Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:56, 10 August 2010

On improving the editing climate

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

20:26, 29 March 2010

Discuss this

Other editors' restrictions

Situation

Sandstein

Physchim62 and rollback.

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

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)

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

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)

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

Welcome back to physics!

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

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

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

Acceleration Image

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

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

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

Questions about interferometer picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of discussion at AN/I

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

Arb enforcement request

You recent editing behaviour has been raised here--JohnBlackburne_deeds 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement article ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original research - revisited again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am unaware of my "testing limits" and "repeating past mistakes". From my perspective, recently I have had some extended talk page discussion with DVdm and JohnBlackburne concerning whether an innocuous proposed addition to the article on Centrifugal force is WP:OR. Only DVdm and Blackburne think it is: DickLyon, Pieter Kuiper and CountIblis do not. DVdm and Blackburne have simply refused to explain why their opinion differs. What on earth is the problem? How is that testing limits? Why pick on me? 75.42.20.61 (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)