from administrative intimidation. ] (]) 22:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
			== Re: Calgary-Fish Creek question ==
			Brews, Re Calgary-Fish Creek. The WP community suffers from a syndrome that is common in large collaborative enterprises—we unintentionally use a lot of ambiguous language. The language is ambiguous—''open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivoca''—because we have co-opted terminology from everyday language and repurposed it to the needs of WP. Primary and secondary sources are a good example of that. Notability is the classic example. In the case of sources, if you are an historian, you know exactly what is considered a primary source in your discipline—old newspaper accounts, interviews, diaries, journals, etc. In the sciences, it’s different. Primary sources are the raw data, the experiments, individual observations, hypothesizes etc. In every academic discipline, what is considered a primary source is different. Outside academia or research type disciplines, primary-secondary sources have little meaning. Unfortunately WP (an encyclopedia—a tertiary source) lumps all this together with two simple labels—primary and secondary. So when we begin to apply these ideas of notability which depends on the use of secondary sources independent of the topic, we sometimes create confusion—what sources are primary and what sources are secondary, what sources are independent? For articles like ] the distinction isn’t all that clear. And within WP, in fact I believe that many primary sources in one context, can indeed be secondary in another context.
			So if we look at ] from a notability standpoint, we can say this. 1) it is notable because there is a presumption that political sub-divisions have been discussed in secondary sources independent of the topic. 2) it has not been nominated for deletion (CSD, PROD, or AfD). 3) if it had been nominated, is was not deleted. If we look at the sources in the article, I would consider all the Alberta Heritage Foundation sources to be secondary and independent of the topic. Although some of the Elections Alberta are secondary, they might not be considered independent of the topic but I think they are. However, the first source: would be considered secondary and independent of the topic in the WP context. Why would I say that? Well it compiles a lot of data from other primary sources—legislative hearings, surveys, etc. It is independent of Calgary-Fish Creek, in other words, Calgary-Fish Creek as a political sub-division did not create or significantly influence the contents of the source. Does this seem confusing? Indeed it is when one thinks about these terms in contexts outside the realm of WP. Here’s where I think the confusion arises. There are really only two types of articles where the secondary sources might not be independent of the topic—people and enterprises—governments, companies and corporations, associations, international associations, non-profits, etc. Both people and enterprises can publish or influence published information about themselves in secondary sources. Battles, histories, biology, science, geology, geography, social and cultural stuff etc. type articles don’t publish or influence any sources, thus all sources on the topic are inherently independent of the topic. No source on the ] could be considered not independent of the topic. So in the case of ], a political sub-division (in this case an electoral district), is it an enterprise or a description of geography, much like a mountain peak, a lake or a river. I suspect is much more geography than an enterprise. In fact I can’t even find anything that describes Calgary-Fish Creek as an enterprise.
			So where does that leave us? Well first, WP’s inclusion criteria are actually pretty liberal and straightforward. However, it is only so if you leave your notion of primary and secondary sources that you carry from the outside world at the door. In WP, the distinction between them is purely contextual. You also have to accept that many classes of articles carry a presumption of notability if the topic is a member of the class (people and enterprises are the glaring exception here). Geography is one of those classes. If a named mountain exists, it is presumed notable—discussed in secondary sources—otherwise it wouldn’t exist as a named mountain.
			I don’t know if this helps, but it was fun thinking about it. --] (]) 15:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
			:Mike: Thanks for your answer, which shows you've thought about the topic.
			:Although you have concluded that you have constructed a rationale for ] being notable based upon WP's usage, I personally find it far too complicated to be reassuring. Any such argument for notability on WP would not get past first base if there were a few editors that wanted this article off the encyclopedia on the grounds that it wasn't notable. The discussion of notability either would never end, or end with the defender in AN/I for tendentious editing.
			:One of the problems on WP is these arguments between editors, which could be settled if things like "notability" were clear-cut on WP, regardless of what definition that was, regardless of its relation to usage anywhere else. Then any ass could see if an article were notable or not, and argument wouldn't happen.
			:Instead, the actual ''de facto'' test of notability is whether the article has survived on WP, either after being challenged, or because it never got anybody interested enough to challenge it. In other words, there is no easy definition of "notability" on WP, whatever the policy claims, and it is only by <u>experiment</u> that one finds if an article has this quality, and that is an attribute that may be withdrawn at any time, given an adroit campaign to remove it.
			:It may be there is no way to resolve these useless quarrels on WP, but clear policy would be one way. Perhaps the policy should be rewritten until it proves by <u>experiment</u> ''with the policy'' to (i) be clear enough that argument is greatly reduced, and (ii) serves as a filter for desirable ''vs.'' undesirable articles. At present, on WP unending debate about policy changes occurs, based upon ''speculation'' & ''hypotheticals'' about what some particular change might cause to happen. These debates usually prevent substantial evolution of the policies. Policies are inflexible on this account, and fruitless debate denies WP one mechanism to evolve to fit the demands upon it. Construction of means to adapt policy is broken.
			:Maybe we need a provision on WP that allows the evolution of policy by ''experiment'': actually collect evidence on the effect of policy changes, in place of rhetoric?
			:In fact, it might be possible to look at articles presently on WP and try to classify them regarding notability issues to see what the ''de facto'' notability situation is? One could even elect to test the existing articles for notability by challenging their notability and seeing what arguments come up? Doubtless that would be considered a "disruption" of WP unless there were some support for such an effort. ] (]) 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
			:: Brews, have you ever looked at ]? Seems like that's what you are talking about above. --] (]) 16:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
			:::Mike: I wasn't aware of this page; I'll take a look at it. Thanks. ] (]) 17:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
			:::Mike: It appears that ] is an unofficial guide as to what is notable and what is not. I'd say that ] doesn't fit into any of the listed categories. Neither do the various descriptions of official offices, or laws on certain subjects. It seems likely that the list at ] could be expanded significantly.
			:::Also, as an unofficial document, should a challenge come up and this page be cited as supporting retention, I suspect it will not be accepted as definitive over the challengers claims that the article should be deleted as not notable.
			::Do you agree with my notion of the content of this page? ] (]) 00:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
			== AN/I notice ==
			Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
			== Copy and paste move ==
			] Hi, and thank you for ] to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you recently tried to give ] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into ]. This is known as a "] move", and it is undesirable because it splits the ], which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Misplaced Pages has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.
			In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the ] at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a ] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at ] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-c&pmove--> <small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 18:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
			== Note about proposed guideline ==
			Despite how inappropriate I think "Comment 8" was, I wanted to point out that it actually is pretty unlikely that this will be promoted to a guideline. Behavioral guidelines are very limited to general statements like assuming good fiath, and a page that suggests a manner of response on a talk page in any more specific terms than that is something the community will consider too restrictive for an actual guideline (since guidelines do have "power" for lack of a better word). All pages with content comparable to yours are thus far essays, and there are a lot of them -- including quite a few long-standing and oft-linked essays that probably have much more of a chance at being promoted, and yet still, will never be. Knowing that, I see it as excessively optimistic to write an original page like this one and immediately propose that it become a guideline. I think you might consider settling for an essay, which as a bonus, will probably be less likely to garner the kind of negative attention you're getting now. <font face="Century Gothic">] <small>]</small> 17:42, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)</font>
			:Thanks for the observations. I'd hoped for a wider interest in this topic, but aside from yourself and Diego I've had only the attention of Blackburne, who is opposed to the matter because it impacts his standard ''modus operandi'' of citing a policy and responding to requests for clarification with "Go read the policy". Further requests for clarification result in AN/I actions, that sometimes prove successful. I was interested to see how completely frank Blackburne is about his approach to such matters.
			:I have little knowledge of how WP works, but I do understand that policies and guidelines are nearly impossible to introduce or change, with discussion of proposals usually degenerating into completely irrelevant and inconsequential babble. If there is no further interest in this proposal as a guideline, I guess an essay will be all that is left. ] (]) 17:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
			==Dispute resolution survey==
			{| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5"
			| ]
			<big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big>
			----
			Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
			'''Please click to participate.'''<br>
			Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
			----
			<small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated ]. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 11:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
	|}		|}
	<small><center>This message delivered by ], an automated bot account ] by the ] to perform case management.<br>If you have questions about this bot, please ].</small></center>
			== Reference formatting style ==
	== Displacement Current ==
			John, where did you get your unique style of formatting references? I haven't encountered anything like it from other editors in all my years at WP, and I find it very confusing to see major source-level breaks that look like paragraph breaks, inside references. Do you think you could move to a more normal style, for better compatibility with collaborators? ] (]) 15:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
	Brews, the important thing is to realize that Maxwell's method for obtaining displacement current bore no similarity to the modern 'conservation of charge' method. Maxwell seemed to settle on a linear polarization method, even though the preamble in part III of his 1861 paper indicated that he may have been toying with a magnetization approach.
			:I just use the template <nowiki>{{cite book}}</nowiki>. I separate the citation from the text for ease in editing. The better way is to use <nowiki>{{reflist |refs = }}</nowiki> format that places all the reference info in its own section at the bottom of the page. Of course there are other approaches like the Harvard reference system, but I haven't used that enough to make it second nature. ] (]) 15:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
	Maxwell did not involve capacitors in his derivation of displacement current. But the subsequent identification of displacement current with linear polarization must have caused future generations to link it to capacitor circuits.
			::It's the way you "separate the citation from the text" that idiosyncratic. Nobody does that. As for putting all the refs at the end, I've never seen that, either. I bet that would be harder to maintain; you'd have to edit two sections just to add a ref. ] (]) 15:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
	The new 'conservation of charge' method must have arisen in the 20th century post-aether era, because there was then no longer any dielectric in space to be polarized, yet they couldn't get rid of the displacement current in the vacuum because it was essential for EM radiation.
	The problem is that the 'conservation of charge' method doesn't fit with EM radiation because it is the wrong '''E''' vector. Interestingly, Maxwell's method still applies in relation to dielectric materials. ] (]) 05:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
			::Better as in how? The vast majority of articles use inline references as it works and is far easier to maintain. If you prefer it that's fine but like other formatting changes you should never change the formatting or style of existing references based on your personal preference, per ]. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I've just removed a chunk of apparent original research from the ] article. However, what remains could do with some improvement; I'd greatly appreciate it if you could you take a look at it. -- ] (]) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
	I modified this article somewhat, adding some historical context. That led to modification of ]; it never ends. ] (]) 21:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)		Blackburne: It's nice of you to undertake the patrol duties to enforce what you like, but in this case the references were all added and formatted by myself. So, in fact, you contravened the very principle you tried to enforce. ] (]) 21:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			Your idea of what is easier to maintain is contrary to my own: the text is kept clean and easier to maintain with the <nowiki>{{reflist |refs= }}</nowiki> format that keeps ref info out of the text, and so are the references themselves. The main complication of this approach is use of named references <nowiki><ref name =ThisRef></ref></nowiki>instead of simply <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>. Another advantage of this system is that you can ] in categories using, for example, <nowiki><ref name=ThisRef group=Note></ref> and {{reflist|group=Note|refs= }}</nowiki>. ] (]) 22:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
	== Definition of free space ==
			:I agree. It is also my preferred style. A few examples: ], a featured article uses this style. Also ]. I borrowed this style and adopted it for my articles. See ], ] etc. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 22:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
	Hi Brews,
			: Yes, that's your opinion and preferences, and based on how they are used in 99% (I estimate) of articles your preferences are shared by few. What I like has nothing to do with it: you shouldn't change the format of references or anything, per ], simply to suit your own preferences.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 22:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
	You seem to believe both of the following:
			::It is undeniable that the format Brews and I use makes editing much easier by eliminating the bulk of the citation from the main article corpus. It may well be that few people know about the advantages of this format or are even unaware of it. For instance I think that the article of Adolf Hitler was converted to the new format relatively recently. You can ask ] about it. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 22:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
	Free space is ''by definition'' a medium in which the speed of light is c<sub>0</sub>, the permittivity is ε<sub>0</sub>, etc.
			:::If that were really so then I think it would be much more prevalent in articles, as well as recommended or even mandated in the formatting guidelines, as has happened with many other things (straight vs. curly quotes, references before or after punctuation). But ] are clear: there are many ways to do references, none is better, and editors should not change the style from one to another without some reason other than their personal preferences.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 22:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			::::I think that the reason exists but this is not the place to debate the merits of this method or of the alternatives. However I agree that any massive change, even for the better, should be a matter of consensus between editors and it should not be imposed unilaterally. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 23:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			I'm not sure what you guys are going on about. There's nothing in the ] article that resembles the ref source spacing style that I was talking about. I believe this "style" is unique to Brews. As to whether you group refs at the end or not, that's an entirely different matter, distracting from my point. ] (]) 00:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
	c<sub>0</sub> is ''by definition'' the speed of light in free space. ε<sub>0</sub> is ''by definition'' the permittivity in free space. Etc.
			:To be truthful I did not check your comments in particular, but rather Brews' explanations of the code he used. That's where I based my reply on, not your comments. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 00:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
			:What you are talking about, Dick, is simply whether one writes a reference in line as <nowiki><ref></nowiki>
	This is a circular definition, isn't it? You haven't defined anything at all.
			:<nowiki>{{cite book | blah |blah |blah}}</nowiki>
	How do you measure a meter? Well, it's how far light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds in free space. How do you know that your measurement is actually in something close to free space, and not in a far-from-free-space-medium? Well, you could check that the speed of light is close to 299,792,458 meters per second, except that you don't know what a meter is. You could check that ε<sub>0</sub> is close to 9 pF/meter, but again, you don't know what a meter, amp, or coulomb is. So there's no way to know whether your medium is anywhere close to free space. It could be 100 orders of magnitude off. Right??? :-) --] (]) 03:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
			:<nowiki></ref></nowiki> or writes it <nowiki><ref></nowiki>
	:Hi Steve: I've taken a while to respond. I had to think about it. Here is my take - tell me what you think of it.
			:<nowiki>{{cite book </nowiki>
	:Free space has defined properties and so is beyond experiment. It is a hypothetical medium.
			:<nowiki>|blah </nowiki>
			:<nowiki>|blah </nowiki>
			:<nowiki>|blah }}</nowiki>
			:<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
	:However, measurements of the meter do not take place in free space. To measure the meter, one first sets up an elaborate clock to obtain a second (within a few Herz). Then one sets up a light source and detector in a gas, say, and separates them so time from emission to detection takes 1/''c<sub>0</sub>'' seconds. Then either (i) one measures at several gas pressures and fits some curve to the points and extrapolates to zero pressure, or (ii) one calculates the ] of your gas from formula using measured gas pressure (the advantage is NIST does the extrapolation, saving you the trouble); then your measured meter is corrected accordingly using ''n''.
			:Why do you care?
	:It seems to me there is nothing circular here because there are two definitions involved: the definition of free space and the definition of the procedure used to approximate free space in the lab. If we defined ''c<sub>0</sub> '' differently, we'd get a different length for the meter, but who cares: if everybody adopted the same ''c<sub>0</sub> '', everybody would have the same meter.
			:What Blackburne is "going on" about is that he reverted my choice of formatting references without realizing they were mine to make, on the pretext of moral superiority, and now wants to trumpet his superiority, even though based upon his personal misappraisal of the situation. ] (]) 00:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
	:If extrapolation does not consistently produce the same meter, that is an error in either the theory used for extrapolation, or in the assessment of gas pressure. If the procedure consistently produces different meters for linearly and circularly polarized light, then we'd have to specify the polarization used to measure the meter, but it wouldn't matter whether we picked the speed of one polarization or the other to set the parameters of free space. We probably would ask why dichroism occurred even in the limit of zero pressure, but that is a real-world question, not a question about free space. ] (]) 21:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
			{{od}}No, in your attempt to show it, you're not displaying how it looks in the source, where the reference text is floating, away from the tags, looking like a paragraph. It makes the visual organization of the source text very unusual and confusing. More like this:
	Brews, thanks for bringing that paper to my attention. I will not be getting too involved in the aether debate here on wikipedia, because it is guaranteed to lead to an edit war, with people arguing over the legitimacy of sources. Have a look at this article meanwhile . I did however want to bring your attention to the links between density and magnetic permeability, and between elasticity and dielectric constant in regard to how Maxwell calculated the speed of light using Newton's equation for the speed of sound. Even if we can't write too much about that in main articles, I saw that you were curious enough about the topic to want to know more.
			<nowiki>The motion of an object can be considered to be a signal, and can be monitored by various sensors to provide electrical signals.<ref name= Lu></nowiki>
	I've now been able to open the link which you supplied. Yes, I am familiar with this paper already. I have communicated with both the authors. They in turn refer to a paper which was written in 1998 by the brother of one of the authors. Here is a direct link to that paper. ] (]) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
	== Martin, what are you up to? ==
			For an example from robotics, see
	I would prefer to have any discussion on the article talk page. ] (]) 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
			{{cite book |title=Neural Information Processing: 18th International Conference, Iconip 2011, Shanghai,china, November 13-17, 2011 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=cU4skcyGRFUC&pg=PA506 |pages=506 ''ff'' |chapter=Analog-digital circuit for motion detection based on vertebrate retina and its application to mobile robot |author=K Nishio and T Yasuda |editor=Bao-Liang Lu, Liqing Zhang, James Kwok |year=2011 |publisher=Springer |isbn=3642249647}}
	==AfD nomination of Space archaeology==
	<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>I have nominated ], an article that you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 18:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
			<nowiki></ref>For example, ] can provide an electromagnetic signal for following aircraft motion.</nowiki>
	== The Aether ==
			Although, in the recent article in question, you didn't put that first empty line after <nowiki><ref></nowiki> as you usually do; just the lower one before <nowiki></ref></nowiki>
	Brews, I have been involved in this field since the 1970's. I have my own views on the matter. As far as I am concerned, the aether is alive and well. But the aether needs to be rendered into a sea of tiny whirlpools in order to act as the luminiferous medium. I got most of my inspiration from Maxwell's 1861 paper which accounts for my determination to point out that centrifugal force is a real force that is associated with pure aether pressure.
			] (]) 02:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
			: I undid your change based on policy, cited ''and'' explained above. As for "moral superiority" and "trumpet his superiority" you perhaps need to read another policy, ] and reconsider your comments.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
	I am aware that there have been many attempts by dissidents to re-introduce the luminiferous medium. Often these attempts are very confused in my opinion. I began with displacement current. My realization that the textbook explanation was unsatisfactory led me to look up how Maxwell himself did it. It was then that I realized that we need to have a dielectric medium pervading what is commonly believed to be the vacuum. Later I realized that the dipoles need to be rotating and that magnetic repulsion is caused by centrifugal pressure between adjacent dipoles in their mutual equatorial planes. You can have a look at my article 'The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field' at . However it has been extended by many follow up papers. One that you might be particularly interested in is the 'The Cause of Coriolis Force' at . You will find papers at that last web link address for all numbers up to 60 with the exception of 1,2,10,34, and 46. The ones that you might find the most interesting are 11, 12, 14, 43,44, 48,49,54, and the last six. ] (]) 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
			::John, you probably missed that I had just changed one ref format before Brews changed it back. I was trying to illustrate a good way to do it. I remain unclear on whether it's OK for an editor to maintain a completely idiosyncratic style of his own. This has bugged me about him for years (since 2009), but never before rose to the top of my list of reasons to change or revert his contributions. So that's progress, isn't it? ] (]) 02:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
	== We've edit conflicted, so I've restored all you tweak except one ==
			== "*Comments" subheadings ==
	I just don't know what you did here: . If you could restore it, that would be neat.]&nbsp;{<sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">]</sub>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;]} 18:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
			Please stop inserting these between comments. They are unnecessary, interfere with the proper threaded conversation, are not normally used in talk page conversations and have been removed by two editors so we already have a third opinion that they are not needed. I would also note that edit re-added them without explanation and marked the edit as minor. Contentious edits should always be explained and never marked as minor. Your last edit summary, re-adding them because you were "the one originiting this discussion" is irrelevant as no-one owns the discussion or the talk page, per ].--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 02:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
	== What's wrong? ==
			:Blackburne: The comment headers separate comments by different individuals with their back-and-forths, which helps me keep track of who says what. You don't like it. So what? I requested the feedback, and it helps me. It doesn't interfere with anyone else (maybe you excepted). So what are you up to here? I'm sure you love to enforce your own ideas about what is "proper procedure" but there is no hard and fast on this matter. Your citation of ] is another example of your stretching policies to suit yourself. ] (]) 05:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
			== Arbitration request for clarification ==
	Hi, looking over your recent edits, I notice that you think that I am edit warring. I ''really'', ''sincerely'' am not trying to war. I am trying to convince you that there are some problems with the text you are inserting. But you sometimes stop discussing with me for no reason. If you have a problem, or feel strongly about a text, let me know. Restore it, and make an argument for its inclusion. It's hard work, but if there is back and forth between two editors with slightly antagonistic aims and good faith, the text invariably improves.
			I have raised the recent discussions concerning you at Wavelength and its talk page here
	The accuracy of the QCD paper is something you clarified for me, for example. I think we both agree it's somewhere between 1% and 4%, depending on how charitable you are to the authors. If you have problems with this, please let me know.
			]
	The sources on photon mass that you insert are decent, except for one, which I pointed out on the talk page. Please read the comment. I think you hit on one bad apple there.
			--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 00:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
	The text you want for photon mass "the photon's rest mass is calculated by analogy with other particles, by subtracting the square of the momentum from the square of the energy", I feel is too technical for this section. But if you feel strongly about that, then reinsert it. This is just a question of clarity for the non-technical reader.
			==Suggestion ==
	As for the sources you use, they are sometimes too technical, and too far removed from the original author of the result. If you want to say "the photon has this bound for the rest mass", it's best to link to the paper that establishes the bound, so readers can evaluate it. I went through your source in the cavity QED book, but the reference happens to be in a page of the book that is not freely accessible, so I couldn't cite the original author. If you know what this reference is, it would be good to bypass the secondary author.] (]) 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
			Looking at arbitration pages, I think it might be a good idea if you switch to editing less well developed areas of Physics, for example Molecular Physics. What do you think? Thanks, ] (]) 14:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
			:You didn't say ''why'' you think it is a good idea. Is it a good idea because it might cause less Talk-page discussion? In your opinion, is avoiding Talk-page discussion a good thing for WP, or a good thing for myself personally? In your opinion, am I unusual among contributors in this regard, and if so, why is that so? Please elaborate upon these themes. And, of course, why is it that ''well developed'' areas of physics should be a less suitable arena than others? I assume ''well developed'' refers to topics that have WP articles with long histories, not topics that are ''well developed'' from the viewpoint of the subject of physics itself. Perhaps the idea is that articles with a long past on WP are more likely to have combative editors defending them in their present form? ] (]) 15:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
			::Brews, the user above just made a suggestion according to his beliefs. Your reply, although clear and well-made, requires a lot of effort in the editor's part to formulate new arguments and a counter-reply. This may or may not happen but it is irrelevant anyway. IMO, what the user above was trying to tell you is that, given your history with the usual crowd, you should make a conscious decision to avoid topics frequented by a lot of argumentative editors. Regardless of the merit of your arguments you have to understand that there is a group of editors which at best will view your contributions with suspicion and at worst will oppose you just because of the bad history in other disputes. Once you understand the hidden context and social dimension, as opposed to the strictly scientific one, of these exchanges you may make the right editing decisions which are best encapsulated by the verb "to avoid". So although your reply is principled and succinct, it is also useless. Under the circumstances forget about methods of intelligent discourse and dialectic and just avoid. These are the facts on the ground. Having said that, I think that even if you went to less frequented articles some of the usually opposing group may follow you there and start brand new conflicts. Don't forget the problems with the ] article which has nothing to do with physics. In simpler terms you are a marked editor. Until the system fairly deals with the problem of this new underclass of editors there is very little anyone here can do to help you. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 16:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
			*The questions by Brews are perfectly fine. I think there are several reasons. First, some people feel attached to articles they edited a lot and therefore very apprehensive when anyone (like you) comes to make changes. Second, it is generally more difficult to improve well developed pages. One can always make an argument that the page is already in a good condition and therefore does not need any changes. Third, you can work much more efficiently (make more good service for the project) by improving something that is in a really poor condition. Finally, it might be a good idea to escape from contributors whith whom you have difficult relations by moving in another area. If they follow you there, that would be interpreted not in their favor. Now, speaking about the area of ], this is something closer to my interests, so I might be able to occasionally help. ] (]) 16:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
			:*Well made points, but I don't think there are any Physics articles which are so well developed that they don't need anything and I also don't think that anyone who follows Brews around will be sanctioned in any way since Brews is a marked editor. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 17:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
			:::About the suggesion by Δρ.Κ, I think this "avoiding" is best done after experiencing some negative feedback. So, you don't shy away frome editing somewhere, but when facing opposition, you take a look at whether that opposition is constructive critisism allowing you to work in collaboration with others, or whether it is opposition because they don't want your input in that article at all, no matter what arguments you put forward.
	== Edit war on Mass–energy equivalence ==
			:::E.g. I see that Brews is editing the Fourier transform article, and things seem to go well there. When he receives negative feedback there, then that's constructive feedback, not based on ]. But exactly the same effort in another article could end in disaster, if Brews were to intepret feedback based on ] feelings or on negative attitudes toward him editing there, as something he can argue with.
	Hi Steven:
	Apparently ] insists on writing ] to suit themselves, and repeatedly deletes cited material. They already have a reputation for such activity. How can it be prevented or ameliorated? ] (]) 04:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
			:::And when you are editing with editors who have a history of opposing on ] feelings, you have to make sure that your first edits and proposals are as good as possible, so that when you are opposed and you post an RFC to deal with that opposition, you are likely to get support. Otherwise, what happens is that the failure to get support in that first RFC and subsequent modifications, more opposition due to ] and then yet another RFC to deal with ] again, will be used against you. The opponents can complain about all those RFCs, failing to drop the stick etc. etc.
	:: Hello--- there is no edit war, the text keeps changing. I put all the sources that this editor insert on the talk page, and start a discussion, but I don't always get feedback. The reason I keep changing the text is because Brews ohare inserts slightly inaccurate stuff. It's mostly OK, but there are annoyances--- for example, the citation he gave for the mass of the photon includes a book which claims that the evidence supports a small nonzero mass for the photon. It's not a good source. The text he inserts for QCD is both too technical for the section (in my opinion) and reflects an unsupported view that the lattice calculations are less accurate than they are.
			:::But to get it (almost) right the first time can require you to make larger edits, as you then have more room to deal with any problems. It is often a lot more difficult to put in a few sentences to explain something better than to write a whole new paragraph. So, by putting aside any fears of stepping on the toes of editors with ] issues, you can avoid problems later. ] (]) 17:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
	:: I would have no objection to inserting sourced material, but the sources that Brews ohare provides are usually very technical, and sometimes they have very little to do with what he is claiming. For example, in the discussion on the talk page, there is a source which claims to discuss the Maiani Testa theorem, which he is using to claim that the lattice results are no good. The theorem is very technical, and would scare off a non-physicist. The theorem has no relevance to mass calculations, as the authors say right in the original paper, but he did not link to this paper. I had to find it and link to it after a search.
			::::Although I agree that negative feedback is a necessary precondition for avoiding further contact, and I can see the point of your constructive, eloquent and creative proposals of engagement, I think that in practice any action by Brews by RFC or any other means of dispute resolution will degenerate into the usual round of threats and AE enforcement requests. Look at the comments at the current AE. If Brews doesn't get banned in this one by some sort of miracle, in the next one he will not be that lucky. In my opinion you are trying to optimise a marginally stable system. Although in theory you may be correct, any action other than the one confined to a very limited stability domain, will perturb the system and cause instability. In other words Brews is walking on a perpetual minefield. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 17:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
	:: The dispute here has not been over a single factual statement, but it seems to be a meaningless haggle over wording. I don't see why we cannot come to compromise.] (]) 15:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
			:::::Actually, I have three simple suggestions for Brews: (a) do not edit for a long while any articles where you had confrontations in the past, (b) when looking for new edits, find something that is ''obviously'' missing in the article or obviously wrong for anyone familiar with the subject and fix it; (c) if there is a dispute that can not be quickly resolved by talking, just drop the issue and edit something else. ] (]) 18:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
	::: There are ], ], and ] articles where this stuff goes better. I agree that it's shoehorned in, here. I've said as much on the article's TALK page. It's not that the info is uninteresting, it's just badly placed. ]]]] 07:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
			::::::I think your proposals agree with my suggestions. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 18:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
			:::::::If he follows this advice, he suppose to be fine. Unfortunately, I know from my own experience in another area that (a) and (c) are difficult to follow. But he has no choice. ] (]) 18:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
			::::::::I agree. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 18:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
			{{outdent|8}} Thank you all for your appraisal. I am indeed walking in a minefield, and one would hope that Admins could see that many of these disruptions are simple vendetta or pique, unrelated to the merits. Unfortunately, Admins do not take content into account (in principle, anyway) and so they are faced with trying to decide if a succession of comments are really about content (which they have no idea about) or are just argument with no purpose.
			For example, in the present case is simply a quote from one of several sources that say the same thing, and yet Admins are reluctant to take this at face value and evaluate the erroneous counter claims of critics. Instead, they have one hand tied behind their backs, and can only assess the back and forth on the basis that I have been sanctioned in the past, and so am disreputable on the face of it. If I weren't a disreputable editor, their problem remains: they would simply have to count how many support me and how many opposed, and go with the majority. That is a problem that WP has yet to formulate in a practical fashion to create a good environment on WP. ] (]) 19:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
	== Rotation ==
	Brews, I replied to your note on my own talk page. The main problem is that rotation is absolute and so it doesn't fit with relativity. Hence the attempts to mask out the reality of centrifugal force in the modern textbooks. ] (]) 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)		*Forget about Admins. They can not help you, as you apparently realize yourself. ''You must be able to sort out all your problems with other users without help of Admins''. If you follow points (a-c) outlined above, you might succeed. If not, you are going to be banned. ] (]) 20:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
			I think b) and c) are good points, but a) is more difficult, and given the input from the Arbitrators on the clarification page, less relevant now. The situation for Brews today is not similar to when the topic ban was lifted the last time, because at that time, there were still discretionary sanctions. Brews actually ended up being banned again from physics after an incident on one of the centrifugal force pages. There a figure he wanted to include was argued to be OR, and he received a warning from an Admin about being site banned unless he stopped poutting OR edits in articles. But there was nothing OR about that figure, but then an univolved Admin would nt be able to see this, they would tend to react to an OR warming by an editor.
	== Removing the Leibniz bit because it doesn't have a page of its own? ==
			This issue went to AN/I and there it was found that the OR arming was out of place and that the Admin was wrong to have warmed Brews. However, because the discetionary sanctions allowed editors to ask for AE on any grounds, this issue then went to AE, and there the fact that Brews ended up being doscussed at AN/I contributed to the topic ban being re-imposed, never mind that Brews was right in that dispute.
	Brews, the existing division of centrifugal force into two pages is a misinformed division based on a lack of comprehension of the topic. When I see two different approaches to centrifugal force which are incompatible with each other, I conclude that one of them must be wrong. You, on the other hand, conclude that there must be two different kinds of centrifugal force, each deserving of its own page. And in this particular case, I conclude that they are both wrong.
			But this dynamics is not at play now, most Arbs have said on the clarification page that they are against making a ruling by motion, Elen of the Roads suggests that in case of problems the proper venue is AN/I, other Arbs are saying that if this ends up at Arbitration again, a case would have to be presented first.
	In actual fact, at one time, you had three different kinds of centrifugal force. You also had a 'polar coordinates' centrifugal force. The latter was more accurately the Leibniz approach which in my opinion is the only correct approach. Polar coordinates are only the language of expression in that approach.
			This means that Brews can edit like any other editor, but he has to make sure that whenever he posts an RFC, or persues dispute resolution, he is very sure that this process leads to an outcome that helps his case and settles he problem. It is then better to make others post RFCs or persue some of the other mechanisms involving community input. E.g. in case of the Idee Fixe article, it was Blackburne who put the article on PROD and then on AFD. But the article was kept. Now, if Brews were to create more such articles that Blackburne doesn't like, but in most of these cases the articles are kept, then that will be held against Blackburne in any future ArbCom case.
	Nevertheless, there are three different approaches to centrifugal force in the literature and we cannot ignore the Leibniz approach simply on the grounds that no page has been created for it on wikipedia.
			So, while Brews has to make sure he doesn't post RFC after RFC to deal with opposition, he should be able to edit like any other editor. If you really have to post an RFC (it's better to avoid that), stick to the advice given by Arb SilkTork, i.e. if you don't get the community support you are seeking, don't raise that issue again for one year. When sticking to this rule, you would of course rather want to get community support, which means that you have to focus on a proposal that uninvolved editors find appealing. This may mean forgetting about any previous proposals you made to take into account the feelings of the involved editors there. ] (]) 21:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
	The ] is wrong because it thinks that centrifugal force has to be equal and opposite to centripetal force. It also wrongly thinks that the two constitute an action-reaction pair. And it further wrongly thinks that the centrifugal force is reacting to the centripetal force when we know that the centripetal force and the centrifugal force are totally independent of each other (as when gravity is the centripetal force) or that the centripetal force is reacting to the centrifugal force (as when tension in a string causes the centripetal force). This approach was born out of Isaac Newton being twisted in the face of what was effectively Goldstein's equation 3-12 being shown to him by Leibniz. Newton couldn't stand Leibniz because of the calculus priority dispute. Nevertheless, Newton's approach appeared in textbooks until the 1960's. It was purged from Nelkon & Parker in 1971.
			:I do not really disagree with anything here, except that any future arbitration case (and possibly even AN) will result in the ban for Brews, exactly as . Yes, creating new articles is a good idea (but not to make any future cases), and not posting any RFC is also good idea. ] (]) 22:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
			::I agree with many, if not all the points made by all the editors above, the former statement made just to be on the safe side. :) Thank you Brews, thank you all for a great discussion. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 23:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
			====Points (a)-(c)====
			*(a) do not edit for a long while any articles where you had confrontations in the past,
			*(b) when looking for new edits, find something that is ''obviously'' missing in the article or obviously wrong for anyone familiar with the subject and fix it;
			*(c) if there is a dispute that can not be quickly resolved by talking, just drop the issue and edit something else.
			Evidently, these items lessen the chances of confrontation. Of course, that doesn't mean the chances are zero. As one example, Dicklyon and I seldom agree about what is an "obvious" omission. Dicklyon will say it is "bloat" to add the topic, and make claims the topic is "idiosyncratic", and Blackburne will say my objections to Dick are an example of an "obvious" tendency of mine toward confrontation, a matter that can best be dealt with by taking me to AN/I.
	The rotating frames approach is the modern approach that is most in vogue these days. It is the nonsense approach in which the Coriolis force becomes unscrewed from the pole and swings about freely like a weather cock. The truth is that Coriolis force is a transverse force that is tied up with the conservation of angular momentum. ] (]) 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
			However, besides all this nonsense, there is the problem for WP that has yet to be resolved: how are conduct disputes that are converted to fake conduct disputes to be resolved by Admins?
	== Centrifugal force ==
			Of course, Admins should stay out of content disputes, as they do now. So the first thing WP needs is a clear-cut method for determining when a conduct issue is in reality just a way to end discussion, and at bottom is really a content dispute. If a matter actually can be identified as a content dispute in disguise, then it should go back to the Talk page, and if it takes three or four years to resolve, that is just too bad. See ] for an example of interminable Talk page discussion that has been through mediation and everything else and is still at square one. ] (]) 23:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
	Brews, I'd be happy to have your feedback on my attempt to make this whole area more approachable and less driven by personal squabbles. Ideas on how to improve it? Is the summary style a net win? Where do you stand on this? ] (]) 03:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
			:You make some good points. Monty Hall however AFAIK although a longterm dispute has not been focused on the conduct of a single editor. In your case you have more or less been assigned a target mark on your back and thus the focus of almost any dispute you participate in, is you as an individual. This is the main problem. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 00:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
	==]==
			::That is true: the editors on the ] have for the most part remained gentlemen and agree that differences are not a matter of character flaws but of substance. Unfortunately, not all editors are so generous and open. ] (]) 00:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
	Hi, I'm involved in a very strange argument at the redshift article with someone who doesn't seem to want to engage in serious discussion.
			:::It is encouraging to hear that in the case of the Monty Hall problem dispute editors have been able to behave in such exemplary fashion. Let's hope it spreads to other areas as well. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
	I note that you did quite a bit of work to that article recently and would be grateful for your input. ] (]) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
			::::An "obvious" omission is one that Dicklyon would agree with. But it is my impression that admins will sanction Brews simply for taking part in a very long ''content discussion'' claiming this to be ] by him. So he must avoid any long unproductive discussions. ] (]) 00:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			:::::It depends on the dynamics of the discussion. If Brews is the only one arguing in support of a point then it is rather inevitable that he will be sanctioned. Hopefully if he has the support of more people this may change. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 01:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			{{outdent|8}}Dr K and ''My very best wishes'', it is a commentary in itself that you both agree that regardless of the merits there is no doubt that any discussion I am involved in on any topic will lead to my being banned, if I am alone in advancing a view, even if the matter is clearly a content issue. (Content issues are formally stated in WP documentation to be outside the jurisdiction of Administrators.) That is a very frank and alarming evaluation of the Administrative process presently at work on WP. Although I would not agree with this evaluation entirely, my own opinion is that things do tilt in that direction. ] (]) 03:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
	== Inkscape ==
			The that it should be "possible to evidence the problematic behaviour without requiring a knowledge of post-doctoral physics" and that "This amendment has become absurdly specialized. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar." suggest that these Administrators find there is a distinction to be had between misconduct and an extended exchange of views about a subject, and they suggest some knowledge of content is necessary to make the distinction, at least sometimes. ] (]) 03:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
	Your diagrams are excellent, and I would like to suggest to you using Inkscape to create new diagrams. That way the files are svg and can be improved by other people. Let me know what you think. ] (]) 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Perhaps you could outline for me appropriate documentation to learn how to use this approach to figures? ] (]) 19:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
	::To know about what svg is I think the wiki page ] is good. For learning how to use inkscape go to .
	::For writing equations in Inkscape I use which is an add on for Inkscape. Installing TexText is explained in that website. Let me know if I can help more. ] (]) 19:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
	::The convenience of SVG is that you don't lose resolution in the diagrams as the image can be scaled (vector file), and that anyone can take the original file and modify its content to improve it. See some of the diagrams I have done using Inkscape for reference. ] (]) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I moved this conversation from my page, just to keep it in one place. ] (]) 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
			:I can't speak for Elen but her remark may indicate a decoupling of expertise and behaviour, so it could go against you in the sense that if your behaviour is maligned enough by a few editors you could easily be banned regardless of the merits of your arguments. AGK's remark is more along the lines of what you said about knowledge of content. As far as your statement that {{xt|...there is no doubt that any discussion I am involved in on any topic will lead to my being banned, if I am alone in advancing a view...}} I want to clarify that if indeed you were alone advancing a view against a group of editors who hold an opposing view you could get in trouble because of the appearance of going against consensus. Sometimes consensus is formed at the expense of the better arguments but that's the way the system works here so you should avoid the one-man- against-all-others situations. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 04:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
	== The Inertial Path ==
			::Dr K: How do you understand the notion of "consensus"? In my experience, "consensus" means the viewpoint of the majority of editors interested in a page, not a broad consensus: there are just not that many editors interested in topics outside of celebrities and politics. From your remarks, it appears that "consensus" means to you that it is more-or-less impossible to change a page's content where that page is watched by other editors with a shared view (either of the subject, or of the contributor), unless they agree with your change. Or, you might try to assemble a dissident group using an RfC (apparently frowned upon, or at least advised against, by you and ''My very best wishes'', and seen as ineffective by Count Iblis) or, as Count Iblis has proposed, by appealing to a workgroup like ]. The idea being to present a proposal and then fade into the woodwork and let things take whatever course they may.
			::It appears that there is no mechanism to change a "consensus" on WP. The notion that sources and common sense might change matters is fantasy, and will lead to AN/I (for most editors, not just myself). That seems to be your view, and it appears that I have to agree with you. "Consensus" is actually a tyranny of sorts, enforced by the notion that challenging consensus is misbehavior, despite the fact that it is really a content dispute. Do you see it as I imagine? ] (]) 15:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			::From this standpoint, it appears that ], ], ] and ] are delusional. ] (]) 15:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			::Long ago, I wrote an essay ]. I wonder if you would be interested in commenting upon it? ] (]) 15:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			:::Normally consensus always starts by being local, i.e. at the article talkpage. If the local consensus is not satisfactory, due to a limited number of editors or other factors, the wider community is engaged and an RFC or dispute resolution may follow. But unfortunately the consensus process in many of your cases is slightly different. There is an entrenched opposition to your ideas from a fixed group of editors. To complicate matters further this group of editors have similar qualifications to yours. So in terms of qualifications a similarly qualified group politically tramps a qualified loner. So politically you lose by the majority rule. Once you lose politically it is not difficult to lose also academically. Additionally a case can be made that if a disagreement exists among equally qualified editors where a group of these editors agree among themselves but disagree with a lone editor, then the lone editor may be either a genius who outsmarts the group, or simply that his proposed edits on the topic are not acceptable to a group of his peers. In the end the motivation of his peers does not matter. To the wider community it looks as if a panel of experts has rejected your expert opinion. Case closed. Only if an outside expert agrees with your opinion can things change. But this is a remote possibility because statistically it doesn't happen often. BTW I will check your essay and let you know. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 17:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			::::Dr K: I see that you are describing the way things are, unfortunate as that may be. I'd hope that from a set of published sources with the accompanying citations would trump unsupported wild (rabid?) statements explicitly contrary to those sources, but evidently there is no such "consensus".
			::::I would appreciate some comments from you upon the essay, and perhaps you might include some suggestions about how to handle RfC's, workgroup appeals, and the claims of tendentious editing in opposing consensus? ] (]) 17:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			:::::I will look at the essay and comment as soon as I have some time. But the latter part of your reply concerning RFC's, workgroup appeals etc. may be better handled by the Count. His ideas about strategic editing as he enunciated them at the AE and in the threads above may be useful in optimising an appeal-based response. However I view your existing problem more macroscopically than the Count does. Based on my comments above about entrenched opposition etc., I think that once you launch an appeal you just entered a one-way street of diminishing returns. At the end of that street, grimly looking at you is an AE. I can even predict more details but that is unnecessary. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 17:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			:@Brews. You tell: ''it appears that "consensus" means that it is more-or-less impossible to change a page's content where that page is watched by other editors with a shared view, unless they agree with your change''. Yes, exactly. The only alternative are ]. This is ], ], and maybe even tyranny of ]. Consider ] who hired a few people known as "wikipedia experts" to promote whatever they paid for. These few people will easily create WP:Consensus on any subject that is not frequented by regular contributors, which is 99% of all subjects. This is assuming that they are not stupid and do not announce their services on the internet (as "wikipedia experts" actually did) and do not tell Jimbo about their plans (as another PR company recently did). Now consider (BTW, someone just removed this link from article ], obviously because it was irrelevant, let's assume good faith here), or ]. Defense rests. ] (]) 18:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			::''My very best wishes'': Thanks for introducing me to the word ]. I had not understood before what you meant by "paid advocacy"; this problem is much more serious for WP than the dyspepsia of a few editors with ]. Perhaps similar changes in policy regarding consensus would apply to both problems. ] (]) 19:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			:::I think we both need a good vacation. Just leave this place for a few weeks and let others ]. ]? ] (]) 19:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
			::::I think your advice is very practical. Actually Elen said it quite aptly: {{xt|The community generally has little sympathy with a previously sanctioned editor who returns to their problematic behaviour, so Brews might be well advised to take the counsel of ] and "learn when to walk away, and learn when to run}}. The writing is on the ]. Perhaps Brews will benefit from a vacation. The longer the better, to compensate for the length of the ] currently pointed at his back from many directions and let some calmer logic prevail over the longer run in what is essentially an overreaction to an overblown content dispute. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 14:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
			==Way forward==
	Brews, I conceded to Woodstone that I had made a mistake when I told you that <math>\ddot r = 0</math> is not the inertial path. I was indeed, as Woodstone pointed out, thinking of the scalar equation for the radial direction.
			I suggested something . If you and Count Iblis agree, that might be suggested for approval to Arbcom. However, I have no idea if they would approve this. ] (]) 02:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
	Can you now please repeat the point that you were making in light of me acknowledging this error. I accept now that <math>\ddot r = 0</math> is the straight line inertial path. It contains a centrifugal force, but no centripetal force. ] (]) 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)		::I have no objection to some arrangement of this kind assuming that there are some provisions to keep things from going to Administrators to adjudicate content, and it is left in the hands of knowledgeable editors and subject to standard requirements for civility and deference to sources rather than personal opinion. ] (]) 03:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
			:::If this is something you really want to do (I assume you will be topic-banned), you should politely ask about this at your clarification request, and Count Iblis should confirm that he agree. Maybe they will allow. Technically, you could copy wikitext of whole article to your PC, modify it and sent by email to Count. That might be easier. The point here is simple: ''this will be completely his responsibility''. If he disagrees with any of your changes, he will not make them or will modify them in any way he wants, without discussion with you. ] (]) 03:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
	:Maybe that will help clear up some confusion. I always thought that when David mentioned <math>\ddot r = 0</math> was referring to the scalar distance (making this a circular path), not the vector. ] (]) 12:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
			{{outdent|8}}''My very best wishes'': I have advanced this idea from you and Count Iblis , and invite you both to discuss it further on that page. ] (]) 15:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
			:Brews, do you realize what arbs probably think? They think that your frequent appearance on their talk page is just another example of your alleged ] behavior (so this is a proof to ban you). You probably can ask them about this later, may be in a few months - as an amendment. You might wish to contribute in other projects, such as Wikiversity, until then. ] (]) 05:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
	Dick, I normally was referring to the scalar equation. Equation 3-11 is the radial scalar equation with the addition of a centripetal force. On the spur of the moment, I stupidly thought that the only difference with the vector equation was the extra transverse terms, and so I told Brews that he was wrong and that this equation is for circular motion, and not for the inertial path. Woodstone corrected me.
			::None of that matters: the proposed limit on my Talk-page activity achieves more than they want with far less trouble to them than their proposed topic ban that involves murky decisions on content every time Blackburne suggests things like 'geology is a branch of physics', or '√4=2 is physics-related math'.
			::Why do you suppose the Arbs are reluctant to put for motion or to discuss ]? ] (]) 15:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
	I think that we are all now agreed that the vector equation in question is for the straight line inertial path and that it contains all three of the inertial forces. Two of them are equal and opposite in the transverse direction and one of them is net radial. And the value and direction of these three inertial forces is totally dependent on our choice of origin. Such is the nature of them.
			==Amendment: Brews ohare topic-ban (Speed of light)==
	My ultimate point is that the rotating frame transformation equations are essentially one and the same thing. You are in partial agreement with me about this, in that you see them as being the same thing for the case of co-rotation. However, I see them as only applying to co-rotation, and that as such the rotating frame of reference becomes redundant. The textbooks use the idea of rotating frames of reference to cater for the apparent deflections that occur in non-co-rotating situations. I personally see this as nonsense. Those apparent deflections are not what is being described by the inertial terms. That is the big cock up that I trace back to Coriolis himself in relation to his category 2 supplementary forces.
			The following was resolved by :
			1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that ] is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources.
	I now further see Brews's point of view that the Leibniz equation is too specific. The Leibniz equation is a specific application of polar coordinates in which we introduce an inverse square law of gravity force as a centripetal force and use Kepler's second law to eliminate the two transverse terms.
			2. It follows that preventative action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. After a minimum period of at least one year has elapsed, Brews ohare may ask the Arbitration Committee to reconsider the topic ban, giving his reasons why the Committee should do so.
	Perhaps Brews wants a more general approach in which we merely expose the three inertial forces from the polar coordinates derivation and leave the Leibniz equation as one of a few examples, along with his rotating spheres. ] (]) 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
			3. Should Brews ohare violate this topic ban he may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the clock for any lifting of the topic ban restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at ]. Appeals of blocks may only be made by email to the Arbitration Committee.
	== a comment on your drawing ==
	See ]. The drawing on ] is perhaps better? ] (]) 12:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC).		For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 19:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
			===My reaction to this topic ban===
			This topic ban resulted from my dispute with Dicklyon over adding a sourced quotation referring to ] in the article on ] shown below:
			{| cellpadding="2" style="border: 1px solid darkgray; background:#E6F2CE;" align="center"
			|The wavelength, say &lambda;, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself. Sinusoidal waves with wavelengths related to &lambda; can superimpose to create this spatially periodic waveform. Such a superposition of sinusoids is mathematically described as a ], and is simply a summation of the sinusoidally varying component waves:
			|-
			|.. "''Fourier's theorem'' states that a function ''f(x)'' of spatial period &lambda;, can be synthesized as a sum of harmonic functions whose wavelengths are integral submultiples of &lambda; (''i.e.'' &lambda;, &lambda;/2, &lambda;/3, ''etc.'')."<ref name=Schaum group=Note/>
			|-
			|'''References'''
			{{Reflist |group=Note|refs=
			<ref name=Schaum group =Note>
			{{cite book |title=Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Optics |publisher=McGraw-Hill Professional |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ZIZmyOG-DxwC&pg=PA205&dq=%22can+be+synthesized+as+a+sum+of+harmonic+functions+whose+wavelengths+are+integral+submultiples%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7rCVT4jJCYKpiQL2iuWICg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22can%20be%20synthesized%20as%20a%20sum%20of%20harmonic%20functions%20whose%20wavelengths%20are%20integral%20submultiples%22&f=false |page=205 |author=Eugene Hecht |year=1975 |isbn=0070277303}}
			</ref>
			}}
			|} This Talk-page disagreement was escalated to a by Blackburne, resulting in ArbCom's conclusion that this dispute showed I was disruptive, and must be topic-banned. A more effective and more easily administered was ignored.
			And to follow up upon Blackburne's :
	== Centrifugal force ==
			:That May 16 2012 clarification action found the ban for which Blackburne had requested "clarification", namely ], had in fact expired.
	I did not realize that there were so many centrifugal force articles (disambig, reactive, fictitious, plus just regular old ]). Why not make ] its own article, in keeping with the rest of them? That would avoid the problems of undue weight. ] (]) 16:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
	:Hi Rracecarr: That is a good idea. However, it will take some time. It would allow a more extended development and the inclusion of general relativity, which would be very helpful. Are you interested in starting this page? I'll get around to it eventually. ] (]) 16:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
			:Having found there was no ban to clarify, the use of a "clarification" hearing was uncalled for. However, ignoring its illegitimacy, the clarification proceeding carried on, and continued directly to draft and impose an ''entirely new'' ban where ''no'' ban previously was in force. The May 16 2012 clarification action entertained a series of , one of which suggested the present ban that is now being "clarified" here.
	== 3RR warning ==
			:No formal transmission of the May 16 2012 clarification action to AE occurred, because there was no ban in effect to report a violation of. Bypassing AE and ArbCom review, the results of that "clarification" were then simply tucked into the expired ] as a added to a dead case. Appending the motion to an expired case was done because there was no authority for a ''clarification hearing'' to draft a completely new case. Thus it was made to ''appear'' as though a case was in force to clarify, although that was pure fiction.
	Brews, you have restored erroneous and unverifiable content to ] three times already today (and I have taken it out three times). So neither of us should do that again for a while. ] (]) 23:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
			:So far as I can see, all this was highly irregular. The preamble at the beginning of states that: "Requests for amendment are used to: ask for an amendment or extension of '''existing''' sanctions" Likewise: "Requests for clarification are used to ask for '''further guidance or clarification''' about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case." Neither of these precepts were followed. Of course, WP is not about rules. Nonetheless, a better approach would have been to ask Blackburne to formulate a charge that could be taken to ] and proceed from there. However, there was no actionable issue formulated that could be taken to ], and the "clarification" process was hijacked instead.
	] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 03:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			As even the most unrelated topics can be construed as topic-ban violations by the uninformed, or by the simply vindictive, problems will arise unexpectedly. A single Admin can then "on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions" according to . Experience shows that any contributions by Brews_ohare to discussions on broader topics (like WP organization) will be construed as self-serving, and grounds for censure.
	Brews, why not use the talk page to try to fill us in on your thinking, instead of adding a bunch of stuff to the article, backed only by sources that don't even mention wavelength in most cases? I'm at quite a loss still to understand where you're coming from, or where you hope these edits will lead in terms of explanation of the article topic. We've tried to listen, to explain your errors, to point you at sources that explain things better, etc., but you keep coming back to an idiosyncratic conception of connections to Fourier analysis and concepts otherwise unconnected to the topic or unsupported by sources. Slow down, think about it, tell us what you're thinking, and let's figure out where to go with it. There's no need to get this article back up to 20KB of mostly off-topic complexity. ] (]) 04:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			So, for a few years or more, my activity on WP will be minimal. A (sigh) reduction by one of the . As most of these do not contribute much text to WP, never mind new articles or ], I will be ''so-o-o'' missed !! ] (]) 18:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
	One way to get unstuck might be to try again with an RfC, but with a better-formed question that "Should the classic analysis of waveforms and wavelength be included in article Wavefunction?" and a less-biased writeup of the problem. ] (]) 06:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			:No, the number of "active" wikipedians (100+ edits per month) is actually around only 2,400 . And indeed, most of them contribute little to content and figures. Have a nice summer vacation! ] (]) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
	:I have for you to be blocked for violating 3RR after we both warned you. ] (]) 06:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	==Bye bye==
	You two guys (Dicklyon & Srleffler) have worn me out. You make no constructive or concrete suggestions and don't read what is written, but simply jump to conclusions about what is said. Since I know you can behave better, and don't always call people you have disputes with stupid and uneducated and ill motivated, I suppose that is reserved for me. Have fun, I am leaving for an extended visit to real life. Make your own articles and figures. Have a few beers. ] (]) 06:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	:I offered many constructive ideas, but also did feel compelled to question your competence and motivation to edit in this area. Enjoy your beer. ] (]) 06:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)		You got nothing to lose by contributing to math pages, physics related or not. ArbCom made the wrong decision yet again, there is therefore no reason to care about whether or not some Admin will persue you when you do something on some math page. ] (]) 01:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
			:Count: I don't understand your advice. For example, if I edit the page about the ] system for encoding musical notes digitally, some stalker may say that a musical note corresponds to a frequency and that is physics-related, meaning that the ban is violated. History shows an Administrator will follow up and immediately block, without any investigation of validity. No other Administrator can appeal such a block without a lot of trouble, due to the recent ruling that any overturn requires an ArbCom deliberation.
	== June 2009 ==
			:Although content is outside the realm of ArbCom, and a topic ban obviously requires being able to identify the topic and whether it has arisen, ArbCom has ducked this issue in their comments to me. The attitude expressed by ArbCom is that ''my'' good sense can readily identify potential occurrences and avoid them, so ArbCom will never have to face a problem of content. However, history shows ridiculous challenges are accepted at face value by Administrators, with no clue about how to examine validity and no interest in it. So WP will limp along without me, and the hundreds of other contributors similarly dealt with month after month. ] (]) 05:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
			::You could still edit the MIDI page and ignore any Wiki-Legal proceedings. If the system is at at fault (and I agree with you that it is at fault, despite that there were some issues about the way you deal with opposition when editing), the best thing is to simply ignore the system and show contempt for it. Just edit any page you think you can improve. ] says: "If a ] prevents you from improving or maintaining ], '''ignore it'''."
	<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:24 hours|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:|'''{{{reason}}}'''|repeated ]}}. You are welcome to ] after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below. {{#if:|] (]) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 --> Repeatedly inserting apparently non-standard material into a basic physics article, at ], per ]. Such changes require consensus, and should not be forced into the article by edit warring. ] (]) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			::Suppose you can improve a physics page, then what does ] say you should do, given your physics topic ban? Does ] say that ArbCom imposed topic bans should be respected? No, it says that if you can improve the page but a rule whatever policy that may be based on, would prevent you fro doing so, you '''should ignore it'''. Now, the first time when you wrere topic banned and you signalled that you would leve Misplaced Pages forgood, I suggested that at least you could violate your topic ban by making high quality edits to some physics page. An Arbitrator then attacked me for giving bad advice, saying that IAR des not apply to ArbCom decisions etc. etc. However, that was a plain lie. ArbCom can say all it wants about IAR, that doesn't make it so unless the text of IAR would say it.
	{{unblock reviewed|I have no intention of continuing a war at ]. It is amusing to see that I am blocked for not awaiting consensus, while the contribution now located at ] was deleted in its ''entirety'' by Dicklyon and Srleffler, with little attempt at consensus (or civility) , but based simply on their personal opinions, some of which contradict cited sources. The claim that this is nonstandard material is unwarranted, as the many citations show. This material, some of which goes back to ] in the 1700's, is standard in discussion of waveforms in most texts. The Talk page history also shows that they deleted this material within hours of the time a RfC was posted, and again after my objections to this treatment, thereby denying me any opportunity to get comment from other than these two opinionated gentlemen. Perhaps these tactics should not push me to too many reversions, but their high-handedness and incivility certainly do not engender cooperation or advance the projects on Misplaced Pages. I'd say my record of contributions to Misplaced Pages, and the nasty behavior of these two editors should result in repeal of the block. ] (]) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)|decline=If you'll commit to continuing to work to get consensus on the talk page, rather than continuing to edit war (regardless of how justified you think it might be), you'll likely be unblocked. Otherwise, wait it out. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)}}
			::Now, ArbCom will still ban you if you edit a physics page, and they can argue why IAR doesn't apply, perhaps by saying that if you violate a topic ban then that in itself does damage to the encyclopedia. But they didn't go through even a limited hearing; first they said that the old ArbCom sanctions do not apply, and then all of a sudden they decided that they would still topic ban you. So, I say, you should challenge this by editing any page you like to edit, physics related or not. Certainly, the spirit of IAR is that ridiculous rules should be ignored.
	== Your "record of contributions to Misplaced Pages" ==
			::If you get blocked for a topic ban violation, and the edit you made was of high quality, that would i.m.o. improve Misplaced Pages, as that would discredit the current ArbCom system. ] (]) 16:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
	Brews, you refer in your unblock request to your "record of contributions to Misplaced Pages". In fact, this is something I've tried to counsel you on several times before, and you always reject my input as "incivility". The edit histories of ], ], ], ], ], and many other articles show that your usual style is to focus on an article, quickly inflate it 50% to 300% with mostly-unsourced complexification of an idiosyncratic sort, with no cooperation with others, showing off your ability to write long symbol-soup derivations. I'm not saying that you are ill-intentioned, but I am at a loss to understand what motivates this editing style, and I am pretty sure that your contributions do not represent a net win for wikipedia. You alienate all other editors at every other article you work on, as far as I can tell. Very few editors have the patience or willpower to stand up against your persistence. When you started doing this 11 days ago on ], both Srleffler tried to talk you down, but you kept making it worse; you never found another editor to support you, nor did you find sources to connect your idiosyncratic interpretations to the topic of the article. You seem to be completely unable to understand our feedback, which is why we weren't able to do much beyond continuing to reset to a recent non-errorful version (we did incorporate a few bits of your ideas and lots of references along the way, as we tried to work with you). Please go back and read some of our talk comments, and understand that all of our comments were made in good faith, and rejected by you; give them another chance to soak in. ] (]) 16:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			:::Count: Thanks for your explanation. I'd agree that a courageous ignoring of faulty rulings would provoke some reassessment of process in a system concerned to better WP. However, ArbCom's approach has ''nothing'' to do with what is good for WP, whether that is .
	:Sorry, Dick. I'd like to believe all that "constructive" criticism (which sounds a lot like ]), but I find it to be ]. Your energy would be better spent in trying to improve Misplaced Pages by actually making constructive comments to subject matter instead of name calling and aspersions. ] (]) 17:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			:::So, IMO, exposing faulty decisions is ineffective, even if it reveals ArbCom in a truly grotesque contortion. The only method proven to work is airing dirty laundry in a very public arena, like the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' or the ''New York Times'', thereby threatening future donations. Even that causes no reflection in depth, but only a minor fix for the particular instance. ] (]) 18:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
			== Photon-photon scattering image thanks ==
	::I understand that you feel that way, as that's how you always react to my advice. ] (]) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			Hi. Your image is ] is displayed on the main page in the active (as of my writing) ] as it relates to the DYK article ]. Thanks for the uploading the image. ] (]) 04:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
	:As another example, we have ]. In a period of three days you applied over 100 consecutive edits, inflating it from 18 KB to 27 KB, with no other editor involvement and with few sources; you left the flaky narrow definition in the lead, rather than fix it to encompass the contents. Much of what you added is either erroneous, unsupported, disconnected, or of just tangential relevance. I've started to work on it, but it's hard to repair such fleshed-out for unsourced work. If you can drop back and take a look, your help there could be useful. I am particularly sensitive to unsourced assertions of confusion, such as "Occasionally, EMF is confused with the electrical voltage that it generates." It might be so, but so far I have been unable to find sources to support the distinction that you are asserting, or any confusion about; if I'm confused, I need to see the sources that help solve that problem. ] (]) 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			== Dispute Resolution IRC office hours. ==
	Hi Dick: The tone of this request, basically an accusation that none of the work I did here has value, does not encourage me to again engage with you in editing: I'm gun shy. Not to mention ''blocked'': how did that happen? I'd tend to advise you to leave it alone until you understand it better, or wait until RGForbes returns. (He assures me he will return, just a bit occupied at the moment.) BTW, unlike your style of editing, I attempted to work with the article as I found it, and much of the organization and commentary in EMF did not originate with me. So please don't lay it all at my door.
			Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the ] that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an ] session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the {{irc|wikimedia-office}} IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC .
	The technical point that the article makes clear through several examples (or did before you edited it anyway), the EMF is not itself a voltage, but an expression of agencies that create charge separation. This agency may be, for example, chemical or the non-conservative part of an electromagnetic field. Once the charges are separated by this agency, the separated charges produce a conservative electric field that, by definition, can be expressed as a potential difference. That is, the EMF expresses the conversion of energy from one form (e.g. the chemical bond) to energy in the form of separated charges.
			Regards, ] (]) 07:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
	This verbiage is made most clear in a thermodynamic treatment, rather briefly made in the article, and found most commonly in the discussion of batteries. ] (]) 15:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
			<!-- EdwardsBot 0310 -->
			==Merge discussion for ]==
	:I don't want to get into this debate about EMF, etc., but you ask above how it happened that you got blocked. You reverted the article more than three times in a 24 hour period. See ]. Reverting an article more than three times in 24 hours is ''always'' grounds for a block. I tried to help you out by warning you (above) when you went over the limit, but you reverted the article again anyway. This is one of Misplaced Pages's few rigid rules of conduct, and is meant to stop edit wars from happening. It also serves to prevent a single editor from continuing to push a specific version of an article despite the objections of a consensus of at least two other editors. Anyway, it looks like your block has expired. Welcome back. Hopefully we can work together productively in the future.--] (]) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
			] An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been proposed for a ] with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going {{ #if:Talk:Continuous-wave radar#Merge Frequency-modulated continuous-wave radar here |]|to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article}}, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ] (]) 15:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC) <!-- Template:mergenote -->
			== Good to see that you are still around ==
	Thanks for the comments. I do understand the reversion rules, and my question above was really rhetorical. It appears to me that in dealing with Dicklyon at least, the preferred mode of operation is to let him delete and edit at will on the article page, and confine myself to the talk page entirely. Of course, that means Dicklyon is then a ''de facto'' gate keeper and nothing can appear on the article page without his OK. I don't like that, because his view of Misplaced Pages and my own are quite at odds, but what else is there to do? That is ''not'' a rhetorical question. ] (]) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
			How did that IRC session go? ]<sup> ]</sup><sub> ]</sub> 23:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Brews, the ] article is another chance for us to find a way to work together. I've expressed what think the problems are with it, and have asked for help here and on the talk page. Help needs to include sources to back up a lot of what's there already and to clarify things that we've so far left unclear. It appears to me that the key problem that the notion of emf has many different meaning, and we need the article to clarify the relationships between them, rather than focus on one and call the others confusions. If "agencies that create charge separation" is part of the answer, we need to source that, but also need to not write it in a way that excludes transformer emf, where that concepts appears to not be applicable. ] (]) 18:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
			:Yaniv: Unfortunately I was tied up and couldn't join that session. ] (]) 00:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
			::That is indeed unfortunate as I was interested in your report on the report, so to speak, and now it will be missing that element. I wanted to thank you for writing your many good essays and pointing me to them. I found that they provided me with much information that is common knowledge among experienced editors, but is fundamentally missing in the official introductions a new editor encounters. Specifically, the distance between the impression one gets by reading the Pillars and Wikipedian reality is quite reminiscent of that which one finds in common propaganda, and I think an adequate reference to your contributions would do much to remedy that ideologically motivated misinformation. I was also wondering if you may advise me on a particular case I am ], if you find it of theoretical interest. Best regards, your young poetic friend, ]<sup> ]</sup><sub> ]</sub> 01:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
			:::Yaniv: My experience is that although it is possible and occasionally does occur that disputes are settled based upon objective criteria, content and sources, that outcome is rather rare and very definitely not the norm on WP. It is tempting to believe that clarity of expression will prove decisive, but that is almost never the case. So my considered opinion is that there is nothing to be gained at all from an extended back-and-forth, especially one involving Administrators. There may be understandable reasons why the system does not work, but the practical conclusion is that it should be avoided. ] (]) 15:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
			== Dependent current source in ] ==
	== Inappropriate collaboration style ==
			It's probably me who doesn't understand it, but shouldn't the dependent current source in ] be drawn the other way? ] (]) 14:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
	Brews, you've left the discussion and instead done 7 controversial edits this morning on ], removing a lot of sourced material and replacing it by your POV without clear reason for why that POV should dominate; ] requires that we make a more balanced presentation. Why not stick to the discussion until we have a framework for proceeding? ] (]) 15:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
			:I get it now: Instead of having <math>-g_\mathrm{m} v_\mathrm{E}</math> the current source is flipped to get rid of the negative sign. Sorry to have bothered. ] (]) 13:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
			== Cartesian dualism avoids determinism ==
	:Dick: My changes are sourced. Please read the sources. I am not advancing a point of view. Ross's point of view that the whole concept of emf is ambiguous is simply uninformed, and I have indicated why in detail. If you take exception to some points, please identify them and I will go into chapter and verse. ] (]) 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
			RE: Free will edit 15:51, 16 September 2012‎; "Cartesian dualism allows human free will" -> "Cartesian dualism avoids determinism": NB this has changed the original conclusion of your paragraph from a point regarding free will to a point regarding determinism. NB I was trying to retain the original conclusion of the paragraph while clarifying the definition of free will pertaining to it ("Cartesian dualism allows incompatibilist free will").
	::How can you say you are not advancing a point of view when you remove material representing alternative points of view? I have been asking for more detail and explanation on the talk page; please don't add "chapter and verse" to the article until we resolve this. ] (]) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
			Excellent section by the way.
	== Electromotive force ==
			] (]) 06:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
	As you will be aware, I did not make ''any'' reverts to that page without proper discussion on the talk page. The fact that you did not see these is itself evidence of the rapid-fire ill-considered editing I referred to on the talk page. I remind you once again that you are already under warning for disruptive editting. ] (]) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
			==Disambiguation link notification for October 2==
	You made no attempt to justify reversion beyond complaining about my editing style. I'm complaining about yours: intervention without understanding. ] (]) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
			Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
	:If you actually ''read'' my comments you would have seen that I did outline my reasons both on technical and procedural levels. If you want to make contentious edits then you needs sources at minimum and and ideally a good deal of consensus ''before'' you make your change. Changes that do not have these and that actually remove material and sources that do not support your view should rightly be reverted. As for understanding, I really do not want to go there anymore as experience has shown it to be totally unproductive. I refer you to ], where I was among many editors to revert your changes and I spelt out in great detail why this was so. In stead of taking these comments on board you started a ''completely new'' thread several days later that completely ignored the previous comments I had made. ] (]) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
			It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
	I'll look at the speed-of-light history if you provide me with the links. My recollection is primarily the problems I had with Martin, who could not distinguish between measured values and defined values, and between theoretically perfect vacuum and outer space. ] (]) 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
			== Acceleration ==
	:Such comments do you no credit. It is quite clear from my edits and comments that I fully understand the differences that you refer to. ] (]) 15:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
			In the acceleration article I found an unsupported claim that decomposition into tangential and normal component can be made only for planar curves (see the article talk page). As you wrote that section, would you please care to explain?--] (]) 00:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
	Perhaps you do now. ] (]) 15:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
			:Ilevanat: I regret that as I am presently working under ArbCom restrictions, I cannot help you here. ] (]) 02:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
			The ArbCom restrictions allow you to edit articles, but do not allow you to answer questions about your edits? I have long ago given up hope to understand many things happening in the world, let alone some[REDACTED] policies, but this ArbCom thing sounds too crazy to be possible.--] (]) 23:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
			== John, you are wanted here ==
	== Dispersion relation ==
			http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,4402.0.html
	Hi Brews, I put some comments regarding your recent addition of a new section on: ]. I am having a kind of writers block at the moment (regarding main space), otherwise I could have done part of these proposed changes myself. Best regards, ] (]) 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
			--] (]) 01:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
			== October 2012 ==
	== Your four queries about rotation ==
			] Thank you for ]. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with ], a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the ] of clear-cut ] and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-minor --> <small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 02:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
			== ANI-notice ==
	Brews, let's look at your four queries,
			Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.—] 19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	#magnetism appears to be always linked to rotation, e.g. via the ]
			: as of 02:18, 30 October 2012 by ].
	#rotation about an axis cannot be maintained to arbitrary radii without violating relativity
	#gravitation is associated with rotating systems in fact, and such systems are not explained by standard mechanics (e.g. the ] needs ])
	#clocks cannot be synchronized in rotating systems
			== Delays at free will ==
	The first one is easy. The '''H''' field is the angular momentum of Maxwell's molecular vortices. The '''B''' field is hence the flux density of the magnetic lines of force. Magnetism is steeped in fine-grained rotation and centrifugal force.
			Hi Brews, just wanted to let you know that I see your comments at ], I just don't have time to give them a proper response right now. Hopefully before the end of the week. --] (]) 09:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
	The second is also easy in my opinion. Relativity is wrong.
			== ] ==
	As regards gravitation, although it often arises in connection with rotation, it doesn't have to. The theory of gravity in isolation is a totally irrotational phenomenon. Rotation is only of importance when it comes to the issue of centrifugal force, since it is transverse stress that induces the outward pressure. Centrifugal force depends on rotation whereas gravity doesn't. When it comes to large scale cosmic phenomenon like galaxies, I have got very little to say on the matter. It is quite possible that Kepler's laws break down on that scale due to some aether hydrodynamical effects which are not recognized by the mainstream. The galaxies might even have some degree of mutual repulsion due to their spin. But I simply don't know.
			Just to note that your edits and are I think covered by the terms of your . I thought I should mention this before you do something that causes someone to act on the ban.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 18:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
	On your final point about the clocks, I was not aware of that. It sounds interesting, but I can't think of any explanation off-hand. Clearly the rotation must be causing some kind of internal stress in the clocks which affects their periodicity mechanism. ] (]) 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
			:Sorry; I forgot about that for the moment. Fortunately, it was only a link update to reflect the change in the header made in another linked article. ] (]) 19:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
			::JohnBlackburne is correct, though I would be very annoyed at anyone who brought an obviously non-substantive edit of the sort as a pretext to sanction you. This doesn't mean that it's okay for you to routinely do such edits, but I don't want you to fear stepping on a landmine every time you make a trivial edit either. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
			== ] is not about physics ==
	::Hi Brews. Your #2 above caught my eye. I assume you're thinking about the idea of a very large rigid object rotating about a fixed axis, such that parts of the object far from the axis might exceed the speed of light while points near the axis are rotating at a modest rate? This is a well-known paradox. The resolution lies in the fact that nothing is perfectly rigid, and in fact relativity ''forbids'' objects from being perfectly rigid. In practice, objects cannot even be perfectly rigid in a classical picture, since forces are transmitted through an object at a velocity around that of the speed of sound in that material.--] (]) 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
			I'm afraid that this is getting to be a problem. With talk page contribution you are suggesting adding physics related content to the article ]. In my interpretation that is precisely what "broadly construed" means in the topic ban: not just physics articles and their talk pages but physics related content in any article. And this edit is far more substantial and contentious than the earlier change to ].--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
			:John: The discussion at free will is <u>not</u> about physics, but about some philosophical points about what can and cannot be said about free will. Although some physicists (Laplace, Bohr, Mach, Eddington, Einstein, Heisenberg) have discussed such matters, they are not discussing physics but wearing their philosophical hats, and have explicitly said so in their writings upon these matters. I don't think this is the kind of thing ArbCom had in mind in considering physics topics like ] or ], and other articles where you and Dicklyon have objected to my contributing. ] (]) 16:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
	Brews and Srleffler, here are some points to consider,
			:I'd add that the discussion at free will is not "contentious". Pfhorrest and I are trying to develop a clearer formulation of this article, which we agree needs reworking, and that requires some back and forth to clarify what is going on. There is nothing heated about this exchange. ] (]) 17:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
			::It's your pet theory of ], the one you tried to insert into ], after I reverted you here: ] (which you argued ''ad nauseum'' {{nowrap|here: ],}} {{nowrap|here: ]}} and {{nowrap|here: ])...}} Despite John Blackburne's kind warning, no doubt you have every intention of carrying on at —] 11:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
			:::MachineElf: The discussion about Bohr's philosophical speculations is not physics in either case, but the notion that the standard idea of "causality" may be inapplicable to the mind-body interaction and likewise to free will and mental causation. Have fun. ] (])
			== I have made corrections to your edit of the Acceleration article ==
	(1) In a Newton's cradle, the final outcome is known immediately the incoming ball hits the row of balls. It couldn't be any other way because the incoming ball has to know instantly whether or not it is to rebound.
			as you can see in the article, plus explanations on its talk page. I do not do such things without consent of the previous author. I made this exception due to the special "ban" circumstances, but I feel the obligation at least to inform you. If you want to discuss anything, you can use my mail address levanativica@gmail.com; that certainly cannot be prohibited by the "ban".--] (]) 00:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
	(2) If relativity rules out true rigid bodies, then on that basis, and for relativity to be preserved, all rotation of material bodies must be accompanied by a shear in which it rotates at different rates at different radial distances.
			== ] ==
	(3)If I slide a pen along its length on a table, are you seriously saying that the end of the pen only begins to move after a signal has travelled along the pen at a speed in the order of the speed of sound for that material? ] (]) 18:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
			Hey Brews is this a area where you can le4nd a eye and a voice as to correctness and possibility suitability to be here on wiki? ] (]) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
	:David, you're just showing what a nut you are. "Immediately"?!? Have you never heard of wave propagation, speed of sound, etc.? Yes on the pen; if you strike it one end, the other end won't move until the shock wave gets there. Don't worry, it's pretty quick so you don't have to worry about your pen distorting too much. ] (]) 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
			:Nice to hear from you. My ban from physics topics is still in effect for about another year, so my doubtless unmatchable perspective on this topic will have to wait. Thanks for the visit. ] (]) 20:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
			::Oh shit I thought that nonsense was done with. I"m sorry Brews hope you're well. ] (]) 21:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
			== Your essay ==
	::Dick, that of course is the automatic first response. But you will need to think more about how the Newton's cradle knows instantly how to react? The incoming ball is hardly likely to wait for a return wave signal before it knows whether or not to rebound. ] (]) 00:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
			I've closed the discussion at ] as "userify", and moved your essay to ] (with minor template adjustment and category changes). &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
	:There is a difference between fast and instantaneous. Yes, of course if you apply a force at one end of a pen lying on a table, the other end does not begin to move instantly. Similarly with the Newton's cradle: the balls do undergo some elastic deformation during the impact. They remain in contact long enough for a wave of deformation to propagate through all the balls and back to the first ball. --] (]) 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
			== Arbitration enforcement request ==
	Srleffler, I didn't come to the 'instantaneous' conclusion lightly. If the incoming ball rebounds, it will rebound due to the recoil of the compression at the contact point. However, if a match is detected up ahead, that compression won't even occur. Something kinetic will leave the incoming ball and travel along the row to the end ball, causing it to continue on as if it were a continuation of the incoming ball. I suspect that whatever that kinetic impulse is that it will be a kind of electromagnetic effect that will travel in the order of the speed of light. However, I suspect that there will be another leader signal which instantaneously recognizes whether or not a match exists. I suspect that there will be three kinds of signals involved in general. There will be mechanical deformation waves travelling in the order of the speed of sound for the material in question. There will be a kind of inertial/EM signal travelling in the order of the speed of light, and also an instantaneous pressure pulse which finds the path of least resistance.
			Your recent editing is being discussed here:
	An analogy exists in electric current. The current arcs sideways across the space between the wires when the circuit switch first goes on. Something instantaneously detects the path of least resistance. When matching inductors are in the circuit, waves similar in nature (but not identical) to EM waves travel between the two wires with great efficiency. When there are no matching inductors, the situation then gets more involved with particles flowing in the wire and dissipation resistance. ] (]) 19:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
			]
	== ANI ==
			--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 04:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
	Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
			==Request for clarification on ]==
	== The Wavelength War ==
			I have filed a request at ] for clarification on the scope of the topic ban placed upon ] in the ] case. As you have recently participated in an ] request regarding this case and precipitating the clarification request, your comments would be welcome. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
			==Wiki math and politics==
	Brews, It has come to my attention that you are involved in a war at 'wavelength'. I had a quick look, but I didn't study the matter enough to discover what the key point of the argument is. I wouldn't have thought that 'wavelength' could have been such a controversial topic, but then likewise, others probably feel the same about 'centrifugal force'. I'm interested to know what the key point of dispute in this argument is. Is it something to do with the complications of multi- wavelengths in complex waves? Does it involve Fourier? If it involves analyzing Fourier, I won't be able to help out. Can you please explain to me, in as simple terms as possible, what the sticking point is. If it's about basic definitions, I might be able to add a comment, but I am unlikely to get drawn in fully. In summary, what are the two sides saying? ] (]) 11:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
			Re the ]. WP is a political environment (I know that's politically incorrect, but it is what it is). You've got seven arbs commenting already that no clarification is coming and/or they think you violated the ban, and no arb dissenting. The probability they will change their mind at this point asymptotically approaches zero; likewise the probability of a change in topic ban at this point is the same. If my comments led you to think otherwise, accept my apologies.
			I suggest taking a long-term approach, with these specific suggestions:
	== Centrifugal Potential Energy ==
			* Delete all your comments at the clarification with something like ''I did not consider my free will edits to be under the scope of the ban; however, I now understand the community's interpretation is that they did and will refrain from any mention of physics topics in the future'' or equivalent.
			* Likewise at ]. You'll either get a last chance warning or a week block -- I'm not as good at reading the mood at AE as some other venues, but either way it's not the end of the world.
			* As you go forward, you're just going to have to avoid any use of words that sound ''physicsy'' to normal people. While we both know terms like ''second'' are actually physics, most folks don't, so if you stick to commonly used words you should be okay.
			* Yea, I was thinking that {{User|JohnBlackburne}}'s ratting you out for ] was a bit stalkerish, but looking at their length of time here (long), edit count (high) and block log (empty), and the fact they did give your fair notice here on your talk page, complaining about them is a waste of time. So turn it around and use them like a ] -- the next time they warn you they think you're encroaching on physicsy stuff, immediately remove or strike (if someone's replied) the comment. Then twist it around ask them how to phrase the rhetorical point you want to make without violating the ban.
			* If you find yourself in a discussion where another editor starts introducing physics material into the argument, I'd consider asking one of the AE admins who have commented more sympathetically (Coren, NW, Seraphimblade, EdJohnston) for advice on their talk page; I've found most Wikipedians active in dispute resolution would much rather be helpful than have to be doling out blocks. Worse case is they say no.
			* In about six months, if you can stay off WP:AE would be the time to start trying to get restrictions eased. I'd start with simply asking for your talk page to be exempted -- I see you've had to decline to answer some questions posted here. Then go from there. <small>]</small> 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
			::NE Ent: Thanks for the interest. I do not have a strong expectation of good judgment or a real look into what the problem is. Admins have lots of things to do, and quickly dealing with them on any basis that will expedite matters is first priority. There are some that actually do think though, and I hope to resonate with those that actually want WP to prosper and are not completely submerged in battling the onset of minutiae. Maybe, a long, long, time from now, something will be done to get WP back on track and get Administrators involved in real decision making, not just garbage collection.
			::Inasmuch as the result of this hearing is pretty much going to leave things as they are, and inasmuch as Blackburne has again managed to pervert WP process, there is very little I can do here. I'll sit back for a while or forever, depending upon who knows what, and much later perhaps try to raise some questions about the perversion of clarification hearings to become short-cuts to unnecessary, ill-considered and ill-willed actions. ] (]) 15:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
			:::Well, if your goal is to fix WP processes I'm pretty sure you're going to fail, but that's your choice. If you goal is to be able to edit WP, that's really up to you. I don't think Blackburne's perverted anything; they've simply understood and used the process as it is. <small>]</small> 16:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
			*I'll second NE Ent's opinion that most admins would much rather help early than reach the point where blocks seem warranted &ndash; but that by the time things reach a noticeboard it is often too late to entirely salvage the situation. Don't hesitate to seek help early and, more importantly, to ''heed'' advice you've been given. Misplaced Pages isn't unlike academia in that it's so heavily laden with unspoken rules and assumptions that one can run afoul of the system when one does what is superficially "plainly correct". I'm guessing this is why you're having difficulties, but very many people here would be happy to give you a hand. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
	Brews, you appear to be doing a good job at ]. Bear in mind this very simple fact. In a central force situation, kinetic energy that arises in connection with the transverse motion is effectively ]. Seeing it like that will help you to comprehend the absolute rotation topic. ] (]) 16:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
			==Arbitration Enforcement thread closed==
	== Free space and vacuum discussion ==
			A thread at ] which concerned you has been closed as follows: Brews ohare will be issued a final warning, logged to WP:ARBSL, that the topic ban covers all material reasonably and closely related to physics, regardless of what page such material is on. Brews ohare is further urged to request clarification from an uninvolved administrator (preferably one familiar with the case) or here at AE prior to beginning editing any material where its relation to the topic ban may be in question. Such clarification requests made in good faith will not be considered a violation of the ban.
			I'll also add, seeing the above discussion, that I would ''much'' rather hand out advice than blocks, and that's true of most every admin I've worked with. Please don't hesitate to ask if something's unclear. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
	I will quote what you said on ] for ease of discussion, and my points/questions follow:
			==Editing Complaint==
	:Hi Pecos Joe: There is no argument that NIST "vacuum" and "free space" are one and the same as far as ''c'' is concerned. There also is no doubt that "free space" is used in some contexts to mean propagation in a medium like air, as distinct from a waveguide or the like. There also is no doubt that "vacuum" has a very, very much wider range of meanings, many non-technical, and many meaning again a medium, like terrestrial vacuum. So, I think your argument really comes down to this: “it doesn't matter what a general audience might conclude from its use; if "vacuum" is NIST's selection of term, who are others to argue, a large number of textbooks and papers notwithstanding?” ] (]) 02:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
			Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice--> ] (]) 09:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
	These following is mainly trying to point out why I consider vacuum to be more precise than free space, as a description of media, from a scientific viewpoint. Other points have been responded to on the SoL talk page.
			== AE request opened ==
	· NIST does not use "free space" in publications as a synonym for "vacuum" (except when you include words like speed of light, permittivity, etc.), but some authors use the term as in Free Space Optics (but I do agree that the "speed of light in free space" is the same as the "speed of light in vacuum"). A reader with preconceived notions may read free space to mean air, or to mean perfect vacuum.
			] <small>]</small> 02:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
			== February 2013 ==
	· A reader with preconceived notions may read vacuum to mean partial vacuum, or to mean perfect vacuum (or maybe ask themselves what carpet cleaners have to do with light). (Please note I would not normally use perfect to describe a vacuum, but will do so here for your benefit) Usually, an experimenter will describe the vacuum with a base pressure, or add some other qualifier to indicate the nonzero pressure.
			<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> To enforce an ] decision,&nbsp;and for violating your topic ban as detailed in , ]you have been ''']''' from editing for '''1 week'''. You are welcome to ] once the block expires.&nbsp;If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and then appeal your block using the instructions there. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a ] "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->
			== Open letter to Administrators at AE ==
	So vacuum could mean 1 <= n < ~1.000001 (if vacuum could be confused to mean pressures less than 1 kPa), and free space could mean 1 <= n < 1.0001 (or whatever you want n_air to be). Thus, vacuum has a smaller worst-case error (same as range of meanings?), in contrast with what you said above.
	Finally, a reader that doesn't know what either means (general audience) will click a link to find out, if he is interested, and it doesn't really matter what it is called, as long as the name is consistent.
			Administrators ], ], ], ]:
	Please respond on this talk page (that is, your own talk page) with comments, as I prefer not to follow a discussion across several different pages. Thanks, ] (]) 07:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
			It is not kind of you all to come to a decision to with no input of any kind from the subject of this action, and so quickly that no response was possible.
	:I put my comments on the SOL Talk page. ] (]) 15:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
			In fact, there is no violation of my topic ban. The fact that the adjective ''physical'' appears in the term ''physical determinism'' does not indicate that it is actually a topic in ''physics'' or "closely related" to physics. This confusion is analogous to interpreting "light bulb" as being about the physics of "light".
	== Centrifugal Force ==
			The topic of '''' is a topic in metaphysics, just like , or , or , all very closely related topics that I have contributed to substantially lately, and all historically ancient philosophical topics that have their beginnings with Aristotle and Plato if not earlier. The sources examined in these edits of mine are all by philosophers, or (rarely) by scientists writing as philosophers.
	Brews, before your section on Lagrangian was added to the centrifugal force article, the article would have had us believe that there are two kinds of centrifugal force. The first of these was supposedly only observable in a rotating frame of reference, and the second was supposedly the equal and opposite reaction to a centripetal force.
			It is alarming to me that Administrators charged with the care of WP would rush to make such a content-related judgment with no input about the subject in order to get the facts straight.
	Consider a weight being swung in a circle on the end of a string with the angular speed steadily increasing. When the string snaps, what causes the string to snap? You will see that the answer does not lie in either of the two descriptions of centrifugal force that we had been restricted to prior to your introduction of Lagrangian into the article. The answer is a centrifugal force that can be observed from any frame of reference and which is not a reaction to any centripetal force. That centrifugal force is catered for by the Lagrangian formulation. But it is also equally catered for by the convective term in Goldstein's equation 3-11. ] (]) 11:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
			Regards, ] (]) 17:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
	== Help with altering image ==
			===Letter to Administrator Sandstein===
	I noticed that you are good with images. Do you have the capabililty to easily alter one of the images from the speed of light article, as I outline below, if you have time? The image is File:Speed of light from Earth to Moon.gif (sorry, couldn't figure out the link). The disappearance of the light beam as the animation goes from the last frame back to the first could be confusing (because for that to happen, the speed of light would have to be infinite), so I think a better way would be to have the Earth shoot a pulse of light at the moon. I will show my preferred way of showing this. Below, O represents Earth and o represents the moon.
	(Beginning at the current last frame:
			Administrator Sandstein:
	O----------o
			I have left a letter to all involved Administrators on the topic of my block at . I am sure of two things: first, that the block will not be overturned as a matter of policy, and second, that Administrators involved have no grasp of the subject under discussion, and have acted out of ignorance. Some notion of the subtleties involved can be seen in .
	O ---------o
			Perhaps needless to say, the philosophy articles in WP are in terrible condition and stand in very poor relation to those of the online sites and . I have been trying to change this situation to the best of my ability.
	O&nbsp;&nbsp;--------o
			Although Administrators have a lot to handle and pressures upon their time limit their ability to delve into such situations, it is very clear that only the temporarily insane like myself will attempt to improve WP in the face of such nonsense. It would be most helpful in improving WP if Administrators did not abet inimical practices initiated by a few malcontents, by Administrator enforcement of actions that have no bearing upon proper conduct of WP.
	O&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-------o
			In this particular instance, my efforts at have been resisted by Richardbrucebaxter who refuses to engage in discussion and edits only on the Main page and without any Talk page support. He initiated the present kerfuffle because I resisted these actions. Thereupon JohnBlackburne, who follows me everywhere, saw an opportunity to be a nuisance again and support an AE action.
	Thanks, ] (]) 18:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
			I hope AE might resist the temptation to do something like this again.
	:Hi Pecos Joe: Unfortunately my skills do not extend this far. I think Dicklyon could help you. ] (]) 11:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
			Thanks for taking the time to read this letter,
	== The Speed of Light ==
			] (]) 15:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
	Brews, I can see that you are getting into a pro-longed argument at 'The Speed of Light'. I haven't studied this argument in depth yet, but from what I have seen so far, I am unable to figure out exactly what the core point of the argument is. I do know from experience in these matters that when an argument like this occurs, it is usually because there is some fundamental clash over what should be emphasized, and that often, neither side wants to explicitly declare their motives. I haven't been able to ascertain as yet what the fundamental ideaological clash is between yourself and Martin. If you could explain that to me, I might be able to make some suggestions regarding a way forward. I have done alot of work on the speed of light and I hold views on the matter. But I have been keeping out of this debate because there is nothing useful that I could add to the introduction that wouldn't surely be relegated to the history section.
			:Hello. Insofar as this is an appeal of your block to me, it is declined. The only relevant question is whether you infringed on your topic ban, which is worded as encompassing "all pages of whatever nature about physics (...), broadly construed". Above, you contend that you did not violate the topic ban by creating and editing ]. That is incorrect. The article is about a concept that relates to physics. It also contains text such as "The concept of physical determinism has also been used to denote the predictability of a physical system", "Physical determinism can also be viewed as an observed phenomenon of our experience, or a thesis only relevant to mathematical models of physics and other physical sciences", or "The notion of physical determinism takes its classical form in the ideas of Laplace, who posited (in agreement with the physics of his time) that an omniscient observer (called sometimes Laplace's demon) knowing with infinite precision the positions and velocities of every particle in the universe could predict the future entirely". These statements relate to ]. The article ] is therefore a "page ... about physics ... broadly construed", and therefore within the scope of your topic ban. As to your statements about the alleged misconduct by others, or the condition of philosophy articles in Misplaced Pages, these statements are not relevant to whether or not you violated your topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
	Unfortunately, right now, what I am observing at 'The speed of Light' is two editors in a prolonged argument who are both tip-toeing around their motives. In the centrifugal force argument, I was always open about my motives. I was open about the fact that I wanted the centrifugal force brought to attention in connection with the radial planetary orbital equation in the absence of any involvement of rotatating frames of reference. Those that were opposing me never wanted to disclose their motives even though it obvious that they were clearly uncomfortable with the radial planetary orbital equation, for whatever reason. But they wanted to claim that their interest lay exclusively in ensuring that wikipedia's rules and regulations were being upheld.
			{{outdent|8}}Sandstein: Thanks for taking the time to reply. Of course, in some broad sense a discussion of the practice of science and its bearing upon our views of how we sit in the Universe has ''some'' connection to physics at a metaphysical level, but has nothing to do with ''physics'' as understood and practiced by physicists. However, more important than whether a line has been crossed, is that the purpose of Administrative action is to advance the development of Misplaced Pages, and I frankly see no way that intrusion by Administrators into a semantic debate technically beyond their understanding has any such result. Such actions encourage a disrespect for Administrators' judgment and for their grasp of their rather more important real responsibilities. That disappointment is reinforced by your stated rejection of the relevance of Administrator actions either to the improvement in quality or to conduct on WP, matters one would hope to be a concern. ] (]) 17:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
			::Block happy admin strike again! Thus continues the highlighted need for an impartial review board and not the blocking admin who seems to jump the gun every time he perceives even the smallest possibility of pushing the block button. ] (]) 15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
	I think it would help at 'The Speed of Light' if you would openly declare the underlying point of view that is driving you,and what you think that Martin's opposing point of view is. From an earlier discussion on that page, I rather got the impression that Martin is very much of the opinion that space is empty and that there is no aether. Has Martin's point of view in that respect got something to do with the current argument? Often prolonged arguments digress away from the key point and move into trivia, semantics, and word order. Is that what is happening here, or is there a major point of dispute that I am missing? ] (]) 11:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
			:::H in a B: Thanks for the morale support. ] (]) 17:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
	:Hi David: Well I've tried to state my "point of view" as one of logical and historical accuracy. I don't know what Martin's point of view is, other than he is always right, even down to where the commas go. His viewpoint has evolved, however, from a belief that c = 299 792 458 m/s was a platonic constant like π, and a related belief that "vacuum" was a god-given medium with the mystical property c = 299 792 458 m/s, to a belief that nobody but himself believes that, so he better back off. ] (]) 12:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
			== Laws of Nature vs. Laws of Science ==
	Brews, As the introduction stands at this moment in time, is there anything about it that you strongly disapprove of? At the moment, the talk on the talk page seems to be largely about presentation rather than about substance. I'm not inclined to believe that a prolonged argument can ensue merely over the issue of presentation unless there is some more important underlying issue involved that is too uncomfortable for the parties to explicitly highlight.
			{{cite web |title=Laws of Nature |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/ |work=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |author=Norman Swartz |date=February 2009 |accessdate=2013-2-14}} introduces the concept of a distinction between ''laws of science'' and ''laws of nature'', the first being approximate and inaccurate, and the latter being ideal and completely accurate.
	Secondly, can you give me an example of some input by Martin that you strongly object to? I need to get to the root cause of this dispute before I can give any advice. You have so far hinted that Martin sees the speed of light as being some kind of platonic constant like π. That could certainly be the grounds for a deeper dispute, but from what I can see right now, everybody seems to be tip-toeing around the main issues. ] (]) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
			{{quote|"Laws of Nature are to be distinguished both from Scientific Laws and from Natural Laws. ...Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the “principles” which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world “obeys” the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications."|Norman Swartz|The Laws of Nature ''in'' Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}
			== August 2013 ==
	::Brews, I've been continuing to follow the argument and I'm still not altogether sure of the point that you are trying to make. Is there a danger by any chance that you might be putting too much emphasis on a source that is clearly wrong? I may have picked it up wrongly regarding who is pushing what, but if a source is trying to say that the speed of light has got nothing to do with the speed of light, then clearly something must be wrong.
			Brews, the ] are getting out of hand. in particular should be redacted. I realise you are getting frustrated at the failure of the community to support your various changes but that is no excuse. Its pretty clear to see that if this continues its going to end up at ANI or at enforcement with requests to extend your topic ban or worse. Personally I think that would be a pity, you could contribute great content if you were prepared to work with other editors but I can't remember a single example of you letting something go, other than under pressure or threat. That is a great shame, but its your choice. Ignore the later part of this if you want, but redact that comment it could get you another ban in its own right ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
	::This topic of course lies right at the gate of special relativity, and so I will not be at all surprised if many illogical and conflicting sources exist about the matter. If however I could get a clearer picture regarding the ideaological difference between yourself and Martin, I may be able to make some suggestions as to how to resolve the dispute.
			:Snowded, I'd have to agree to a failure to achieve support of the 'community' consisting of Blackburne, yourself, and a few others that show up occasionally. Mostly the real community doesn't give a damn what I do, and neither does ArbCom until Blackburne drags me to ANI on a topic ban issue.
			:In your case in particular, I don't think the failure is all mine: I am entirely willing to modify proposed additions, change sources and so forth in an exchange of views. But where you have been involved, you are unable to articulate your concerns. Your instincts tell you something isn't quite right, but you just cannot crystallize what it is that bothers you. You are not disposed to engage in actual development of material, but remain tongue-tied and resort to repeated unexplained claims of policy violations, citing policies that seem not even to apply.
			:And then you take the attitude that banning me from the project will fix your problems. I have made useful and necessary contributions to WP, numbering in the hundreds of articles and massive revisions of many more. I've added dozens of figures (and would add more if it were not for you). The rate of accretion of new articles on WP is statistically declining, and revisions of any consequence are a rarity in most topic areas not involving current events. Editors interested in adding substantially to WP are scarce. Why is that? Do you suppose WP has such complete coverage and such accuracy that there is just nothing more to say?
			:The effect of your actions is to hobble WP so it remains in its present imperfect state. You keep insisting upon trimming articles down and merging them with others. I don't know why that is so appealing compared to expanding treatment of topics and providing readers with a greater and greater wealth of more and more complete information. ] (]) 15:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
			::Brews if you bother to check you will see I have refrained from reporting you (despite provocation and opportunity) for breaking your various edit restrictions. My experience of you is that once you have decided on an edit you fight it to the last and even when people try to help (remember Bob) you still refuse to accept any compromise. You also completely fail to understand synthesis or arguments that relate to that policy. Yes Misplaced Pages needs more content, but it does not need content that is not encyclopaedic in nature. You are repeatedly writing essays on the various topics and then getting upset when other editors will not indulge your wish for discussion. It's your call however, I've tried to help and you are at high risk with some of the crass insults you have been handing out lately. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::Snowded you don't sound conciliatory. And your notions about synthesis and what is encyclopedic in nature, and what constitutes an 'essay' are debatable. They could be discussed, but are you in the mood? ] (]) 19:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
			::::If you show evidence of listening then always in the mood, but precious sign of that to date ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
			::::Brews, I'm all for inverting your topic ban so that you only edit Physics articles, narrowly construed... after all, that is your area of expertise, right? But either way, please be guided by "the 'community' consisting of Blackburne, , and a few others that show up occasionally", right.—] 00:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::::You two both seem to think (i) you are good listeners and (ii) very knowledgeable in philosophy. If we look at resistance to adding a simple figure, or ] to adding a few sourced sentences, or to adding a simple ''very'' well-documented quotation, are there ways to demonstrate your skills at listening and apply your knowledge of philosophy to arrive at something constructive? Or is it your stance that I am just too pigheaded to listen (to what?) ] (]) 15:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
			::::MachineElf: I do want to thank you for suggesting I rewrite ], which I did with great interest (and success, judging by the increase in reader hits), and for suggesting I move a contribution about quantifiers to the article ] (which I drafted). These were helpful suggestions. Perhaps you would agree these were helpful contributions on my part? In the philosophy area, I also added ], ] and ], and the related article ], and made some significant changes to ]. Maybe I am not altogether a nuisance, eh? ] (]) 15:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::::And ] for your original text on each one refusing to listen or engage with other editors. In a large part each of those articles recycled similar material. Some good stuff but it is getting overwealmed by your refusal to compromise or listen. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
			::::::Snowded, this kind of remark is not constructive and simply reinforces your own attitude that everything is set in stone. It's not. ] (]) 23:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
			== What is an 'essay'? ==
	::My own view on all of this is that the speed of light is the speed that light and other EM radiation travels at. There will be an up to date 'most accurate measurement' of that value. I can't see that there could be much more to be said on the matter. I would have thought that the real controversy would have been occuring on the permeability and permittivity pages where people could conceivably be arguing endlessly over the physical meaning of these two quantities and how they just happen to be related to the speed of light. ] (]) 11:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
			I'm proposing a discussion with Snowded, and whoever else wishes to join in, as to what constitutes an 'essay'. Let's begin with the application of ].
	There are two issues: one is the speed of light vs. 299 792 458 m/s. The clearest source on this matter is Jespersen. I think the question here is not substance but presentation. Martin and Steve are afraid to call a spade a spade, and want to phrase things so they have to be read like a legal document to get the drift.
			{{Essay}}
			The link is to ]. It says an essay is in the ] and its title begins with the prefix ''Misplaced Pages''. It "typically addresses some aspect of working in Misplaced Pages, but has not been formally adopted as a guideline or policy by the community at large".
			Now Snowded, apparently you mean nothing like that.
	The second issue is the experiments regarding the independence of ''c'' from the motion of the source and the independence from the velocity of the observer. The experiments are agreed upon, although Martin insists on the only cited source being an unavailable book by Zhang, even though there are plenty of alternatives with the relevant discussions available on line. Here the present problem is that Martin insists upon an incorrect statement of the postulates of relativity. I don't know why he insists. I think all that is going on is a case of being annoyed at having his words changed, which he dresses up in all sorts of non-reasons. He went through a similar more short lived episode on his version of QED, but combined forces turned him off after a page of self-defense that he was right all along. It's just how he is. ] (]) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
			{{essay-like}}
			This is more what you have in mind. However, simple rewording is not what you have in mind.
			You say to me:
			:"You are repeatedly writing essays on the various topics and then getting upset when other editors will not indulge your wish for discussion."
			:"I am not sure of the utility of the article, but it is "mostly harmless" so I am confining myself to ensuring it does not become a personal essay, with your own personal illustrations."
	::Brews, Martin seems to be objecting to the first line in the introduction. If Martin is a relativist, which I'm sure that he is, I don't see why he should be objecting to that line. I would object to it too because I am not a relativist, but that is beside the point.
			:"We are not here to write essays, or personally select what we find interesting."
	::What about offering Martin some kind of compromise in which matters pertaining to relativity get introduced further down the article. Why not go along with Martin for the first part of the introduction and then make a statement further down regarding the fact that the significance of the speed of light as an actual speed changed with the advent of special relativity and it then came to be viewed in the light of being a universal constant. This could be done in connection with a brief mention of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
			:"Essay-like is nothing to do with sources there or not, it's style.' (Some punctuation added to make an intelligible sentence out of it. Hope meaning is not altered.)
	::In other words, begin by treating the speed of light just as you would treat the speed of sound. Then mention the dilemma associated with the Michelson-Morley experiment and the fact that this was (supposedly) resolved with Einstein's special theory of relativity, and that subsequent to relativity, the speed of light came to represent a universal constant with a significance that goes beyond that of merely being the speed of light.
			From these quotes, I am led to believe that you, Snowded, are of the opinion that I simply state my own opinion. Now, of course, that does not happen without my providing a source. So your objection extends beyond my stating 'my' opinion to providing my ''selection'' of sources. The idea is that out of a universe of discourse, I cherry-pick sources that suit my views. The result is an ''essay-like'' contribution that is parochial in nature, and not a proper full discussion of all the various views out there.
	::As you know, I approach the Michelson-Morley dilemma differently. But I think that what I have said above represents an accurate account of how this aspect of physics is taught in the modern universities. ] (]) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
			Have I got this right? Is this what you are proposing, Snowded, when you refer to my contributions as 'personal essays' or 'essay-like'?
	Brews, I've been monitoring the situation further and I have come to the conclusion that there are two jokers in the pack. One is of course the old postulate of relativity that the speed of light is a universal constant. But there is also a new joker in the form of the 1983 definition of the metre. These two jokers add together to make nonsense on top of nonsense.
			Assuming that to be the case, here is a simple way to challenge such an essay: state a different view of the topic and provide a source for that view.
	As usual, you are trying very hard to make sense of the situation and to present it in a way that the readers will understand it. But my advice to you here is that it won't be possible to make any sense out of it. I can't help out directly in this edit conflict because anything that I have to say on the matter is purely for the historical section. I wish that we could bring all those 19th century classical values back again. But meanwhile, if it's a game of playing cards with modern sources to try and win a best presentation of modern nonsense, then I don't want to play.
			From my own viewpoint, no contribution of mine has been one-sided, and where different opinions exist that I know about or discover, I have presented them. But you, Snowded, have never undertaken to suggest additional material or an additional source that has been omitted. Instead of making that effort, you simply challenge the sources I have presented as being 'primary sources', and so unworthy of consideration. That is another discussion.
	My advice to you would be not to try too hard on this one. I don't like to see people ganging up on you, especially as I know that you are genuinely trying to learn and to improve the encyclopaedia. But this may be a case where if you stand back for a while and take a broader look at it all, you will see that you have merely been drawn into a quagmire about nothing worthwhile, and which you can never fully win because of the illogical nature of it all and the confusion that it has sewn amongst many editors. ] (]) 09:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
			Snowded, I am inviting you to present your take on this topic of what is an 'essay' and what is objectionable about it, and just what can be done about it. ] (]) 19:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
	:Thanks for your remarks. It is a quagmire, to be sure. I believe the page in its form right now is acceptable, though not as clear as it might be.
			:An essay in this context is where you select a limited range of primary sources and assembly them in a sequece (often with too many quotes) based on your synthesis of that material. Often, even when you use secondary sources you then serch out primary ones that match your understanding but are not referenced. As to what can be done about it I am not sure. You have essays on your user page in which you disagree with[REDACTED] policy and your attempts to change policy have resulted in little success. You have I think a key decision to make. Will you work with[REDACTED] policy and other editors or continue to persue your view of what should be? ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
	:The notion of ''c'' as a defined value is a point of confusion. At this point, Steve and Martin claim to accept the point that a defined value cannot be a measured value, but in their heart of hearts I don't think they really feel this way.
			:Oh, and it shows the level of your misunderstanding that you think the solution is for other editors to create competing essays. That also explains your frustrations that I and others will not spend time debating your opinion on the talk pages. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
	:I gather you think this notion of a defined value for ''c'' is not only counterintuitive, but a mistake.
			::Snowded, your remark "An essay in this context is where you select a limited range of primary sources and assembly them in a sequece (often with too many quotes) based on your synthesis of that material" seems to me to repeat what I suggested was your stance, which I phrased as follows:
	:I think it is OK to do this, and the confusion could be clarified if it were made clearer how requirements upon a unit used for comparing measurements arise and are checked. Comparison is all that is involved, not establishment of absolute numbers.
			:::"The idea is that out of a universe of discourse, I cherry-pick sources that suit my views. The result is an ''essay-like'' contribution that is parochial in nature, and not a proper full discussion of all the various views out there."
			::If there is a significant difference, please point it out. ] (]) 23:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
			::Snowded, you follow up with the claim that my solution for avoiding too narrow a view is "for other editors to create competing essays". I take that as a rejection of my suggestion of a "simple way to challenge such an essay: state a different view of the topic and provide a source for that view." Is my assumption correct? All that I mean is that, where a presentation appears parochial, for you to point out what is missing or misstated and provide some source to remedy the problem. That is not an unreasonable request, do you think? It doesn't require so much exposition from you as to become a 'competing essay'. It does require more than the bare-bones allegation that a contribution is a parochial 'essay', or the uncorroborated assertion that it is based on cherry-picked primary sources. ] (]) 02:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
	:Convenience in comparison favors units based upon easily established standards, so ''c'' stands out as very reproducible and convenient. However, the speed of sound in "standard" air could be used just as well, with a sacrifice in ability to reproduce the standard accurately from day to day and from place to place. Sound would have one advantage, though: it would be separated from relativity and electromagnetism and all the superstition surrounding those topics. ] (]) 11:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
			:::Yes you are correct in your first assumption. As to the rest it really depends on the motivation, role and time of the editors concerned. As Bob pointed out to you I patrol a broad range of articles and tend to focus on making sure material does not get in without proper sourcing etc. That task itself takes up more time that I should really allocating to this project. That also means checking for synthesis. On a major article I have worked on content, but on minor articles its down to the person who cares about them to get the content right. In many of the cases you list my general view has been along the lines of: If you really want an article on this OK, but I don;t see its value. In those cases I am just going to police content ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
	== WTF? ==
			::::Perhaps a more blunt statement of your adopted role is to say where you identify what you see as 'synthesis' or cherry-picking sources (what you label ''essays''), particularly in situations where you are not moved to engage, you will simply 'hang tough' and see no need to explain your actions. Where you see an 'essay' you will revert the contribution, and see no need for justification beyond labeling it. Where you see a WP policy infraction, you will simply point out the policy and have no obligation to explain why you think it applies. How does that sound? ] (]) 14:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
			::::Snowded, you might recognize that your perspective on material can be a mystery to the contributor. ] (]) 14:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::::I always explain the reason Brews, the problem is you either don't understand or don't agree ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
			::::::Snowded: However clear you think your in-line editorial comments are, you will doubtless agree that your explanation of things is often brief and tends to be limited. Let's look at your belief that some of my contributions are essays. I now understand that label to refer to your opinion that I follow this practice: (1) the biased selection of particular sources to support my chosen viewpoint, and (2) the unwarranted combination of these opinions to arrive at views not intended by these authors, or at least not explicitly stated by these authors. I don't agree with that characterization. But, would you agree that this is how you view my contributions?
			::::::I have little doubt that you won't agree that this is your position. Based on that expectation, I want to ask the following question: Just how much support for such an assessment is warranted? If I read your comments correctly, your answer is that in cases where the contribution is minor (which includes just about everything I do, I'd guess) a brief (I'd say cryptic) in-line remark is all that is needed. How am I doing so far?
			::::::Typically you say (I paraphrase): "the contribution is based upon a synthesis of primary sources; go find a third-party source". Period. No further clarification will be forthcoming. Anything short of a third-party source is unacceptable, regardless of how reputable, or how many, or how clearly the primary sources may espouse a position. The advantage for you is that no further engagement is required from you (in your opinion) and the contribution is unworthy of further comment (beyond, perhaps, some sarcasm regarding my ability to grasp the obvious). ] (]) 19:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
			::::::Have I got you right? ] (]) 22:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
			{{od}}And they get increasingly brief as you fail to pay attention. The request for a third party source is very clear and policy on use of primary sources is also clear. If you want to change policy then a discussion with me on one article is not the way to do it. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
			:Snowded: Where do you find the statement of policy on this matter? Here are two links about primary secondary and tertiary sources: ] and ]. Their position is as follows:
			::" Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors."
			:Now, I have no difficulty with this policy. Is it what you have in mind?
	What's with the pointy edits about the Roche ref at speed of light? You're not replace a ref I removed, you're placing a ref from an unwarranted expansion that I removed. And then you're asserting that is has got the history mangled. Why not decide what you want, and try to do it right instead of just jerking the article, and us, around? ] (]) 05:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
			:Its application is regarding 'novel interpretation' or 'synthetic claims'. Obviously, your own perception of synthesis or of novel interpretation can be mistaken or subtle, and some additional comment supporting your objections is appropriate. Your practice of simply stating a violation is present is inadequate. In the cases where we have clashed, in my opinion, there has been no instance of either of these bad behaviors. Can you see that a difference of views may exist in such cases, requiring discussion? ] (]) 15:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
			::Discussion of the source yes, not of the content ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::Please clarify. ] (]) 23:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
			::::Discussion of whether the source is a secondary one, reliable etc. etc. Not a discussion of your view of the content. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::::Snowded: Thank you for your clarification. The question asked was whether you felt your personal assessment of a contribution as exhibiting synthesis or introducing interpretation of a source was possibly not shared by contributor, and therefore warranted an explanation on your part beyond your statement of your own assessment in the form of an in-line edit summary limited to (more or less): "the contribution is based upon a synthesis of primary sources; go find a third-party source". Is it your reply that indeed no further explanation on your part is forthcoming, and all that is open to further input from yourself is whether a third-party source proffered by the contributor is adequate, again, in your opinion? I just want clarification that I have your position correctly stated. ] (]) 11:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::::I'd add that I think that position is rather hard-line and basically sets you up as an 'expert' whose opinion trumps all other opinion. I think your view is that having identified a policy violation, there is nothing more to discuss. The problem with this view is that the establishment of a policy violation is in itself a controversial matter and conveying the reasons for such an interpretation becomes an obligation both for clarity and to aid the contributor in modifying their contribution. ] (]) 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
			::::::Well so far on the RfC's you have called and there has been participation my interpretation of policy has been supported. I always identify the issue, but then you just don;t give up. Look at the picture as an illustration. I allowed several changes refused that. But you just won't compromise and go on, and on, and on. You need to think about that. Get reasonable and people will be more relaxed with your edits ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::::::Snowded: Your first response is that indeed your experience is that you are an accurate interpreter of policy as evidenced by your interpretation of historical community response, so indeed, you are a notch above run-of-the-mill explanation. Your second response is that you 'always identify the issue'. Identification of an issue as one of 'interpretation' or 'synthesis' of sources is not really helpful without an indication of the reasoning behind those assessments. We will, of course, continue specific debates on other Talk pages. I think, of course, that I am reasonable, and that you are opaque. ] (]) 15:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
			::::::::Of course you do Brews, and I am in the good company of Arbcom, the wider physics community and those responding on RfCs. We are all of course being opaque in the face of your reasonableness ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::::::::Well, I am happy for you to be so tight with ArbCom. I had no idea that you claimed comradeship with the 'wider physics community'; sorry, but I find that unlikely. As for those responding to RfC's. well look in the mirror - that's just about all present. ] (]) 17:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
			::::::::::Your misreading of that is illustrative of the wider problem. In good company, means in this context that all those groups have been subject to your vilification for not agreeing with you, not the same thing as comradeship. Where you have got a response on an RfC it has been to reject your proposals, and generally now the community is ignoring them. A behavioural change would be most welcome and I am sure the community would then work with you. But as it stands things are going down hill fast and a lot of your edit summaries would be enough to get you sanctioned if I was the complaining type (which I am not). ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Snowded: I regret that we cannot open a line of communication. I don't find your diatribes about myself conducive to your greater understanding. They are simply venting without addressing anything substantial.
			{{od}}Here is a summary of the key points:
			* You use the term 'essay' as shorthand to describe contributions that, in your opinion, exhibit cherry-picking of sources and synthesis of their views to arrive at positions not endorsed by those sources.
			* You arrive at this designation based upon your own interpretation, and generally point out violations of ] or ] as having occurred.
			* You think it unnecessary to engage in any back-and-forth about your judgments or how these policies have been breached.
	:Who's jerking who around, Dick? You can't read, and are too lazy to look at the source. Nothing you say in this remark has any bearing upon what I said or what the source says. The source explains how the history of Roemer's work has been mangled, not that the WP article has a mangled version of history. Wake up, and get that chip off your shoulder. ] (]) 05:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)		That's it. ] (]) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
			:If you insert 'continuous and repeated' before 'back and forth' and delete 'any' then I am broadly in agreement ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
	::So in the footnote where you said, "The mangled treatment of the history of these events is found in AP French (1990). "Roemer: a cautionary tale". in John Roche. Physicists look back: studies in the history of physics. CRC Press. pp. 120-121. ISBN 0852740018," you didn't actually mean to say that the source contains a "mangled treatment of the history of these events"? Forgive me for misinterpreting your words. But the source does not appear to include the word "manged" in it, so wtf are you trying to say? It would be better if you'd stop editorializing in footnotes; just say what needs to be said in the article, and cite a source that supports it. ] (]) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
			::We may be as close to agreement as is possible.
			::You have said that you already spend too much time on WP, and time explaining your actions would limit your effectiveness. That is a judgment call, of course.
			::But time spent in discussion also is shortened by direct and plain answers to objections to your invocations of ] and ]. Looking over our exchanges, a lot of your time has been spent in your trying to ''avoid'' explaining yourself instead of just saying what is on your mind. I think to some extent this reluctance is a reflection of unwillingness on your part to put time into crystallizing your intuitions, and also to a reluctance to put time into re-examination of preconceptions that sometimes are out of date. ] (]) 17:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::Its not a matter of intuitions, its a matter of sourcing. You have a few of how Misplaced Pages should be edited which accepts a edge of synthesis that I and others do not accept, per policy. There are also style issues - I will have to make amendments on that if I get a chance tomorrow on the latest focus of your attention. You are doing some good work, but then you go to far with synthesis and quotations, then it get changed then you reinstate and the cycle continues. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
	::Your fix is less "mangled", but this footnote doesn't support the text it's attached to, and seems to be an irrelevant aside. So I took it out again. What is its point, in your estimation? Can you fix it? ] (]) 05:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
			::::I gather that you think I may not ''egregiously'' synthesize, but still do so to an unacceptable degree. I'd suggest that such 'borderline' synthesis by its borderline nature (superposing that is how it is) might be viewed by some one way, and by others, another. That determination requires discussion, not pronouncements. Slight rewording, or greater explanation could resolve uncertainties. Just how that can be accomplished needs elucidation of the issues, which may be unclear to all involved. ] (]) 14:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
			==MachineElf's warning==
	Your antipathy is showing. ] (]) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
			] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
	==Gauge theory==
	Hi -- I thought you might be interested in the recent activity in ] and ]. Both articles could still use work. --] (]) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
			To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr -->] 17:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
	== August 2009 ==
	<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:55 hours|a period of '''55 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for declaring an ]{{#if:Speed of light|&#32;at ]}} in . Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:true|] <small>(])</small> 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->
			:MachineElf: It's hard to believe you are advocating use of the Talk page when I have placed ] about your edits on the Talk page from the beginning, and asked you in my edit comments specifically to explain your changes there. Without result. Apparently you feel that because I made the corrections, your revert to prior erroneous text requires no explanation. ] (]) 18:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
	{{unblock reviewed|1=As any perusal of the Talk page at ] will show, I am not at all responsible for edit warring. In contrast, I have steadily employed the talk page for all dispute resolution. However, Martin Hogbin over-rode this discussion to put material under discussion on the article page, based solely upon his own individual viewpoint. I reverted that addition, once, and on the Talk page suggested that Martin seek resolution before amending the article. It is simply wildly irrational to say I am at fault here. I do not understand what action I took that provoked this sudden, unexplained block by ].|decline=Your statement that "I will revert any reintroduction of this material again, and if you re-revert you will violate the 3 reversion rule" indicates that you are intent on reverting someone else's contribution that you do not agree with until you get your way. We call this "edit-warring" (see ]), and it is prohibited. You have been blocked to prevent you from acting on this statement. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)}}
			== September 2013 ==
	:This decline reason is just fatuous, as instead of my outlining a possible course of events (the possibility of a reversion of repeated insertion of erroneous material under discussion before resolution on the Talk page), an outline which lead to this block, I simply could have followed this action with no warning outline whatsoever, and no block would have occurred. This completely stupid argument to support this block, simply suggests that I am being counseled in future to be less conciliatory and more abrupt in my actions. ] (]) 19:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
			] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
			Please be particularly aware, ] states:
			# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
			# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
			If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew -->
			----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
	This does seem rather arbitrary and capricious, though in general I'm usually in favor of having Brews blocked for a few days to give others some space to edit without his heavy-handed interference. ] (]) 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			There is no edit war involved here at all. What there actually is is an obstinate editor who refuses to support his personal opinions, and instead removes sourced material without any comment beyond his personal distaste for it. ] (]) 04:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
	I'm not sure that "declaring an edit-war" is the most accurate characterisation of the edit in question; 55 hours seems rather long also. Given that the article in question has been protected, I'd be inclined to unblock if Brews ohare gave a good faith pledge to discuss the issues constructively and refrain from reverts. ] 00:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			:Brew's this is your talk page so you are free to believe that and say it. The fact is that other editors can disagree with you (and frequently do on multiple pages), is something you seem unable to accept. I stopped compiling the evidence on personal attacks for Arb enforcement earlier this week as you seemed to have stopped. If you are starting again I'll unhappily go back to that task ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
	I think Brews has to be unblocked because the whole point of locking the article is to let the most involved editors (which includes Brews) reach a compromize without edit warring. ] (]) 00:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			::Snowded: You sound like an endless tape. You avoid all actual discussion of content to go off on these spiels abort my defects. The endless discussions on Talk pages are all with you, and they are not discussions. They are pleas for you to come to grips with sources and content. Instead you find it easier to frame remarks like those of yours above that are simply screeds about 'my behavior'. Get real. ] (]) 11:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::Misplaced Pages is governed by rules on behaviour Brews as you have already discovered. Otherwise on the content issues - how many times have you been backed by other editors? I think you need to get to grip with the rules about sources, original research and synthesis. A little movement by you there would make everyone's lives easier. Otherwise please stop this habit you have developed of ignoring ] until you are formally warned ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
	::This is a totally one sided block. I don't see anything in the edit in question that states a declaration of 'edit war'. Brews has got a legitimate point which he wants to elaborate on in the article. Martin Hogbin is trying to prevent him from doing so, while accusing his opponents of crackpottery. I support the immediate unblocking of Brews ohare. ] (]) 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			::::On content issues - how many times have you addressed content issues? I think you need to get to grip with the rules about sources, original research and synthesis. A little movement by you there would make everyone's lives easier. Otherwise please stop this habit you have developed of ignoring substance in favor of polemics. ] (]) 14:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::::I fully accept I have never addressed a content issue to your satisfaction Brews. Equally on any RfC where other editors have engaged, the content issue has not gone with you. Whatever, you don't want to listen and you seem set on a course which can only have one end point. Its your call but don't say that several of us didn't try to help ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{od}}To see whether I understand the background to your position, Snowded, let me try to state it in my own words. Any statement on a topic ''A'' in WP that is acceptable to you is of the form "The third-party source ''X'' has discussed topic ''A'' and has said the following..." Moreover, any contribution is unacceptable if it is of the form (more or less): "On topic ''A'' primary source ''P<sub>1</sub>'' says ''S<sub>1</sub>'' and primary source ''P<sub>2</sub>'' has the view ''S<sub>2</sub>'' and ..., and these appear to exhaust all the various viewpoints on this topic."
	:::It's not hard to see how "''I will revert any reintroduction of this material again, and if you re-revert you will violate the 3 reversion rule.''" could be interpreted as a declaration of an edit war, but I agree that for this one edit the block is not warranted, and excessively long. ] (]) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			Basically you cannot accept any editor taking responsibility for attempting to summarize a topic by presenting the available sources even though, of course, any other editor is free to add to this presentation, reform it, and to discuss its objectivity (all being undertakings that you eschew as a waste of your time). WP should, in your view, be nothing beyond a brief encapsulation of articles in encyclopedias or text-book like presentations. Anything else is no more than a personal essay (original research) based upon cherry-picked sources (although you would not investigate to identify any missing point of view). How's that?
			In my opinion this perspective does not describe a good deal of the articles on WP, its disdain for any useful commentary or contribution is laziness, and its reversal of all contributions not falling within its arbitrary and narrow scope is pure obstructionism. ] (]) 15:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::I see this block as kind of harsh, but I do think, Brews, that you need to change your attitude regarding edit warring. The comment was certainly an escalation of a dispute from a discussion to an edit war. I don't like to see edit warring blocks over comments in a discussion but this was a blatant violation of ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)		:Add all of that to your long essays on why wikipedia is broken, you are right etc etc. etc I'm done trying to explain basics to an editor who does not want to listen, has a block history that evidences he does not listen and a RfC success record which confirms whose problem this really is. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
			::OK, totally beside the point - another rant. goodbye. ] (]) 19:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
			== November 2013 ==
	== The implications of the 1983 definition ==
			] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
	Brews, While they are deciding, this is an appropriate opportunity to address your more specific queries. You were asking me about my views on space and how they are affected by the equation c^2 = 1/(εμ). On the 'speed of light' talk page, I didn't want to go ahead to that issue. But my view is very much the view of ] that this equation is simply Newton's equation for the speed of sound, and that the electric and magnetic constants represent the transverse elasticity and the density of his sea of molecular vortices.
			Please be particularly aware, ] states:
			# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
			# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
			If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew -->
			I'll give you some time to self revert before this gets serious. I too am busy in real life ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
	But we are not dealing with that in the current dispute. We are dealing with the fact that the 1983 definition of the metre makes the speed of light into a tautology. You want to elaborate on this fact in the article and I am supporting your right to do so.
			== December 2013 ==
	The latest extension of this dispute has been with regard to the extension of the tautology to the electric permittivity ε. The extended tautology lies in the fact that you cannot define a quantity using an equation that only came about in the first place because of an experimental measurement of that same quantity. ] (]) 12:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			You have committed multiple breeches of WP:CIVIL]] on the free will article continuing a pattern from other articles. While I understand you are frustrated that your edits are not gaining support on multiple articles insulting other editors will not improve things. The original Arbcom resolution to block you from Physics articles included reference to both tendentious attitudes, personal attacks and a combative attitude. There is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that you have brought the same negative behavioural pattern to philosophy articles. It is unlikely the community will be tolerant a second time round. In particular you need to realise that when you edits are rejected and no other editor supports you then its time to move on. If you can't change then I suspect you are heading for an extended block or possibly an indef. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
	:David, there is no "right to expand on this in the article" unless there are sources that do that. The one source that Brews mentioned that included the word "tautology" turned out to represent a POV opposite to his (the "stupid mistake" that I mistakenly attributed also to Brews when he showed that source). So let's focus on stuff that's from reliable sources that connect it to the topic, and keep the complicating details out of the lead, and we'll be able to build a normal good[REDACTED] article instead of a battleground. ] (]) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
	::It seems to me that if one defines a length as λ =''ct'', with ''c'' a defined numerical value, it is perfectly evident (a tautology) that when you measure any length this way, using the transit time ''t'' and the defined value of ''c'', inevitably ''c'' = λ/''t''. That is all that is meant by the term "tautology" in this connection. Thus, any source that states that length is defined this way, for example BIPM, NIST, and five or six texts cited earlier, support the notion of a tautology. ] (]) 19:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			Please be particularly aware, ] states:
	::As for the cited text: I'm afraid that it can be misconstrued. If several pages around this quote are read, my interpretation of the lines "With this definition it is clear that the speed of light will always be a constant... One does not need to perform any experiment to prove the speed of light: it is built into the definition of the units and so has become a tautology" should be read by replacing the phrase "the speed of light" with the phrase "the numerical value of the speed of light in SI units". This suggested replacement is based upon the topic of this paragraph being the SI definition of the metre, and the topic is not the physical entity "speed of light" as viewed from outside the SI units. ] (]) 19:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
			# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
			If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew -->. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
			:You have now clearly broken all the rules on edit warring. The fact that you don't like the reason given by other editors for rejecting your changes does not entitle you to impose those changes regardless. Final warning in the hope of a new year resolution by you to work with other editors rather than simply imposing your own views ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
			== Just to be clear ==
	There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that it is a tautology. It translates as ''"The speed of light is k times the distance that light travels in 1/k seconds, per second, where k can be any number, and we have decided to chose 299 792 458 in order to disguise the transition from the old system"''. But an even worse tautology arises where it spills over into electric permittivity. In that case we use the tautological value of c in an equation to determine a defined value for ε, where that equation only exists in the first place because of a measured vale of ε.] (]) 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			If other editors get involved, or you introduce a substantive new argument then I will engage on the talk page of any article (moral responsibility at the moment). However I am no longer prepared to waste time in repeating the same points to someone who does not want to hear an opposing view. Lack of engagement does not imply consent and any change which has not been agreed on the talk page will be reverted (unless it is something minor or routine). So please do not take a ''no one has commented so I will make the change'' approach. I may also respond on your talk page rather than an article talk page to avoid wasting other editors's time. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
	:Can one or both of you explain how you see this definition of the speed of light relating to either ] or ] or some other definition? What exactly are you saying is the tautology here? ] (]) 02:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
			:I find these remarks of yours to illustrate only your personal impatience with myself, and unfortunately to lump my contributions together on every topic as identical in your mind because they have in common their coming from me, and without any regard for their content. There is no connection between the failure of the lede in ] and other topics where we have met. Except possibly your reaction, and threat to remove ''anything'' I add of substance, regardless of its merits. Simply an astounding statement of your irresponsible behavior. ] (]) 06:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
			::Fully agree that impatience with your behaviour is a significant factor here. You might also note that I qualified my comment on reversion but you seem not to have read it. As ever your capacity or willingness to read and comprehend what other editors are saying to you seems limited. To repeat in different words: if you make a change to any article in the ranges I monitor I will as ever look at it on its merits. If I revert or amend I will generally use the edit summary to indicate a reason. If you have introduced a new argument or other editors engage I will take part in that dissuasion on the talk page. However I am no longer prepared to engage in long conversations with you on the talk page when you simply do not listen. So if you see no reply on the talk page and you take that as license to make the change, it will be reverted. See above where I am very clear on this "any change which has not been agreed on the talk page ..." by which is meant explicit consent. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
			SO to be clear you are stating your intention to edit war? ] (]) 20:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
			:Still upset are we? Am I disturbing the ''Blocked by Sandstein'' club? To answer your question no ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
			::I'm not upset in the slightest and ] has absolutely zero to do with this, I'm merely concerned that you are making threats of disruption specifically "So if you see no reply on the talk page and you take that as license to make the change, it will be reverted" which is in contravention of ] when you make blanket statements and also a declaration of edit war as your intentions. It's up to you if you want to be disruptive but I just wanted to be clear. ] (]) 20:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
			:::Pull the other one, its got bells on it :-) You attempted to get Brews recruited to your little ANI campaign against Sanstein and have sniped on and off ever since I opposed you in that. The pair of you have similar length block logs so you are in good company. Oh and you might want to read up on ] as well as[REDACTED] policy on editors who carry on conversations interminably on talk pages when they have zero support. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
			::::Snowded: This demo of pique is beside the point. However, let me try to explain my problems with your position regarding my editing of philosophy articles. If you can put yourself in an uninvolved position for the moment, and let me refer to you in abstract mode as "Snowded", you might see that from my standpoint my contributions to various articles all are different in content, ranging from the to creation of one or another new article (e.g. ], ], ], ]). In all cases the particular contribution is directed at the topic of the page in question. Thus, from my point of view, a claim by "Snowded" that all my contributions are bunk for the same reasons, doesn't seem to me to be possible. So, hoping you are still in an uninvolved state of mind, you might understand that "Snowded"'s saying that my every attempt has the same deficiencies as every other one that I make, regardless of the topic, doesn't seem fair or adequate.
			::::One way "Snowded" makes the same criticism of all my efforts is to say that all my contributions are the undigested product of Google searches with at best a superficial connection to the topics approached, connected to them only by some keywords used for Google search that isn't really significant to the topic. In my view, if that is how "Snowded" thinks of the contribution, it would be helpful if he provided some argument as to why the proposed contribution is not pertinent. After all, even if the contribution is made by a random by a keyword search, there is clearly a chance that an article found using a keyword could be pertinent. For example, there is a possibility that an article by ] entitled might have a bearing upon the WP article ], and maybe that possibility should be discussed?.
			::::In the latest conflict over the lede to ], the Google search criticism doesn't apply - here it is simply pointed out that - a matter worth addressing, I think. A simple rejection by "Snowded" on the basis that brews-ohare is always proposing trash doesn't seem to cut it for me.
			::::Can the real Snowded see the POV of brews_ohare?? ] (]) 21:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
			::::IMO, Snowded, what is really going on here is that you do not like discussing topics that you don't find worth discussing in the first place. That being so, my advice would be just to leave them be, rather than finding peremptory excuses to curtail discussion that you don't want to engage in. ] (]) 21:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
			:::::What I find comical is that you equate me mentioning asking brews for his opinion on a thread regarding Sandstein's administrative actions (which I had no hand in creating) which have in the past been an issue. I have no clue if he's still firing half cocked because I have not been active in that area of the encyclopedia but I notice you haven't underwent ] or a request for comment recently. So for all of your self righteous wailings you are clearly just as much to blame for the current situation. ] (]) 21:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
			::::::Brews - other editors are not supporting you by engagement in any way. There is a message in that which you seem to want to ignore ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
	Dick, 'Speed' is the rate of change of distance with respect to time. If we define distance in terms of the speed of light, then the speed of light becomes defined in terms of itself. ] (]) 14:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
			:::::::That could be the message, of course. However, almost all philosophy articles remain nearly in the condition they were first written many years ago, indicating that apart form changes of 'color' to 'colour' and 'which' to 'that' there is no-one but you to engage with. Pfhorrest showed up for a while, but his real life took him elsewhere, and all he does now is minor corrections and reversions, just like you do. So you are 'everyone' here Snowded, which makes claiming general agreement with your own ideas pretty simple, even if they seldom have any sourcing or logic behind them. ] (]) 06:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
			::::::::FWIW after several extended conflicts with you on various articles I'm very wary when I see you've edited something on my watchlist, and on the cursory level I have time to look over them I do see problems, but I just don't have the time to engage here like I used to. I see these things and hope someone else does engage you to make sure that whatever gets added or changed really deserves to be, because I do feel you lack a good understanding of a lot of philosophical material and approach editing the articles from such a place of misunderstanding; and to that extent I am grateful that Snowded at least takes a look and says something so that you don't make problematic edits with carte blanche. But I've also sided with you against Snowded attempting to take a too-eager pair of metaphorical scissors to an article before and excise (or block) too much, so I feel sad that that is the only apparent alternative. I really do wish more editors with varying opinions would get more involved so there was more constructive consensus-building instead of either you having carte blanche or Snowded just standing in your way completely, and I feel guilty for not being able to engage in that kind of constructive mediation that I used to pride myself on. --] (]) 08:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
			:::::::::you have been opposed by far more editors than me Brews as a simple check on your RfCs will show. Your attempt to claim status as a victim has little credibility. Having engaged at length in the early days I have lost patience with your intransigence. If Pfhorrest has time to engage with you again (although you simply repeated yourself last time the attempt was made rather than listening) I'd welcome it. Otherwise I have done my best to give you the benefit of the doubt in letting through some of your edits and I will continue to do so. The real solution is for you to listen to what ore distorts have said in those RfCs and before that on Physica articles. You might also want to listen to the silence which has greeting your attempt to involve others. That is often more significant here than disagreement.----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::Well, yes, the speed of light is defined in terms of itself, in some sense. I think we get that. Which definition of tautology does that relate to? ] (]) 16:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
			{{od}}Pfhorrest: I appreciate your comments. I understand very well that an article in philosophy is a nuanced affair, and that striking the right balance involves discussion. I happen to disagree with you sometimes, but that is normal in these circumstances.
			Snowded: You suffer from a polarized view in general that you are right, always, and do not need to support your opinions any more than does the Pope. So far as listening to others, it is not the only sign of listening to you to immediately agree with you, nor is it a failure to listen when questions about your positions are posed. However, as Pfhorrest has observed, your tendency is simply to block additions and refuse all justification beyond their affront to your sensibilities. Unfortunately also, there are almost zero Wikipedians interested in philosophy, so I'm not so much being ignored as working in a vacuum with yourself.
			I do recognize that most WP editors are of the 'hit-and-run' school of editing and wish to avoid extended discussion. I personally do not find that approach conducive to good content. This belief on the part of many editors is an outgrowth of impatience with scholarship, and is why WP remains with a reputation of unreliability, mainly consulted briefly to find a few of the ideas out there about a topic, but only laughable as a reputable source.] (]) 15:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
	:How about ]: If length λ =''ct'' where ''c''=1 phoot/ns, and ''t'' is the time for light to transit the length λ, then ''c''=λ/''t'' ''must'' be 1 phoot/ns for any λ and any transit time ''t''. Any other result is a contradiction, so the statement that this definition of length ''must'' produce ''c''=1 phoot/ns is a tautology. ] (]) 15:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)		The result of your actions, Snowded, as exemplified time and again here on WP, is that philosophy articles on WP will remain cursory and often incorrect, and new pages a rare occurrence. Instead, you could undertake to actually discuss sources and reach a suitable presentation of their content. So far that has ''never'' happened. ] (]) 15:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
			:Brews, in the early days I tried to discuss sources with you but you didn't listen to any argument that did not support your partial views. It's an experience that a lot of other editors have had with you, including Pfhorrest and others. Sooner or later people give up trying. You are confusing a refusal to constantly repeat objections to your arguments with a refusal to justify objections. Your comments on sources and scholarship are to be honest amusing. You use partial sources largely based on google searches. Something that yet another editor has just pointed out to you on the moral responsibility article.----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
	::OK, if you ever see that statement, call it a tautology. ] (]) 16:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
			::Snowded: Vesal has suggested my sources are not pertinent, but has not said why, nor have any sources been introduced by Vesal as support for the claim of a "partial" view. Snowded, you do not understand that sources are to be discussed, not WP editors' personal opinions. Your claim that you once upon a time "tried to discuss sources with me" is a fairy tale. For example, . I have, contrary to your remarks, responded in detail whenever you have raised a point, most commonly citing and quoting sources, and as soon as you recognize that your position requires some support from sources, you change the subject. Your remark "''You are confusing a refusal to constantly repeat objections to your arguments with a refusal to justify objections''" is most charitably to be seen as a case of the pot calling the kettle black. ] (]) 16:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
			:::Brews your replies are quite long sometimes. I'm sure that sometimes the level of detail can be intimidating to other editors too. I know it isn't intentional but maybe that is part of the problem. ] (]) 16:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
			::::H in a B: Thanks for the observation. Of course you are right about that. I'm not sure that I can overcome this difficulty, which is a result of dealing with editors on WP that cannot understand a briefly stated point. Of course, they don't read a more detailed presentation either, so the problem remains either way. ] (]) 16:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
			:::::Brews no one would ever accuse you of not answering in detail, the problem is you don't accept briefly stated points that disagree with you and try and engage people in extended ''Ad nauseam'' discussions. Most people gave up on you after the RfC on the definition of Philosophy, by the time we got to Dilemma of Determinism you were simply not accepting contrary positions and just put your points again and again and again. If one tries another way of explaining the point then once faces an accusation of changing the subject. Sorry, but no ones is expected to devoting hours of time to simply repeating points already made. This is especially true when no other editors engage. Move on, learn to compromise a bit. I've pointed you to the[REDACTED] policy on intransigence before and you need to read it.----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
	Huh? I thought you were asking for a formulation of the standard definition in the form of a tautology; the definition does not have to be in that form for it to be a tautology, it just has to be recognized that it is possible to do so. ] (]) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
			::::::Snowded: I appreciate that you are trying to offer me advice that I insist too much upon my own contributions, even though they are sourced and well-argued. You point out that you (and many others I am sure) are not interested in well-sourced and argued contributions, or in development of good content where that requires some effort, but prefer short statements of editor beliefs. Got it. Don't think that is the way to go, though. ] (]) 17:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
			:::::::I think we are all interested in well-sourced, but also balanced sources together cogent arguments that admit the possibility that you might be wrong and are not repeated endlessly after they have been rejected. You seem to what to assert that while you are using well sourced content, anyone who opposes you is merely expressing a belief. As long as you think like that you will not get out of the hole you have been digging for yourself.----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
			{{od}}A little look at our engagements shows assertion of Snowded's beliefs is indeed your ''modus operandi''. I wouldn't generalize that behavior to everyone. ] (]) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
			===Examples of other editors responses===
	== autoblock ==
			I'll put together more of these for you as I get time to go through the various philosophy articles you have edited. They all indicate a general pattern of response from multiple editors ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
	{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
	|-
	| valign="top" style="padding: 0.5em" | ]
	| style="padding: 0.1em" |
			* : "I can't believe there's this much confusion over a simple linguistic issue, except that you've had this kind of confusion over simple language over and over again on other articles" ..... "Someone else please engage Brews here, I really don't want to be drawn into a hundred pages of explaining the meaning of a simple word to him again". --Pfhorrest
	'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s):
			* : instant reversion without commentary, and an exhortation to all to follow his pattern of avoiding all discussion based upon sources.
	<br><br>] #1544710 lifted or expired.
			== March 2014 ==
	''Request handled by:'' <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 12:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
			A has been made for Arbitration enforcement ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
	<small> '''Unblocking administrator''': Please check for <span class="plainlinks"> on this user after accepting the unblock request.</small>
	<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
	|}
			==Disambiguation link notification for March 18==
	== The Edit War ==
			Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
	Brews, I intervened in your dispute at ] as a mediator in order to find out what it was about. Basically you wanted to clarify the change that has arisen in the concept of the ] as a consequence of the 1983 re-definition of the metre. But you encountered a certain group who had a vested interest in making sure that the matter wasn't clarified.
			It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
	I made my opinions on the matter clear and the administration have now given their answer to that. FyzixFighter and Physchim62 squealed at ANI and an admin instantly pandered to them, broke the rules, and decreed an indefinite topic ban. It was the typical knee jerk reaction that I have come to expect. The same will happen to you too, so my advice is to steer clear of it and don't play into their hands.
			==Help with ]==
	Your point has been more than adequately made, and it would now be in your own interests to leave the matter well alone. If you haven't already done so, read ] by ]. It deals with the whole issue of 'deletion of history' and why deletion of history is so important to propagandists.
			Glad to help with above as you ask, Brews. Interesting talk page btw!
			] (]) 00:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
			== Curious ==
	If you go back to the page, they will surely steer you into a lengthy block. Don't play into their hands. Let them have their ] physics. Let the public be confused. It's not your problem if the public are confused. I know you wanted to help, but if the system doesn't allow you to help, you don't have to be like Atlas and carry the world on your shoulders. ] (]) 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
			How does one cope with ]?—] 04:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
	:Hi David: Yes, I see that the page has been hijacked and there is no attempt being made to deal with the issue. Sources are not addressed, majority rule has been implemented and the whole thing stinks. ] (]) 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
			== Gary Cziko ==
	Brews, I tried to find you on e-mail at google. Dicklyon recently said that we don't really know who you are, and he's always accusing you of over expansion. Maybe you can give him this secondary source to use for evidence at the next ]. . And by the way, I was reading the[REDACTED] article ]. It really is a very well written article. But don't let your experiences here tempt you to over expand it. They'll block you, but not until you've first acknowledged the party line. ] (]) 20:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
			Hello, Brews ohare. I thought I should inform you that Snowded is proposing to delete ], an article which you started. See the article's talk page. ] (]) 03:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
			:No, if I was doing that I would have proposed deletion. I asked which of the tests of notability this one matched as its not obvious ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
			::Snowden I wondered when you would show up, it was too nice a day to not have something go wrong with it I guess. ] (]) 12:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
			== Phi Cop ==
			you make a "repeated invitation" concerning my "dominance" of the "moribund" philosophy project/articles. I know you've made similar remarks at the WikiProject, OR, ANI and elsewhere. Are article talk pages about all that's left?—] 17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
			MachineElf: Guess what - it's not about you. ] (]) 17:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
			:But you say: "The philosophy work project is moribund. As a result of this apathy a few editors like Snowded and MachineElf dominate the field and insist upon their own agendas." That is about me.—] 06:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
			:Would you like to sign up for ]?—] 06:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
			::MachineElf: The fact that you and Snowded are virtually the only editors active in philosophy is not directly about you two. It is about the lack of a more general interest. As for signing up, putting my name on this list isn't going to inspire more activity among others or by me. I do wonder what happened that those who started so many of the philosophy articles stopped contributing to WP a year or so later.
			::It is not just a philosophy thing. The number of participants on WP actually contributing new articles or large additions to articles has after 2007. Whatever its cause, my conclusion after looking at article histories is that WP is failing to engineer a climate for cooperative shaping of contributions, and has instead become little more than a beleaguered action against vandalism. ] (]) 14:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
			::My guess is that a good deal of the problem can be traced to (i) lifetime appointment of Administrators without any mechanism to insure responsibility in their actions, and (ii) anonymity of contributors whose avatars become WP personalities of dubious character, and (iii) a conservativeness toward modifying policy that amounts to rigidity and the impossibility of improvements. ] (]) 15:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
			::: Hi Brews, long time no see. My guess is that there is no problem at all. I don't think one should focus on ''contributors and their problems'', but rather think in terms of—bear with me—''available subjects to either create new articles about, or to add large additions about in their article when they already have one''. With each newly created article and with each large content addition, the number of such subjects naturally declines. Up to 2007 there was a sufficient supply of such subjects still allowing for exponential growth. Around 2007 that changed and , which can be defined as "the number of daily new subjects with sufficient potential notability for Misplaced Pages". So the number of new articles per unit of time stopped growing. So what? It's a basic law of populations (contributors) thriving on renewable limited resources (uncovered subjects). Exponential growth cannot continue forever. Looks pretty non-contributor-driven—and certainly non-conspiratorial—to me. - ] (]) 18:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
			::::DVdm: The emphasis here is not at all upon ''contributors and their problems'', but upon the dearth of contributors. As for the 'nothing-is-wrong;-it's-just-that-exponential-growth-is-impossible-to-maintain' theory of WP's slow demise - well it just doesn't fit that model. There is a sharp change in the about 2007 that doesn't fit a ]. In any event, the WP-is-just-fine scenario is not true to life. ] (]) 21:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
			::::: Your emphasis on "(i) lifetime appointment, ... (ii) anonymity of contributors... and (iii) a conservativeness..." clearly resorts under ''contributors and their problems''. And of course a sigmoid is the last curve one would expect. You completely missed the point. You were talking about ''new'' articles here. As long as old, uncovered '''subjects''' aren't exhausted, the number of newly created '''articles''' can and will easily overshoot the number of available new potential '''subjects'''. As soon as the old '''subjects''' are exhausted (2007), there ''must'' be a fallback that, in turn, gradually settles down to an equilibrium. We don't need to solve a differential equation for this. Look at the current curve, up to Feb 2014. It's a natural classic, and the only one possible. And in any event, the WP-is-just-fine scenario is very true to me {{smiley}}. - ] (]) 22:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
			::::::::DVdm: Apparently we don't agree, and there isn't the data available to really dig into this. Which is one more symptom of WP's lack of vigor in keeping tabs on things, watching the data and publicly discussing its implications. In the absence of careful attention all we have is opinion, and the easiest response is complacency. I'm of the opinion that WP will continue to let things slide, and it's unlikely that a competitor, lacking WP's wonderful opportunity, will supplant it anytime soon. That is a major misfortune for humankind, an opportunity squandered. ] (]) 22:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
			::::::::: See this with an overshoot, "''due to over-reproduction in response to the initial abundance of resources''". Compare the scatter graph with the time scatter graph of new articles per day of the , or even already with (top right, blue). - ] (]) 11:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
			::::::::::Thanks for the stats. The article size stats are interesting, with the average article running 3.6kB and about 55% of articles with <2kB of words. Even a little knock-off like ] runs over 21kB, so most of these articles are puny indeed. Articles with .5 - 2 kB of readable text aren't significant in my mind. Even counting all these minor articles the new article count is declining over time, having peaked in 2006-2007. Likewise for the number of Wikipedians with a lifetime edit content >10. The number making >5 edits/month and >100 edits/month aren't too useful without knowing the size of the edits. Just adding a source or a sentence takes over 0.5 kB, so smaller edits are inconsequential in adding to an article. And edits involving policing of vandalism activity or hit-and-run one-line edit summary reverts are not excluded. So the edit/month stats are not very useful.
			::::::::::It seems you are suggesting with the biology stats that there is a variety of behavior in population growth depending upon 'environment', which can't be argued. In fact, my point is that WP should be looking at its own environmental factors and trying to implement processes to insure they improve over time, rather than insisting everything is just dandy. ] (]) 14:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
			::::::::::: Of course there's always the possibility that daphnia too suffer from irresponsible administrator conspiracies... - ] (]) 15:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
			::::::::::::DVdm: I have not suggested any conspiracy or irresponsibility: rather incompetence, inability, inattention, inflexibility, and unaccountability. ] (]) 14:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
			::::::::::::: Not o'''R'''. A conspiracy o'''F''' administrator irresponsibility. It's how I interpreted . - ] (]) 14:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Don't understand - absence of a mechanism to insure responsibility surely doesn't suggest a conspiracy aimed toward irresponsibility? ] (]) 18:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
			== Reference Errors on 18 May ==
			] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows:
			*On the ] page, caused a ] <small>(])</small>. ( | )
			Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can .
			Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->] (]) 00:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
			== Mereology ==
			Hey Brews, can you help clear the essay tag? ] makes me a bit queasy... thanks.—] 05:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
			:How about a new article? Maybe ] with that material you wanted to include in the mind-body problem awhile back?—] 15:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			== May 2014 ==
			] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
			Please be particularly aware, ] states:
			# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
			# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
			If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew -->
			] is very clear. You do not have the right to determine if objections to your edits are acceptable or not. You are required to reach consensus. try addressing the objection rather than ignoring it or making ]. I've done my best to work with you on this article, allowing and modifying a lot of material. However you see unable to cope unless you are allowed to insert any material you think is appropriate. That is edit warring. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			:It's hardly an edit war when you provide no basis for your actions. I am reverting vandalism. ] (]) 16:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC).
			::Ah, so now if experienced editors disagree with you they are vandals? Old habits coming back Brews. I'll deal with this tomorrow, I have other work to do today. I strongly suggest you reflect, self-revert and engage with the arguments. Just because an author creates two concepts it does not follow that the article on each concept requires extended discussion of the other. You are, again failing to understand ]. Shame I thought things were improving. I'll leave it overnight to give you time to think ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			:::So now you wear the hat of 'experienced editor'? You are not. You are an experienced 'reverter'. You seldom contribute anything of consequence to articles and have never actually introduced a new article yourself in any academic area. The waving about of WP policy names like ] is not helpful without some actual basis and identification of the problematic material. Claiming that mention of autopoiesis or enactive interfaces is 'coat-racking' the article on enactivism is something that has to be ''supported'', and in fact the literature on enactivism is full of references to autopoiesis and the literature on enactive interfaces has useful discussions of enactivism, as cited in the material you dispute. ] (]) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
			]
			Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.
			:Based on , you have breached ]. Please comment at the report why you think you should not be sanctioned.--] (]) 20:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			== May 2014 ==
			<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for ] and violating the ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. However, you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. &nbsp;] (]) 01:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-3block -->
			:So much for , eh? I should know better. ] (]) 05:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
			::If you had ignored my request for comments, I would have blocked you.--] (]) 00:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
			:::Hi Bbb: I understand your action as simply an enforcement of the 3rr rule. I'm OK with that, but I don't know if your statement that we (actually I) "showed no insight into their misconduct" simply refers to this legal technicality or to something broader? In particular, if you mean that my engagement with Snowded shows a lack of understanding of Talk page activity, maybe that is worth examining further. ] (]) 14:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
			::::I don't know where you want me to put this comment, above or below your links - feel free to move it if it suits you. My block had nothing to do with "Talk page activity".--] (]) 14:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
			:::::OK; However, as an Administrator you might want to think a bit about what the underlying cause of an 'edit war' might be, and whether WP has adequate ability to diagnose or to remedy such matters in some general fashion. For example, an edit war often is an expression of frustration, and one such frustration is reaching agreement over what should go into an article. One might hope that a Talk-page discussion would lead to agreement. That probably would happen more often than it does now if Administrators took an interest in focusing the parties upon sources and redirecting them from disputes over each others' opinions. That is, Admins could try to underline WP policies about Talk page engagement instead of simply acting as traffic cops citing meter violations. ] (]) 18:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
			---------
			---------
			*
			*
			*
			== December 2014 ==
			] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. 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 ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].
			'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 05:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
			:Binksternet: What is your purpose here in applying main page 3r rules to my reversion of illegal collapse of Talk page discussion by non-participants in the exchange with Dicklyon. It is none of their business. If they have something to say about these sources, they can join in. But they don't. And if they have no interest in the exchange, they can ignore it. ] (]) 06:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
			::We're done. Collapsing the discussion is best. ] (]) 06:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
			::All right then, Dick. I thought you might have more to add. ] (]) 06:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
			==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
			]
			Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 06:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
			:It looks like you broke ] with your edits at ]. But it seems possible that you have stopped. You may be able to avoid a block if you will agree to abstain from talk page reverts for the next seven days. Thanks, ] (]) 03:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
			::Ed. No problem. I'll make no talk page reverts. ] (]) 04:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
			:::Please do not refactor Dicklyon's talk page entry to give it the false header "Removal of link". Dick is pretty ticked off about that: he reverted your subsequent additions to just before this refactoring. ] (]) 10:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
			Reverting actual ''text'' on talk page is a no-no. I guess Dick knows that. ] (]) 14:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
			:The violation was your biased header which made it look like Dick was arguing your case. At ] it says that you should avoid changing the meaning, which applies to you. And it says you should avoid making others angrier in heated situations such as that talk page. ] (]) 16:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
			:The notion that the header changed Dick's meaning is silly nonsense. , which is a neutral statement of what was done by Dick, and what was the subject of the following few exchanges. There is no need, Binksternet, to invent stuff. ] (]) 17:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
			:::The insertion of new topic heading and moving/unindenting my reply to your previous comment to look like the opening comment of the section definitely changed my meaning. ] (]) 06:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
			::OK, to identify the subject of subsequent remarks bothered Dick. That made him so mad he reverted talk page text in violation of established rules.. I fixed this by adding a more complete argument against his inappropriate deletion of sources. Probably that won't please him either. But this time he won't have a pretext for Talk page reversion of stuff he can't find words to discuss. ] (]) 16:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
			== Editing Signal Flow Graph ==
			It looks like we are both editing right now. I'll stand down for a while.] (])
			:Thanks for the help so far. Think I've finished for now. ] (]) 15:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			::It looks like we just flip-flopped on whether the ''Solving linear equations with signal-flow graphs'' section should be under ''Examples'' or not. I think that it should, because it is just another use of a SFG. I don't think it is special enough or important enough to have its own section. I'll leave it be for a while, but would like to have your thoughts.] (]) 17:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			:::Constant: My thoughts are different. In my view the subject of representing equations is all that distinguishes flow graphs from digraphs, and so is almost the entire subject, not just an application of it. ] (]) 19:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			::::It seems to me that the introduction makes it clear that the SFG represents equations.] (]) 19:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			::::Yes, it does. And that is what I have said here. So don't we agree? ] (]) 20:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			:::::I think we only disagree on where the section ''Solving linear equations with signal-flow graphs'' goes in the hierarchy. I think it is just another example and ought to be in the examples section. But, I won't change it again unless you agree.] (]) 20:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{od}}It seems a signal flow graph always is associated with a set of equations (otherwise the graph isn't a signal flow graph but is a more general form of digraph), and at least in the linear case, is instrumental in using these equations (e.g. Mason's rule). So why relegate this aspect which pervades the entire subject to a mere 'example'? ] (]) 21:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			== Article on the relationship between mathematics and physics ==
			Hello, professor Brews ohare. I have noticed that you have contributed a lot to articles in physics, mathematics and philosophy, and now I thought that maybe you would be interested in editing the article ]. Well... just an invitation :). By the way, you have made very good contributions to this project, congratulations! Best wishes. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			== Evan Thompson ==
			The thoughts of minor academics belong in their articles and the glowing account you added to ] should be removed and some of it placed at ]. I'm distracted at the moment so won't do that now, but articles on Dawkins are repeatedly mistreated as coatracks for the views of people few have heard of. The topic of the article is the book, with brief mentions of its reception. If you believe notability would be satisfied, please write an article about the debates surrounding "selfish genes" and move Thompson's views to there. ] (]) 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
			:Where does your evaluation of Evan Thompson as a "minor academic" come from? And his discussion of Dawkins in ''Mind in Life'' is thoroughly sourced, providing a well supported critique of Dawkins' work. ] (]) 04:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
			== Arbitration enforcement request 2 ==
			Your recent editing is being discussed here:
			]
			--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 20:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
			== Nice to meet you! ==
			I really hope they don't kick you off Misplaced Pages. I particularly liked your analysis about the growth and decline of Misplaced Pages:..."many new Wikipedians lost interest in continuing with WP, possibly because they faced an upsurge in activists". I 100% agree. Editing is so hard now. You make a well sourced article contribution and it just gets reverted and when you discuss it you find you are discussing it with people who aren't exactly Einsteins. Or if they are, they prefer to hide it. Often they are just activists of a sort pursuing a particular agenda. We aren't allowed say that of course, because that would breach the requirement to assume good faith. In fact, if we had frank discussions in good faith on the talk pages, we would, ironically, get blocked for breaching the 'assume good faith' rules. Unless of course we are in an alliance of Editors. If you can't win, join them is what some say. I've asked another editor today about tips on how to get into some sort of an alliance and not be a lone edior any more. The successful activists seem to be in alliances. Finally, I'm afraid your areas of interest and mine are not the same and it's unlikely I could ever understand the sort of topics you are interested in. Way above my head. Good luck! ] (]) 14:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
			== Arbitration enforcement warning ==
			Pursuant to ] you are warned that your topic ban is from all pages (and making any edit related to those pages) and from edits about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. See the related discussion in the request regarding the extent of the topic ban. You are further warned that any further breaches of ] will likely result in an extended block. This warning will be logged and may be referenced a reason to issue a block for a further violation, you may appeal this warning by following the instructions ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 06:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
			== Invitation to Snowded ==
			The action needed is to address sources instead of behavior. ] (]) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
			:Well you in a minority of one in thinking that Brews. How many more editors have to chime in before you finally admit you might be wrong? Or is ANI and yet another ban the only route? --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
			::WP policy supports the purpose of the encyclopedia, which is to present what reputable sources have to say on various topics. Naturally such presentation involves some discussion of this content and how it should best be presented. Neither of these activities has recently been your focus. ] (]) 17:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
			:::And as you have been repeatedly told by many editors both on Philosophy pages and on Policy pages it does not support your personal synthesis of those sources. If you want to write essays on Philosophy please enrol in your local community college. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
			::::Of course, synthesis is contrary to ]. However, you don't bother to back up your assertions that a violation has occurred. You yourself simply say that it is a waste of time to demonstrate that a source has been misreprented because only third-party sources matter, and no source I have cited is suitable. That way you can avoid any conversation at all. I don't think this is how to handle such matters. Your response to this protest is to claim misbavior on my part and threaten ANI. You will not even deign to formulate your own sourced opinion, preferring simply to revert all proposals with unsupported claims of synthesis. Perhaps, even though this is your position, you can understand that you are basically making yourself judge and jury over content? Can existing content survive this same idiosyncratic scrutiny? ] (]) 18:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
			19:25, 7 May 2015 (| hist) . . (-927)‎ . . User talk:Snowded ‎ (You're trolling Brews. I've explained it a hundred times or more. You are just not listening or are incapable of listening.)
			::::::I see you have deleted of your position which I hoped might lead to some more constructive mutual understanding. I think the point you want to make is that an approach based upon ] sources made by a novice to a topic area will select sources that are not the recognized definitive sources, but sources found by methods like Google book searches or Google scholar searches. That is a good point, and in my own areas of expertise I know the definitive sources in my library are not available on line, and that Google searches in some cases do not have any search terms that will turn them up. In fact, even the isbn number will not turn them up on Google, although they will show up on Amazon. Google has not scanned them, and for Google they do not exist.
			::::::We could attempt to come to grips with this issue. I think two things are obvious. First, non-ideal sources will show up. Second, no WP editor should be forced to accept some editor's paraphrase of an unavailable source, because even experts are occasionally given to selective understanding of sources they read. So how are these problems to be handled?
			::::::You have in mind this solution (correct me if I misunderstand). Find some reputable on-line accessible sources and confine WP articles to summaries of these sources. In my opinion this solution is very limiting. First, you and I may not agree on the subset of acceptable sources. For example, you have been known to object to ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', and prefer something like ''The Oxford Companion to Free Will''. Both of these sources contain invited single-author (sometimes dual author) articles by philosophers actively publishing in their subject area. The question arises as to why either of these sources is preferable to a reputable monograph that summarizes a field, like Evan Thompson's 'Mind in Life'.
			::::::The practical question for the two of us is: "Can we analyse this dilemma cogently?" I see no reason why we cannot. I am not close-eyed to the difficulties, and the issue is not how stubborn and hard-nosed I am on this subject. Can you engage? ] (]) 02:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			03:48, 8 May 2015 ( | hist) . . (-2,336)‎ . . User talk:Snowded ‎ (Ive waster too much time on you Brews. Every attempt to get you to collaborate falls in the face if your intransigence over synthesis. Now go away)
			== Proposed topic ban from philosophy for Brews ohare ==
			]
			] (]) 13:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
			:Advice- Howdy Brews, I haven't a clue about ''philosophy''. But, I have been through turbulant times on Misplaced Pages. IMHO, you should accept a topic-ban & agree with what those editors (who are pushing for your removal) are posting at AN. To do otherwise, may lead to a ''site-ban'' & trust me, you don't want that. ] (]) 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
			:Brews I gave you a life line which would remove all topic bans if you would accept other restrictions. Its there if you want it. GoodDay will hopefully confirm I did my best to help him even though when we got to this stage ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
			::Confirmation given :) ] (]) 16:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
			:I am resigning from philosophy. It is idiotic to continue when even a simple thing like providing citations for the definition of terms like 'nomological' are met with rabid responses. ] (]) 16:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
			::Recommend you post your ''resignation'' at AN. PS- My reason for sticking my nose in here, is because I'm a member of ]. We like to hang onto as many editors as possible :) ] (]) 16:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
			:::I don't know what AN is. Got a link? ] (]) 20:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
			::::It's the Administrator's noticeboard. The link is at the top of this discussion. ] (]) 22:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
			I have posted my withdrawal there and elsewhere. GoodDay, I have a number of that suggest changes that could help with editor retention. Perhaps you would comment upon their talk pages? ] (]) 16:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
			== Blocked ==
			Per discussion at I have indefinitely blocked your account. Although I did not quite find enough consensus for a site ban, it was clear that a further topic ban would not resolve the issues with your editing behavior and that this would only transplant the issue to your next field of interest. On this basis I have enacted an indefinite block. Should you wish to appeal this decision you can post an unblock using <nowiki>{{unblock|your reason here}}</nowiki> but i would strongly advise that if you were to do this you need to study the reasons why other editors are finding your contributions disruptive and include a clear and compelling argument of how your behavior will change to resolve this. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
			Harsh, but what the community desired. Hope all works out for the best for WP. ] (]) 00:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
			:Brews you are a class act. I've seen the debacle over the years and I've not seen you lash out in the manner of many here. Hat's off to you. ] (]) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
			::Hell in a Bucket: Thanks for that agreeable goodbye. I have been blocked for my efforts to contribute to the article ], efforts that offended the dominant editors of that article, not because of inaccuracy or lack of sources, but precisely the opposite, because of these editors' impatience with sourced viewpoints and refusal to discuss sources. ] (]) 18:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
			:::For the record, "editors' impatience with sourced viewpoints and refusal to discuss sources" is what you always say when you are unable to come to any kind of agreement or working relationship with others who interpret sources differently from you. That impatience is the flip side of your own infinite patience in pushing your own idiosyncratic interpretations, which is why you keep getting the community so wound up they they have to rise up and ban you. Good luck in your off-WP endeavors. ] (]) 20:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
			::::Dick: To serve the record, some actual diffs as evidence would be more helpful than your idea of a summary. IMO, the facts are that the editors involved in my banishment explicitly refused to discuss sources. In effect, they set themselves up as experts beyond any need to rely upon sourced opinion , and argued that my requests that they do so constituted tendentious editing. ] (]) 22:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
			*I have removed the Free will "article" below. This is not an appropriate use of your Talk page while blocked.--] (]) 14:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
			::Bbb3: I will instead simply link the CZ article on Free Will. Personally, I think your interference here is unwarranted censorship of views that are not public on the WP site. ] (]) 14:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
			==Link to article on 'free will' ==
			I am which represents what I think the article ] should more resemble, namely a broad discussion that includes philosophy, but is not restricted to philosophy. The WP article ] fails the recognize the breadth of the subject and is written from the narrow perspective of logical connections rather than an exploration of human experience. The first paragraph of the linked article, in contrast, introduces 'free will' as a subjective phenomenon, rather than one of many ''definitions'' that are hotly debated because none of them exactly fits . However, ] continues to debate definitions, and my absence there seems not to have led to any resolution of futile debate over a 'right' choice. ] (]) 14:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
			== Dilemma of determinism ==
			Snowded and also Spartaz have removed Piotrniz invitation to visit the deletion review for the deleted articles about the "standard argument for free will" and also the "dilemma of free will". The deletion discussion is found and has no substance whatsoever. A Citizendium version of the Dilemma is found and for the Standard argument is found . Spartaz says this removal of the invitation is necessary as it is canvassing by Piotrniz, even though I am blocked from participation on WP and, in addition, I am the principal author of these pages. When I chose to put this comment back up, Snowded removed it again, this time threatening me with a site ban. Having already achieved my removal from WP discussion, there is apparently still concern that somehow my talk page will upset matters. Go figure. ] (]) 00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
			:Brews, don't give them the excuse to take away your talkpage access. It will just be one final indignation that you don't need or deserve. ] (]) 03:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
			== Subject-object problem ==
			The article ] has been deleted on the supposition that it is merely a paste-up of randomly selected quotes from Google unrelated to any topic recognized in philosophy. It can be found on Citzendium . ] (]) 18:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
			The elimination of this article on the basis that it is a topic unknown to philosophy (as if a role in philosophy were the only justification for an article on this topic) can be assessed using these quotations:
			{|align=left style="width:100%;font-family:Gill Sans MT;"
			|
			:"two thoughts need balancing. The one is that many aspects of our world are independent of us; the other is that that the world is somehow constituted by or dependent upon our conceptual scheme or point of view."
			::: —Simon Blackburn: ''Enchanting Views'' p. 14
			|}
			{|align=left style="width:100%;font-family:Gill Sans MT;"
			|
			:"There is a common philosophical tendency...to conceive of the realm of belief and attitude as clearly distinct from the world of objects and events. This separation is typically presented in terms of a distinction between subjective and objective ..."
			::: —J. E. Malpas: ''Donald Davidson and the Mirror of Meaning: Holism, Truth, Interpretation, p. 192''
			|}
			{|align=left style="width:100%;font-family:Gill Sans MT;"
			|
			:"We consciously experience many different things, and we can think about the things that we experience. But it is not so easy to experience or think about ''consciousness itself''...Does the world have an observer-independent existence (realism) or does its existence depend in some way on the operation of our own minds (idealism)? Is knowledge of the world 'public' and 'objective', and knowledge of our own experience 'private' and 'subjective'?"
			::: —Max Velmans: ''Understanding Consciousness, p. 3''
			|}
			{|align=left style="width:100%;font-family:Gill Sans MT;"
			|
			:"It is as if the brain has to impose a pattern of its own, even if there is no objective pattern present."
			::: —Oliver Sacks: ''Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain, p. 265''
			|}
			{|align=left style="width:100%;font-family:Gill Sans MT;"
			|
			:"All these things sufficiently show that everyone judges things by the constitution of his brain, or rather accepts the affections of his imagination in the place of things"
			::: —Benedict de Spinoza: ''Ethics'' in "Great Books of the Western World", p. 372''
			|}
			{|align=left style="width:100%;font-family:Gill Sans MT;"
			|
			:"Every act of perception is to some degree an act of creation"
			::: —Gerald Maurice Edelman: ''Building a picture of the brain'' in "The Brain", p. 55''
			|}
			{|align=left style="width:100%;font-family:Gill Sans MT;"
			|
			:"It is well known that one sees with the brain rather than with the eye, and thus the brain tends to 'see' the familiar and expected."
			::: —Paul Craddock: ''Scientific investigation of copies, fakes and forgeries, pp.22, 23''
			|}
			{|align=left style="width:100%;font-family:Gill Sans MT;"
	:A mob mentality is evolving where there is no need to use sources or to provide argument for positions. On this basis one has simply to round up a half dozen cronies and descend upon a page to plaster your viewpoint. ] (]) 21:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
			|
			:"For the eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend."
			::: —Robertson Davies: ''Tempest-Tost, p. 107''
			|} ] (]) 15:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
			==Invitation to a research survey==
	::So now it's a conspiracy theory of "a certain group who had a vested interest in making sure that the matter wasn't clarified" and a mob mentality "where there is no need to use sources or to provide argument for positions"? You guys are so cute! ] (]) 07:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
			Hello Brews ohare,
			I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Misplaced Pages article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.
			Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!
	Brews, I've been making a few representations to higher authorities, but this guy Finell keeps interposing himself in the exchanges. An editor on Jimbo Wales's talk page claimed that the sources that are being using at the ] talk page are my writings. I have urged him to come back again and put the record straight. Meanwhile, Finell bought the idea. When I put Finell right, he then decided that your sources need to be clearly cited. From what I can see, you have already cited them many times. I have looked at two of them and they contain good quotes that should back up your case. I'm not allowed to go to that page and set the record straight, so I suggest that you yourself voluntarily pull out of this circus and finish with one final statement which includes direct quotes from your sources. Beyond that, you can do nothing more. Don't play into their hands by giving the administration the opportunity to topic ban you for circular arguing. You want to at least retain your right to return to the article some time in the future when wiser counsels are prevailing. Make one final statement, hold your sources up high in the air for the administrators to see, and then leave. That is the dignified option in the circumstances. ] (]) 13:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
			https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H
	== Ping! ==
			== ]: Voting now open! ==
	Hi Brews, I have a request for you at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 13:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
			{{Ivmbox|Hello, Brews ohare. Voting in the ''']''' 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.
	I have updated this figure to use the same vertical scale in all panels. ] (]) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	==The Speed of Light article==
			If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
	Brews, The speed of light article now lacks any mention at all of the alternative way in which the speed of light is arrived at from the experimental determination of the electric and magnetic constants. It seems to have been purged from the textbooks since 1983, although I did find it in a 1995 version of "Nelkon & Parker". Maxwell's method was still mentioned down in the history section until Tim Shuba removed it a few hours ago. This is an example of deleting history that certain people don't like to be reminded of. It's straight out of Orwell's ]. And watch your back because they are talking about you at the AN/I again in a new section started by Headbomb. ] (]) 14:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
			|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/27&oldid=750603218 -->
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].
			The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
	:Thanks, David. The connection to Maxwell's pertinent observation that epsilon mu is connected to the speed of light should be in there. I really don't understand the psychology behind this lynch mob. There is simply some delight in pounding as a group, without regard for the sense of it all, or whether it is a proper mode of operation. Quite amazing considering that the speed of light is not actually a religious or political topic. It would be more satisfying to all to arrive at a correct and clear exposition, but this behavior will not arrive there. ] (]) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
			Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> <small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 18:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
	Brews, The amazing thing is that the history section no longer contains the story that is the most significant of all in the history of the ]. That of course is the convergence of the measured speed of light by ] with the experimental results of ] and ] that showed the linkage between the measured speed of light and the electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio.
			==Software you used to create ?==
	Yet instead, we have a re-iteration of the modern post-1983 position in the history section. This clearly proves that your opposition is entirely motivated by the desire to stamp the most up to date position over the top of any explanations as to how we came to be in that situation. The history of the topic is clearly something that they don't want to be reminded about, and so a history section has to be eventually grafted into a repitition of the present. I can go to a library and read about Weber and Kohlrausch in the ] by ]. But in wikipedia, certain aspects of history, some of which are even still part of the present, are being systematically deleted by the likes of Tim Shuba and a group who are going around boldly referring to their opposition as 'crackpots'. And the non-physics readership at AN/I seem to take on board these allegations hook, line ,and sinker. ] (]) 17:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
			Hi! I was wondering what software you used to create ? I need to use some software to draw my microelectronic substrates in 3D.... Thanks! --] (]) 18:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 11:59, 7 September 2024

Ontology

Seems like you've been bumping up against some people who don't know what they are talking about while trying to improve the ontology entry. I'll try and see if my voice can help. Thanks for your efforts. Sorry to see how much trouble you've been having. - Atfyfe (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

On improving the editing climate

• On drafting clear sanctions   

• Filtering ArbCom cases     

• Handling minority views    

• What administrators should do 

• Trouble on WP: an open letter

“Increased democratic deliberation, based upon rewarding good political judgment ... harnesses the contest among ambitious leaders to the necessity of giving good advice” --- Peter Breiner Max Weber & democratic politics

►      …      ♫       …       ◄     

Tar babies

Arbitration ‘hearings’ are tar babies. Once you attract administrators' attention, residual attacks and arbitration follow you 'round like gnats in the Quebec woods.

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)

How's it Hanging Brews?

Hey I was checking out the Citzendieum started by Larry Sanger. I'm not suggesting you leave[REDACTED] 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)

Welcome back to physics!

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

Merci

Merci pour la reconnaissance :) Dr.K.  22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In recognition of your inspirational, tireless and enthusiastic contributions in many diverse areas of Misplaced Pages. Dr.K.  06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

		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.  06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Technology Barnstar
		For your excellent contributions to science articles. Dr.K.  06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Needed image

Hi Brews ohare! I need an image representing a positive feedback system (dual to your image about negative feedback, simply with "plus" instead the "minus" of the lower summer input). I would like to use it in positive feedback, Schmitt trigger and flip-flop pages. I also need an image representing 100% negative feedback system (without β in the feedback loop) to place it in emitter follower and voltage follower. Also, do you have any idea how to recreate this image using vector graphics as an SVG file? I have already installed Inkscape but I don't know how to open an existing image to edit it. Would you help me? Regards, Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 06:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Circuit dreamer: My approach has been to use Microsoft Excel to draw the image and save it as a png or jpg file in Microsoft paint. For example, you possible can load the existing diagram and simply block out labels you don't want and re-save the file on WP commons using a new file name. I haven't learned how to do SVG, and haven't used Inkscape. I'd be happy to hear your advice about these tools. Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the responsiveness. Today I started working with Inkscape. I noted that if I right-click directly the image in the page, I can save it only as png or bitmap. But if I left-click it, then go to its page and left-click the link below the image, I can save it as svg and then to open it with Inkscape. I tried also to convert your bitmap image into curves using trace bitmap options of the program. But I haven't managed to select a separate object to duplicate or to delete it. Obviously, there is a lot to learn... Regards, Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 17:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

---

http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_04.html http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.4704v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0646v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0404/0404617v2.pdf

WP:AE#Request concerning Brews ohare

Here we go again. Since you can't help but violate your topic ban, I've requested that you get blocked for the rest of it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my closure of this enforcement request, and let me know if you have any further comments. My conclusion is that you have agreed to make no more than one revert per article per week on anything in the natural sciences. In my mind, that includes mathematics. Your binding-voluntary ban expires at the same time as your topic ban from physics, that is, 22 August 2011. We have agreed to your stipulation that you may be blocked up to one week each time we decide that the new ban is violated. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston: Regardless of your personal definition of "natural sciences", they do not include mathematics according to the everyday understanding of this term. See here. The "natural sciences" are empirical in nature; mathematics is not. Brews ohare (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, my voluntary restriction was volunteered on the basis of the common interpretation of ordinary English. Brews ohare (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Please see WP:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Speed of light. T. Canens (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This escalation of a minor dispute to the level of a Request to amend a prior case is unwarranted. The whole matter could be settled without such drama. As it turns out, this request for amendment has since been transformed into a completely different matter, that can no longer be viewed as a Request for amendment, but is in fact an entirely new Case based upon who knows what (no discovery has been done; it's all based upon gossip in secret among admins and bald assertions by vested interests). Brews ohare (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed one-year ban

Following up on the above notification of the request, I'm leaving you this note to let you know that in response to the above amendment request, one of my colleagues has proposed a one-year ban for you. You may not have seen that proposal, so I'm formally notifying you here that this motion has been proposed, and to also give you a chance to make a statement. I, for one, will delay voting until you have had a chance to make a statement at that amendment page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This one-year ban exceeds by far the actual proposal by Timotheus Canens, already far in excess of the voluntary restriction agreed to. There is no proportion here, but punishment without regard for the crime, a shucking of propriety and responsible adjudication. Brews ohare (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not punishment, and there's no crime. It's just that you've made it more clear to more people that you and WP need some time apart. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What's clear to me is that you, Blackburne and Headbomb need to find a different target for your nonsense. Brews ohare (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's make one thing clear, I'm not hounding you, and I have never done so. I don't watch your page, nor do I stalk you through Special:Contributions/Brews ohare just to check if you violated your ban first thing in the morning. YOU violate your ban by doing things like editing WikiProject Physics' talk page, and making physics related edits on various articles I happen to have on my watchlist, then I react. If I was hounding you, don't you think I'd have reported you for the brouhaha you made at the Pythagorean theorem, or the cross product discussion thingamajig other people mentioned, or would have failed to notice that you edited Oliver Heaviside's article for weeks? If I was so hellbent on getting you banned, why did I give you a "free pass" when you edited WT:PHYS just a few weeks ago instead of jumping on the occasion to get you kicked out once again? That you insisted on screwing yourself over at ANI is your own fault.

And for general reference, the scope of ARBCOM proceedings are as wide and as flexible as the arbitrators deems the situation warrants. You had millions of chances, and you blew them all. Over the course of the last 16 or so months, you accused myself, JohnBlackburne, Sandstein, Timotheus Canens, Dicklyon, Michael C Price, Martin Hogbin, Psychim62, Finell, Dvdm, and countless others of being psychotic obsessive clueless maniacs devoid of judgment, or variants thereof, and the entirety of ARBCOM of being unable, unwilling, or otherwise unqualified to judge. Yet the possibility that you are the problem, and not the rest of the world does not even cross your mind. Even Count Iblis who stood by you most of the time wants a 0RR restriction on you and that doesn't make you flinch. You see yourself as the lone brave dissenter who dared speak against "Misplaced Pages establishment", in the veins of Galileo or Giordano Bruno, or perhaps as the fictitious Mikael Blomkvist who gets sentenced to prison through bureaucratic means because he stood up to corporate interests, but the reality is that you are more like that guy who climbs the Reichstag because he can't get his way.

And that's why you're getting kicked out. Reply or don't, but knowing you, you'll probably just revert this post or delete the section. Doesn't really matter to me.

I wish you all the best out there. A shame it had to come to this, but you forced our hand. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ive just left a note of congratulations for headbomb on his page, his manipulations and exaggerations have finally worked and you have been sitebanned. Shame it had to happen this way but maybe now he's had his pound of flesh he'll leave others alone but I doubt it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb: It's great that you have such a very positive self image. It is totally opposite to mine. According to me, you have hounded me incessantly over things as minor as adding a quote to the article on Heaviside, which you claimed was a physics-related topic violation because this man wrote physics papers. You promptly brought a case against me and then deleted the quote as a contribution from a "banned user". Wow, what a person is forced to do! The number of trivial actions you have brought is mind boggling, and for you to feel that you were "forced" to do that is, well, amazing to put it mildly, particularly because what you "had" to do was damaging to WP and to its editing climate. However, I congratulate you on your success in eliminating me from WP. I didn't think you would succeed, but WP administrators are not always wise, again to put it mildly. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and your statement that I accused you and "countless others of being psychotic obsessive clueless maniacs devoid of judgment, or variants thereof, and the entirety of ARBCOM of being unable, unwilling, or otherwise unqualified to judge" is a fabrication from whole cloth, an accomplishment you have exhibited repeatedly in your testimony in cases, in which testimony your adherence to fact is not a strong point. Brews ohare (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment: Site banned for one year

The Speed of light case is supplemented as follows:

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.

Passed by motion 8 to 1 at 14:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC) On behalf of the Arbitration Committee Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one year. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

And so a sparking mathematics edit of one sentence which Headbomb claimed was a physics topic-ban violation, a claim not supported by EdJohnston, among others, all of whom found this to be a mathematics related edit supported by mathematics books as sources, leads to a site ban. Amazing!. Brews ohare (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect you are particularly receptive to advice at this point, but this still need to be said so that you have an opportunity to reflect upon it before your eventual return: no single edit of yours led to a site ban; many many months of trying to skirt your restriction, of stoking old battles, and of complete refusal to accept even the possibility that your own behavior had a hand in your sanctions led to a site ban. — Coren  15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, just to note: Any appeal of this ban must be addressed only to the Arbitration Committee (via their procedure given here) or to Jimbo Wales. NW (Talk) 15:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice seeing you back Brews. Dr.K.  19:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr K: Thanks for the welcome. I hope to steer clear of my detractors. Brews ohare (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A word of advice

Please consider easing back in. In particular, if you concentrate on your excellent work with illustrations and diagrams, you are very unlikely to end up in trouble. Return to editing to areas where you ran into trouble gradually, if at all, and the chances that things go amiss go down exponentially.

Welcome back. — Coren  20:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Coren: I appreciate your interest. As a "gradual" approach to areas where trouble has occurred in the past, my plan is not to avoid these areas entirely, as they are of great interest to me, but to avoid engaging in discussion with those editors that have demonstrated an unwillingness for conversation. That undoubtedly will mean abandoning some topics simply to avoid dispute, at the cost of seeing these matters inadequately presented on WP. However, it is entirely clear to me that any such engagement in which these editors choose to dispute with me can never be resolved on WP regardless of the merits, and will only result in ArbCom or ANI engagements that, in my view, are hopeless due to the unfortunate way these matters are handled here. Brews ohare (talk)

Welcome back!

		Welcome back!
		Count Iblis (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Count. I hope we may have some interesting dialog concerning article content. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And from me ... welcome. Abtract (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Abrtact, thank you. I hope we can enjoy one another's contributions as before; I hope to avoid most of the drama this time around. Brews ohare (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

I may have jumped the gun last time, but I hope I'm getting things right now. Anyway, welcome back! -Roger (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. I've always enjoyed working with you on our circuit interests. Brews ohare (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Talk:Speed of light

Just a reminder of the arbitration decision posted to WP:ARBSL as archived in this enforcement post. You should also take note of the advice given above, which I think is especially pertinent here.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 18:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi John: I have no intention of engaging in any discussion on this topic: however, there are problems on speed of light that need to be addressed by those that so diligently look after this article. Brews ohare (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

John Brews, you can satisfy your need to advise on speed of light, and still abide by your indefinite ban on posting there, by posting your suggestions here on your talk page. I'm sure anyone who cares will watch and notice. Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dick: Thanks for that suggestion, which had not occurred to me. However, beyond my reverted attempt to point out some difficulties with the article, I don't intend to engage. Having discovered how editors react at Talk:Speed of light, I predict that any engagement there would be futile. Brews ohare (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I would advice Brews to avoid lengthy arguments that go nowhere. It is ok. to kick off a discussion, but then read carefully what the feedback is. If you find that you need to repeat things that you have already posted, that's already a red flag. Only if you think that what you wrote was not properly understood, you could think about clarifying that, but after that point, it's best to conclude that issue. In this case, you won't be able to clarify in the lead the definition of the vacuum, some weeks ago I also made a comment about that, but the consensus is that the lead shouldn't be too technical.

But, of course, Brews does have the right to at least raise an issue, even if it has already been discussed 2 years ago. The problem was never starting a discussion but ending it, which often involves having to accept that there is a lack of consensus for improving an article. You can't override that by arguing more, because this is ultimately a matter of taste. So, if the editors want to keep things simple in the lead, you can say that you don't agree with that, but it is then not productive to continue arguing why it should still be changed. Count Iblis (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Count: Excellent advice. I am subject to repeating myself when it really is of no use. Brews ohare (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the right to bring things up doesn't extend to pages from which you are indefinitely banned. Dicklyon (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that I did edit some pages some time ago on related issue, like here where explicit formulae are given for the effective index of refraction in vacuum in the presence of a magnetic field. Misplaced Pages lacks a lot of content on such advanced topics, so there is a lot of work to do.

Also, within classical electrodynamics, you could think about creating a new article based on this recent article on the self-force. This is an old problem that was until recently never satisfactorily solved. After the development of quantum electrodynamics, this became an obsolete topic, so it was ignored. But, now that the problem has been solved, you could think about re-organizing all the Wiki-articles on this topic, like the one on Abraham-Lorenz force etc. etc. as they are actually wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

These are interesting suggestions. Of course, the improvement of these articles involves some serious research on my part, so I'll have to see whether the itch to do that develops in me. As you may have noted, my comments on the speed of light article are in the nature of conceptual difficulties and not detailed appraisal of the experimental impact of these problems. Brews ohare (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Brews ohare/Wikipedia: Formal organization has been moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia: Formal organization, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia: Formal organization

Hello Brews ohare, I came across Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia: Formal organization. Did you intend to have this moved to mainspace, or did you want it in Misplaced Pages space? Best, Alpha_Quadrant 22:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alpha Quadrant: I don't know how to answer that. Got some advice? Brews ohare (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I marked that essay under being reviewed since we have some new and unexperienced reviewers. I checked the essay and it looks not bad (except the case that there is a unneeded whitespace in the title and the essay notice box at the top is missing). I'm willing to move it - but OTOH I'm really not sure, if we need another essay - especially on our organization structure. Maybe the essay should be merged into a mainspace article like Community of Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages, or any other article I might not notice. I won't do anything with the article, if you say move it, i will move it; if you say "decline it" I will decline it - I will wait on your response ;) mabdul 14:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mabdul:

I think the right place for this article is as a part of Misplaced Pages. If you agree, the nutshell banner should be removed, and that text made part of the first paragraph. I have edited the article accordingly. Hope you will transfer it. Brews ohare (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Misplaced Pages:Formal organization, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's ]. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Graphic design

Hi Brews! I am here to compliment you on your spectacular graphics, and to ask advice.

I am a very visual person and I think as much in diagrams as in words, but on Misplaced Pages I am handicapped by being completely illiterate in the area of digital graphics. I am an aeronautical engineer and I run Microsoft Windows 7 on my PC. Can you suggest how I might get into graphics with a view to ultimately being able to produce diagrams of the kind I see on your User page? Many thanks for any advice. I will watch your Talk page for your reply. Dolphin (t) 05:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dolphin: My approach to graphics is not very sophisticated. I use Microsoft Excel to draw the pictures. The early versions like '97 aren't good, but the '03 and later versions have good control over color and line widths.

Once the picture is drawn, I copy it and paste it into Microsoft Paint as a .PNG file. I save that file in My Pictures folder. Then I can find it using the UPLOAD FILE link on the Wikimedia Commons and follow the directions there.

I takes a while to get the hang of the various features of Excel. Mainly I use the "Shapes" & "Text Box" icons and the various menus for adding color, adjusting linewidth and so forth. You can use Ctrl & Shift simultaneously to select multiple items and the "Group" feature to make them behave as one unit to move them around together. The right mouse button lets you move things to the front or back, so you can assemble layers of items.

Hope you have fun with this. Brews ohare (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Brews! That sounds like a great challenge so I am off to have a go right now. Dolphin (t) 11:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sour grapes at WP:Talk:Notability

Brews, It is clear that your are passionate about this notability issue. This statement says it all: Well, its great to see two old "nemeses" reach agreement. But about what exactly? Rather than consider the possibility that notability could be established by various means, the agreement is that notability is "what people talk about" and is quite separate from "importance". Well folks, IMO that position really just means that the status quo is so important to you all that any nonsense can be resorted to in its support. Perhaps fortunately, WP is replete with articles that do not satisfy the present notability requirements. So perhaps the de facto situation on WP is wiser than the de jure version, eh? But it comes off as a bit of sour grapes. You asked a question on a talk page and three experienced editors took their time to answer your question as they see practice in WP. The fact that you have some fundamental disagreement with WP practice is perfectly OK (I have a shopping list of such disagreement). But it is not OK to chastise individual editors for their views, especially when they are trying to explain them and help someone else understand. There are avenues for changing policies and guidelines in WP, but they aren't easy because our practice has 11 years of success behind it. The three of us that responded to your question aren't in your way, its an entire community of 136,000 active editors that you must convince. However those discussions occur, you've got to respect and understand other members of the community positions, just like we will respect and try to understand yours. Acceptance of one or the other position is above and beyond that. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike: I do respect the participants (though not their positions) and consider it a privilege to engage in such discussions. I do not think, however, that the examples I brought forward were carefully considered, and also am of the opinion that you three express a united view neither well formed nor based upon an awareness of what is needed. Rather, it is a simple repetition of the existing policy as a sacred text without examination of its purposes and effect.

Thanks for engaging here. Brews ohare (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping

Please be aware that much of your talk page actions of the last several days would fall under the undesirable behavior as forum shopping, seemingly based on the simple movement of WP:Formal organization from main space to Misplaced Pages space; from there you took it to WT:NOR () (and an attempt to delete United States Attorney ), to WT:N () to creating your own notability guideline User:Brews ohare/WP:Notability (Descriptive articles), and now back again to WT:NOR ().

This is a classic definition of forum shopping because you are not getting the answers you want for a specific case. This type of behavior is not appropriate and if you continue to engage in it, you may be blocked from editing.

On the specific issue, several editors including myself have tried to explain what the consensus is, and - ultimately back to the original point - why the Formal Organization article was moved out of mainspace. You need to recognize that the consensus weighs towards keeping this in Misplaced Pages space. Several pieces of advice for potentially bringing this article or something like it into mainspace have been given and you should how you could write such an article knowing this advice. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Masem:You totally mischaracterize my discussions in your lead paragraph, trying to make my discussion of various policies part of a ridiculous lobbying activity. I frankly cannot fathom where you got these ideas. In addition, you have completely ignored my stated intentions and falsely claim that I tried to have United States Attorney deleted. Please notice that I made comments on its Talk page and elsewhere that flatly contradict your statements.

I don't give a hoot what happens to WP:Formal organization. I regard this article as a gift of mine to WP to help it explain itself, an article it needs and no-one was interested in writing, and WP can use it to explain its organization or trash it as WP sees fit. I am not going to lobby for its introduction to mainspace.

My purpose in writing on WP:Primary, WP:NOR and WP:Notability is to make these guidelines make sense. Sometimes I have used WP:Formal organization as an example to illustrate where I think these policies need revision.

That is the only reason I have brought this article up.

I am really disappointed that you should search for some strange motive in my actions. I am even more disturbed that you should overture a violation of WP conduct. That is really a nasty step.

If you feel that discussion of possible revisions of WP policies is so distasteful that you must resist reform not on the merits but by actions like you have begun here, that is indeed sad. An administrator like yourself should be among those anxious to see the discussion of policies vigorously pursued to help WP evolve.

Brews ohare (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

But it clearly follows the typical pattern of forum shopping. Each step can been seen trying to get the answer you want to bring back the Formal Organization back to mainspace, by first challenging the primary sourcing policy, to challenging exceptions to notability, to trying to create your own notability guideline, to challenging what the definition of primary/secondary sources are. You've abandoned the previous discussions in moving to the next one.

Mind you, you may not be doing this intentionally, and that's why I wrote this as a caution and not an ultimatum. But the reason I wrote it is that, say, if you start another discussion from the current WT:OR one about what are primary sources on yet another talk page, you will likely see yourself blocked for this.

Note that there's a difference between "making sure the guidelines make sense" and "changing the guidelines". The former is completely acceptable, but that's not what you're doing. You're challenging the guidelines - which is fine, we are to be open to new ideas - but doing it in a manner that begs "I want it this way", and seemingly when you get a rejection, take it elsewhere. Again, you may be doing it unintentionally or without realizing that forum shopping is discouraged, which is understandable, but you are now aware this is not a good practice to do. The better way to try to gain consensus on what you are doing is to create a centralized discussion and notify appropriate talk pages to bring discussion there. But you should figure out and spell out what exactly you want to change or add on specific pages, instead of just challenging "this guideline is a problem" which is what your current approach is doing. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Backoff - both of you

Unfortunately I didn't get this in before Masem's last edit but it still applies. Masem, you raised the point civily, you need not further elaborate or respond. Brews, a member of the community perceived you were forum shopping. Only you can decide whether you were or not, I don't care, but perceptions can sometimes be warning signs to be considered. But aggressively defending yourself as you did isn't necessary either. Its actual behavior that counts here. Neither of you need respond to this other than continue productively editing the encyclopedia. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike: Thanks for your comment. My reaction is strong because threats of misconduct are both alarming and misplaced, and I have been subject in the past to arbitrary actions taken on slight pretext.

I will not comment further upon policy at this time. Of course, policy should be vigorously examined, but acts of intimidation like this suppress discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Notes

I have included these notes for use in the event of some sudden administrative action.

My attempts at policy modification began on WP:NOR with an RfC that led to the suggestion that Notability was the issue. Discussion on Notability led to Masem's introduction of sub-guidelines, something whose existence I was unaware of, and as a result I proposed to draft a guideline myself. That can be found among my user pages. Discussion on that Talk page led Blueboar to suggest a problem existed with primary sources. At that point I went to the Talk page there to bring up that issue, and informed Blueboar that I had done so. Discussion there proceeded normally, and I discovered following comments by Paul Siebert that the distinction between primary and secondary sources was really important only to the policy WP:Notability, bringing me back to that policy. This evolution of discussion was just too much for Masem, who then decided to interrupt these actions of mine. Ignoring WP policy Assume good faith, Masem challenged my explicitly stated reasons for a change in policy, suggesting my actions were not genuine, but stemmed from desire to move WP:Formal organization to mainspace. His 'clairvoyance' reclassified my actions as misconduct, including as misconduct even my creation of a User page. The basis for his insight into my motives is a so-called pattern in my activities explicable in Masem's mind not as a natural progression of discussion, but more probably explained as Forum shopping that required his administrative intervention. My explicitly stated reasons for why I thought policy changes were needed were classified as subterfuge, not policy deficiency. In a rather unrelated accusation intended to buttress his view that I was disruptive, Masem further alleged that I had attempted deletion of United States Attorney, in flat contradiction to my own remarks on its Talk page and, of course, despite there being no formal request for deletion. Administrator Masem's interruption apparently was encouraged by editor Fifelfoo's substantial contribution that this discussion of policy was "silly and needs to stop", a view bandwagoned later by editor Djathinkimacowboy.

It is apparent that any further attempt to clarify these policies will be taken as disruptive, so the matter must be dropped. All of my interactions have been on Talk pages or in my own user space, arenas nominally reserved for open discussion, ostensibly intended for civil exchanges of viewpoint, free from administrative intimidation. Brews ohare (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Calgary-Fish Creek question

Brews, Re Calgary-Fish Creek. The WP community suffers from a syndrome that is common in large collaborative enterprises—we unintentionally use a lot of ambiguous language. The language is ambiguous—open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivoca—because we have co-opted terminology from everyday language and repurposed it to the needs of WP. Primary and secondary sources are a good example of that. Notability is the classic example. In the case of sources, if you are an historian, you know exactly what is considered a primary source in your discipline—old newspaper accounts, interviews, diaries, journals, etc. In the sciences, it’s different. Primary sources are the raw data, the experiments, individual observations, hypothesizes etc. In every academic discipline, what is considered a primary source is different. Outside academia or research type disciplines, primary-secondary sources have little meaning. Unfortunately WP (an encyclopedia—a tertiary source) lumps all this together with two simple labels—primary and secondary. So when we begin to apply these ideas of notability which depends on the use of secondary sources independent of the topic, we sometimes create confusion—what sources are primary and what sources are secondary, what sources are independent? For articles like Calgary-Fish Creek the distinction isn’t all that clear. And within WP, in fact I believe that many primary sources in one context, can indeed be secondary in another context.

So if we look at Calgary-Fish Creek from a notability standpoint, we can say this. 1) it is notable because there is a presumption that political sub-divisions have been discussed in secondary sources independent of the topic. 2) it has not been nominated for deletion (CSD, PROD, or AfD). 3) if it had been nominated, is was not deleted. If we look at the sources in the article, I would consider all the Alberta Heritage Foundation sources to be secondary and independent of the topic. Although some of the Elections Alberta are secondary, they might not be considered independent of the topic but I think they are. However, the first source: "E 4.1". Statutes of the Province of Alberta. Government of Alberta. 2003. p. 10. would be considered secondary and independent of the topic in the WP context. Why would I say that? Well it compiles a lot of data from other primary sources—legislative hearings, surveys, etc. It is independent of Calgary-Fish Creek, in other words, Calgary-Fish Creek as a political sub-division did not create or significantly influence the contents of the source. Does this seem confusing? Indeed it is when one thinks about these terms in contexts outside the realm of WP. Here’s where I think the confusion arises. There are really only two types of articles where the secondary sources might not be independent of the topic—people and enterprises—governments, companies and corporations, associations, international associations, non-profits, etc. Both people and enterprises can publish or influence published information about themselves in secondary sources. Battles, histories, biology, science, geology, geography, social and cultural stuff etc. type articles don’t publish or influence any sources, thus all sources on the topic are inherently independent of the topic. No source on the Anna’s Hummingbird could be considered not independent of the topic. So in the case of Calgary-Fish Creek, a political sub-division (in this case an electoral district), is it an enterprise or a description of geography, much like a mountain peak, a lake or a river. I suspect is much more geography than an enterprise. In fact I can’t even find anything that describes Calgary-Fish Creek as an enterprise.

So where does that leave us? Well first, WP’s inclusion criteria are actually pretty liberal and straightforward. However, it is only so if you leave your notion of primary and secondary sources that you carry from the outside world at the door. In WP, the distinction between them is purely contextual. You also have to accept that many classes of articles carry a presumption of notability if the topic is a member of the class (people and enterprises are the glaring exception here). Geography is one of those classes. If a named mountain exists, it is presumed notable—discussed in secondary sources—otherwise it wouldn’t exist as a named mountain.

I don’t know if this helps, but it was fun thinking about it. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike: Thanks for your answer, which shows you've thought about the topic.

Although you have concluded that you have constructed a rationale for Calgary-Fish Creek being notable based upon WP's usage, I personally find it far too complicated to be reassuring. Any such argument for notability on WP would not get past first base if there were a few editors that wanted this article off the encyclopedia on the grounds that it wasn't notable. The discussion of notability either would never end, or end with the defender in AN/I for tendentious editing.

One of the problems on WP is these arguments between editors, which could be settled if things like "notability" were clear-cut on WP, regardless of what definition that was, regardless of its relation to usage anywhere else. Then any ass could see if an article were notable or not, and argument wouldn't happen.

Instead, the actual de facto test of notability is whether the article has survived on WP, either after being challenged, or because it never got anybody interested enough to challenge it. In other words, there is no easy definition of "notability" on WP, whatever the policy claims, and it is only by experiment that one finds if an article has this quality, and that is an attribute that may be withdrawn at any time, given an adroit campaign to remove it.

It may be there is no way to resolve these useless quarrels on WP, but clear policy would be one way. Perhaps the policy should be rewritten until it proves by experiment with the policy to (i) be clear enough that argument is greatly reduced, and (ii) serves as a filter for desirable vs. undesirable articles. At present, on WP unending debate about policy changes occurs, based upon speculation & hypotheticals about what some particular change might cause to happen. These debates usually prevent substantial evolution of the policies. Policies are inflexible on this account, and fruitless debate denies WP one mechanism to evolve to fit the demands upon it. Construction of means to adapt policy is broken.

Maybe we need a provision on WP that allows the evolution of policy by experiment: actually collect evidence on the effect of policy changes, in place of rhetoric?

In fact, it might be possible to look at articles presently on WP and try to classify them regarding notability issues to see what the de facto notability situation is? One could even elect to test the existing articles for notability by challenging their notability and seeing what arguments come up? Doubtless that would be considered a "disruption" of WP unless there were some support for such an effort. Brews ohare (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Brews, have you ever looked at WP:Outcomes? Seems like that's what you are talking about above. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike: I wasn't aware of this page; I'll take a look at it. Thanks. Brews ohare (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike: It appears that WP:Outcomes is an unofficial guide as to what is notable and what is not. I'd say that Calgary-Fish Creek doesn't fit into any of the listed categories. Neither do the various descriptions of official offices, or laws on certain subjects. It seems likely that the list at WP:Outcomes could be expanded significantly.

Also, as an unofficial document, should a challenge come up and this page be cited as supporting retention, I suspect it will not be accepted as definitive over the challengers claims that the article should be deleted as not notable.

Do you agree with my notion of the content of this page? Brews ohare (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy and paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you recently tried to give User talk:Brews ohare/sandbox a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Misplaced Pages talk:Avoiding talk-page disruption. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Misplaced Pages has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. JohnBlackburne_deeds 18:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note about proposed guideline

Despite how inappropriate I think "Comment 8" was, I wanted to point out that it actually is pretty unlikely that this will be promoted to a guideline. Behavioral guidelines are very limited to general statements like assuming good fiath, and a page that suggests a manner of response on a talk page in any more specific terms than that is something the community will consider too restrictive for an actual guideline (since guidelines do have "power" for lack of a better word). All pages with content comparable to yours are thus far essays, and there are a lot of them -- including quite a few long-standing and oft-linked essays that probably have much more of a chance at being promoted, and yet still, will never be. Knowing that, I see it as excessively optimistic to write an original page like this one and immediately propose that it become a guideline. I think you might consider settling for an essay, which as a bonus, will probably be less likely to garner the kind of negative attention you're getting now. Equazcion 17:42, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the observations. I'd hoped for a wider interest in this topic, but aside from yourself and Diego I've had only the attention of Blackburne, who is opposed to the matter because it impacts his standard modus operandi of citing a policy and responding to requests for clarification with "Go read the policy". Further requests for clarification result in AN/I actions, that sometimes prove successful. I was interested to see how completely frank Blackburne is about his approach to such matters.

I have little knowledge of how WP works, but I do understand that policies and guidelines are nearly impossible to introduce or change, with discussion of proposals usually degenerating into completely irrelevant and inconsequential babble. If there is no further interest in this proposal as a guideline, I guess an essay will be all that is left. Brews ohare (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Brews ohare. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference formatting style

John, where did you get your unique style of formatting references? I haven't encountered anything like it from other editors in all my years at WP, and I find it very confusing to see major source-level breaks that look like paragraph breaks, inside references. Do you think you could move to a more normal style, for better compatibility with collaborators? Dicklyon (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I just use the template {{cite book}}. I separate the citation from the text for ease in editing. The better way is to use {{reflist |refs = }} format that places all the reference info in its own section at the bottom of the page. Of course there are other approaches like the Harvard reference system, but I haven't used that enough to make it second nature. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the way you "separate the citation from the text" that idiosyncratic. Nobody does that. As for putting all the refs at the end, I've never seen that, either. I bet that would be harder to maintain; you'd have to edit two sections just to add a ref. Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Better as in how? The vast majority of articles use inline references as it works and is far easier to maintain. If you prefer it that's fine but like other formatting changes you should never change the formatting or style of existing references based on your personal preference, per WP:CITEVAR. --JohnBlackburne_deeds 16:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Blackburne: It's nice of you to undertake the patrol duties to enforce what you like, but in this case the references were all added and formatted by myself. So, in fact, you contravened the very principle you tried to enforce. Brews ohare (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your idea of what is easier to maintain is contrary to my own: the text is kept clean and easier to maintain with the {{reflist |refs= }} format that keeps ref info out of the text, and so are the references themselves. The main complication of this approach is use of named references <ref name =ThisRef></ref>instead of simply <ref></ref>. Another advantage of this system is that you can group footnotes in categories using, for example, <ref name=ThisRef group=Note></ref> and {{reflist|group=Note|refs= }}. Brews ohare (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is also my preferred style. A few examples: Psilocybin, a featured article uses this style. Also Adolf Hitler. I borrowed this style and adopted it for my articles. See Aspioti-ELKA, Temple of Artemis (Corfu) etc. Δρ.Κ.  22:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's your opinion and preferences, and based on how they are used in 99% (I estimate) of articles your preferences are shared by few. What I like has nothing to do with it: you shouldn't change the format of references or anything, per WP:Stability, simply to suit your own preferences.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 22:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is undeniable that the format Brews and I use makes editing much easier by eliminating the bulk of the citation from the main article corpus. It may well be that few people know about the advantages of this format or are even unaware of it. For instance I think that the article of Adolf Hitler was converted to the new format relatively recently. You can ask user:Diannaa about it. Δρ.Κ.  22:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If that were really so then I think it would be much more prevalent in articles, as well as recommended or even mandated in the formatting guidelines, as has happened with many other things (straight vs. curly quotes, references before or after punctuation). But the guidelines are clear: there are many ways to do references, none is better, and editors should not change the style from one to another without some reason other than their personal preferences.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 22:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the reason exists but this is not the place to debate the merits of this method or of the alternatives. However I agree that any massive change, even for the better, should be a matter of consensus between editors and it should not be imposed unilaterally. Δρ.Κ.  23:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you guys are going on about. There's nothing in the Psilocybin article that resembles the ref source spacing style that I was talking about. I believe this "style" is unique to Brews. As to whether you group refs at the end or not, that's an entirely different matter, distracting from my point. Dicklyon (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

To be truthful I did not check your comments in particular, but rather Brews' explanations of the code he used. That's where I based my reply on, not your comments. Δρ.Κ.  00:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What you are talking about, Dick, is simply whether one writes a reference in line as <ref>

{{cite book | blah |blah |blah}}

</ref> or writes it <ref>

{{cite book

|blah

|blah

|blah }}

</ref>

Why do you care?

What Blackburne is "going on" about is that he reverted my choice of formatting references without realizing they were mine to make, on the pretext of moral superiority, and now wants to trumpet his superiority, even though based upon his personal misappraisal of the situation. Brews ohare (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, in your attempt to show it, you're not displaying how it looks in the source, where the reference text is floating, away from the tags, looking like a paragraph. It makes the visual organization of the source text very unusual and confusing. More like this:

The motion of an object can be considered to be a signal, and can be monitored by various sensors to provide electrical signals.<ref name= Lu>

For an example from robotics, see K Nishio and T Yasuda (2011). "Analog-digital circuit for motion detection based on vertebrate retina and its application to mobile robot". In Bao-Liang Lu, Liqing Zhang, James Kwok (ed.). Neural Information Processing: 18th International Conference, Iconip 2011, Shanghai,china, November 13-17, 2011. Springer. pp. 506 ff. ISBN 3642249647.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

</ref>For example, ] can provide an electromagnetic signal for following aircraft motion.

Although, in the recent article in question, you didn't put that first empty line after <ref> as you usually do; just the lower one before </ref> Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I undid your change based on policy, cited and explained above. As for "moral superiority" and "trumpet his superiority" you perhaps need to read another policy, WP:NPA and reconsider your comments.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

John, you probably missed that I had just changed one ref format before Brews changed it back. I was trying to illustrate a good way to do it. I remain unclear on whether it's OK for an editor to maintain a completely idiosyncratic style of his own. This has bugged me about him for years (since 2009), but never before rose to the top of my list of reasons to change or revert his contributions. So that's progress, isn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"*Comments" subheadings

Please stop inserting these between comments. They are unnecessary, interfere with the proper threaded conversation, are not normally used in talk page conversations and have been removed by two editors so we already have a third opinion that they are not needed. I would also note that this edit re-added them without explanation and marked the edit as minor. Contentious edits should always be explained and never marked as minor. Your last edit summary, re-adding them because you were "the one originiting this discussion" is irrelevant as no-one owns the discussion or the talk page, per WP:OWN.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 02:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Blackburne: The comment headers separate comments by different individuals with their back-and-forths, which helps me keep track of who says what. You don't like it. So what? I requested the feedback, and it helps me. It doesn't interfere with anyone else (maybe you excepted). So what are you up to here? I'm sure you love to enforce your own ideas about what is "proper procedure" but there is no hard and fast on this matter. Your citation of WP:OWN is another example of your stretching policies to suit yourself. Brews ohare (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request for clarification

I have raised the recent discussions concerning you at Wavelength and its talk page here

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FSpeed_of_light

--JohnBlackburne_deeds 00:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Looking at arbitration pages, I think it might be a good idea if you switch to editing less well developed areas of Physics, for example Molecular Physics. What do you think? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't say why you think it is a good idea. Is it a good idea because it might cause less Talk-page discussion? In your opinion, is avoiding Talk-page discussion a good thing for WP, or a good thing for myself personally? In your opinion, am I unusual among contributors in this regard, and if so, why is that so? Please elaborate upon these themes. And, of course, why is it that well developed areas of physics should be a less suitable arena than others? I assume well developed refers to topics that have WP articles with long histories, not topics that are well developed from the viewpoint of the subject of physics itself. Perhaps the idea is that articles with a long past on WP are more likely to have combative editors defending them in their present form? Brews ohare (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Brews, the user above just made a suggestion according to his beliefs. Your reply, although clear and well-made, requires a lot of effort in the editor's part to formulate new arguments and a counter-reply. This may or may not happen but it is irrelevant anyway. IMO, what the user above was trying to tell you is that, given your history with the usual crowd, you should make a conscious decision to avoid topics frequented by a lot of argumentative editors. Regardless of the merit of your arguments you have to understand that there is a group of editors which at best will view your contributions with suspicion and at worst will oppose you just because of the bad history in other disputes. Once you understand the hidden context and social dimension, as opposed to the strictly scientific one, of these exchanges you may make the right editing decisions which are best encapsulated by the verb "to avoid". So although your reply is principled and succinct, it is also useless. Under the circumstances forget about methods of intelligent discourse and dialectic and just avoid. These are the facts on the ground. Having said that, I think that even if you went to less frequented articles some of the usually opposing group may follow you there and start brand new conflicts. Don't forget the problems with the Idée fixe article which has nothing to do with physics. In simpler terms you are a marked editor. Until the system fairly deals with the problem of this new underclass of editors there is very little anyone here can do to help you. Δρ.Κ.  16:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• The questions by Brews are perfectly fine. I think there are several reasons. First, some people feel attached to articles they edited a lot and therefore very apprehensive when anyone (like you) comes to make changes. Second, it is generally more difficult to improve well developed pages. One can always make an argument that the page is already in a good condition and therefore does not need any changes. Third, you can work much more efficiently (make more good service for the project) by improving something that is in a really poor condition. Finally, it might be a good idea to escape from contributors whith whom you have difficult relations by moving in another area. If they follow you there, that would be interpreted not in their favor. Now, speaking about the area of Molecular physics, this is something closer to my interests, so I might be able to occasionally help. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well made points, but I don't think there are any Physics articles which are so well developed that they don't need anything and I also don't think that anyone who follows Brews around will be sanctioned in any way since Brews is a marked editor. Δρ.Κ.  17:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

About the suggesion by Δρ.Κ, I think this "avoiding" is best done after experiencing some negative feedback. So, you don't shy away frome editing somewhere, but when facing opposition, you take a look at whether that opposition is constructive critisism allowing you to work in collaboration with others, or whether it is opposition because they don't want your input in that article at all, no matter what arguments you put forward.

E.g. I see that Brews is editing the Fourier transform article, and things seem to go well there. When he receives negative feedback there, then that's constructive feedback, not based on WP:OWN. But exactly the same effort in another article could end in disaster, if Brews were to intepret feedback based on WP:OWN feelings or on negative attitudes toward him editing there, as something he can argue with.

And when you are editing with editors who have a history of opposing on WP:OWN feelings, you have to make sure that your first edits and proposals are as good as possible, so that when you are opposed and you post an RFC to deal with that opposition, you are likely to get support. Otherwise, what happens is that the failure to get support in that first RFC and subsequent modifications, more opposition due to WP:OWN and then yet another RFC to deal with WP:OWN again, will be used against you. The opponents can complain about all those RFCs, failing to drop the stick etc. etc.

But to get it (almost) right the first time can require you to make larger edits, as you then have more room to deal with any problems. It is often a lot more difficult to put in a few sentences to explain something better than to write a whole new paragraph. So, by putting aside any fears of stepping on the toes of editors with WP:OWN issues, you can avoid problems later. Count Iblis (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree that negative feedback is a necessary precondition for avoiding further contact, and I can see the point of your constructive, eloquent and creative proposals of engagement, I think that in practice any action by Brews by RFC or any other means of dispute resolution will degenerate into the usual round of threats and AE enforcement requests. Look at the comments at the current AE. If Brews doesn't get banned in this one by some sort of miracle, in the next one he will not be that lucky. In my opinion you are trying to optimise a marginally stable system. Although in theory you may be correct, any action other than the one confined to a very limited stability domain, will perturb the system and cause instability. In other words Brews is walking on a perpetual minefield. Δρ.Κ.  17:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have three simple suggestions for Brews: (a) do not edit for a long while any articles where you had confrontations in the past, (b) when looking for new edits, find something that is obviously missing in the article or obviously wrong for anyone familiar with the subject and fix it; (c) if there is a dispute that can not be quickly resolved by talking, just drop the issue and edit something else. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your proposals agree with my suggestions. Δρ.Κ.  18:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If he follows this advice, he suppose to be fine. Unfortunately, I know from my own experience in another area that (a) and (c) are difficult to follow. But he has no choice. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Δρ.Κ.  18:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your appraisal. I am indeed walking in a minefield, and one would hope that Admins could see that many of these disruptions are simple vendetta or pique, unrelated to the merits. Unfortunately, Admins do not take content into account (in principle, anyway) and so they are faced with trying to decide if a succession of comments are really about content (which they have no idea about) or are just argument with no purpose.

For example, in the present case the proposed text is simply a quote from one of several sources that say the same thing, and yet Admins are reluctant to take this at face value and evaluate the erroneous counter claims of critics. Instead, they have one hand tied behind their backs, and can only assess the back and forth on the basis that I have been sanctioned in the past, and so am disreputable on the face of it. If I weren't a disreputable editor, their problem remains: they would simply have to count how many support me and how many opposed, and go with the majority. That is a problem that WP has yet to formulate in a practical fashion to create a good environment on WP. Brews ohare (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Forget about Admins. They can not help you, as you apparently realize yourself. You must be able to sort out all your problems with other users without help of Admins. If you follow points (a-c) outlined above, you might succeed. If not, you are going to be banned. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think b) and c) are good points, but a) is more difficult, and given the input from the Arbitrators on the clarification page, less relevant now. The situation for Brews today is not similar to when the topic ban was lifted the last time, because at that time, there were still discretionary sanctions. Brews actually ended up being banned again from physics after an incident on one of the centrifugal force pages. There a figure he wanted to include was argued to be OR, and he received a warning from an Admin about being site banned unless he stopped poutting OR edits in articles. But there was nothing OR about that figure, but then an univolved Admin would nt be able to see this, they would tend to react to an OR warming by an editor.

This issue went to AN/I and there it was found that the OR arming was out of place and that the Admin was wrong to have warmed Brews. However, because the discetionary sanctions allowed editors to ask for AE on any grounds, this issue then went to AE, and there the fact that Brews ended up being doscussed at AN/I contributed to the topic ban being re-imposed, never mind that Brews was right in that dispute.

But this dynamics is not at play now, most Arbs have said on the clarification page that they are against making a ruling by motion, Elen of the Roads suggests that in case of problems the proper venue is AN/I, other Arbs are saying that if this ends up at Arbitration again, a case would have to be presented first.

This means that Brews can edit like any other editor, but he has to make sure that whenever he posts an RFC, or persues dispute resolution, he is very sure that this process leads to an outcome that helps his case and settles he problem. It is then better to make others post RFCs or persue some of the other mechanisms involving community input. E.g. in case of the Idee Fixe article, it was Blackburne who put the article on PROD and then on AFD. But the article was kept. Now, if Brews were to create more such articles that Blackburne doesn't like, but in most of these cases the articles are kept, then that will be held against Blackburne in any future ArbCom case.

So, while Brews has to make sure he doesn't post RFC after RFC to deal with opposition, he should be able to edit like any other editor. If you really have to post an RFC (it's better to avoid that), stick to the advice given by Arb SilkTork, i.e. if you don't get the community support you are seeking, don't raise that issue again for one year. When sticking to this rule, you would of course rather want to get community support, which means that you have to focus on a proposal that uninvolved editors find appealing. This may mean forgetting about any previous proposals you made to take into account the feelings of the involved editors there. Count Iblis (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not really disagree with anything here, except that any future arbitration case (and possibly even AN) will result in the ban for Brews, exactly as Helen said. Yes, creating new articles is a good idea (but not to make any future cases), and not posting any RFC is also good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with many, if not all the points made by all the editors above, the former statement made just to be on the safe side. :) Thank you Brews, thank you all for a great discussion. Δρ.Κ.  23:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Points (a)-(c)

• (a) do not edit for a long while any articles where you had confrontations in the past,
• (b) when looking for new edits, find something that is obviously missing in the article or obviously wrong for anyone familiar with the subject and fix it;
• (c) if there is a dispute that can not be quickly resolved by talking, just drop the issue and edit something else.

Evidently, these items lessen the chances of confrontation. Of course, that doesn't mean the chances are zero. As one example, Dicklyon and I seldom agree about what is an "obvious" omission. Dicklyon will say it is "bloat" to add the topic, and make claims the topic is "idiosyncratic", and Blackburne will say my objections to Dick are an example of an "obvious" tendency of mine toward confrontation, a matter that can best be dealt with by taking me to AN/I.

However, besides all this nonsense, there is the problem for WP that has yet to be resolved: how are conduct disputes that are converted to fake conduct disputes to be resolved by Admins?

Of course, Admins should stay out of content disputes, as they do now. So the first thing WP needs is a clear-cut method for determining when a conduct issue is in reality just a way to end discussion, and at bottom is really a content dispute. If a matter actually can be identified as a content dispute in disguise, then it should go back to the Talk page, and if it takes three or four years to resolve, that is just too bad. See Talk:Monty Hall problem for an example of interminable Talk page discussion that has been through mediation and everything else and is still at square one. Brews ohare (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points. Monty Hall however AFAIK although a longterm dispute has not been focused on the conduct of a single editor. In your case you have more or less been assigned a target mark on your back and thus the focus of almost any dispute you participate in, is you as an individual. This is the main problem. Δρ.Κ.  00:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That is true: the editors on the Monty Hall problem have for the most part remained gentlemen and agree that differences are not a matter of character flaws but of substance. Unfortunately, not all editors are so generous and open. Brews ohare (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is encouraging to hear that in the case of the Monty Hall problem dispute editors have been able to behave in such exemplary fashion. Let's hope it spreads to other areas as well. Δρ.Κ.  00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

An "obvious" omission is one that Dicklyon would agree with. But it is my impression that admins will sanction Brews simply for taking part in a very long content discussion claiming this to be WP:DE by him. So he must avoid any long unproductive discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the dynamics of the discussion. If Brews is the only one arguing in support of a point then it is rather inevitable that he will be sanctioned. Hopefully if he has the support of more people this may change. Δρ.Κ.  01:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr K and My very best wishes, it is a commentary in itself that you both agree that regardless of the merits there is no doubt that any discussion I am involved in on any topic will lead to my being banned, if I am alone in advancing a view, even if the matter is clearly a content issue. (Content issues are formally stated in WP documentation to be outside the jurisdiction of Administrators.) That is a very frank and alarming evaluation of the Administrative process presently at work on WP. Although I would not agree with this evaluation entirely, my own opinion is that things do tilt in that direction. Brews ohare (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The comments by Ellen of the Roads that it should be "possible to evidence the problematic behaviour without requiring a knowledge of post-doctoral physics" and AGK's remark that "This amendment has become absurdly specialized. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar." suggest that these Administrators find there is a distinction to be had between misconduct and an extended exchange of views about a subject, and they suggest some knowledge of content is necessary to make the distinction, at least sometimes. Brews ohare (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Elen but her remark may indicate a decoupling of expertise and behaviour, so it could go against you in the sense that if your behaviour is maligned enough by a few editors you could easily be banned regardless of the merits of your arguments. AGK's remark is more along the lines of what you said about knowledge of content. As far as your statement that ...there is no doubt that any discussion I am involved in on any topic will lead to my being banned, if I am alone in advancing a view... I want to clarify that if indeed you were alone advancing a view against a group of editors who hold an opposing view you could get in trouble because of the appearance of going against consensus. Sometimes consensus is formed at the expense of the better arguments but that's the way the system works here so you should avoid the one-man- against-all-others situations. Δρ.Κ.  04:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr K: How do you understand the notion of "consensus"? In my experience, "consensus" means the viewpoint of the majority of editors interested in a page, not a broad consensus: there are just not that many editors interested in topics outside of celebrities and politics. From your remarks, it appears that "consensus" means to you that it is more-or-less impossible to change a page's content where that page is watched by other editors with a shared view (either of the subject, or of the contributor), unless they agree with your change. Or, you might try to assemble a dissident group using an RfC (apparently frowned upon, or at least advised against, by you and My very best wishes, and seen as ineffective by Count Iblis) or, as Count Iblis has proposed, by appealing to a workgroup like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics. The idea being to present a proposal and then fade into the woodwork and let things take whatever course they may.

It appears that there is no mechanism to change a "consensus" on WP. The notion that sources and common sense might change matters is fantasy, and will lead to AN/I (for most editors, not just myself). That seems to be your view, and it appears that I have to agree with you. "Consensus" is actually a tyranny of sorts, enforced by the notion that challenging consensus is misbehavior, despite the fact that it is really a content dispute. Do you see it as I imagine? Brews ohare (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

From this standpoint, it appears that Consensus can change, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Consensus not numbers are delusional. Brews ohare (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Long ago, I wrote an essay Dealing with minority views. I wonder if you would be interested in commenting upon it? Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally consensus always starts by being local, i.e. at the article talkpage. If the local consensus is not satisfactory, due to a limited number of editors or other factors, the wider community is engaged and an RFC or dispute resolution may follow. But unfortunately the consensus process in many of your cases is slightly different. There is an entrenched opposition to your ideas from a fixed group of editors. To complicate matters further this group of editors have similar qualifications to yours. So in terms of qualifications a similarly qualified group politically tramps a qualified loner. So politically you lose by the majority rule. Once you lose politically it is not difficult to lose also academically. Additionally a case can be made that if a disagreement exists among equally qualified editors where a group of these editors agree among themselves but disagree with a lone editor, then the lone editor may be either a genius who outsmarts the group, or simply that his proposed edits on the topic are not acceptable to a group of his peers. In the end the motivation of his peers does not matter. To the wider community it looks as if a panel of experts has rejected your expert opinion. Case closed. Only if an outside expert agrees with your opinion can things change. But this is a remote possibility because statistically it doesn't happen often. BTW I will check your essay and let you know. Δρ.Κ.  17:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr K: I see that you are describing the way things are, unfortunate as that may be. I'd hope that a verbatim quote from a set of published sources with the accompanying citations would trump unsupported wild (rabid?) statements explicitly contrary to those sources, but evidently there is no such "consensus".

I would appreciate some comments from you upon the essay, and perhaps you might include some suggestions about how to handle RfC's, workgroup appeals, and the claims of tendentious editing in opposing consensus? Brews ohare (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I will look at the essay and comment as soon as I have some time. But the latter part of your reply concerning RFC's, workgroup appeals etc. may be better handled by the Count. His ideas about strategic editing as he enunciated them at the AE and in the threads above may be useful in optimising an appeal-based response. However I view your existing problem more macroscopically than the Count does. Based on my comments above about entrenched opposition etc., I think that once you launch an appeal you just entered a one-way street of diminishing returns. At the end of that street, grimly looking at you is an AE. I can even predict more details but that is unnecessary. Δρ.Κ.  17:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews. You tell: it appears that "consensus" means that it is more-or-less impossible to change a page's content where that page is watched by other editors with a shared view, unless they agree with your change. Yes, exactly. The only alternative are editorial boards. This is Ochlocracy, Tyranny of the majority, and maybe even tyranny of paid advocacy. Consider that guy who hired a few people known as "wikipedia experts" to promote whatever they paid for. These few people will easily create WP:Consensus on any subject that is not frequented by regular contributors, which is 99% of all subjects. This is assuming that they are not stupid and do not announce their services on the internet (as "wikipedia experts" actually did) and do not tell Jimbo about their plans (as another PR company recently did). Now consider these guys (BTW, someone just removed this link from article Putin, obviously because it was irrelevant, let's assume good faith here), or these guys. Defense rests. My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My very best wishes: Thanks for introducing me to the word Ochlocracy. I had not understood before what you meant by "paid advocacy"; this problem is much more serious for WP than the dyspepsia of a few editors with Idées fixes. Perhaps similar changes in policy regarding consensus would apply to both problems. Brews ohare (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we both need a good vacation. Just leave this place for a few weeks and let others have a nice party. Who cares anyway? My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your advice is very practical. Actually Elen said it quite aptly: The community generally has little sympathy with a previously sanctioned editor who returns to their problematic behaviour, so Brews might be well advised to take the counsel of Kenny Rogers and "learn when to walk away, and learn when to run. The writing is on the Arbcom clarification page. Perhaps Brews will benefit from a vacation. The longer the better, to compensate for the length of the implements currently pointed at his back from many directions and let some calmer logic prevail over the longer run in what is essentially an overreaction to an overblown content dispute. Δρ.Κ.  14:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Way forward

I suggested something here. If you and Count Iblis agree, that might be suggested for approval to Arbcom. However, I have no idea if they would approve this. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to some arrangement of this kind assuming that there are some provisions to keep things from going to Administrators to adjudicate content, and it is left in the hands of knowledgeable editors and subject to standard requirements for civility and deference to sources rather than personal opinion. Brews ohare (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is something you really want to do (I assume you will be topic-banned), you should politely ask about this at your clarification request, and Count Iblis should confirm that he agree. Maybe they will allow. Technically, you could copy wikitext of whole article to your PC, modify it and sent by email to Count. That might be easier. The point here is simple: this will be completely his responsibility. If he disagrees with any of your changes, he will not make them or will modify them in any way he wants, without discussion with you. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My very best wishes: I have advanced this idea from you and Count Iblis here, and invite you both to discuss it further on that page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Brews, do you realize what arbs probably think? They think that your frequent appearance on their talk page is just another example of your alleged WP:TE behavior (so this is a proof to ban you). You probably can ask them about this later, may be in a few months - as an amendment. You might wish to contribute in other projects, such as Wikiversity, until then. My very best wishes (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

None of that matters: the proposed limit on my Talk-page activity achieves more than they want with far less trouble to them than their proposed topic ban that involves murky decisions on content every time Blackburne suggests things like 'geology is a branch of physics', or '√4=2 is physics-related math'.

Why do you suppose the Arbs are reluctant to put for motion or to discuss the proposal limiting Talk-page interaction? Brews ohare (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: Brews ohare topic-ban (Speed of light)

The following was resolved by motion:

1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources.

2. It follows that preventative action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. After a minimum period of at least one year has elapsed, Brews ohare may ask the Arbitration Committee to reconsider the topic ban, giving his reasons why the Committee should do so.

3. Should Brews ohare violate this topic ban he may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the clock for any lifting of the topic ban restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Appeals of blocks may only be made by email to the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My reaction to this topic ban

This topic ban resulted from my dispute with Dicklyon over adding a sourced quotation referring to Fourier series in the article on Wavelength shown below:

The wavelength, say λ, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself. Sinusoidal waves with wavelengths related to λ can superimpose to create this spatially periodic waveform. Such a superposition of sinusoids is mathematically described as a Fourier series, and is simply a summation of the sinusoidally varying component waves:

.. "Fourier's theorem states that a function f(x) of spatial period λ, can be synthesized as a sum of harmonic functions whose wavelengths are integral submultiples of λ (i.e. λ, λ/2, λ/3, etc.)."

References Eugene Hecht (1975). Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Optics. McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 205. ISBN 0070277303.

This Talk-page disagreement was escalated to a "clarification" proceeding by Blackburne, resulting in ArbCom's conclusion that this dispute showed I was disruptive, and must be topic-banned. A more effective and more easily administered Talk-page measure was ignored.

And to follow up upon Blackburne's May 16 2012 clarification action:

That May 16 2012 clarification action found the ban for which Blackburne had requested "clarification", namely Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, had in fact expired.

Having found there was no ban to clarify, the use of a "clarification" hearing was uncalled for. However, ignoring its illegitimacy, the clarification proceeding carried on, and continued directly to draft and impose an entirely new ban where no ban previously was in force. The May 16 2012 clarification action entertained a series of motions, one of which suggested the present ban that is now being "clarified" here.

No formal transmission of the May 16 2012 clarification action to AE occurred, because there was no ban in effect to report a violation of. Bypassing AE and ArbCom review, the results of that "clarification" were then simply tucked into the expired Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light as a "Motion #7" added to a dead case. Appending the motion to an expired case was done because there was no authority for a clarification hearing to draft a completely new case. Thus it was made to appear as though a case was in force to clarify, although that was pure fiction.

So far as I can see, all this was highly irregular. The preamble at the beginning of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment states that: "Requests for amendment are used to: ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions" Likewise: "Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case." Neither of these precepts were followed. Of course, WP is not about rules. Nonetheless, a better approach would have been to ask Blackburne to formulate a charge that could be taken to WP:ANI and proceed from there. However, there was no actionable issue formulated that could be taken to WP:ANI, and the "clarification" process was hijacked instead.

As even the most unrelated topics can be construed as topic-ban violations by the uninformed, or by the simply vindictive, problems will arise unexpectedly. A single Admin can then "on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions" according to WP rules. Experience shows that any contributions by Brews_ohare to discussions on broader topics (like WP organization) will be construed as self-serving, and grounds for censure.

So, for a few years or more, my activity on WP will be minimal. A (sigh) reduction by one of the 25,337 active Wikipedians. As most of these do not contribute much text to WP, never mind new articles or new figures, I will be so-o-o missed !! Brews ohare (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the number of "active" wikipedians (100+ edits per month) is actually around only 2,400 . And indeed, most of them contribute little to content and figures. Have a nice summer vacation! My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You got nothing to lose by contributing to math pages, physics related or not. ArbCom made the wrong decision yet again, there is therefore no reason to care about whether or not some Admin will persue you when you do something on some math page. Count Iblis (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Count: I don't understand your advice. For example, if I edit the page about the MIDI system for encoding musical notes digitally, some stalker may say that a musical note corresponds to a frequency and that is physics-related, meaning that the ban is violated. History shows an Administrator will follow up and immediately block, without any investigation of validity. No other Administrator can appeal such a block without a lot of trouble, due to the recent ruling that any overturn requires an ArbCom deliberation.

Although content is outside the realm of ArbCom, and a topic ban obviously requires being able to identify the topic and whether it has arisen, ArbCom has ducked this issue in their comments to me. The attitude expressed by ArbCom is that my good sense can readily identify potential occurrences and avoid them, so ArbCom will never have to face a problem of content. However, history shows ridiculous challenges are accepted at face value by Administrators, with no clue about how to examine validity and no interest in it. So WP will limp along without me, and the hundreds of other contributors similarly dealt with month after month. Brews ohare (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You could still edit the MIDI page and ignore any Wiki-Legal proceedings. If the system is at at fault (and I agree with you that it is at fault, despite that there were some issues about the way you deal with opposition when editing), the best thing is to simply ignore the system and show contempt for it. Just edit any page you think you can improve. Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it."

Suppose you can improve a physics page, then what does Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules say you should do, given your physics topic ban? Does Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules say that ArbCom imposed topic bans should be respected? No, it says that if you can improve the page but a rule whatever policy that may be based on, would prevent you fro doing so, you should ignore it. Now, the first time when you wrere topic banned and you signalled that you would leve Misplaced Pages forgood, I suggested that at least you could violate your topic ban by making high quality edits to some physics page. An Arbitrator then attacked me for giving bad advice, saying that IAR des not apply to ArbCom decisions etc. etc. However, that was a plain lie. ArbCom can say all it wants about IAR, that doesn't make it so unless the text of IAR would say it.

Now, ArbCom will still ban you if you edit a physics page, and they can argue why IAR doesn't apply, perhaps by saying that if you violate a topic ban then that in itself does damage to the encyclopedia. But they didn't go through even a limited hearing; first they said that the old ArbCom sanctions do not apply, and then all of a sudden they decided that they would still topic ban you. So, I say, you should challenge this by editing any page you like to edit, physics related or not. Certainly, the spirit of IAR is that ridiculous rules should be ignored.

If you get blocked for a topic ban violation, and the edit you made was of high quality, that would i.m.o. improve Misplaced Pages, as that would discredit the current ArbCom system. Count Iblis (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Count: Thanks for your explanation. I'd agree that a courageous ignoring of faulty rulings would provoke some reassessment of process in a system concerned to better WP. However, ArbCom's approach has nothing to do with what is good for WP, whether that is intention or simply incapacity.

So, IMO, exposing faulty decisions is ineffective, even if it reveals ArbCom in a truly grotesque contortion. The only method proven to work is airing dirty laundry in a very public arena, like the Chronicle of Higher Education or the New York Times, thereby threatening future donations. Even that causes no reflection in depth, but only a minor fix for the particular instance. Brews ohare (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Photon-photon scattering image thanks

Hi. Your image is File:Photon-photon_scattering.png is displayed on the main page in the active (as of my writing) WP:DYK as it relates to the DYK article Schwinger limit. Thanks for the uploading the image. Teply (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for FMCW

An article that you have been involved in editing, FMCW , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to see that you are still around

How did that IRC session go? →Yaniv256 _contribs 23:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv: Unfortunately I was tied up and couldn't join that session. Brews ohare (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed unfortunate as I was interested in your report on the report, so to speak, and now it will be missing that element. I wanted to thank you for writing your many good essays and pointing me to them. I found that they provided me with much information that is common knowledge among experienced editors, but is fundamentally missing in the official introductions a new editor encounters. Specifically, the distance between the impression one gets by reading the Pillars and Wikipedian reality is quite reminiscent of that which one finds in common propaganda, and I think an adequate reference to your contributions would do much to remedy that ideologically motivated misinformation. I was also wondering if you may advise me on a particular case I am currently involved in, if you find it of theoretical interest. Best regards, your young poetic friend, →Yaniv256 _contribs 01:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv: My experience is that although it is possible and occasionally does occur that disputes are settled based upon objective criteria, content and sources, that outcome is rather rare and very definitely not the norm on WP. It is tempting to believe that clarity of expression will prove decisive, but that is almost never the case. So my considered opinion is that there is nothing to be gained at all from an extended back-and-forth, especially one involving Administrators. There may be understandable reasons why the system does not work, but the practical conclusion is that it should be avoided. Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dependent current source in Common base with Norton driver.PNG

It's probably me who doesn't understand it, but shouldn't the dependent current source in Common base with Norton driver.PNG be drawn the other way? DesbWit (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I get it now: Instead of having ${\displaystyle -g_{\mathrm {m} }v_{\mathrm {E} }}$ the current source is flipped to get rid of the negative sign. Sorry to have bothered. DesbWit (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Cartesian dualism avoids determinism

RE: Free will edit 15:51, 16 September 2012‎; "Cartesian dualism allows human free will" -> "Cartesian dualism avoids determinism": NB this has changed the original conclusion of your paragraph from a point regarding free will to a point regarding determinism. NB I was trying to retain the original conclusion of the paragraph while clarifying the definition of free will pertaining to it ("Cartesian dualism allows incompatibilist free will").

Excellent section by the way.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Acceleration

In the acceleration article I found an unsupported claim that decomposition into tangential and normal component can be made only for planar curves (see the article talk page). As you wrote that section, would you please care to explain?--Ilevanat (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ilevanat: I regret that as I am presently working under ArbCom restrictions, I cannot help you here. Brews ohare (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The ArbCom restrictions allow you to edit articles, but do not allow you to answer questions about your edits? I have long ago given up hope to understand many things happening in the world, let alone some[REDACTED] policies, but this ArbCom thing sounds too crazy to be possible.--Ilevanat (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

John, you are wanted here

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,4402.0.html --86.135.235.39 (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. JohnBlackburne_deeds 02:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—Machine Elf  19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Closed, no action as of 02:18, 30 October 2012 by Nobody Ent.

Delays at free will

Hi Brews, just wanted to let you know that I see your comments at Talk:Free will, I just don't have time to give them a proper response right now. Hopefully before the end of the week. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Length measurement

Just to note that your edits and are I think covered by the terms of your topic ban. I thought I should mention this before you do something that causes someone to act on the ban.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 18:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; I forgot about that for the moment. Fortunately, it was only a link update to reflect the change in the header made in another linked article. Brews ohare (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne is correct, though I would be very annoyed at anyone who brought an obviously non-substantive edit of the sort as a pretext to sanction you. This doesn't mean that it's okay for you to routinely do such edits, but I don't want you to fear stepping on a landmine every time you make a trivial edit either. — Coren  20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Free will is not about physics

I'm afraid that this is getting to be a problem. With this talk page contribution you are suggesting adding physics related content to the article Free will. In my interpretation that is precisely what "broadly construed" means in the topic ban: not just physics articles and their talk pages but physics related content in any article. And this edit is far more substantial and contentious than the earlier change to Length measurement.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 16:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

John: The discussion at free will is not about physics, but about some philosophical points about what can and cannot be said about free will. Although some physicists (Laplace, Bohr, Mach, Eddington, Einstein, Heisenberg) have discussed such matters, they are not discussing physics but wearing their philosophical hats, and have explicitly said so in their writings upon these matters. I don't think this is the kind of thing ArbCom had in mind in considering physics topics like Centrifugal force or Wavelength, and other articles where you and Dicklyon have objected to my contributing. Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd add that the discussion at free will is not "contentious". Pfhorrest and I are trying to develop a clearer formulation of this article, which we agree needs reworking, and that requires some back and forth to clarify what is going on. There is nothing heated about this exchange. Brews ohare (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's your pet theory of complementarity (physics), the one you tried to insert into causality, after I reverted you here: Talk:Mind–body problem#Distinguished dualists of the past (which you argued ad nauseum here: Talk:Mind–body problem#Bohr's views on causality, here: Talk:Mind–body problem#Bohr and here: Talk:Mind–body problem#Pertinence of Bohr's views)... Despite John Blackburne's kind warning, no doubt you have every intention of carrying on at free will.—Machine Elf  11:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

MachineElf: The discussion about Bohr's philosophical speculations is not physics in either case, but the notion that the standard idea of "causality" may be inapplicable to the mind-body interaction and likewise to free will and mental causation. Have fun. Brews ohare (talk)

I have made corrections to your edit of the Acceleration article

as you can see in the article, plus explanations on its talk page. I do not do such things without consent of the previous author. I made this exception due to the special "ban" circumstances, but I feel the obligation at least to inform you. If you want to discuss anything, you can use my mail address levanativica@gmail.com; that certainly cannot be prohibited by the "ban".--Ilevanat (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

New quantum theory

Hey Brews is this a area where you can le4nd a eye and a voice as to correctness and possibility suitability to be here on wiki? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. My ban from physics topics is still in effect for about another year, so my doubtless unmatchable perspective on this topic will have to wait. Thanks for the visit. Brews ohare (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh shit I thought that nonsense was done with. I"m sorry Brews hope you're well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your essay

I've closed the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Quoted_citations as "userify", and moved your essay to User:Brews ohare/Quoted_citations (with minor template adjustment and category changes). — Coren  01:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request

Your recent editing is being discussed here:

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews_ohare

--JohnBlackburne_deeds 04:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification on WP:ARBSL

I have filed a request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment for clarification on the scope of the topic ban placed upon Brews ohare in the Speed of light case. As you have recently participated in an arbitration enforcement request regarding this case and precipitating the clarification request, your comments would be welcome. Seraphimblade 06:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki math and politics

Re the clarification request. WP is a political environment (I know that's politically incorrect, but it is what it is). You've got seven arbs commenting already that no clarification is coming and/or they think you violated the ban, and no arb dissenting. The probability they will change their mind at this point asymptotically approaches zero; likewise the probability of a change in topic ban at this point is the same. If my comments led you to think otherwise, accept my apologies.

I suggest taking a long-term approach, with these specific suggestions:

• Delete all your comments at the clarification with something like I did not consider my free will edits to be under the scope of the ban; however, I now understand the community's interpretation is that they did and will refrain from any mention of physics topics in the future or equivalent.
• Likewise at WP:AE. You'll either get a last chance warning or a week block -- I'm not as good at reading the mood at AE as some other venues, but either way it's not the end of the world.
• As you go forward, you're just going to have to avoid any use of words that sound physicsy to normal people. While we both know terms like second are actually physics, most folks don't, so if you stick to commonly used words you should be okay.
• Yea, I was thinking that JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs)'s ratting you out for Free will was a bit stalkerish, but looking at their length of time here (long), edit count (high) and block log (empty), and the fact they did give your fair notice here on your talk page, complaining about them is a waste of time. So turn it around and use them like a Coal mine canary -- the next time they warn you they think you're encroaching on physicsy stuff, immediately remove or strike (if someone's replied) the comment. Then twist it around ask them how to phrase the rhetorical point you want to make without violating the ban.
• If you find yourself in a discussion where another editor starts introducing physics material into the argument, I'd consider asking one of the AE admins who have commented more sympathetically (Coren, NW, Seraphimblade, EdJohnston) for advice on their talk page; I've found most Wikipedians active in dispute resolution would much rather be helpful than have to be doling out blocks. Worse case is they say no.
• In about six months, if you can stay off WP:AE would be the time to start trying to get restrictions eased. I'd start with simply asking for your talk page to be exempted -- I see you've had to decline to answer some questions posted here. Then go from there. NE Ent 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

NE Ent: Thanks for the interest. I do not have a strong expectation of good judgment or a real look into what the problem is. Admins have lots of things to do, and quickly dealing with them on any basis that will expedite matters is first priority. There are some that actually do think though, and I hope to resonate with those that actually want WP to prosper and are not completely submerged in battling the onset of minutiae. Maybe, a long, long, time from now, something will be done to get WP back on track and get Administrators involved in real decision making, not just garbage collection.

Inasmuch as the result of this hearing is pretty much going to leave things as they are, and inasmuch as Blackburne has again managed to pervert WP process, there is very little I can do here. I'll sit back for a while or forever, depending upon who knows what, and much later perhaps try to raise some questions about the perversion of clarification hearings to become short-cuts to unnecessary, ill-considered and ill-willed actions. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if your goal is to fix WP processes I'm pretty sure you're going to fail, but that's your choice. If you goal is to be able to edit WP, that's really up to you. I don't think Blackburne's perverted anything; they've simply understood and used the process as it is. NE Ent 16:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'll second NE Ent's opinion that most admins would much rather help early than reach the point where blocks seem warranted – but that by the time things reach a noticeboard it is often too late to entirely salvage the situation. Don't hesitate to seek help early and, more importantly, to heed advice you've been given. Misplaced Pages isn't unlike academia in that it's so heavily laden with unspoken rules and assumptions that one can run afoul of the system when one does what is superficially "plainly correct". I'm guessing this is why you're having difficulties, but very many people here would be happy to give you a hand. — Coren  19:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification closed

Arbitration Enforcement thread closed

A thread at arbitration enforcement which concerned you has been closed as follows: Brews ohare will be issued a final warning, logged to WP:ARBSL, that the topic ban covers all material reasonably and closely related to physics, regardless of what page such material is on. Brews ohare is further urged to request clarification from an uninvolved administrator (preferably one familiar with the case) or here at AE prior to beginning editing any material where its relation to the topic ban may be in question. Such clarification requests made in good faith will not be considered a violation of the ban.

I'll also add, seeing the above discussion, that I would much rather hand out advice than blocks, and that's true of most every admin I've worked with. Please don't hesitate to ask if something's unclear. Seraphimblade 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing Complaint

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

AE request opened

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews_ohare NE Ent 02:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban as detailed in the AE thread you were notified of above,

you have been blocked from editing for 1 week. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  17:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting all administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Open letter to Administrators at AE

Administrators Sandstein, DQ, Cailil, Mr. Stradivarius:

It is not kind of you all to come to a decision to block with no input of any kind from the subject of this action, and so quickly that no response was possible.

In fact, there is no violation of my topic ban. The fact that the adjective physical appears in the term physical determinism does not indicate that it is actually a topic in physics or "closely related" to physics. This confusion is analogous to interpreting "light bulb" as being about the physics of "light".

The topic of physical determinism is a topic in metaphysics, just like nomological determinism, or mental causation, or subject-object problem, all very closely related topics that I have contributed to substantially lately, and all historically ancient philosophical topics that have their beginnings with Aristotle and Plato if not earlier. The sources examined in these edits of mine are all by philosophers, or (rarely) by scientists writing as philosophers.

It is alarming to me that Administrators charged with the care of WP would rush to make such a content-related judgment with no input about the subject in order to get the facts straight.

Regards, Brews ohare (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Letter to Administrator Sandstein

Administrator Sandstein:

I have left a letter to all involved Administrators on the topic of my block at Administrators_at_AE Open letter to Administrators at AE. I am sure of two things: first, that the block will not be overturned as a matter of policy, and second, that Administrators involved have no grasp of the subject under discussion, and have acted out of ignorance. Some notion of the subtleties involved can be seen in Laws of Nature vs. Laws of Science.

Perhaps needless to say, the philosophy articles in WP are in terrible condition and stand in very poor relation to those of the online sites Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I have been trying to change this situation to the best of my ability.

Although Administrators have a lot to handle and pressures upon their time limit their ability to delve into such situations, it is very clear that only the temporarily insane like myself will attempt to improve WP in the face of such nonsense. It would be most helpful in improving WP if Administrators did not abet inimical practices initiated by a few malcontents, by Administrator enforcement of actions that have no bearing upon proper conduct of WP.

In this particular instance, my efforts at Physical determinism have been resisted by Richardbrucebaxter who refuses to engage in discussion and edits only on the Main page and without any Talk page support. He initiated the present kerfuffle because I resisted these actions. Thereupon JohnBlackburne, who follows me everywhere, saw an opportunity to be a nuisance again and support an AE action.

I hope AE might resist the temptation to do something like this again.

Thanks for taking the time to read this letter,

Brews ohare (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Insofar as this is an appeal of your block to me, it is declined. The only relevant question is whether you infringed on your topic ban, which is worded as encompassing "all pages of whatever nature about physics (...), broadly construed". Above, you contend that you did not violate the topic ban by creating and editing Physical determinism. That is incorrect. The article is about a concept that relates to physics. It also contains text such as "The concept of physical determinism has also been used to denote the predictability of a physical system", "Physical determinism can also be viewed as an observed phenomenon of our experience, or a thesis only relevant to mathematical models of physics and other physical sciences", or "The notion of physical determinism takes its classical form in the ideas of Laplace, who posited (in agreement with the physics of his time) that an omniscient observer (called sometimes Laplace's demon) knowing with infinite precision the positions and velocities of every particle in the universe could predict the future entirely". These statements relate to physics. The article Physical determinism is therefore a "page ... about physics ... broadly construed", and therefore within the scope of your topic ban. As to your statements about the alleged misconduct by others, or the condition of philosophy articles in Misplaced Pages, these statements are not relevant to whether or not you violated your topic ban.  Sandstein  16:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein: Thanks for taking the time to reply. Of course, in some broad sense a discussion of the practice of science and its bearing upon our views of how we sit in the Universe has some connection to physics at a metaphysical level, but has nothing to do with physics as understood and practiced by physicists. However, more important than whether a line has been crossed, is that the purpose of Administrative action is to advance the development of Misplaced Pages, and I frankly see no way that intrusion by Administrators into a semantic debate technically beyond their understanding has any such result. Such actions encourage a disrespect for Administrators' judgment and for their grasp of their rather more important real responsibilities. That disappointment is reinforced by your stated rejection of the relevance of Administrator actions either to the improvement in quality or to conduct on WP, matters one would hope to be a concern. Brews ohare (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Block happy admin strike again! Thus continues the highlighted need for an impartial review board and not the blocking admin who seems to jump the gun every time he perceives even the smallest possibility of pushing the block button. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

H in a B: Thanks for the morale support. Brews ohare (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Laws of Nature vs. Laws of Science

Norman Swartz (February 2009). "Laws of Nature". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2013-2-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) introduces the concept of a distinction between laws of science and laws of nature, the first being approximate and inaccurate, and the latter being ideal and completely accurate.

"Laws of Nature are to be distinguished both from Scientific Laws and from Natural Laws. ...Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the “principles” which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world “obeys” the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications."

— Norman Swartz, The Laws of Nature in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

August 2013

Brews, the personal attacks are getting out of hand. This in particular should be redacted. I realise you are getting frustrated at the failure of the community to support your various changes but that is no excuse. Its pretty clear to see that if this continues its going to end up at ANI or at enforcement with requests to extend your topic ban or worse. Personally I think that would be a pity, you could contribute great content if you were prepared to work with other editors but I can't remember a single example of you letting something go, other than under pressure or threat. That is a great shame, but its your choice. Ignore the later part of this if you want, but redact that comment it could get you another ban in its own right ----Snowded 06:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, I'd have to agree to a failure to achieve support of the 'community' consisting of Blackburne, yourself, and a few others that show up occasionally. Mostly the real community doesn't give a damn what I do, and neither does ArbCom until Blackburne drags me to ANI on a topic ban issue.

In your case in particular, I don't think the failure is all mine: I am entirely willing to modify proposed additions, change sources and so forth in an exchange of views. But where you have been involved, you are unable to articulate your concerns. Your instincts tell you something isn't quite right, but you just cannot crystallize what it is that bothers you. You are not disposed to engage in actual development of material, but remain tongue-tied and resort to repeated unexplained claims of policy violations, citing policies that seem not even to apply.

And then you take the attitude that banning me from the project will fix your problems. I have made useful and necessary contributions to WP, numbering in the hundreds of articles and massive revisions of many more. I've added dozens of figures (and would add more if it were not for you). The rate of accretion of new articles on WP is statistically declining, and revisions of any consequence are a rarity in most topic areas not involving current events. Editors interested in adding substantially to WP are scarce. Why is that? Do you suppose WP has such complete coverage and such accuracy that there is just nothing more to say?

The effect of your actions is to hobble WP so it remains in its present imperfect state. You keep insisting upon trimming articles down and merging them with others. I don't know why that is so appealing compared to expanding treatment of topics and providing readers with a greater and greater wealth of more and more complete information. Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Brews if you bother to check you will see I have refrained from reporting you (despite provocation and opportunity) for breaking your various edit restrictions. My experience of you is that once you have decided on an edit you fight it to the last and even when people try to help (remember Bob) you still refuse to accept any compromise. You also completely fail to understand synthesis or arguments that relate to that policy. Yes Misplaced Pages needs more content, but it does not need content that is not encyclopaedic in nature. You are repeatedly writing essays on the various topics and then getting upset when other editors will not indulge your wish for discussion. It's your call however, I've tried to help and you are at high risk with some of the crass insults you have been handing out lately. ----Snowded 18:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded you don't sound conciliatory. And your notions about synthesis and what is encyclopedic in nature, and what constitutes an 'essay' are debatable. They could be discussed, but are you in the mood? Brews ohare (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If you show evidence of listening then always in the mood, but precious sign of that to date ----Snowded 20:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Brews, I'm all for inverting your topic ban so that you only edit Physics articles, narrowly construed... after all, that is your area of expertise, right? But either way, please be guided by "the 'community' consisting of Blackburne, , and a few others that show up occasionally", right.—Machine Elf  00:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You two both seem to think (i) you are good listeners and (ii) very knowledgeable in philosophy. If we look at this resistance to adding a simple figure, or this resistance] to adding a few sourced sentences, or this objection to adding a simple very well-documented quotation, are there ways to demonstrate your skills at listening and apply your knowledge of philosophy to arrive at something constructive? Or is it your stance that I am just too pigheaded to listen (to what?) Brews ohare (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

MachineElf: I do want to thank you for suggesting I rewrite Subject-object problem, which I did with great interest (and success, judging by the increase in reader hits), and for suggesting I move a contribution about quantifiers to the article Quantifier variance (which I drafted). These were helpful suggestions. Perhaps you would agree these were helpful contributions on my part? In the philosophy area, I also added Holophrastic indeterminacy, Internal-external distinction and Model-dependent realism, and the related article Conceptualization (information science), and made some significant changes to Ontological commitment. Maybe I am not altogether a nuisance, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And fought for your original text on each one refusing to listen or engage with other editors. In a large part each of those articles recycled similar material. Some good stuff but it is getting overwealmed by your refusal to compromise or listen. ----Snowded 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, this kind of remark is not constructive and simply reinforces your own attitude that everything is set in stone. It's not. Brews ohare (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What is an 'essay'?

I'm proposing a discussion with Snowded, and whoever else wishes to join in, as to what constitutes an 'essay'. Let's begin with the application of Template:Essay.

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

The link is to Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages essays. It says an essay is in the project namespace and its title begins with the prefix Misplaced Pages. It "typically addresses some aspect of working in Misplaced Pages, but has not been formally adopted as a guideline or policy by the community at large".

Now Snowded, apparently you mean nothing like that.

This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Misplaced Pages editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This is more what you have in mind. However, simple rewording is not what you have in mind. You say to me:

"You are repeatedly writing essays on the various topics and then getting upset when other editors will not indulge your wish for discussion." 17 August 2013

"I am not sure of the utility of the article, but it is "mostly harmless" so I am confining myself to ensuring it does not become a personal essay, with your own personal illustrations." 5 August 2013

"We are not here to write essays, or personally select what we find interesting." 8 April 2013

"Essay-like is nothing to do with sources there or not, it's style.' 5 July 2013 (Some punctuation added to make an intelligible sentence out of it. Hope meaning is not altered.)

From these quotes, I am led to believe that you, Snowded, are of the opinion that I simply state my own opinion. Now, of course, that does not happen without my providing a source. So your objection extends beyond my stating 'my' opinion to providing my selection of sources. The idea is that out of a universe of discourse, I cherry-pick sources that suit my views. The result is an essay-like contribution that is parochial in nature, and not a proper full discussion of all the various views out there.

Have I got this right? Is this what you are proposing, Snowded, when you refer to my contributions as 'personal essays' or 'essay-like'?

Assuming that to be the case, here is a simple way to challenge such an essay: state a different view of the topic and provide a source for that view.

From my own viewpoint, no contribution of mine has been one-sided, and where different opinions exist that I know about or discover, I have presented them. But you, Snowded, have never undertaken to suggest additional material or an additional source that has been omitted. Instead of making that effort, you simply challenge the sources I have presented as being 'primary sources', and so unworthy of consideration. That is another discussion.

Snowded, I am inviting you to present your take on this topic of what is an 'essay' and what is objectionable about it, and just what can be done about it. Brews ohare (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

An essay in this context is where you select a limited range of primary sources and assembly them in a sequece (often with too many quotes) based on your synthesis of that material. Often, even when you use secondary sources you then serch out primary ones that match your understanding but are not referenced. As to what can be done about it I am not sure. You have essays on your user page in which you disagree with[REDACTED] policy and your attempts to change policy have resulted in little success. You have I think a key decision to make. Will you work with[REDACTED] policy and other editors or continue to persue your view of what should be? ----Snowded 19:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and it shows the level of your misunderstanding that you think the solution is for other editors to create competing essays. That also explains your frustrations that I and others will not spend time debating your opinion on the talk pages. ----Snowded 19:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, your remark "An essay in this context is where you select a limited range of primary sources and assembly them in a sequece (often with too many quotes) based on your synthesis of that material" seems to me to repeat what I suggested was your stance, which I phrased as follows:

"The idea is that out of a universe of discourse, I cherry-pick sources that suit my views. The result is an essay-like contribution that is parochial in nature, and not a proper full discussion of all the various views out there."

If there is a significant difference, please point it out. Brews ohare (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, you follow up with the claim that my solution for avoiding too narrow a view is "for other editors to create competing essays". I take that as a rejection of my suggestion of a "simple way to challenge such an essay: state a different view of the topic and provide a source for that view." Is my assumption correct? All that I mean is that, where a presentation appears parochial, for you to point out what is missing or misstated and provide some source to remedy the problem. That is not an unreasonable request, do you think? It doesn't require so much exposition from you as to become a 'competing essay'. It does require more than the bare-bones allegation that a contribution is a parochial 'essay', or the uncorroborated assertion that it is based on cherry-picked primary sources. Brews ohare (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are correct in your first assumption. As to the rest it really depends on the motivation, role and time of the editors concerned. As Bob pointed out to you I patrol a broad range of articles and tend to focus on making sure material does not get in without proper sourcing etc. That task itself takes up more time that I should really allocating to this project. That also means checking for synthesis. On a major article I have worked on content, but on minor articles its down to the person who cares about them to get the content right. In many of the cases you list my general view has been along the lines of: If you really want an article on this OK, but I don;t see its value. In those cases I am just going to police content ----Snowded 06:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a more blunt statement of your adopted role is to say where you identify what you see as 'synthesis' or cherry-picking sources (what you label essays), particularly in situations where you are not moved to engage, you will simply 'hang tough' and see no need to explain your actions. Where you see an 'essay' you will revert the contribution, and see no need for justification beyond labeling it. Where you see a WP policy infraction, you will simply point out the policy and have no obligation to explain why you think it applies. How does that sound? Brews ohare (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, you might recognize that your perspective on material can be a mystery to the contributor. Brews ohare (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I always explain the reason Brews, the problem is you either don't understand or don't agree ----Snowded 19:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: However clear you think your in-line editorial comments are, you will doubtless agree that your explanation of things is often brief and tends to be limited. Let's look at your belief that some of my contributions are essays. I now understand that label to refer to your opinion that I follow this practice: (1) the biased selection of particular sources to support my chosen viewpoint, and (2) the unwarranted combination of these opinions to arrive at views not intended by these authors, or at least not explicitly stated by these authors. I don't agree with that characterization. But, would you agree that this is how you view my contributions?

I have little doubt that you won't agree that this is your position. Based on that expectation, I want to ask the following question: Just how much support for such an assessment is warranted? If I read your comments correctly, your answer is that in cases where the contribution is minor (which includes just about everything I do, I'd guess) a brief (I'd say cryptic) in-line remark is all that is needed. How am I doing so far?

Typically you say (I paraphrase): "the contribution is based upon a synthesis of primary sources; go find a third-party source". Period. No further clarification will be forthcoming. Anything short of a third-party source is unacceptable, regardless of how reputable, or how many, or how clearly the primary sources may espouse a position. The advantage for you is that no further engagement is required from you (in your opinion) and the contribution is unworthy of further comment (beyond, perhaps, some sarcasm regarding my ability to grasp the obvious). Brews ohare (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Have I got you right? Brews ohare (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And they get increasingly brief as you fail to pay attention. The request for a third party source is very clear and policy on use of primary sources is also clear. If you want to change policy then a discussion with me on one article is not the way to do it. ----Snowded 04:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Where do you find the statement of policy on this matter? Here are two links about primary secondary and tertiary sources: WP:PRIMARY and WP:USEPRIMARY. Their position is as follows:

" Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors."

Now, I have no difficulty with this policy. Is it what you have in mind?

Its application is regarding 'novel interpretation' or 'synthetic claims'. Obviously, your own perception of synthesis or of novel interpretation can be mistaken or subtle, and some additional comment supporting your objections is appropriate. Your practice of simply stating a violation is present is inadequate. In the cases where we have clashed, in my opinion, there has been no instance of either of these bad behaviors. Can you see that a difference of views may exist in such cases, requiring discussion? Brews ohare (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of the source yes, not of the content ----Snowded 20:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify. Brews ohare (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of whether the source is a secondary one, reliable etc. etc. Not a discussion of your view of the content. ----Snowded 10:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Thank you for your clarification. The question asked was whether you felt your personal assessment of a contribution as exhibiting synthesis or introducing interpretation of a source was possibly not shared by contributor, and therefore warranted an explanation on your part beyond your statement of your own assessment in the form of an in-line edit summary limited to (more or less): "the contribution is based upon a synthesis of primary sources; go find a third-party source". Is it your reply that indeed no further explanation on your part is forthcoming, and all that is open to further input from yourself is whether a third-party source proffered by the contributor is adequate, again, in your opinion? I just want clarification that I have your position correctly stated. Brews ohare (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd add that I think that position is rather hard-line and basically sets you up as an 'expert' whose opinion trumps all other opinion. I think your view is that having identified a policy violation, there is nothing more to discuss. The problem with this view is that the establishment of a policy violation is in itself a controversial matter and conveying the reasons for such an interpretation becomes an obligation both for clarity and to aid the contributor in modifying their contribution. Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well so far on the RfC's you have called and there has been participation my interpretation of policy has been supported. I always identify the issue, but then you just don;t give up. Look at the picture as an illustration. I allowed several changes refused that. But you just won't compromise and go on, and on, and on. You need to think about that. Get reasonable and people will be more relaxed with your edits ----Snowded 15:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your first response is that indeed your experience is that you are an accurate interpreter of policy as evidenced by your interpretation of historical community response, so indeed, you are a notch above run-of-the-mill explanation. Your second response is that you 'always identify the issue'. Identification of an issue as one of 'interpretation' or 'synthesis' of sources is not really helpful without an indication of the reasoning behind those assessments. We will, of course, continue specific debates on other Talk pages. I think, of course, that I am reasonable, and that you are opaque. Brews ohare (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course you do Brews, and I am in the good company of Arbcom, the wider physics community and those responding on RfCs. We are all of course being opaque in the face of your reasonableness ----Snowded 16:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am happy for you to be so tight with ArbCom. I had no idea that you claimed comradeship with the 'wider physics community'; sorry, but I find that unlikely. As for those responding to RfC's. well look in the mirror - that's just about all present. Brews ohare (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your misreading of that is illustrative of the wider problem. In good company, means in this context that all those groups have been subject to your vilification for not agreeing with you, not the same thing as comradeship. Where you have got a response on an RfC it has been to reject your proposals, and generally now the community is ignoring them. A behavioural change would be most welcome and I am sure the community would then work with you. But as it stands things are going down hill fast and a lot of your edit summaries would be enough to get you sanctioned if I was the complaining type (which I am not). ----Snowded 17:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: I regret that we cannot open a line of communication. I don't find your diatribes about myself conducive to your greater understanding. They are simply venting without addressing anything substantial.

Here is a summary of the key points:

• You use the term 'essay' as shorthand to describe contributions that, in your opinion, exhibit cherry-picking of sources and synthesis of their views to arrive at positions not endorsed by those sources.
• You arrive at this designation based upon your own interpretation, and generally point out violations of WP:SYN or WP:NOR as having occurred.
• You think it unnecessary to engage in any back-and-forth about your judgments or how these policies have been breached.

That's it. Brews ohare (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If you insert 'continuous and repeated' before 'back and forth' and delete 'any' then I am broadly in agreement ----Snowded 18:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We may be as close to agreement as is possible.

You have said that you already spend too much time on WP, and time explaining your actions would limit your effectiveness. That is a judgment call, of course.

But time spent in discussion also is shortened by direct and plain answers to objections to your invocations of WP:SYN and WP:NOR. Looking over our exchanges, a lot of your time has been spent in your trying to avoid explaining yourself instead of just saying what is on your mind. I think to some extent this reluctance is a reflection of unwillingness on your part to put time into crystallizing your intuitions, and also to a reluctance to put time into re-examination of preconceptions that sometimes are out of date. Brews ohare (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Its not a matter of intuitions, its a matter of sourcing. You have a few of how Misplaced Pages should be edited which accepts a edge of synthesis that I and others do not accept, per policy. There are also style issues - I will have to make amendments on that if I get a chance tomorrow on the latest focus of your attention. You are doing some good work, but then you go to far with synthesis and quotations, then it get changed then you reinstate and the cycle continues. ----Snowded 20:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I gather that you think I may not egregiously synthesize, but still do so to an unacceptable degree. I'd suggest that such 'borderline' synthesis by its borderline nature (superposing that is how it is) might be viewed by some one way, and by others, another. That determination requires discussion, not pronouncements. Slight rewording, or greater explanation could resolve uncertainties. Just how that can be accomplished needs elucidation of the issues, which may be unclear to all involved. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

MachineElf's warning

Your recent editing history at Pluralism (philosophy) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Machine Elf  17:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

MachineElf: It's hard to believe you are advocating use of the Talk page when I have placed an extensive section about your edits on the Talk page from the beginning, and asked you in my edit comments specifically to explain your changes there. Without result. Apparently you feel that because I made the corrections, your revert to prior erroneous text requires no explanation. Brews ohare (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dillemma of Determinism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

---

Snowded 04:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no edit war involved here at all. What there actually is is an obstinate editor who refuses to support his personal opinions, and instead removes sourced material without any comment beyond his personal distaste for it. Brews ohare (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Brew's this is your talk page so you are free to believe that and say it. The fact is that other editors can disagree with you (and frequently do on multiple pages), is something you seem unable to accept. I stopped compiling the evidence on personal attacks for Arb enforcement earlier this week as you seemed to have stopped. If you are starting again I'll unhappily go back to that task ----Snowded 04:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: You sound like an endless tape. You avoid all actual discussion of content to go off on these spiels abort my defects. The endless discussions on Talk pages are all with you, and they are not discussions. They are pleas for you to come to grips with sources and content. Instead you find it easier to frame remarks like those of yours above that are simply screeds about 'my behavior'. Get real. Brews ohare (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is governed by rules on behaviour Brews as you have already discovered. Otherwise on the content issues - how many times have you been backed by other editors? I think you need to get to grip with the rules about sources, original research and synthesis. A little movement by you there would make everyone's lives easier. Otherwise please stop this habit you have developed of ignoring WP:BRD until you are formally warned ----Snowded 13:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

On content issues - how many times have you addressed content issues? I think you need to get to grip with the rules about sources, original research and synthesis. A little movement by you there would make everyone's lives easier. Otherwise please stop this habit you have developed of ignoring substance in favor of polemics. Brews ohare (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully accept I have never addressed a content issue to your satisfaction Brews. Equally on any RfC where other editors have engaged, the content issue has not gone with you. Whatever, you don't want to listen and you seem set on a course which can only have one end point. Its your call but don't say that several of us didn't try to help ----Snowded 14:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

To see whether I understand the background to your position, Snowded, let me try to state it in my own words. Any statement on a topic A in WP that is acceptable to you is of the form "The third-party source X has discussed topic A and has said the following..." Moreover, any contribution is unacceptable if it is of the form (more or less): "On topic A primary source P₁ says S₁ and primary source P₂ has the view S₂ and ..., and these appear to exhaust all the various viewpoints on this topic."

Basically you cannot accept any editor taking responsibility for attempting to summarize a topic by presenting the available sources even though, of course, any other editor is free to add to this presentation, reform it, and to discuss its objectivity (all being undertakings that you eschew as a waste of your time). WP should, in your view, be nothing beyond a brief encapsulation of articles in encyclopedias or text-book like presentations. Anything else is no more than a personal essay (original research) based upon cherry-picked sources (although you would not investigate to identify any missing point of view). How's that?

In my opinion this perspective does not describe a good deal of the articles on WP, its disdain for any useful commentary or contribution is laziness, and its reversal of all contributions not falling within its arbitrary and narrow scope is pure obstructionism. Brews ohare (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Add all of that to your long essays on why[REDACTED] is broken, you are right etc etc. etc I'm done trying to explain basics to an editor who does not want to listen, has a block history that evidences he does not listen and a RfC success record which confirms whose problem this really is. ----Snowded 16:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, totally beside the point - another rant. goodbye. Brews ohare (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dilemma of determinism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

I'll give you some time to self revert before this gets serious. I too am busy in real life ----Snowded 03:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

You have committed multiple breeches of WP:CIVIL]] on the free will article continuing a pattern from other articles. While I understand you are frustrated that your edits are not gaining support on multiple articles insulting other editors will not improve things. The original Arbcom resolution to block you from Physics articles included reference to both tendentious attitudes, personal attacks and a combative attitude. There is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that you have brought the same negative behavioural pattern to philosophy articles. It is unlikely the community will be tolerant a second time round. In particular you need to realise that when you edits are rejected and no other editor supports you then its time to move on. If you can't change then I suspect you are heading for an extended block or possibly an indef. ----Snowded 19:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Subject-object problem. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.. ----Snowded 22:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You have now clearly broken all the rules on edit warring. The fact that you don't like the reason given by other editors for rejecting your changes does not entitle you to impose those changes regardless. Final warning in the hope of a new year resolution by you to work with other editors rather than simply imposing your own views ----Snowded 05:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear

If other editors get involved, or you introduce a substantive new argument then I will engage on the talk page of any article (moral responsibility at the moment). However I am no longer prepared to waste time in repeating the same points to someone who does not want to hear an opposing view. Lack of engagement does not imply consent and any change which has not been agreed on the talk page will be reverted (unless it is something minor or routine). So please do not take a no one has commented so I will make the change approach. I may also respond on your talk page rather than an article talk page to avoid wasting other editors's time. ----Snowded 20:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I find these remarks of yours to illustrate only your personal impatience with myself, and unfortunately to lump my contributions together on every topic as identical in your mind because they have in common their coming from me, and without any regard for their content. There is no connection between the failure of the lede in moral responsibility and other topics where we have met. Except possibly your reaction, and threat to remove anything I add of substance, regardless of its merits. Simply an astounding statement of your irresponsible behavior. Brews ohare (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree that impatience with your behaviour is a significant factor here. You might also note that I qualified my comment on reversion but you seem not to have read it. As ever your capacity or willingness to read and comprehend what other editors are saying to you seems limited. To repeat in different words: if you make a change to any article in the ranges I monitor I will as ever look at it on its merits. If I revert or amend I will generally use the edit summary to indicate a reason. If you have introduced a new argument or other editors engage I will take part in that dissuasion on the talk page. However I am no longer prepared to engage in long conversations with you on the talk page when you simply do not listen. So if you see no reply on the talk page and you take that as license to make the change, it will be reverted. See above where I am very clear on this "any change which has not been agreed on the talk page ..." by which is meant explicit consent. ----Snowded 07:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

SO to be clear you are stating your intention to edit war? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Still upset are we? Am I disturbing the Blocked by Sandstein club? To answer your question no ----Snowded 20:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not upset in the slightest and User:Sandstein has absolutely zero to do with this, I'm merely concerned that you are making threats of disruption specifically "So if you see no reply on the talk page and you take that as license to make the change, it will be reverted" which is in contravention of WP:BRD when you make blanket statements and also a declaration of edit war as your intentions. It's up to you if you want to be disruptive but I just wanted to be clear. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Pull the other one, its got bells on it :-) You attempted to get Brews recruited to your little ANI campaign against Sanstein and have sniped on and off ever since I opposed you in that. The pair of you have similar length block logs so you are in good company. Oh and you might want to read up on WP:BRD as well as[REDACTED] policy on editors who carry on conversations interminably on talk pages when they have zero support. ----Snowded 21:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: This demo of pique is beside the point. However, let me try to explain my problems with your position regarding my editing of philosophy articles. If you can put yourself in an uninvolved position for the moment, and let me refer to you in abstract mode as "Snowded", you might see that from my standpoint my contributions to various articles all are different in content, ranging from the trivial addition of a source to creation of one or another new article (e.g. Quantifier variance, Internal-external distinction, Conceptualization (information science), Holophrastic indeterminacy). In all cases the particular contribution is directed at the topic of the page in question. Thus, from my point of view, a claim by "Snowded" that all my contributions are bunk for the same reasons, doesn't seem to me to be possible. So, hoping you are still in an uninvolved state of mind, you might understand that "Snowded"'s saying that my every attempt has the same deficiencies as every other one that I make, regardless of the topic, doesn't seem fair or adequate.

One way "Snowded" makes the same criticism of all my efforts is to say that all my contributions are the undigested product of Google searches with at best a superficial connection to the topics approached, connected to them only by some keywords used for Google search that isn't really significant to the topic. In my view, if that is how "Snowded" thinks of the contribution, it would be helpful if he provided some argument as to why the proposed contribution is not pertinent. After all, even if the contribution is made by a random by a keyword search, there is clearly a chance that an article found using a keyword could be pertinent. For example, there is a possibility that an article by William James entitled The dilemma of determinism might have a bearing upon the WP article Dilemma of determinism, and maybe that possibility should be discussed?.

In the latest conflict over the lede to Moral responsibility, the Google search criticism doesn't apply - here it is simply pointed out that the lede is defective in at least three ways - a matter worth addressing, I think. A simple rejection by "Snowded" on the basis that brews-ohare is always proposing trash doesn't seem to cut it for me.

Can the real Snowded see the POV of brews_ohare?? Brews ohare (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO, Snowded, what is really going on here is that you do not like discussing topics that you don't find worth discussing in the first place. That being so, my advice would be just to leave them be, rather than finding peremptory excuses to curtail discussion that you don't want to engage in. Brews ohare (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What I find comical is that you equate me mentioning asking brews for his opinion on a thread regarding Sandstein's administrative actions (which I had no hand in creating) which have in the past been an issue. I have no clue if he's still firing half cocked because I have not been active in that area of the encyclopedia but I notice you haven't underwent WP:DR or a request for comment recently. So for all of your self righteous wailings you are clearly just as much to blame for the current situation. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Brews - other editors are not supporting you by engagement in any way. There is a message in that which you seem to want to ignore ----Snowded 04:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That could be the message, of course. However, almost all philosophy articles remain nearly in the condition they were first written many years ago, indicating that apart form changes of 'color' to 'colour' and 'which' to 'that' there is no-one but you to engage with. Pfhorrest showed up for a while, but his real life took him elsewhere, and all he does now is minor corrections and reversions, just like you do. So you are 'everyone' here Snowded, which makes claiming general agreement with your own ideas pretty simple, even if they seldom have any sourcing or logic behind them. Brews ohare (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW after several extended conflicts with you on various articles I'm very wary when I see you've edited something on my watchlist, and on the cursory level I have time to look over them I do see problems, but I just don't have the time to engage here like I used to. I see these things and hope someone else does engage you to make sure that whatever gets added or changed really deserves to be, because I do feel you lack a good understanding of a lot of philosophical material and approach editing the articles from such a place of misunderstanding; and to that extent I am grateful that Snowded at least takes a look and says something so that you don't make problematic edits with carte blanche. But I've also sided with you against Snowded attempting to take a too-eager pair of metaphorical scissors to an article before and excise (or block) too much, so I feel sad that that is the only apparent alternative. I really do wish more editors with varying opinions would get more involved so there was more constructive consensus-building instead of either you having carte blanche or Snowded just standing in your way completely, and I feel guilty for not being able to engage in that kind of constructive mediation that I used to pride myself on. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

you have been opposed by far more editors than me Brews as a simple check on your RfCs will show. Your attempt to claim status as a victim has little credibility. Having engaged at length in the early days I have lost patience with your intransigence. If Pfhorrest has time to engage with you again (although you simply repeated yourself last time the attempt was made rather than listening) I'd welcome it. Otherwise I have done my best to give you the benefit of the doubt in letting through some of your edits and I will continue to do so. The real solution is for you to listen to what ore distorts have said in those RfCs and before that on Physica articles. You might also want to listen to the silence which has greeting your attempt to involve others. That is often more significant here than disagreement.----Snowded 08:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: I appreciate your comments. I understand very well that an article in philosophy is a nuanced affair, and that striking the right balance involves discussion. I happen to disagree with you sometimes, but that is normal in these circumstances.

Snowded: You suffer from a polarized view in general that you are right, always, and do not need to support your opinions any more than does the Pope. So far as listening to others, it is not the only sign of listening to you to immediately agree with you, nor is it a failure to listen when questions about your positions are posed. However, as Pfhorrest has observed, your tendency is simply to block additions and refuse all justification beyond their affront to your sensibilities. Unfortunately also, there are almost zero Wikipedians interested in philosophy, so I'm not so much being ignored as working in a vacuum with yourself. I do recognize that most WP editors are of the 'hit-and-run' school of editing and wish to avoid extended discussion. I personally do not find that approach conducive to good content. This belief on the part of many editors is an outgrowth of impatience with scholarship, and is why WP remains with a reputation of unreliability, mainly consulted briefly to find a few of the ideas out there about a topic, but only laughable as a reputable source.Brews ohare (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The result of your actions, Snowded, as exemplified time and again here on WP, is that philosophy articles on WP will remain cursory and often incorrect, and new pages a rare occurrence. Instead, you could undertake to actually discuss sources and reach a suitable presentation of their content. So far that has never happened. Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Brews, in the early days I tried to discuss sources with you but you didn't listen to any argument that did not support your partial views. It's an experience that a lot of other editors have had with you, including Pfhorrest and others. Sooner or later people give up trying. You are confusing a refusal to constantly repeat objections to your arguments with a refusal to justify objections. Your comments on sources and scholarship are to be honest amusing. You use partial sources largely based on google searches. Something that yet another editor has just pointed out to you on the moral responsibility article.----Snowded 16:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Vesal has suggested my sources are not pertinent, but has not said why, nor have any sources been introduced by Vesal as support for the claim of a "partial" view. Snowded, you do not understand that sources are to be discussed, not WP editors' personal opinions. Your claim that you once upon a time "tried to discuss sources with me" is a fairy tale. For example, see this. I have, contrary to your remarks, responded in detail whenever you have raised a point, most commonly citing and quoting sources, and as soon as you recognize that your position requires some support from sources, you change the subject. Your remark "You are confusing a refusal to constantly repeat objections to your arguments with a refusal to justify objections" is most charitably to be seen as a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Brews ohare (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Brews your replies are quite long sometimes. I'm sure that sometimes the level of detail can be intimidating to other editors too. I know it isn't intentional but maybe that is part of the problem. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

H in a B: Thanks for the observation. Of course you are right about that. I'm not sure that I can overcome this difficulty, which is a result of dealing with editors on WP that cannot understand a briefly stated point. Of course, they don't read a more detailed presentation either, so the problem remains either way. Brews ohare (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Brews no one would ever accuse you of not answering in detail, the problem is you don't accept briefly stated points that disagree with you and try and engage people in extended Ad nauseam discussions. Most people gave up on you after the RfC on the definition of Philosophy, by the time we got to Dilemma of Determinism you were simply not accepting contrary positions and just put your points again and again and again. If one tries another way of explaining the point then once faces an accusation of changing the subject. Sorry, but no ones is expected to devoting hours of time to simply repeating points already made. This is especially true when no other editors engage. Move on, learn to compromise a bit. I've pointed you to the[REDACTED] policy on intransigence before and you need to read it.----Snowded 16:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: I appreciate that you are trying to offer me advice that I insist too much upon my own contributions, even though they are sourced and well-argued. You point out that you (and many others I am sure) are not interested in well-sourced and argued contributions, or in development of good content where that requires some effort, but prefer short statements of editor beliefs. Got it. Don't think that is the way to go, though. Brews ohare (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we are all interested in well-sourced, but also balanced sources together cogent arguments that admit the possibility that you might be wrong and are not repeated endlessly after they have been rejected. You seem to what to assert that while you are using well sourced content, anyone who opposes you is merely expressing a belief. As long as you think like that you will not get out of the hole you have been digging for yourself.----Snowded 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A little look at our engagements shows assertion of Snowded's beliefs is indeed your modus operandi. I wouldn't generalize that behavior to everyone. Brews ohare (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Examples of other editors responses

I'll put together more of these for you as I get time to go through the various philosophy articles you have edited. They all indicate a general pattern of response from multiple editors ----Snowded 06:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• 29th January 2014: "I can't believe there's this much confusion over a simple linguistic issue, except that you've had this kind of confusion over simple language over and over again on other articles" ..... "Someone else please engage Brews here, I really don't want to be drawn into a hundred pages of explaining the meaning of a simple word to him again". --Pfhorrest
• Snowded explains his policy: instant reversion without commentary, and an exhortation to all to follow his pattern of avoiding all discussion based upon sources.

March 2014

A request concerning you has been made for Arbitration enforcement ----Snowded 07:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with Enaction (philosophy)

Glad to help with above as you ask, Brews. Interesting talk page btw! TonyClarke (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Curious

How does one cope with superdeterminism?—Machine Elf  04:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Gary Cziko

Hello, Brews ohare. I thought I should inform you that Snowded is proposing to delete Gary Cziko, an article which you started. See the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, if I was doing that I would have proposed deletion. I asked which of the tests of notability this one matched as its not obvious ----Snowded 06:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Snowden I wondered when you would show up, it was too nice a day to not have something go wrong with it I guess. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Phi Cop

Here you make a "repeated invitation" concerning my "dominance" of the "moribund" philosophy project/articles. I know you've made similar remarks at the WikiProject, OR, ANI and elsewhere. Are article talk pages about all that's left?—Machine Elf  17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

MachineElf: Guess what - it's not about you. Brews ohare (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

But you say: "The philosophy work project is moribund. As a result of this apathy a few editors like Snowded and MachineElf dominate the field and insist upon their own agendas." That is about me.—Machine Elf  06:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to sign up for WP:WikiProject Philosophy/participants?—Machine Elf  06:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

MachineElf: The fact that you and Snowded are virtually the only editors active in philosophy is not directly about you two. It is about the lack of a more general interest. As for signing up, putting my name on this list isn't going to inspire more activity among others or by me. I do wonder what happened that those who started so many of the philosophy articles stopped contributing to WP a year or so later.

It is not just a philosophy thing. The number of participants on WP actually contributing new articles or large additions to articles has fallen steadily after 2007. Whatever its cause, my conclusion after looking at article histories is that WP is failing to engineer a climate for cooperative shaping of contributions, and has instead become little more than a beleaguered action against vandalism. Brews ohare (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that a good deal of the problem can be traced to (i) lifetime appointment of Administrators without any mechanism to insure responsibility in their actions, and (ii) anonymity of contributors whose avatars become WP personalities of dubious character, and (iii) a conservativeness toward modifying policy that amounts to rigidity and the impossibility of improvements. Brews ohare (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brews, long time no see. My guess is that there is no problem at all. I don't think one should focus on contributors and their problems, but rather think in terms of—bear with me—available subjects to either create new articles about, or to add large additions about in their article when they already have one. With each newly created article and with each large content addition, the number of such subjects naturally declines. Up to 2007 there was a sufficient supply of such subjects still allowing for exponential growth. Around 2007 that changed and now it has stabilised to about 1000/day, which can be defined as "the number of daily new subjects with sufficient potential notability for Misplaced Pages". So the number of new articles per unit of time stopped growing. So what? It's a basic law of populations (contributors) thriving on renewable limited resources (uncovered subjects). Exponential growth cannot continue forever. Looks pretty non-contributor-driven—and certainly non-conspiratorial—to me. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

DVdm: The emphasis here is not at all upon contributors and their problems, but upon the dearth of contributors. As for the 'nothing-is-wrong;-it's-just-that-exponential-growth-is-impossible-to-maintain' theory of WP's slow demise - well it just doesn't fit that model. There is a sharp change in the performance graphs about 2007 that doesn't fit a sigmoid. In any event, the WP-is-just-fine scenario is not true to life. Brews ohare (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your emphasis on "(i) lifetime appointment, ... (ii) anonymity of contributors... and (iii) a conservativeness..." clearly resorts under contributors and their problems. And of course a sigmoid is the last curve one would expect. You completely missed the point. You were talking about new articles here. As long as old, uncovered subjects aren't exhausted, the number of newly created articles can and will easily overshoot the number of available new potential subjects. As soon as the old subjects are exhausted (2007), there must be a fallback that, in turn, gradually settles down to an equilibrium. We don't need to solve a differential equation for this. Look at the current curve, up to Feb 2014. It's a natural classic, and the only one possible. And in any event, the WP-is-just-fine scenario is very true to me . - DVdm (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

DVdm: Apparently we don't agree, and there isn't the data available to really dig into this. Which is one more symptom of WP's lack of vigor in keeping tabs on things, watching the data and publicly discussing its implications. In the absence of careful attention all we have is opinion, and the easiest response is complacency. I'm of the opinion that WP will continue to let things slide, and it's unlikely that a competitor, lacking WP's wonderful opportunity, will supplant it anytime soon. That is a major misfortune for humankind, an opportunity squandered. Brews ohare (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

See this figure on the right with an overshoot, "due to over-reproduction in response to the initial abundance of resources". Compare the scatter graph with the time scatter graph of new articles per day of the current data, or even already with your own graph here (top right, blue). - DVdm (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the stats. The article size stats are interesting, with the average article running 3.6kB and about 55% of articles with <2kB of words. Even a little knock-off like Idée fixe (psychology) runs over 21kB, so most of these articles are puny indeed. Articles with .5 - 2 kB of readable text aren't significant in my mind. Even counting all these minor articles the new article count is declining over time, having peaked in 2006-2007. Likewise for the number of Wikipedians with a lifetime edit content >10. The number making >5 edits/month and >100 edits/month aren't too useful without knowing the size of the edits. Just adding a source or a sentence takes over 0.5 kB, so smaller edits are inconsequential in adding to an article. And edits involving policing of vandalism activity or hit-and-run one-line edit summary reverts are not excluded. So the edit/month stats are not very useful.

It seems you are suggesting with the biology stats that there is a variety of behavior in population growth depending upon 'environment', which can't be argued. In fact, my point is that WP should be looking at its own environmental factors and trying to implement processes to insure they improve over time, rather than insisting everything is just dandy. Brews ohare (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course there's always the possibility that daphnia too suffer from irresponsible administrator conspiracies... - DVdm (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DVdm: I have not suggested any conspiracy or irresponsibility: rather incompetence, inability, inattention, inflexibility, and unaccountability. Brews ohare (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not oR. A conspiracy oF administrator irresponsibility. It's how I interpreted "... lifetime appointment of Administrators without any mechanism to insure responsibility in their actions". - DVdm (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't understand - absence of a mechanism to insure responsibility surely doesn't suggest a conspiracy aimed toward irresponsibility? Brews ohare (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 18 May

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 Ecological niche page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Mereology

Hey Brews, can you help clear the essay tag? Mereology makes me a bit queasy... thanks.—Machine Elf  05:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

How about a new article? Maybe Complementarity (philosophy) with that material you wanted to include in the mind-body problem awhile back?—Machine Elf  15:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Enactivism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. WP:BRD is very clear. You do not have the right to determine if objections to your edits are acceptable or not. You are required to reach consensus. try addressing the objection rather than ignoring it or making silly accusations. I've done my best to work with you on this article, allowing and modifying a lot of material. However you see unable to cope unless you are allowed to insert any material you think is appropriate. That is edit warring. ----Snowded 16:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly an edit war when you provide no basis for your actions. I am reverting vandalism. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Ah, so now if experienced editors disagree with you they are vandals? Old habits coming back Brews. I'll deal with this tomorrow, I have other work to do today. I strongly suggest you reflect, self-revert and engage with the arguments. Just because an author creates two concepts it does not follow that the article on each concept requires extended discussion of the other. You are, again failing to understand

So now you wear the hat of 'experienced editor'? You are not. You are an experienced 'reverter'. You seldom contribute anything of consequence to articles and have never actually introduced a new article yourself in any academic area. The waving about of WP policy names like WP:COATRACK is not helpful without some actual basis and identification of the problematic material. Claiming that mention of autopoiesis or enactive interfaces is 'coat-racking' the article on enactivism is something that has to be supported, and in fact the literature on enactivism is full of references to autopoiesis and the literature on enactive interfaces has useful discussions of enactivism, as cited in the material you dispute. Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Brews ohare reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: ). Thank you.

Based on this report, you have breached WP:3RR. Please comment at the report why you think you should not be sanctioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Enactivism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

So much for commenting, eh? I should know better. Brews ohare (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you had ignored my request for comments, I would have blocked you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bbb: I understand your action as simply an enforcement of the 3rr rule. I'm OK with that, but I don't know if your statement that we (actually I) "showed no insight into their misconduct" simply refers to this legal technicality or to something broader? In particular, if you mean that my engagement with Snowded shows a lack of understanding of Talk page activity, maybe that is worth examining further. Brews ohare (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you want me to put this comment, above or below your links - feel free to move it if it suits you. My block had nothing to do with "Talk page activity".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK; However, as an Administrator you might want to think a bit about what the underlying cause of an 'edit war' might be, and whether WP has adequate ability to diagnose or to remedy such matters in some general fashion. For example, an edit war often is an expression of frustration, and one such frustration is reaching agreement over what should go into an article. One might hope that a Talk-page discussion would lead to agreement. That probably would happen more often than it does now if Administrators took an interest in focusing the parties upon sources and redirecting them from disputes over each others' opinions. That is, Admins could try to underline WP policies about Talk page engagement instead of simply acting as traffic cops citing meter violations. Brews ohare (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

---

---

• The Decline of Misplaced Pages; MIT Technology Review
• The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community: How Misplaced Pages's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its decline
• Google’s Knowledge Graph Boxes: killing Misplaced Pages?

December 2014

Your recent editing history at Talk:Negative feedback 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. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet: What is your purpose here in applying main page 3r rules to my reversion of illegal collapse of Talk page discussion by non-participants in the exchange with Dicklyon. It is none of their business. If they have something to say about these sources, they can join in. But they don't. And if they have no interest in the exchange, they can ignore it. Brews ohare (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We're done. Collapsing the discussion is best. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

All right then, Dick. I thought you might have more to add. Brews ohare (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you broke WP:3RR with your edits at Talk:Negative feedback. But it seems possible that you have stopped. You may be able to avoid a block if you will agree to abstain from talk page reverts for the next seven days. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ed. No problem. I'll make no talk page reverts. Brews ohare (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not refactor Dicklyon's talk page entry as you did here to give it the false header "Removal of link". Dick is pretty ticked off about that: he reverted your subsequent additions to just before this refactoring. Binksternet (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverting actual text on talk page is a no-no. I guess Dick knows that. Brews ohare (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The violation was your biased header which made it look like Dick was arguing your case. At WP:RTP it says that you should avoid changing the meaning, which applies to you. And it says you should avoid making others angrier in heated situations such as that talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The notion that the header changed Dick's meaning is silly nonsense. The header was "Removal of link", which is a neutral statement of what was done by Dick, and what was the subject of the following few exchanges. There is no need, Binksternet, to invent stuff. Brews ohare (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The insertion of new topic heading and moving/unindenting my reply to your previous comment to look like the opening comment of the section definitely changed my meaning. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, inserting a header to identify the subject of subsequent remarks bothered Dick. That made him so mad he reverted talk page text in violation of established rules.. I fixed this by adding a more complete argument against his inappropriate deletion of sources. Probably that won't please him either. But this time he won't have a pretext for Talk page reversion of stuff he can't find words to discuss. Brews ohare (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing Signal Flow Graph

It looks like we are both editing right now. I'll stand down for a while.Constant314 (talk)

Thanks for the help so far. Think I've finished for now. Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like we just flip-flopped on whether the Solving linear equations with signal-flow graphs section should be under Examples or not. I think that it should, because it is just another use of a SFG. I don't think it is special enough or important enough to have its own section. I'll leave it be for a while, but would like to have your thoughts.Constant314 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Constant: My thoughts are different. In my view the subject of representing equations is all that distinguishes flow graphs from digraphs, and so is almost the entire subject, not just an application of it. Brews ohare (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the introduction makes it clear that the SFG represents equations.Constant314 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. And that is what I have said here. So don't we agree? Brews ohare (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we only disagree on where the section Solving linear equations with signal-flow graphs goes in the hierarchy. I think it is just another example and ought to be in the examples section. But, I won't change it again unless you agree.Constant314 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems a signal flow graph always is associated with a set of equations (otherwise the graph isn't a signal flow graph but is a more general form of digraph), and at least in the linear case, is instrumental in using these equations (e.g. Mason's rule). So why relegate this aspect which pervades the entire subject to a mere 'example'? Brews ohare (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Article on the relationship between mathematics and physics

Hello, professor Brews ohare. I have noticed that you have contributed a lot to articles in physics, mathematics and philosophy, and now I thought that maybe you would be interested in editing the article Relationship between mathematics and physics. Well... just an invitation :). By the way, you have made very good contributions to this project, congratulations! Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.213.231 (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Evan Thompson

The thoughts of minor academics belong in their articles and the glowing account you added to The Selfish Gene should be removed and some of it placed at Evan Thompson. I'm distracted at the moment so won't do that now, but articles on Dawkins are repeatedly mistreated as coatracks for the views of people few have heard of. The topic of the article is the book, with brief mentions of its reception. If you believe notability would be satisfied, please write an article about the debates surrounding "selfish genes" and move Thompson's views to there. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Where does your evaluation of Evan Thompson as a "minor academic" come from? And his discussion of Dawkins in Mind in Life is thoroughly sourced, providing a well supported critique of Dawkins' work. Brews ohare (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request 2

Your recent editing is being discussed here:

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews_ohare

--JohnBlackburne_deeds 20:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice to meet you!

I really hope they don't kick you off Misplaced Pages. I particularly liked your analysis about the growth and decline of Misplaced Pages:..."many new Wikipedians lost interest in continuing with WP, possibly because they faced an upsurge in activists". I 100% agree. Editing is so hard now. You make a well sourced article contribution and it just gets reverted and when you discuss it you find you are discussing it with people who aren't exactly Einsteins. Or if they are, they prefer to hide it. Often they are just activists of a sort pursuing a particular agenda. We aren't allowed say that of course, because that would breach the requirement to assume good faith. In fact, if we had frank discussions in good faith on the talk pages, we would, ironically, get blocked for breaching the 'assume good faith' rules. Unless of course we are in an alliance of Editors. If you can't win, join them is what some say. I've asked another editor today about tips on how to get into some sort of an alliance and not be a lone edior any more. The successful activists seem to be in alliances. Finally, I'm afraid your areas of interest and mine are not the same and it's unlikely I could ever understand the sort of topics you are interested in. Way above my head. Good luck! Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

Pursuant to this arbitration enforcement request you are warned that your topic ban is from all pages (and making any edit related to those pages) and from edits about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. See the related discussion in the request regarding the extent of the topic ban. You are further warned that any further breaches of your topic ban will likely result in an extended block. This warning will be logged and may be referenced a reason to issue a block for a further violation, you may appeal this warning by following the instructions here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Courcelles

Invitation to Snowded

The action needed is to address sources instead of behavior. Brews ohare (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well you in a minority of one in thinking that Brews. How many more editors have to chime in before you finally admit you might be wrong? Or is ANI and yet another ban the only route? --Snowded 15:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP policy supports the purpose of the encyclopedia, which is to present what reputable sources have to say on various topics. Naturally such presentation involves some discussion of this content and how it should best be presented. Neither of these activities has recently been your focus. Brews ohare (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And as you have been repeatedly told by many editors both on Philosophy pages and on Policy pages it does not support your personal synthesis of those sources. If you want to write essays on Philosophy please enrol in your local community college. ----Snowded 17:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, synthesis is contrary to WP:SYN. However, you don't bother to back up your assertions that a violation has occurred. You yourself simply say that it is a waste of time to demonstrate that a source has been misreprented because only third-party sources matter, and no source I have cited is suitable. That way you can avoid any conversation at all. I don't think this is how to handle such matters. Your response to this protest is to claim misbavior on my part and threaten ANI. You will not even deign to formulate your own sourced opinion, preferring simply to revert all proposals with unsupported claims of synthesis. Perhaps, even though this is your position, you can understand that you are basically making yourself judge and jury over content? Can existing content survive this same idiosyncratic scrutiny? Brews ohare (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

19:25, 7 May 2015 (diff| hist) . . (-927)‎ . . User talk:Snowded ‎ (You're trolling Brews. I've explained it a hundred times or more. You are just not listening or are incapable of listening.)

I see you have deleted my summary of your position which I hoped might lead to some more constructive mutual understanding. I think the point you want to make is that an approach based upon WP:SECONDARY sources made by a novice to a topic area will select sources that are not the recognized definitive sources, but sources found by methods like Google book searches or Google scholar searches. That is a good point, and in my own areas of expertise I know the definitive sources in my library are not available on line, and that Google searches in some cases do not have any search terms that will turn them up. In fact, even the isbn number will not turn them up on Google, although they will show up on Amazon. Google has not scanned them, and for Google they do not exist.

We could attempt to come to grips with this issue. I think two things are obvious. First, non-ideal sources will show up. Second, no WP editor should be forced to accept some editor's paraphrase of an unavailable source, because even experts are occasionally given to selective understanding of sources they read. So how are these problems to be handled?

You have in mind this solution (correct me if I misunderstand). Find some reputable on-line accessible sources and confine WP articles to summaries of these sources. In my opinion this solution is very limiting. First, you and I may not agree on the subset of acceptable sources. For example, you have been known to object to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and prefer something like The Oxford Companion to Free Will. Both of these sources contain invited single-author (sometimes dual author) articles by philosophers actively publishing in their subject area. The question arises as to why either of these sources is preferable to a reputable monograph that summarizes a field, like Evan Thompson's 'Mind in Life'.

The practical question for the two of us is: "Can we analyse this dilemma cogently?" I see no reason why we cannot. I am not close-eyed to the difficulties, and the issue is not how stubborn and hard-nosed I am on this subject. Can you engage? Brews ohare (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

03:48, 8 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-2,336)‎ . . User talk:Snowded ‎ (Ive waster too much time on you Brews. Every attempt to get you to collaborate falls in the face if your intransigence over synthesis. Now go away)

Proposed topic ban from philosophy for Brews ohare

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_from_philosophy_for_Brews_ohare

jps (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Advice- Howdy Brews, I haven't a clue about philosophy. But, I have been through turbulant times on Misplaced Pages. IMHO, you should accept a topic-ban & agree with what those editors (who are pushing for your removal) are posting at AN. To do otherwise, may lead to a site-ban & trust me, you don't want that. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Brews I gave you a life line which would remove all topic bans if you would accept other restrictions. Its there if you want it. GoodDay will hopefully confirm I did my best to help him even though when we got to this stage ----Snowded 16:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Confirmation given :) GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am resigning from philosophy. It is idiotic to continue when even a simple thing like providing citations for the definition of terms like 'nomological' are met with rabid responses. Brews ohare (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Recommend you post your resignation at AN. PS- My reason for sticking my nose in here, is because I'm a member of WP:RETENTION. We like to hang onto as many editors as possible :) GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what AN is. Got a link? Brews ohare (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's the Administrator's noticeboard. The link is at the top of this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have posted my withdrawal there and elsewhere. GoodDay, I have a number of essays here that suggest changes that could help with editor retention. Perhaps you would comment upon their talk pages? Brews ohare (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

Per discussion at AN I have indefinitely blocked your account. Although I did not quite find enough consensus for a site ban, it was clear that a further topic ban would not resolve the issues with your editing behavior and that this would only transplant the issue to your next field of interest. On this basis I have enacted an indefinite block. Should you wish to appeal this decision you can post an unblock using {{unblock|your reason here}} but i would strongly advise that if you were to do this you need to study the reasons why other editors are finding your contributions disruptive and include a clear and compelling argument of how your behavior will change to resolve this. Spartaz 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Harsh, but what the community desired. Hope all works out for the best for WP. Brews ohare (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Brews you are a class act. I've seen the debacle over the years and I've not seen you lash out in the manner of many here. Hat's off to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket: Thanks for that agreeable goodbye. I have been blocked for my efforts to contribute to the article Free will, efforts that offended the dominant editors of that article, not because of inaccuracy or lack of sources, but precisely the opposite, because of these editors' impatience with sourced viewpoints and refusal to discuss sources. Brews ohare (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, "editors' impatience with sourced viewpoints and refusal to discuss sources" is what you always say when you are unable to come to any kind of agreement or working relationship with others who interpret sources differently from you. That impatience is the flip side of your own infinite patience in pushing your own idiosyncratic interpretations, which is why you keep getting the community so wound up they they have to rise up and ban you. Good luck in your off-WP endeavors. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Dick: To serve the record, some actual diffs as evidence would be more helpful than your idea of a summary. IMO, the facts are that the editors involved in my banishment explicitly refused to discuss sources. In effect, they set themselves up as experts beyond any need to rely upon sourced opinion , and argued that my requests that they do so constituted tendentious editing. Brews ohare (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have removed the Free will "article" below. This is not an appropriate use of your Talk page while blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Bbb3: I will instead simply link the CZ article on Free Will. Personally, I think your interference here is unwarranted censorship of views that are not public on the WP site. Brews ohare (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Link to article on 'free will'

I am linking a CZ article which represents what I think the article Free will should more resemble, namely a broad discussion that includes philosophy, but is not restricted to philosophy. The WP article Free will fails the recognize the breadth of the subject and is written from the narrow perspective of logical connections rather than an exploration of human experience. The first paragraph of the linked article, in contrast, introduces 'free will' as a subjective phenomenon, rather than one of many definitions that are hotly debated because none of them exactly fits the experience. However, Talk:Free will continues to debate definitions, and my absence there seems not to have led to any resolution of futile debate over a 'right' choice. Brews ohare (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Dilemma of determinism

Snowded and also Spartaz have removed Piotrniz invitation to visit the deletion review for the deleted articles about the "standard argument for free will" and also the "dilemma of free will". The deletion discussion is found here and has no substance whatsoever. A Citizendium version of the Dilemma is found here and for the Standard argument is found here. Spartaz says this removal of the invitation is necessary as it is canvassing by Piotrniz, even though I am blocked from participation on WP and, in addition, I am the principal author of these pages. When I chose to put this comment back up, Snowded removed it again, this time threatening me with a site ban. Having already achieved my removal from WP discussion, there is apparently still concern that somehow my talk page will upset matters. Go figure. Brews ohare (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Brews, don't give them the excuse to take away your talkpage access. It will just be one final indignation that you don't need or deserve. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Subject-object problem

The article Subject-object problem has been deleted on the supposition that it is merely a paste-up of randomly selected quotes from Google unrelated to any topic recognized in philosophy.1 It can be found on Citzendium here. Brews ohare (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The elimination of this article on the basis that it is a topic unknown to philosophy (as if a role in philosophy were the only justification for an article on this topic) can be assessed using these quotations:

"two thoughts need balancing. The one is that many aspects of our world are independent of us; the other is that that the world is somehow constituted by or dependent upon our conceptual scheme or point of view." —Simon Blackburn: Enchanting Views p. 14

"There is a common philosophical tendency...to conceive of the realm of belief and attitude as clearly distinct from the world of objects and events. This separation is typically presented in terms of a distinction between subjective and objective ..." —J. E. Malpas: Donald Davidson and the Mirror of Meaning: Holism, Truth, Interpretation, p. 192

"We consciously experience many different things, and we can think about the things that we experience. But it is not so easy to experience or think about consciousness itself...Does the world have an observer-independent existence (realism) or does its existence depend in some way on the operation of our own minds (idealism)? Is knowledge of the world 'public' and 'objective', and knowledge of our own experience 'private' and 'subjective'?" —Max Velmans: Understanding Consciousness, p. 3

"It is as if the brain has to impose a pattern of its own, even if there is no objective pattern present." —Oliver Sacks: Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain, p. 265

"All these things sufficiently show that everyone judges things by the constitution of his brain, or rather accepts the affections of his imagination in the place of things" —Benedict de Spinoza: Ethics in "Great Books of the Western World", p. 372

"Every act of perception is to some degree an act of creation" —Gerald Maurice Edelman: Building a picture of the brain in "The Brain", p. 55

"It is well known that one sees with the brain rather than with the eye, and thus the brain tends to 'see' the familiar and expected." —Paul Craddock: Scientific investigation of copies, fakes and forgeries, pp.22, 23

"For the eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend." —Robertson Davies: Tempest-Tost, p. 107

Brews ohare (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to a research survey

Hello Brews ohare, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Misplaced Pages article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Brews ohare. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Nomination of Physical determinism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Physical determinism is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Physical determinism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JohnBlackburne_deeds 18:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Software you used to create File:MOSFET Structure.png?

Hi! I was wondering what software you used to create File:MOSFET Structure.png? I need to use some software to draw my microelectronic substrates in 3D.... Thanks! --Blue.painting (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)