Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:35, 30 July 2007

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. And do please sign all contributions. Failure to abide by these unofficial guidelines may result in a refactoring of this page. Thank you.

I cleared your sandbox. The word "libel" has specific connotations and to use it carelessly is to risk being ] for legal threats. Please endeavour to remain civil even during disputes. Just zis Guy you know? 08:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The word stalking also has specific legal connotations, see the entry. Nevertheless, in this case no implication about legal threats was intended from either party involved, I am quite sure. Interestingly enough, I put the draft of my response in a sub-page under my user space so that I could request for deletion myself by trying out a {{db}} tag, in the event that my name was no longer specifically mentioned in the context of being a stalker. As that has now occurred, I have no problem with your deletion of my draft, other than it shows a lack of good faith toward me as a new user. I do have to laugh at the various accusations or innuendo about me from "seasoned" Wikipedians after posting one draft in my user space and one request that my name not be unfairly mentioned on a third-party user talk page.

• incivility
• legal threat
• bad faith
• "It looks like it is from a puppet of some form rather than a real editor"

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Tim Shuba, have fun and try not to become jaded like so many of us here!

--Tim Shuba 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the welcome template

I have read much of the advice on writing articles, and I have also skimmed through the various policies and guidelines here on Misplaced Pages. So please, no need to insert one of the welcome templates on this page. Thanks! --Tim Shuba 03:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

KraMuc socks?

FYI, I have reported PaolaDiApulia (talk · contribs) as a suspected sock of permabanned user KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log) at Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/KraMuc_(2nd). ---CH 04:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete of article

Tim Shuba said: It seems that that you have deleted an article under CSD G1 that should not have been tagged that way. While the article is very possibly worthy of deletion under prod or AfD, I'm afraid in this case you have bitten a new user acting in very good faith to create a sourced article. Please take the time to read the article again, as well as the good-faith comment on the talk page. Thanks!

You're right, I probably shouldn't have acted so rashly in retrospect. I had several articles with Speedy delete templates open at the same time and should probably have taken more time to review them. Feel free to restore the article and let it run its course, be it as a kept article, or similar.

Sorry if I acted too harshly on the spur of the moment. Bobo. 03:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Shuba said: Thanks for your response. I'm not an admin, so I can't restore it myself. If you restore it, I will remove the speedy tag. No problem on your actions, by the way. I understand there is a lot of material that needs to be removed, and it's easy enough to miss things.

I was wondering whether you would have been able to restore it yourself, but you're right, it's a lot quicker to do it with the tools. I have restored the first version posted. Bobo. 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tim - thanks for the note (regarding the article); that seems fair enough.Owl Frosh 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

9.6 year lynx abundance deletion proposal

Thanks for telling me about this.

I want to take serious issue with several things:

• You state "as part of long running cycle to promote original research" which it totally inaccurate and clearly so if you read the article. It states published sources of articles by people (now dead). None of the research was done by me. It is not original research. Are you related to Hillman?
• You state "See the various xFD discussions on and linked to from the pages here, here, and here." and give no reason why this is related. These deletions were also based on factual statements in error, as yours is above.
• You state "Merge useful information, should any exist, to Edward R. Dewey". This is not at all wise because the discoverer of the cycle was not Dewey. The material does not belong there, just as the FSC does not belong there. Ray Tomes 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The page was nominated for deletion because I firmly believe it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia to do so. Others can read my statements, click the links, and form their own conclusions. Should the page stay, that won't bother me either. In that event, should I choose, I will edit it with the goal of following the core principles of the encyclopedia. Tim Shuba 06:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What if the others are as careless as you and believe what you say? If you were interested in quality you would admit you made a mistake and state the real reasons for disliking the pages. Ray Tomes 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cats, Expanding Earth and rv

Hi Tim,

Thankyou for your attention to EET. When I removed the category 'Obsolete' at the expanding earth article it was with the assumption that I was the one who had added it. A quick check of the history reveals that it was in fact youself. Apologies. I feel that removal of something like that deserves an explanation and usually I would do just that. Please attend at the talk page and help to improve the article with your thoughts and comments. Again, sincere apologies. - Fred 13:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's no big deal in any case. I made some comments on the talk page, as I'm sure you will see. Tim Shuba 04:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and rationale. I plan to improve to improve this article when I have read more of the literature and hope that you will a become co-contributor. You have made some valid points that will lead to the improvement of the article. I agree that it is fringe science, but do not share the view that it is obsolete. Precedence of the categorisation on other wikis is not a sound reason for inclusion, I expect you can see that. I will take a couple of days to consider all the valid concerns you have raised. On a personal note: I am not a strong supporter of either proposition, but would make the point they are not mutually exclusive. Please help lift the article with your further comments and edits. Best regards - Fred 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

H. Candace Gorman

Hi, I took a look at this article. You are correct that most of the contributions by the related person had been removed, so I retracted the coi tag. As for the extended section about her client, I don't think it belongs there. It's really about the client and it makes no difference who his lawyer is, so it properly belongs in his own article, which is linked from this one. Plus, it was even longer than the section about the subject herself! I wouldn't object to expansion of the sentence stating that she represented him to include information that she has been a public advocate on his behalf, or that she visited him personally, or whatever she herself did that might be notable. Finally, while I am not challenging her notability, I suspect that others might as she seems to be a borderline case. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation for the Study of Cycles

Hi Tim. Thanks for your message regarding RayTomes. I will get in touch with Ruud Koot to find an explanation for his behaviour. In the meantime I notice that you have reverted my own editing on The Foundation for the Study of Cycle. The correct route for deletion or redirection of The Foundation for the Study of Cycles is via Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. As you may have noticed I pointed that out on Ruud Koot's talk page. A revert war is an unpleasant thing, and I'm surprised and disappointed that an editor who has been around since June 2006 should be provoking one. Perhaps you are not aware that RayTomes has asked for assistance Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/RayTomes and that I am acting as his advocate? With regards, SilkTork 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there has been an AfD on that article, and while it was closed with no consensus, there were few votes to keep, all of which were conditional. You are somewhat rash in accusing me of provoking an edit war after I make one reversion; perhaps I just want to make it obvious that by ignoring the concerns of several editors in that AfD and elsewhere you aren't doing anything positive for the credibility of the encyclopedia. Have you actually gone through the many XfD discussions relating to RayTomes' contributions? Have you noticed how many of RayTomes' attempts to insert original research have been removed? Have you checked the contributions to see that RayTomes is largely a single purpose account with a personal agenda? An advocate has no special standing as an editor, though one would hope that decent advocacy might include steering an editor to follow policy instead of acting as a proxy to help pollute the encyclopedia with original research. Tim Shuba 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The only article in which any accusation of original research was made was harmonics theory now deleted. This was added by someone else and altered by me, mostly to correct errors inserted by people with no knowledge of it. Independent people who examined the material available stated that the amount of material available on internet and elsewhere on Harmonics theory was sufficient to be considered notable. Therefore your remark "Have you noticed how many of RayTomes' attempts to insert original research have been removed?" is not even vaguely justified. Repeated slurs by you and a few others is the main methodology used in deleting useful material from wikipedia. Ray Tomes 13:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim Jast

Tim -

Soory to drop this one on you, but I have to get off my computer NOW for a family party. Jim Jast has reverted Newtonian physics again, putting him in violation of WP:3RR. Please report this. He needs a good block. --EMS | Talk 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi EMS. I saw this earlier but decided to hold off as he didn't revert again on that article or on Gravitational force. He's certainly being disruptive and in fact the AfD you started shouldn't have been necessary at all. I don't generally care to get involved in this kind of thing but I'll probably be willing to help keep him at bay for a while. As you know, his quirky ideas aren't likely to gain any measure of sympathy or consensus, and it's just a matter of time before he stops, either voluntarily or with a software assist from the sysops. I hope the party was enjoyable! Tim Shuba 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ruang Talok 69

Thanks for your kind words regarding Thai films and Thailand. — WiseKwai 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Dingle Article

Tim,

Thanks for your reply

The question "is time dilation under inertial motion symmetric or asymmetric?", seems pretty straightforward to me, I have taken the wording more or less directly from the wiki article on time dilation, what is it you dont understand? The exact wording there is: "Time dilation is symmetric between two inertial observers", would you prefer that wording?

Unfortunately, I cant find any mention of the equation, you quote, in Einstein's 1905 paper, Dingles book, or McCrae's replies, so I don't how it is relevant. Do you have a reference for this equation so I can see where Dingle used it? However, since we are dealing with a logical inconsistency/contradiction, it cannot be answered by a mathematical proof or by experiment.

The exchange between Dingle and McCrae, should have been straightforward, except that Dingle made the mistake of answering the mathematical irrelevancies put forward by McCrae. In my experience, this is quite a common ploy with mathematicians in an attempt to win an argument. I cant recommend Dingles book as a good read, he does go on a bit, but it does give you an idea of how his argument was dismissed out-of-hand without actually being answered satisfactorily. I'm a bit surprised that you twice state that Dingle was wrong, and yet you havent read letters that passed between him and McCrae. Dingle was not a random crackpot who picked up Einsteins paper one day and decided he knew better, he wrote and collaborated on several textbooks on relativity and wrote the Encycopaedia Britannica section on the subject. He was clearly well respected in this area, over a long period of time. He even discussed it with Einstein, I believe. I would think the least you could do is read what he had to say.

In the meantime, let me summarise briefly, Einsteins paper of 1905 performs a calculation on a 'stationary' clock and a 'moving' clock, and produces the result that the 'moving' clock is ACTUALLY running slower than the 'stationary' clock. This is not just the appearance that it is running slower from the point of view of the 'stationary' clock, but actually showing an earlier time when they are brought together. Dingle's point was simply that, according to the postulate of relativity, either one of the clocks could be considered to 'stationary' and the other 'moving'. Then identical calculations could be performed with the clocks reversed, producing exactly the same result, but now it is the other clock that is running slow. Obviously they cant both be running slower than the other one. This is why I said that no mathematics need be used to disprove this, since before you do any calculating, you have to decide which clock you consider to be stationary and which moving. Einstein calculated the slowing of only one of the clocks but not the other with the roles reversed. Dingles question was simply, why did he pick only one of them? what distinguished this clock from the other? What also has to be borne in mind is that in the section of the paper on length contraction of moving rigid bodies, he stated that this particular effect was reciprocal!, I think you would have to agree that there is an inconsistency there. McCrea in his replies maintained that Einstein's 1905 paper was correct and that slowing of the clock was ACTUAL and asymmetrical, and produced large quantities of equations and spacetime diagrams, to show why the situation was asymmetrical. The current view as I have said before appears to be that the 'moving' clocks only appear to slow down when viewed from the 'stationary' system and that this effect is symmetric. A point, apparently, that Einstein conceded in a book in 1922, although I dont have a reference for this book. This last bit I find baffling, since Dingle didnt mention this book of Einsteins throughout the debate, it surely would have convinced McCrea. Anyhow, I would like to hear your views on this, and also get rid of the mathpages article which I hope you can now see is irrelevant and insulting. BTW do you know who wrote it?

Swanzsteve 05:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quick follow up to that equation you quoted from the mathpages, this is a quote from McCrea himself: "Dingle has not made any mistake in the algebra..." That doesnt really square with the mathpages, does it? Where did that equation come from?