Count Iblis

A bad ArbCom decision can be the spark leading to an issue being created that never existed in the first place. We can read here that the advocacy restriction I was under for Brews ohare, apart from being totally unjustified is typically wrongly interpreted:

"Wasn't Iblis himself once banned from advocating on Brews Ohare's behalf? Is that still in force? Tarc (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)"

When it was in force, it was never a meant as ban on advocacy on his behalf, that wasn't the perceived problem ArbCom wanted to act against. But outsiders who don't know the details, will tend to think so, as that is the only reasonable thing one can imagine. So, someomone has been sanctioned by ArbCom and why would someone else be sanctioned for advocay on his behalf? Certainly not for advocacy in any normal acceptable way, politely defending someone at AE staying well within the rules, regulations and norms for discourse. No, it must have been extremely disruptive form of advocacy with plenty of insults and perhaps also continuing the behvior of the sanctioned editor on his behalf.

This then becomes a well known fact as Protonk writes:

"This isn't an isolated incident, as Tarc and Looie note. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)"

That nothing ever happened w.r.t. disruptive advocacy, let alone a long term problem of this sort that would lead to Admin or ArbCom intervention, should be clear as no one has ever posted any diffs showing such behavior. And a single diff won't do, as that should be communicated to me first and then I would have to ignore that and this sort of thing would have had to be repeated multiple times. So, there should not only be examples of bad behavior, there should be examples of communication with me about such (alleged) unacceptable behavior that then went nowhere. None of this exists.

Clearly, we need a better ArbCom system and that's why ArbCom should pass a motion disbanding itself. Count Iblis (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

The article List of WikiLeaks mirrors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not needed.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

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

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

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JDDJS (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll give there the rationale for the list on the AFD page as I gave on the talk page of the main WikiLeaks page. Count Iblis (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I liked your post here. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC).Reply

Thanks, I guess all we need to do now is ask Boris to re-activate the secret email list to prepare for Bastille day :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bastille Day being bourgeois conceit. Mailing list reactivated for October November December revolution. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

I hope this clarifies it for you.--Scott Mac 13:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Me talking to William about Artic oscillation is not related to any Wikipedia articles to the slightest, let alone "substantially related". When William is back, I'll ask him to create CC subpages for permanent CC discussions on certain technical aspects of climate science. Count Iblis (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If it is not related to Wikipedia articles, then best not to use Wikipedia. Unless you do want to end up blocked.--Scott Mac 14:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the problem here. William being topic banned from CC makes him the ideal person to host a Wiki climate science conference on his userspace. Under normal circumstances, he wouldn't have the time to do that. What makes Wikipedia particularly suitable is that you can easily write math equations here. If William agrees, Boris will officially announce this conference and we can then expect a large number of participants. Having many top climate scientists visiting Wikipedia would boost its image. We may also get many new expert contributors. Count Iblis (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's just Scott Mac's usual bluster. He's a good guy on the BLP stuff and all, but tends to see himself as the Sword of Justice that cannot be challenged. Unfortunate, really, because the bluster is alienating him from people who support his goals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you want to point out why Count Iblis would best not be doing as he proposes, that's fine. I don't think I need to do anything here, it is all too obvious. As for the "bluster and alienation", I just begin to suspect I've trodden on the toes of yet another cabal - that does seem to be my curse.--Scott Mac 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

No. For example I would gladly help you with the BLP stuff. I've consistently voted for deleting BLPs of marginally notable figures and would have no problem being your meatpuppet supporting your stance in deletion discussions. (Remember how I supported you on the Monckton article?) But your "my way or the highway" approach to every situation that you encounter is ultimately counterproductive, and I'd rather not be associated with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm the Sword of Justice®. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

B.t.w., Boris, would your colleague Dr. Arritt be available to give a presentation on the relation between global warming and precipitation? Count Iblis (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll ask. Where and when? (I think you know where to find him if you'd like to ask yourself.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The International Wikipedia Conference on Climate Change will be hosted by the Wikimedia foundation on William's talk page. It will start on Monday, 10 January 2011 on 14:00 UTC and end on Friday 14 January 21:00 UTC . The programme will be posted on William's talk page early next week. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

See this here. Good day. --Jayron32 01:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Count Iblis - thanks for your page at User:Count_Iblis/Speed_of_light. Since I stumbled across Jayron's request for clarification, I gave it a read. It's been a while since I thought about these topics at all (I was never an expert and now work in completely non-science-related field), but it made me realize something I never thought of but is obvious in retrospect - that several of the standard formulas regarding energy in Newtonian mathematics are just the consequences of first order Taylor approximation of the Lorenz factor for v << c. Martinp (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi MartinP,

Yes, this is indeed a Taylor expansion. However, note that my derivation goes further than this as I start without c in the equations, so the emergence of c itself is derived. The usual textbook derivation is rather ad hoc, c already appears in the equations. That means that they a priori assume how one should take the classical limit, while I derive this from first principles. Count Iblis (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, as one of the proponents of the advocacy restrictions, I didn't care that much about the advocates' disruption per se (it was fairly well contained as WP drama goes). I can't speak for the other proponents but my own purpose in supporting that motion was to try to salvage Brews as an editor. I saw Likebox and crew as 1) reinforcing the stupid behavior that eventually got Brews banned; and 2) filibustering the DR processes Brews was involved in, to the point that Brews himself couldn't get a fair shake. I stated this view in the motion discussion. Of course I have no idea whether it influenced arbcom or not.

I don't have as bad a view of Arbcom as you do. They make mistakes, but they do the best they can under the constraints placed on them. The crappy situation we see in CC and other areas comes from deeper problems in WP's processes and culture. Bad arbitration outcomes are a symptom of that, not the underlying problem.

Your buddy Hillman (I'm also mostly an admirer of his) used to advocate putting subject-matter experts in control of Wikipedia's content in its various topic areas. Likebox expressed similar sentiments at times. Of course that means that the same logicians who Likebox kept fighting with would have been in charge of the logic articles, and they would have booted Likebox from the subject years before Likebox actually left. I wonder whether Likebox ever figured that out.

I have no idea whether Likebox was a real physics expert or not (I'm frankly skeptical even though he had some papers published), but in math and in history, he was Randy from Boise, and he made that obvious in the endless disputes he got in. And when someone does that too consistently, in too many incidents, as Likebox did, it presents itself less as a gap in their knowledge in some technical subject (most technical people are aware of their own knowledge gaps) and more as the kind of person they are. So if Likebox was RANDY in math and history, people reasonably inferred (whether ultimately correct or not) that he was likely to be the same way in physics, so that's why he got hassled over that infraparticle stuff. Otherwise, if he had been less obnoxious in general, nobody would have bothered him. He was completely whack in his belief that obnoxiousness is a necessary characteristic of a good editor, or even correlated with it. I don't know about physics, but the top math editors aren't like that even slightly.

67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The problem I saw with the ArbCom process when dealing with Brews and later in the CC area, was that way too much is made of vague perceptions about people's attitudes, behaviors and there is hardly any discussion about actually editing articles. I agree that deeper problems in the Wikipedia culture may be to blame, however, ArbCom does have the power to make binding rulings against consensus. The whole point of ArbCom is to make sure that there were community process don't work, you have some authorative body that can fix things.

Now, in case of Brews, I had informed ArbCom via email some weeks before I was restricted that I would file an appeal for Brews, talking into account the arguments in the appeal launched by Likebox, and I would propose something along the lines of Brews being restricted to work on physics from his userspace under mentorship. I had talked to Brews and he agreed that he was willing to edit under such constrains. I needed some time to work out the details as I didn't have too much time for wikipedia then. But then Brews informed me that Jimbo had agreed to intervene, and it would be better to wait for that. The outcome of Jimbo's intervention was that ArbCom lifted Brews topic ban entirely within 3 months, and that I, Likebox, Hell in a Bucket and David Tombe were now restricted from making any statements relating to Brews indefinitely.

At the time, I thought, "what a stupid restriction", but also, "if Brews's topic ban is lifted, then this is a moot issue". So, I simply decided to agree to disagree with this. The disagreement being that I was always pragmatic to find practical solutions. Also every time Brews was brought at AE, I always gave my frank opinions within the rules that exist there. I think some Arbs said that there was a battelfield atmosphere, however, while I always strongly disagreed with e.g., HeadBomb about Brews, that disagreement did not affect the relation with Headbomb and me in any other respects, so ArbCom clearly made far more out of this than there in reality was. That's why I said that it was very bad for them to pass that restriction by motion without a hearing. Had there been a hearing then, at least I would not have been restricted.

What has happened later long after the Advocacy restriction had been lifted, is that people are now making all sorts of unfounded assumptions from the fact that I had once been restricted. An influencal Admin even suggested that because Brews was eventually topic banned again (and later blocked for a year) one owuld have to look into whether or not advocacy on my part had played a role in this failure. I angrily replied that had my compromize proposal that ArbCom knew was forthcoming been implemented, then Brews would likely edit happily today from his userspace.

About Likebox, from talking to him, he is someone who knows quite a lot about mathematical physics topics like Yang-Baxter equation, quantum groups, Hopf algebras etc. as applied to theoretical physics topics. He is not stupid, but perhaps he is also a typical "arrogant theoretical physicst"  :) . Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Likebox has certainly provided some excellent physics content here. If he were to abandon the extreme unprofessionalism, he'd be great, though it's totally understandable that he'd rather choose to avoid the pettiness of this place. He would be easily unblocked if he were willing to say the right things and behave halfway reasonably.

Brews ohare is another story. His physics content is largely crap and his participation as a whole has been detrimental to the encyclopedia. My opinion, of course. Since you enjoy throwing his real name around, you might go look up the anecdotal comments on this site and see that others in real life also see him as opaque, unhelpful, and generally best avoided when possible.

I don't think the advocacy for Brews ohare's unprofessionalism was at all a factor in placing or lifting any topic ban. You were the only editor previously under the advocacy restriction who wasn't behaving like a screaming toddler, and your opinions seemed to get serious consideration. The idea of treating an elderly, retired academic as an untrustable child who must be confined to his userspace is utterly ridiculous, by the way, and it is far more decent to just pull the plug and ban him. But really, there is no failure evident today. Brews ohare is obsessively editing at Citizendium, where his unprofessional antics would never be tolerated (as well as similar antics against him). It should be considered a win-win situation for everyone. I hope he's happy there and produces content that others find useful. Tim Shuba (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Waste of Time, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Waste of Time (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Waste of Time during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Physics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Count! I didn't mean to disparage your 0rr suggestion at AN/I at all, and I hope I didn't give that impression. My reply was driven by a couple of things. One is that I know from experience that the user in question goes through articles doing what he calls "trimming", meaning that he expunges any info that doesn't sit well with his POV. This isn't generally information that has been added recently. Some admins, perhaps most, wouldn't call that a "revert", although the definition of "revert" would make it so. We'd all have to constantly watch out for that, have to monitor every single edit this user made to catch that. Since in both this and his former account, he proved himself, imo, one of the most dedicated fringe POV warriors the project has seen in a good long while, none of us really wants to do that; it would be a very time consuming task. Please understand, btw, that it's not the POV that's a problem, we all have that, but the abuse of so many other editorial policies to promote that. Excuse me for replying here rather than at AN/I; I wanted to reply at some length, and didn't want to write a novel ;-) there. If you'd like to reply, you can do so here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for explaining this. My experience with this editor was at the Heim theory article quite some time ago, also a pseudoscientific topic. Taken in isolation, his behavior there, while problematic to some extent, was not a big deal, but I learned later that he behaves in a similar way on many other pages.

Now, I'm not sure a conventional topic ban would work, as that would have to be rather broad as the AN/I discussion suggests. If imposing 0RR would be too much work for other editors, then an alternative could perhaps be a mentoring agreement imposed on him along the lines of he being allowed to edit an article only when the mentor allows him to do so.

So, if you are the mentor, you could limit him to one article. You then check his editing, in case of bad behavior, you can revoke your permission. It's then best to choose an article were there can be some limited tolerance toward his type of behavior. E.g. the Heim theory article I mentioned, is such an article. It is in bad shape and not edited frequently, so editing there is not the same as editing in some high profile controversial article where everyone is already on edge. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

And thank you for your reply. I see considerable merit in what you're proposing; I'm not sure the Heim Theory article would fly, though; I'm pretty sure people would say it falls within the "broadly construed" part of his pseudoscience ban. I actually like this guy very much, on a personal level; I even gave him a barnstar for his work on Reaction Engines Skylon, because he'd earned it, but also in part to encourage him to keep working on space articles, where he pretty much stays out of trouble. And he returned the favor giving me a "random acts of kindness" barnstar, which was quite a surprise. I feel pretty bad about this, actually, but he's so POV driven and has been so unable (not unwilling, I think) to keep his promises that I think it's going to have to be a site ban, eventually. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to stand mentoring him, as much as I like him personally, truly, and I don't think anyone else would be willing to either. Mann Jess tried under his ( Terra Novus' ) former account name, for something like eight months as I recall, and it was no good. He vanished when all the citizens were out with torches and pitchforks as AN/I and then showed up as Terra Novus as a "clean start" three days later. If he hadn't disappeared previously he almost certainly would have been site banned. It's really a shame; he's bright, articulate, polite, and an absolute POV disaster. I'd still buy him a pint, though.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you seem to be the voice for GoRight, so could you answer a qustion? Why isn't s/he using their own talk page instead of the blog? I didn't have contact with this user as far as I can remember at least. I am usually the forgiving type but this editor lied to get unbanned which is not acceptable to me as I'm sure you realize by now. Would you please ask GoRight to use his talk page for comments? Someone can move it over for him as needed. I sure would appeciated it as I think others would too. Thanks for considering this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

GoRight wrote to me (in his original email to me) that he didn't want a big discussion on Wikipedia about this issue. So, I don't think he wants public discussions here on Wikipedia about this issue. He intents to discuss things privately with ArbCom and perhaps some individual editors via email. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You've been here a while so I wont insult you with a warning tag and write a note instead. Please do not revert well sourced material without consensus. The material on magnitude of the station is well sourced and as a Physicist I'm sure you understand the math going on there. However, you have made it clear that you feel that the information is incorrect despite the sources provided. But please take a further look at those sources and you'll find that one is from one of the world's premiere planetariums and the website referenced by the ESA, NASA and nearly every website and smartphone app in existence. If you feel the wording could be improved in the article, you may edit it of course but please dont remove sections like that.--RadioFan (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Clearly a source that says that the brighness is -6 is a bad source. No need to waste time on that. I'll be reverting to the previous version, because Wikipedia should not contain obviously false information. Count Iblis (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please stop revering well sourced material. You are in danger of violating the 3 revert rule. If you have a reliable source to back up your claim, please produce it, until this "obviously" doesn't cut it.--RadioFan (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are no reliable sources that say that the ISS actually reaches -6 when it is overhead. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

No such claim is made in the article. The numbers are for comparative purposes and are sourced as such.--RadioFan (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to apologize for my very bad memory, I was unable to recall the source for magnitude, I remembered all the research and so forth, but didn't recall until just then, when I stumbled back into the magnitude page to determine how it is defined, that the magnitude article is the source, and so I dumped all research and was onto other stuff, figuring it's up to the magnitude article editors. I must say I laughed out loud when I say your page, and the outspoken statement at the top, it's refreshing to see people speak their mind, and I can relate somewhat, as I tried to make an application recently, and I found the process unhelpful and time consuming, all very frustrating. Btw, if your up to it, or when you are up to it, I will look forward to your help with other issues like mass and so forth... Please, don't give up, don't get discouraged, everything seems different one week to the next. Penyulap _talk 02:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! On the issue of magnitudes/visibility of objects, you can find a lot of misleading information in otherwise good sources. E.g. many books say that the Andromeda galaxy is the farthest object visible to the naked eye. But this isn't true. For years I actually believed this until someone told me that M33 is also visible and later I found that M81 has also been spotted with the naked eye. This is because, due to light pollution, we are used to not so dark skies and this has apparently affected the literature. John Bortle explains here, that a big issue here is that people who live away from cities wrongly think that they have pristine skies, when in reality their skies are also affected by light pollution.

What happens is that even hundreds of kilometers away from cities, you still have scattered city lights which makes the skys just a little grey instead of pitch dark. Then while you can still see most stars as usual, faint nebulae and galaxies are drowned out. So, e.g. M33 which should be easy to see becomes almost invisible, even though you don't have the obvious signs of light pollution.

You can then see the potential problem when editing Wikipedia on such a subject based on readily available sources if some editors only take for granted what a source literally says and only argue procedurally based on the source being reliable, making no effort to put the statements made in the sources into the proper context of everything that is known about the subject. Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have seen the differences with country skies, I moved out to the country, and I have a 8 inch telescope too ! I don't get to use it as much as I'd like though. I think in passing, and buried deep in the sightings section, we should have a sentence that daytime sightings are possible for people with good eyesight, see also M81, M33 or something worded a lot better than that, and I mean a LOT better than that. But the FACT I have found out recently and is well referenced by the experiences of you two in the last day or two is this, Doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong when it comes to maintaining the true facts you have found in an article. You have to have a section on the talkpage that explains the wording on the articlepage, and has the reasoning behind it, AND has the support of multiple editors, as in, they STATE in that talkpage section, I SUPPORT that, and at the end of the section, we all write I SUPPORT THE CONSENSUS or something like that. That is the only way you can do it. That way, it makes fixing errors easy, you do not explain why in the edit summary like you are not allowed to do, you don't explain at all, you just pop in the edit summary (see consensus regarding this on takepage, section 'magnitude') and thats that. additional facts can be added to those sections and discussed there first, with more editors or the same number updating the consensus. then you can protect the text you have helped write, and you'll win at any dispute, simple. Lets work together you guys ok ? lets fix the ISS page together, between the three of us, with my bad memory, The Count's impatience and RadioFan's love of advertising speil, together we'd make one normal editor wouldn't we ? I say we give it a try ! now, who's with me ? Penyulap _talk 19:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 01:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

4 your knowledgeable answers at the reference desk. I guess a lot of the volunteers there just answer whether they know or not, or else pretend the question was slightly different than it actually was, a question they do know the answer to.24.7.28.186 (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome! What also goes wrong on the Ref. Desk i.m.o. is that there are too many people answering questions and also that these people are the same "regulars". That then tends to generate long discussions among the regulars. Count Iblis (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm hoping that that was meant in jest and I just failed to pick up the sarcasm? — Coren ^(talk) 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

My reply to Ellen in that thread may make things clear. Basically a lot of paranoia going on here, the speculation started on Wikipedia Review, see here; that AN/I thread is actually a continuation of that WR discussion, because the main focus is to find out who Cbrick77 is, not really to stop John254 from socking (it's not like the Scibaby problem where the actual editing is the problem).

And if the edits are not a problem but people are still worried, then the drive to do checkuser tests is a form of OCD. Sadly, my attempt at doing Cognitive therapy didn't work well, as they did checkuser Cbrick77 against you: "Cognitive therapy focuses on the catastrophic thoughts and exaggerated sense of responsibility you feel. A big part of cognitive therapy for OCD is teaching you healthy and effective ways of responding to obsessive thoughts, without resorting to compulsive behavior." Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

But then, they didn't check if Cbrick77 = Jimbo, so things may not be as bad as I thought yesterday :) . Count Iblis (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good to stumble across you again Count, how are you? Penyulap _talk 13:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Penyulap, I'm ok., good to see you on the Ref Desk!. Count Iblis (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey I'm stalking you [1] Penyulap _talk 18:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see, you've been wasting some time there. :). Count Iblis (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since you are a physicist, do you have any feelings regarding, free energy, especially magnetic cogging, Bedini, or bi-toroidal transformers?

Free energy is a red herring issue. In theory, you can let a car run on pure water: because water evaporates all by itslef, you can exploit that to extract work. But note that it costs energy for water to evaporate, the energy for that can be extracted free of charge from the environment. So, you see that entropy is actually more relevant than energy. Count Iblis (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I definitely understand your reversions on Global climate model, but could you start a new discussion on the talk page next time? Even if it's little more than what you would have put in your edit summary, it does give you something for you to point to and ever so slightly increases the chance that the other party will stop edit warring. NW (Talk) 03:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

reference desk.24.7.28.186 (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Links to Conservapedia articles are almost always inappropriate for Wikipedia articles, as either sources or as external links. I don't know if this edit was intended as misguided humor, or as a left-handed attempt at mocking Conservapedia, or what, but it's pretty much never okay to add a link to a slanted hit piece to a biographical Wikipedia article. If you want to crack jokes, do it someplace that isn't an article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any problems with the way it was used in this particular case. Count Iblis (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

You do understand that article space isn't the right place for jokes, right? Even really 'clever' jokes? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

That conservapedia article give a pretty accurate account of the perspective from a global warming denier's point of view. The fact that it so extremely slanted in that direction makes it a good source for that. William has had to deal with such people here, so one should mention something about that in the article about him. Count Iblis (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Count Iblis, thank you very much for the detailed answer. I called up my research guide and asked him about this, and he gave me a half baked answer; I was partially satisfied and removed the question from refdesk, only to find out later that you had answered it (and more explanatively than my guide). Could you clarify some points of your answer? (I've left some queries on the refdesk thread). Thanks a lot! Lynch7 18:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

  You have recently posted two malformed ITN submissions. Please follow convention standards at WP:ITN/C as outlined in "How to nominate an item" section. We also have developed a handy template. Thank You The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

So, where did I go wrong? Count Iblis (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

What is the incident you referenced here? Could you provide a link?--Chaser (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

All these threads on Wikipedia Review are devoted to this incident. Count Iblis (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

See this. We seem to share a common perspective on the publication of papers on speculative topics and whether than constitutes support for fringe theories. I am curious as to whether we share similar views regarding the NPOV aspects of the current article. --174.255.65.20 (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

My opinion is that we shouldn't raise questions about it being peer reviewed in the description (barring direct evidence that it isn't peer reviewed), I just wrote another comment about that on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:BLP2E, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP2E and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:BLP2E during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Journal of Cosmology". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi - Please don't add pics like that - it distracts from the important discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The alligator escaped from Collect's private Zoo. Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well ok, anyway, thank you for not replacing it. Sometimes pics are ok in the right thread. Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[2]]. Thank you!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you need a little dose of reality:

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Your proposal was soundly rejected eight months ago. It failed. Get over it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is still work in progress. I wrote up some ideas, but it has to be improved before one can hold a formal RFC about it. Count Iblis (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

What a load of nonsense. Since you insist on being so incredibly thick-headed about this I have brought it up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Government, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Government and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Government during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Apparent Weight". Thank you.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've reported you there for slow motion edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The report is at WP:AN3#User:Count Iblis reported by User:Beeblebrox (Result: ). In my opinion, you are risking a block by repeatedly removing the 'failed' tag. Consensus is against you. Please respond at AN3 and make a concession that would allow this edit warring case to be closed, while removing the appearance that your page is actually a part of current Wikipedia policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. N^oformation ^Talk 20:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

I change the name of this:

1-1+2-6+24-120+...

to this:

1 − 1 + 2 − 6 + 24 − 120 + · · ·

Notice that the minus sign is longer than a mere hyphen and matches the length of the horizontal part of the plus sign. Also, proper spacing is used. All this is prescribed in WP:MOSMATH.

There's also the question of which articles ought to link to this one. I've added a few (three, I think?). If you know of others that ought to link to it and don't, could you add those links? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Trying to get some path set here for how to proceed on the ArbCom RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Dear Count Iblis: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you think the mediation schedule is too tight, so I thought I ought to comment here. I am totally open to drawing things out if it becomes necessary - the schedule is not written in stone, but it is more of a guideline, to give people a rough idea of what to expect. I deliberately chose a tight schedule, as I have found that in big disputes it is very important to keep things moving; in big mediations, if discussions stop for any significant length of time, then people tend to either drop out of the process completely or just take up the argument somewhere else. It is also easier to stretch out a tight schedule than it is to shorten a loose schedule. If you are concerned that you won't be able to keep up this schedule even with a bit of leeway, then that is still not a problem. It is eminently possible for you to make major contributions to the drafting process even if you have to miss a step or two. If you let me know how much time you're willing to spend on the process, we can work something out. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining! I'll have limited time available in the coming few days (this weekend and early next week). After that I likely won't have any time available for about a week. Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Count Iblis, this is just to let you know that we are having a straw poll about how many drafts to include in the proposed RfC about Wikipedia:Verifiability. The result of this straw poll will have a large effect on the direction the mediation takes, so if you could let us know your preferred number over at the mediation page, I would be very grateful. I am thinking of leaving the discussion open at least until 10am (UTC) on Thursday, March 22, and possibly longer if we require more time to reach a consensus. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Count Iblis, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

:-) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Count Iblis, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can the magnetic moment of a neutron be predicted from its quark structure?--86.125.178.54 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but I'm not an expert about these detailed calculations. However, it is clear that a rough estimate does work, because the g-factor is of order 1. See here for the definitions of (nuclear) magnetic moment. To precisely compute the g-factor is rather complicated, I think there are some results from lattice QCD computations here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you forgot to add a source and copyright tag to File:Potstir.gif that you uploaded recently. If will likely be deleted if you don't add that information. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:Potstir.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Psychonaut (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on BrainMass, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 10:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've suggested something on Roger davies' talk page, and posted a link to that also on the clarification page. Because of the large volume of postings there, I wasn't sure that this is all that visible. Basically, this is equivalent to a site ban minus whatever the mentor approves he can do. So, on the one hand, a lot more restrictive, however, on the other hand, Brews himself would prefer this over a topic ban (I've discussed this many times with Brews before). It allows him to work precisely where he can do so without friction. Count Iblis (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

It wouldn't be appropriate to have such a discussion on someone's talkpage. Propose it on the clarification page where it can be properly considered and where it forms part of the record. It would be helpful if you do propose it on the clarification page, to explain a bit more about how it would work. In what way would you be mentoring him? Would you be advising him to stay away from certain articles and/or certain editors, and if he doesn't, you'll block him? Unless you are prepared to block, then the mentoring would be unlikely to work. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that you are not an admin. I wouldn't be able to support you mentoring Brews unless you were able to block him for infringements. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

@Count Iblis. Giving this your suggestion, the reasons why Brews is going to be topic-banned, and his positive contributions to content, I would suggest that Brews be allowed to post suggested changes in Physics articles to you talk page. If you approve his changes, you would place them in the article. Whether his changes are going to stay would be up to others (including you of course). Would that be something reasonable? P.S. If his changes would stay, that will be an argument for Arbcom to lift his topic ban. Otherwise, this will be indef. I doubt that Brews can edit anything other than Physics, Engineering and Math. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think that would work. This setup would work especially well for articles that actually need a lot of editing, so it is clearly also in the interest of Wikipedia to ahve a set-up like this. Count Iblis (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Great! I do not know what Brews thinks. He should ask Arbcom, and they should allow it. Otherwise this may be interpreted as proxy editing on behalf of a topic-banned editor, which is not generally allowed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Count:

I'd like to develop farther your proposal stated as below:

Brews is restricted to work on a list of articles, the list is determined by a mentor and is limited to a maximum of 3 articles. A link to the list is posted on the Speed of Light ArbCom page. Should Brews edit any other article than the listed ones, Brews will be blocked as part of the regular ArbCom enforcement procedure, and that block will be logged at the relevant ArbCom page.

In your elaboration, the procedure for constructing the list is that I propose the list to the mentor. I suppose that means the mentor can admit or refuse such a proposal, although the grounds for admission are not clear. Or, maybe I can propose any three pages (why not?), but cannot change the three more than once a week (say)?

The proposal then suggests that the mentor will judge whether an "argument will likely lead to nowhere". If it does look like that to the mentor, I suppose that I am not allowed to disagree with the mentor (that would simply transfer the argument to his talk page). This makes the working arrangement very much under mentor control, and if Dicklyon or Blackburne were the mentor, I could do nothing at all. Probably they would not be selected, but there are many crazies out there that may not yet be identified that could cause the whole thing to be unworkable.

The proposal does not say what recourse the mentor has if I prove intransigent and persist in arguing about articles, or perhaps edit articles not on the list. I suppose that the mentor has a pipeline to Administrator action, but what would the penalty be? I think a page ban for some period is the most sensible recourse.

The objective of limiting things to 3 pages is to reduce the work necessary by the mentor, I assume?

Overall, I think the proposal to limit how often I can respond is easier to work with and easier for me to see what is going to happen. What do you think about that? Brews ohare (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your proposal is better if you stick to it. But then, it has to be made part of the ArbCom restrictions, so Admins will have to check if you stick these rules, and that means a lot of work for them. Some Arbs have said that they are against a new case or review because it would take editors or tem too much effort, so they probably are not going to implement a solution that requires some effort.

My proposal is not as good compared to yours, but I think it can be implemented with less effort, even compared to the topic ban. Then, about the mentor: The mentor should be someone who can properly assess where you can contribute productively and he must have the patience to discuss things with you. It has to be someone like me, or perhaps User:Sławomir Biały, i.e. someone familiar with your positive contributions.

The 3 article limit will make sure that an Admin can easily check your contribution list for violations. Clearly, this is also a lot easier than checking if you are sticking to a "broadly construed physics topic ban". For the mentor it shouldn't be a big deal if the list were ten artcles, and perhaps ten articles would also work well for an Admin. But I thought that 3 would be sufficient as you tend to spend a lot of time on a few artcles anyway, and to get accepted, a proposal would have to be a lot better than the standard topic ban. Count Iblis (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Count Iblis, As I see it, there is a loose end in the derivation of Planck's law. As I read it, the cited source, Brehm & Mullin 1989, does not in the relevant section mention the βε/2 for the quantum harmonic oscillator that appears in the article. In the article this quantity appears in a formula and then disappears by magic. I was wondering if you would like to do something about that?Chjoaygame (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'll take a look. Count Iblis (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I do not wish to be a nuisance to you, so, hoping to forestall a particular risk, I would observe that Brehm and Mullin 1989 are explicit about their model. It is of radiation that has been emitted by a black body and is in equilibrium with a cavity with a small hole and perfectly reflecting walls. They write on page 80: "Our cavity model treats the interior of the cavity as a storage volume for the incoming and outgoing radiation." As I read this, the incoming and outgoing radiation belong to a black body. Planck's presentation actually put the black body inside the cavity (which did not have a hole), but made it so small that its energy was negligible. As I read this source, it does not raise the question of what would happen in the absence of matter such as the black body.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see! Note that the source was put in later, some years after I edited in the derivation. I think we can just include the vacuum energy terms and then say that we're going to compute the energy relative to the ground state, therefore sum over <E> - epsilon/2. Count Iblis (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question at the reference Desk, and providing a link to AJCN. The input and links I received from those responses has been really valuable! All the best,

  — Jess· Δ♥ 04:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Apparent weight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weightless (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) 11:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I saw this coming as soon as they opened the case. Whenever a user goes before Arbcom it almost always results in Banning. In the rare circumstances where a ban is not enacted the editor (such as Rich Farmbrough) is restricted in such a way that they are made almost useless as an editor to the project. Additionally the arbitrations are written in such a vague manner that the can be interpretted in an almost infinite number of ways and usually results in a full ban later when they, naturally so, don't meet the criteria set forth. Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I see that the thread on the Village Pump is now active, I'll write more about this issue there. Count Iblis (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Beautiful. :) Arkon (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

 

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I can understand (and support) the desire to reform ArbCom, but this ain't the way in my view, and the potential for collateral damage is too high. Consequently, I have listed it at MFD here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party. Regards, Resolute 01:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party/Bill of Rights and linked it from your page. I'm sure there's a lot I left out, and a few things that need clarification... Wnt (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, it looks good! Count Iblis (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to let you know that you have not included the required statements in your ACE Candidate statement. Candidates are required to "confirm that the candidate will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data" and "include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee". I recommend including those statements as soon as you can. Monty₈₄₅ 00:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for running. However, if you want to be taken seriously, you really need to improve your statement and answer all questions as an individual person (unless you want to prove that Beeblebrox was right.). This is something everyone does in real life elections, even if they go from a party. Speaking about your statement and "Bill of rights", what is your main message? I guess Kurtis get it correctly here by telling this: "But my concern is that he will almost certainly be excessively lenient towards vested contributors if their content contributions are decent enough." Actually, this is a powerful message that decent contributors deserve decent treatment, which is not always the case. If that is what you mean, you may have some supporters, but then you must actually take part in the elections. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've had a look the Count's recent contribs. Normally he makes at least a few edits nearly every single day. He added his candidate statement on the 20th and stopped cold. I think it is pretty clear that he is just spamming for his party and is not a serious candidate. I think it is a real shame that we have here a user who is intelligent and able to make positive contributions but keeps doing patently dishonest things and then getting all revisionist when they are pointed out. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

@Count Iblis. Thank you. I read your responses and think they are very much reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! The main point I'm making is that the system needs to be reformed. If we do this then who exactly the Arbitrators are will matter a lot less. Count Iblis (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree that some changes are needed, and you are the only candidate who is not an administrator (and I therefore might be willing to vote for). So, with regard to suggestions in your candidate statement... (1) "Most cases can be handled by 3 or 4 Arbs". This will not speed-up the process because the time-limiting part is the drafting the initial version by one or two drafting arbs. (2) The "compulsory mediation". The forced mediation has been tried already by Durova and failed. Of course it might not fail under the guns of arbcom ... My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are other factors to consider too. My feeling is that cases are handled in a much too formal way, ending with a very legalistic drafting of the proposed and final decision. The focus must instead be much more on getting the relevant facts of the case straight and then determining the remedies that will most likely solve the identified problems. In the cases I've seen, ArbCom typically struggles to get these two crucially important things right even when it wasn't that hard to figure out. Sometimes they get it flatout wrong.

About forced mediation, if this fails, the case ends up on ArbCom's desk again, and they can then look at why the mediation failed. This will provide ArbCom with valuable information. If you consider the climate change case, then what triggered that case was a failure of a sort of a general sanctions system that was set up by Admins. But this didn't yield much relevant information. FOFs were things like William having a dispute with an Admin because William was defending his right to edit comments on his talk page. William had previously been sanctioned to not to edit comments of others, but the text of this restriction had left out that on his own user page he could of course do more or less as he pleases.

This sort of kindergarten like disputes are very far removed from the actual content disputes that trigger this all, but that's off limits to Admins and ArbCom. If instead the climate change case was first sent to mediation, then the fights would have had far more to do with the core of the matter. If mediation had succeeded, that would have been a wonderful outcome. But failure would have presented far more relevant evidence to ArbCom. Instead of William fighting some dispute with a trigger happy Admin (and ArbCom siding with that Admin, they tend to give the executive the benfit of the doubt), the Arbs would have had to consider incidents where editors would have been faulted by the mediators for bad editing practices (like insisting on using fringe sources). Count Iblis (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Arbcom accepts something only after previous failed attempts to resolve the problem. So, it is already there. A lot of cases are not about one specific content dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but then Wikipedia is fundamentally all about writing an encyclopedia. So, if you have a group of editors that don't get along, you could still focus on the most important areas where they clash and do a forced mediation there. That would at least focus the attention back to where it should be. Count Iblis (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Count Iblis -- you need to add the following to your candidate statement, per the eligibility requirements: (1) a listing of alternate accounts, or a statement that you have none and (2) a statement of your wilingness to identify with the Foundation or an indication that you have already so identified.

Thanks and best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Rock a show like this? 116.93.139.115 (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For exploring new ideas and taking part in Arbcom elections, against all the odds. My very best wishes (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot! The ArbCom Reform Party will continue to work toward improving ArbCom! Count Iblis (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Once upon a time, I was a member of a grass-root Coordination Committee during real elections in Russia. That was quite an eye-opener. Unfortunately, I can not tell what exactly my experience was because someone might interpret it as a hint about this Arbcom and have my account indefinitely blocked... My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ha, perhaps ArbCom's secret service may cause trouble. During the Climate Change ArbCom case there were some new editors on the Global Warming page who I suspected were incognito ArbCom members who were testing the editing climate (basically the accusation by the climate scepticcs that William was the de-facto dictator of the climate change sector). Count Iblis (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

First, your post on Jimbo's talk page is incomplete. Second, if you're planning anything like that (I would advise against it) you should definitely speak to Fae first, as it might compromise anything he is planning to do. Prioryman (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just reposted what I originally wrote, I guess it was some weird edit conflict that messed up my posting. I will of course consult with everyone involved, but formally the case I plan to start will not be about those original Arbcom cases, rather it will be a big omnibus case about more or less everything that has gone wrong with ArbCom in the least few years. The remedy should be a pardon for the people who on face value are capable of contributing to Wikipedia, the judgement that they can't (or can't within some topic area) being something purely due to some convoluted ArbCom reasoning with little hard evidence to support it. Count Iblis (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas ^t 07:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

What are you doing, and where did you get the debate in question? Essjay hasn't edited in six years, and Doc Glasgow hasn't used that username in a long time either. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so someone just pointed out that it's an April Fool's thing; I didn't realise at all that it was a joke. Sorry for coming here and leaving the above note; I thought either that people were faking signatures and you'd copied it from that place (but without telling us where you'd gotten it), or that you were faking signatures and causing chaos. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

First, let me express gratitude for your participation. Do you think anyone have tried to apply olum's paradox to the meta-universe as a prove of Existence of God or its just me? :) I see most people were confused into thinking that by our world i refer to our universe. I was refering however to the meta-universe, thus infinite space and eternal time. Do you think that meta-universe might have been not eternal or its space might not be infinite? Ryanspir (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anyone has (it could be that Don Page has thought about this issue, as he is also a believer in God). I believe that ultimately everything is purely mathematical, there doesn't really exist a physical universe, it only seems to exist from the point of view of us (who are themselves mathematical concepts). Count Iblis (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Something like the matrix movie, or even more than that? Thanks for Don Page link Ryanspir (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain it in simple terms and list some of the practical implications to my/our life? Ryanspir (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

What I believe is that what we are at any time is the algorithm that the brain is running at that moment. This can be motivated by various thought experiments, like replacing neurons in the brain by transitors one by one and arguing that this cannot ahve any influnece on our consciousness, if it had we would not be replacing the neurons in a functionally equivalent way. One then assumes the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle.

Then that algorithm that you are lives in some vast multiverse of algorithms. The person you where a second ago is actually a different algorithm that is in some sense close to you. The notion of time is then not fundamental, it is what you get when you consider such nearby algorithms that are related by their information content. I believe that all of physics can in principle be derived from such considerations. So, I don't think space-time, energy etc. are fundamental concepts, only mathematical operations like addition, multiplication etc. really exist. Count Iblis (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Very interesting. But I'm still failing to grasp the concept. Could you elucidate further and perhaps give some examples? What you are saying is the world as we consider it is unreal and it's just inside our "brains"? For there wouldn't be brains if the world is unreal. Ryanspir (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, so the brain is running a model of the world that includes your own body, and this is what you experience. You always experience this model of reality, not reality itself; this becomes clear when you see optical illusions. Handicapt people who miss a limb will sometimes feel phantom pain. This is due to the brain still running a model of the body in which the limb is still present, but because of lack of visual input about the limb, the parameters that describe the limb will tend to drift over time, bringing it in an awkward position. Using mirrors, one can fool the brain into believing that the mirror image of the other limb is the missing limb, which then resets the parameters, the phantom pain then disappears.

So, even if the unverse and our brains were real, we would still live in a virtual world rendered by the brain. But then it makes more sense to consider us to be that particular model. What we then need to explain is why we happen to find ourselves living in a World that is described by the known laws of physics. What seems to be going on here is that to describe me, you would need to specify an enormous amount of data, but you can compress this huge amount of information using the laws of physics (the entropy of the early universe is thought to be very low). But a similar version of me that is divorced from an external world, is described by a similar amount of data which, however, cannot be compressed. The world we find ourselves in can then be explained on the basis of probabilities. While all mathematical models exist, if you run some random model, there is much larger probability that it will might end up computing me living in a world like tis one compared to me in some ad hoc state divorced from a universe, because the former state can be obtained by a computation starting out with just a few bits, while the latter state needs all the information already present in the model. Count Iblis (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see. So how do you assume the real world really looks like? And that thinking substance, which emulates everything, what is it and what gets data into it? Ryanspir (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

So, what we are at any moment is an algorithm in the process of processing data. That data contains information about a world, and it is there only because it is more probable for that data to be there than not. An alternative set of data would refer to an alternative world, and if we are unaware about all of the data (e.g. if we yet have to make a measurement of some quantity), we are in all the worlds consistent with the data we do have. Count Iblis (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

But why the algorithm is being arranged in that specific way? Who has arranged it this way? Ryanspir (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

If I may come briefly into this conversation. The conversation is in an area known as metaphysics. In particular, the branch of metaphysics in which it lies is known as ontology, the study of what really exists. We have records of it from ancient Greece, with Plato and Aristotle the most famous metaphysicians. The ontology that Count Iblis proposes reminds me most of that proposed by Bishop Berkeley (1685-1753). Dr Johnson offered his proposed refutation of it by kicking a stone. I accept that Bishop Berkeley's ontology is different from Count Iblis', but the difference is perhaps not as great as the similarity.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are some similarities with my views and those of George Berkeley. I would say that quantum mechancs points to immaterialism being more on the right track. QM is only strange if you deny the existence of counterfactuals. You'll have a hard time explaining how the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester can work, while the physics here is trivial. Count Iblis (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ryanspir, the assumption I'm making is that all that exists is math. So, a priori the algorithm with all that data and without all that date just exist alongside all the other mathematical algorithms like the presciptions of how to compute square roots, how to compute logarithms, the digits of pi etc. etc. We are just a vastly more complicated algorithm than the algorithm that takes a number as imput and outputs the logarithm to some degree of precision, but in the end we are an algorithm and nothing more than that. Then if this is indeed true, one should be able to derive the laws of physics from this hypothesis. So, one needs to explain why the algorithm with all the data in it that refers to a physical world is preferred over algorithms without such data. I believe that this can be explained statistically, but I have no solid proof of this yet. Count Iblis (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you intend to supply an article and go anywhere with this nom? If so I will restore it, but if not I am not interested in a hoax nomination. Let me know. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would like to, but the question is if we have a suitable article. I'll see if I can find one, but if you find something, you can put it back and make yourself the nominator. Count Iblis (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Count Iblis. You have new messages at Jimbo Wales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

 

Hello, Count Iblis. You have new messages at Jimbo Wales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

See here

Count Iblis (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I e-mailed you a copy the essay. We could send it around so that many as editors as possible can recreate it in their user space at the same time. It would be Wikipedia's "I'm Spartacus" moment. Kauffner (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for being impartial.   USchick (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I'm pretty sure I could not edit the news articles any better than you do. Count Iblis (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

		The Mediation Award
		Count Iblis, this award is presented to you for your wisdom and understanding. Thank you for caring about real issues. You are a rare and valuable asset on Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You really did this.   I suppose I should have remembered WP:BEANS (Actually I like the essay). --Cyclopia^talk 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just couldn't resist creating that page :) . Count Iblis (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Count Iblis, thanks for your thoughts on my question at the reference desk. I am wondering if your point about the neutron star losing mass because of the black holes and exploding is the case when the star is fairly isoloated, but wouldnt happen if there were, say, a companion star that was giving upmass to the neutron star. ThanksRich (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rich, yes, if the neutron star where to gain mass from a companion, that would overwhelm any such exotic effect due to evaporating black holes. Now, in this paper it was suggested that you could have two neutron stars orbiting each other where the ligher neutron star would lose mass to the heavier one (because the ligher one will have a larger radius). Count Iblis (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

thanks76.218.104.120 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In this image, it looks like the logo of the bank is fully or mostly visible on the screen. If I'm right in that being a copyrighted logo, then the image you took is a derivative work and is also copyrighted. Thus, it may be ineligible for commons. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Exactly why I've removed the "transfer to Commons" template, and why Count Iblis needs to add a fair use rationale to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll give him some time to respond, but if he doesn't respond or add a fair use template in a few days I'll DI/CSD/whatever it is the image. Thanks. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have asked SpareBank 1 if they are willing to grant permission as copyrightholders of the logo for the use of the picture on WikiMedia projects. This is better than to use the picture under fair use, because that would mean that the resolution of the picture would have to be reduced to as low as possible. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Permission to use on only WikiMedia projects neither qualifies it as "free" for Commons, nor exempt from NFCC and a fair use rationale. If they don't release the logo under an acceptable license (CC-BY-SA 3.0 or less restrictive for the most likely), then it's a derivative work and must be fair use with a NFCC use rationale, or deleted. And if they don't release it under a free license, it is not allowed on Commons. I'll still delay tagging it or anything, but for the most part I doubt they will release their logo under a free license. Thanks for trying at least :) ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Charmlet is correct, only CC-BY-SA or GFDL licensing or the equivalent will be acceptable at Commons. Neither "Wikimedia only" or "Educational use only" licensing is allowed per policy. The bank will almost certainly not release an image including a cyrighted or trademarked logo, as they would thereby lose control of the logo irrevocably, so the only realistic option is to give the image a fair-use rationale. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, fair-use rationale, but then preferably without any restrictions on the image. One could argue that because the logo could be edited out of the image for the purpose of the article it is used in, we should remove that logo. A statement from the bank that the present picture is consistent with fair-use as far as they are concerned would thus be useful. Count Iblis (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

You don't need permission for fair-use, that's what "fair use" means. If you want to remove the logo from the image, I can easily do that for you, but I'm not certain that removing the logo would make it acceptable at Commons. My feeling is that in a court case, the resulting image would be found to be non-copyrightable, but Commons most often wants things to be clear-cut and well-definied, so the safest thing would still be to leave it here with a fair-use rationale, since moving it to Commons would risk it being deleted. (Still, there would be a discussion before deletion, which would give the opportunity to move it back here.) Your choice - as I said, if you want the logo removed, it's easily done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Technically, removing the logo makes yet another derivative work, and since the original isn't free, the derivative isn't free. Best bet is either ask them to release it (unlikey) or use a fair use rational compliant with NFCC. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's only a "derivative work" if the underlying screen is overall subject to copyrightable (i.e. not just the logo), and it's my opinion that absent the logo the underlying computer screen is probably (note these caveats) not subject to being copyrighted. Because it's not certain, fair-use is the surest way to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Beyond My Ken: Since at this point, I know of no way to remove the logo without having the original image, then any removal of logo from that image is a derivative of that image. However, an image that was taken of the screen which did not have the logo in the first place, as an original image, wouldn't be a derivative. But it is highly possible they copyright the software that the ATM runs, and thus the screen itself is copyrighted. Regardless, it seems resolved, so we need not hash this out right now :P ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok then, I'll use the fair-use rationale. Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The world's most northerly ATM machine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The edit war in which you have been engaged disrupts the reasonable operation of Wikipedia's reference desk, and you've chosen to engage in pointless and disruptive edit warring rather than worthwhile and moderate discussion. It's really difficult to understand why you felt the trivial matter in question was so important that you felt warring over it was more urgent that discussing it. Consequently I have blocked the accounts of both parties to this pointless dispute.-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The reverts by me were not pointless, after reverting 3 times I explained myself on the talk page of the Ref Desk. As explained there, I never intended to continue the discussion that the OP said wasn't helpful, it was the hatting statement that was insulting toward me. If a discussion is to be hatted, you can't put a value judgement about an editor on it that may not be correct. I never ever meant to say that Medeis's grandfather should have been "killed" and the reply to Medeis also makes that clear. So, I don't want the hatting to imply that I somehow said what Medeis originally thought I said.

I don't want anyone to be blocked, the discussion can be hatted with a neutral statement (e.g. saying that the discussion is off topic or whatever). Count Iblis (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

You make a pertinent and well-thought out point about the dispute in hand. Had you made this point rather than edit-warring, or even during the course of it, it's unlikely that I would have elected to block your account. I'm not blind to the fact, much as it may seem, that both parties were acting in what they felt was good faith. But both of you chosen, rather than to discuss the matter, to revert one another over and over. You're not blocked because I think you're wrong, but because you chose war-war over jaw-jaw. We all have disagreements over what should be in Wikipedia, but if we can't talk about them, we're screwed. It saddened be to block you, and I did worry that doing so would discourange you from the great preponderance of good things that you do. That you both do. But we have to be good to one another, or at least not to be bad to one another, and that's what you were both doing. I'm going to leave the rest of this to an admin who reviews unblock requests - I really don't want you to be blocked. But I really do want you to talk about problems first, second, and third. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was a bit insulted, that rarely happens to me and I should have used the talk page right from the start. Andy may have very strong feelings about euthanasia and about his view on managing the Ref Desk which may have caused him to revert rather than discuss the matter. But I see that JackofOz has replied on the Ref desk talk page; he has changed the hatting statement. The original issue has been cleared up as far as I'm concerned, so I think both Andy and I can be unblocked. Because Jack also says that he had problems with me invoking euthanasia because of personal experience, I need to apologize to him and Medeis on the talk page for my first comment which was not worded well enough and easily misinterpreted to imply something I don't support. Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Count Iblis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See my explanation right above here. I don't intent to continue the reverts, I already had stopped reverting and explained myself on the talk page of the Ref Desk. I guess I should have done that earlier. I also want AndyTheGrump who is blocked for this to be unblocked; the matter should be discussed on the Ref Desk talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

It appears to me that you understand the problems associated with what you did - the content of your remarks at the reference desk and the edit warring - and that you will be more careful of both in the future. Your apology to Medeis is welcome. Bbb23 (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what the exact issue may be but the current block length of 10 days is extremely severe imo given the Count's clean block record over the past two years and also that blocks of such lengths are reserved for editors with long records of disruptive editing. The Count's record does not qualify for such severe treatment, bearing also in mind that blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome Count. I also thank NYB for his positive intervention. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The original comment that you made, in my view, was completely gratuitous and shockingly unnecessary, and should have been removed outright from the reference desk rather than "hatted" (which draws more attention to it). You should not make such a comment to another editor again. That being said, at this point the need for blocking may have passed, especially given that your intention upon being unblocked is to post apologies; but it might be a good idea for you to take a few days off from the reference desk, as well as to recalibrate your sense of what to say about sensitive subjects and when to say it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The original statement was unfortunate, what I meant to say was my later reply to Medeis. But then this was all off-topic and shouldn't have been in the discussion in the first place. I hurt the feelings of a few editors and should apologize for that. The reason I reverted the hatting was because the hatting summary was based on that reading of the first comment which is not something I meant to say, so it had the effect of putting more or less those wrong words in my mouth again. But, of course, I should have simply posted on the talk page instead of reverting. Count Iblis (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Without commenting on the block per se, you had several options besides reverting including keeping but rewording the hat, simply removing your comments and noting you had done so or even keeping the hat as worded and discussing on the talk page or with the editor concerned as you said above. You choose none of these and instead chose to revert point blank despite from what I can tell, knowing your comments were off topic and were very poorly worded at the time you reverted the hat. Whatever offence you may have taken from the wording of the hat, it surely pales in comparison to the offence caused by your inadvertedly but carelessly suggesting someone's relative should have been euthanised. So yes, there is little justification for your actions. Incidentally it's questionable if the hat can really be said to be 'putting more or less those wrong words in my mouth' or simply reflecting what you actually said, even if you hadn't meant to say it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but then I did reply to Medeis making it clear what the context is. The reverts putting back the hatting (also note the edit summary used in those reverts) had the effect of letting me appear to say what I absolutely did not mean. But I agree that I should have handled this differently. Also where I live euthanasia is legal, it is not anywhere near controversial as it is in the US. A similarly poorly worded statement by someone would not be interpreted in this way (suggesting you advocate the "killing" of patients), even by opponents of euthanasia here. So, when this did happen here on Wikipedia, I saw that as a totally unacceptable insult toward me. But they do reflect genuine feelings of people here, so I will apologize for not being more careful with this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) FWIW, I must say what is shocking is the reaction to Count Iblis statement, especially the one by User:Newyorkbrad. He said something very sensible and there was nothing offensive about it. He simply gave very good advice on what to do on such situations, advice that I personally endorse. Everyone is entitled to their views on euthanasia, but the way this has been handled is a serious overreaction.-- cyclopia^speak! 13:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Euthanasia is a hot-button issue and strong reactions to controversial statements can be expected. What I find more shocking is the length of this 10-day block issued to an editor in good standing. It is clearly punitive and it is disproportionate and unfair.I also find some of the comments of the blocking admin, especially when he states: I really don't want you to be blocked. incongruous to the length of the block he issued. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I would say that while I didn't mean to offend anyone, people did get offended. What I said was indeed not inherently offensive, in the sense that it was a personal attack meant to offend people here (and that you could only interpret it that way). As Dr.K points out, the whole problem with euthanasia is actually that in many countries, this is controversal subject and also a taboo subject. In those few countries where it has been legalized, the population is capable of discussing this subject rationally. E.g. in Britain there was a national debate about this, the House of Lords voted on it and rejected it. The character of that debate was quite negative, you had organizations of handicapped people invoking bleak "death panel" scenarios for the future. Then while there was no majority in favor, it would not have worked even with a majority in favor in such a climate.

Quite a few other problems have this same root cause, take e.g. persecution of gay people in Africa. If you debate this topic with people in Africa who oppose legalizing gay relationships, you'll get into the same issues. To them being gay is immoral and they have very strong convictions that this is the case. The only way things are going to change there is for these people to soften there stance. It's not that they would have to agree with our position on this matter, what is needed is for them to accept that people can reasonably have a different opinion than they have (e.g. that being in favor of legalization is not inconsistent with being a good Christian). Count Iblis (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you familiar with the aphorism, "when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging?" Africa is far from the only place where LGBT individuals face harrassment, persecution, and criminalization grounded in intolerant religious or 'moral' concerns. (And of course 'Africa' is not a homogeneous, monolithic bloc—South Africa, for instance, remains one of fewer than 20 nations to have legalized same-sex marriage, and was the second such nation outside of Europe to do so.) Even within individual African countries, you will find a spectrum of beliefs, ranging from the openminded and accepting, to the merely tolerant, to the uncomfortable, to the viciously discriminatory—just as you will find most everywhere else.

Why on earth would you decide to condemn that whole one continent as your example, with all the potential overtones of racism? (While I am reasonably sure – and strongly hope – that it was not your intention to suggest this, it reads as implicitly suggesting that one can reason with the folks in other places, but that Africans specifically are irrational and unreasonable.) Are you truly ignorant of the presence of bigots in other places? Think before you hit save. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ha, yes I do believe that one can reason with the people opposed to gay marriage in Africa and elsewhere, that we actually have to respect their opinion while strongly disagreeing with them, however difficult that is for us. So, actually, I would be opposed to thinking in terms of "bigots", because the moment you do that, you can't engage with the group of people who are the key to resolving the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

As with above, I'm not commenting on the block but Cyclopia, I think the point you're missing is there's a big difference between a person saying they support a person's right to chose euthanasia when the time comes, and would have chosen euthanasia or felt it was better to chose euthanasia in a certain set of circumstances; and saying euthansia should have been used in someone's personal case. It sounds like Count Iblis intended to say the former, but what they actually said sounded like the later. When the person being referred to is someone the person you're replying to cared strongly about, it's quite easy that the comment will come across as highly offensive since it's such an emotionally charged area. Note also, in Count Iblis's original comment it wasn't even emtirely clear if they were referring to voluntary euthansia. While I think most people would have assumed based on the comment that it was voluntary euthanasia, this highlights another problem with saying euthanasia would have been a better option for someone else's relative/friend/whatever. Are you saying the relative/friend/whatever should have chosen to be euthanasia or are you saying the person should have euthanised their relative/friend/whatever regardless of whether it was clear it was what the relative/friend/whatever wanted (i.e. non voluntary euthanasia)? Of course speaking generally, it's simply a bad idea to randomly start discussing euthanasia when people are talking about the death of someone they cared about. Which of course highlights the other problem, the comment was offtopic and the sort of stuff that is never really ontopic on the RD and while we allow it to some extent, we shut it down when it starts to get out of hand or cause offense. BTW, this goes both ways, if someone says they were involved in a relative's euthansia, regardless of the legal situation where the person who said it lives and regardless of the personal opinions of respondents, it would be quite wrong for someone else to call them a murderer. Expressing the personal opinion that euthanasia is always murder or the legal situation, while still unwelcome on the RD, is not the same thing but bringing up this opinion when someone mentions their relative's euthanasia would still be highly ill-advised. And for the record, I don't oppose voluntary euthanasia either provided sufficient safeguards are in place, this doesn't mean I don't see the problem with CI's reply and why it was so contentious. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I guess I should have been unblocked more promptly, I would then likely not have noted the discussion on User talk:Finlay McWalter about the blocks :). The problem I have is that the judgment is made that Andy was right to do what he did and I was wrong, while I would say that we were both wrong. Andy overreacted (just like I did), not only did he revert repeatedly but also used abusive language in the edit summaries. However, I do forgive Andy for that because my comments appeared to say something that is unacceptable (but with discussions that would have been easily cleared up).

Andy was unblocked with the unblocking statement saying that what he did was correct. I find that highly problematic, so this is something that needs to be discussed at AN/I. The involved parties are primarily Bishonen who unblocked with that statement (note that I was in favor of unblocking, the issue is only the unblocking statement) and NYB who also justified what Andy did. You really can't revert repeatedly with abuse edit summaries to restore a hatting with a denigrating closing statement against an editor. If there are BLP issues that warrant hatting or deleting, then that should be done in a proper way. The role of Admins is to help create a good editing atmosphere, not to give editors a carte blanche to forcefully "put things right". Count Iblis (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the edit summaries, I offer my sincere apologies - I clearly should have used more temperate language. As for you raising the matter at ANI, that is of course your right, but I hope you will understand that when I suggest that I think it inadvisable, I am not doing so just as an involved party. It seems inevitable that it will be pointed out that you had other alternatives than removing the hatting available to you, but chose not to take them. It might well prove unwise to suggest that others were at fault, without considering that your own actions may be taken into account. If it were up to me (which plainly it isn't) I would suggest that the best course would be for your block to be removed - I'd not realised that you were still blocked, or I would have commented earlier - and that we all put it down to experience, and move on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Count, I understand your frustration at the length it takes for this block to be lifted but please do not add more variables into the equation which can only detract from the issue at hand which is that the block should be lifted. I think as Andy explains above there are no more issues involved between you and him. As far as taking Bishonen and NYB to ANI this is not a good idea and further confuses your unblock request with external issues which is ironic since NYB actually intervened on your behalf. So please reconsider this approach. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andy, thank you for your apologies. As I wrote above, I want to apologise to you too because I didn't behave correctly either. As far as I'm concerned the problems are resolved, except that I do see a more general issue with the Admin intervention here. So, I take it as a given that I did not behave correctly, I should have used the talk page, changed the hatting statement (or ask someone else to do that for me) instead of simply reverting the hatting. But we have Admins to help calm things down... Dr. K and you suggest that I should not raise this matter at AN or AN/I, I'll think about that... Count Iblis (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've been following this situation today, expecting that in light of Count Iblis's acknowledgement that he shouldn't have said what he did in the way that he did, he would be unblocked by now. I checked again just now thinking that if Count Iblis were not yet unblocked but no one strongly objected to unblocking, I might unblock him myself on the ground that any purpose served by the block has been satisfied. Now, of course, I'm not in a position to unblock, because it could be read as giving in to the threat to report me to ANI for administrator incompetence. For that reason I will have to leave the unblock request pending, although I recommend in favor of unblocking, at least on the basis of commutation to "time served."

Needless to say, I disagree with the assertion that I have acted incompetently (or more accurately, voiced my views incompetently, since I haven't taken any action). In my comments on Finlay McWalter's talkpage, while I agreed with Bishonen that AndyTheGrump should probably not have been blocked (and certainly should not have been blocked for 10 days), I opined that the (re)hatting as opposed to deletion of the disputed content and his edit summaries were unhelpful. Count Iblis, from your own point of view, I'm not sure it's in your interest for you to further publicize this incident in a venue such as ANI. Of course you have the right to do so if you choose, but if you do, you should expect to be asked what administrator action you are seeking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

NYB, thanks for explaining your position, I overlooked that you opposed the re-hatting, so I have no problems with your actions. I do think that Wikipedia lacks a review mechanism where strong criticisms can be made in a non-confrontational way. Compare this to my field, a good friend of mine can also happen be the anonymous Referee who writes a very critical referee report about my article. Science would not be as reliable as it is were it not for this system. On Wikipedia, the systems we have frequently fall prey to agenda driven attacks, personalization of conflicts etc.; actions are usually taken against editors, rarely do we consider that the rules must be amended based on incidents (this does happen but this is a very slow and tedious process). So, I won't raise the problems I have with Bishonen's actions on AN/I, but I will do so elsewhere, making it very clear right from the start that I don't seek any actions against Bishonen. Count Iblis (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

So, could someone now unblock Count Iblis? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am slightly confused as to why we need an environment where "strong criticisms" can be made. My understanding of the ref desk is that we offer references, not critiques of people's views on euthanasia or homosexuality or whatnot. What in the world does bringing up the "persecution of gay people in Africa" have to do with the "offensive edit" other than perhaps a way to claim a moral highground with a red herring? (I.e., "Why are you blocking me when there are bigots in Africa?") If anything, this thread and the one above it seem to be arguing that editors should be free to soapbox even more freely. That seems wrong, and an unblock on those grounds seems to endorse the view that open debate is called for. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Medeis, first of all, let me apologise for any distress I may have caused by that poorly worded comment. What I wrote here about criticism refers to the Admin boards, dispute resolution mechanisms, ArbCom etc. etc. The issue I raised about persecution of gay people was to make the point that the controversial nature of certain issues leading to persecution is fundamentally caused by the population not being able to debate the issues freely. So, it's not that "editors should be free to "soapbox" even more freely", rather "people should be free to "soapbox" even more freely", where I put your choice of the word "soapbox" in quotes to emphasize that this word is not my preferred choice. Count Iblis (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I stated at the ref desk talk, your comment didn't really matter to me beyond my response to it. But I disagree with the notion that what is needed is free debate at wikipedia, so I will withdraw. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm for debate outside Wikipedia. Inside Wikipedia, the issue is that there is a lack of effective peer review. The mechanisms we have are inherently confrontational and these then become venues to fight out disputes. Count Iblis (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Count Iblis, as you know, I've asked Finlay if he consented, or at least didn't object, to my unblocking you. He hasn't responded to my request; nor has he edited at Wikipedia since my request. Depending on where he lives, it's very possible that he's off-wiki for the night. I would prefer to wait, at least until tomorrow morning (Pacific time), for a response. If you'll be patient just a little longer, it would be appreciated. I should be back on-wiki relatively early in the morning, and I'll take it from there.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks that's ok. with me, had I been unblocked now I would probably edit here about ten hours from now anyway. And thank you too Dr. K for asking Bbb23 to take a look here. Count Iblis (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Count Iblis, I have unblocked you after consulting with Finlay, who gave me permission to use my own judgment. My interpretation of where you stand at the moment is you do not intend to go to ANI. I think that's a wise choice. To the extent you discuss the issues directly with editors, I urge you to do so in a constructive fashion. If it appears to you at any point that the discussion is no longer constructive, I suggest you let it go and move on. I personally have found that we simply can't always get the kind of personal satisfaction that we would wish at Wikipedia when we clash with another editor, and the best option is to drop it. Good luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much Bbb23 for resolving this case in such a professional and elegant manner. Count, take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and as a result I now find myself editing here a bit sooner than I should :). I agree that aiming for personal satisfaction is not usually going to work in case of disputes. But I will raise another issues that became more clear to me while I was blocked. When Dr. K told me not to criticize NYB because he was helpful to me during the block, it dawned on me that it's actually very difficult to give criticism while avoiding confrontation. E.g. the way AN/I works is that you actually need to specify what action you want to be taken. The whole culture on Wikipedia has evolved to the point that this is considered to be the way things should work. But I think this is the root cause of many of the conflicts between editors, it is the reason why not just AN/I but even ArbCom is seen as a venue that leads to "too much drama" which leads to problems not getting dealt with at an early stage; we tend to postpone that until they are so bad that drastic measures against editors need to be taken. Count Iblis (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well made points. I'm glad to see that you are back at your usual philosophical plateau. :) But fwiw, I fully agree with you and in fact I have thought about this phenomenon before. Perhaps one of these days I can share a few ideas with you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It would be good to discuss this further; perhaps on Jimbo's talk page to also get the views of other editors on this matter... Count Iblis (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The problem with any high-visibility talkpage is that sometimes the conversation dynamics may deteriorate and become unstable or at least unfocused. It may also be that the problem is inherent in an editing environment where everyone is more or less an independent publisher of information in a lightly regulated environment and sometimes their published works clash, often times leading to interpersonal conflicts. To design a system of conflict resolution policies/approaches for such a multi-variable, multi-degree of freedom system may need a Ph.D. thesis on the psychosocial interaction dynamics of online communities including a supercomputer able to calculate the optimum path through the large number of available solutions which depend on different initial or boundary conditions. Of course the above analysis should also include semantic manipulation employed as a defence or attack mechanism during conversations between the independent publishers and also semantic fuzziness which could lead to frequent misunderstandings which in turn could create positive feedback loops in online conversations. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I got it, but there is a lot of sensitivity to any kind of joking about the issue so it may be better not to. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I guess it's best to be careful here :) . Count Iblis (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

:) --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 19:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Count Iblis.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll take this to ANI if you continue the disruptive edit warring at the math desk. Take your opinion to the talk page where discussion favors deletion. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have already complained on the talk page about your repeated disruptive removals of that threat. There is only one source of disruption on the math page, and these are your actions. You don't contribute to the Math desk, so it's not possible for you have experienced any disruption there. Count Iblis (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

What are you do if I give $ 1 Millon ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.8.188 (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Give me ten million dollars, and I will build a math institute in the south of France. With one million, I suppose I would settle for a tenth of a math institute. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, in my mind you do raise a point that you may or may not have intended: to what extent do you (in the generic sense) consider the Fields medal—and possibly other similar prizes—to be a fraud? Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't judge this for mathematics, but for theoretical physics the Fields medal is a good thing, you can win this prize for working on mathematical physics subjects like e.g. Edward Witten, Wendelin Werner, Stanislav Smirnov have done, a Nobel Prize is not going to be awarded for such work. Count Iblis (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's interesting. Are you a theoretical physicist, Count Iblis? Widener (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and my subfield field are certain subjects that fall within mathematical physics, so a Nobel Prize is unfortunately not in the cards for me :). A lot of what is now rigorous math that is practiced by "real mathematicians" (instead of physicists who tend to do things less rigorously) originally started out as pure physics subjects in which things were not done rigorously. Take e.g. the results obtained by Stanislav Smirnov that earned him the Field Medal. This is about percolation and the fact that in 2 dimensional systems you have conformal invariance in the scaling limit. A lot of results had been obtained by invoking conformal invariance, but there was not a rigorous mathematical proof that such a system is indeed conformally invariant. Smirnov obtained a proof for percolation the triangular lattice. Count Iblis (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

${\displaystyle \int _{0}^{\infty }{\frac {f(x)}{F(x)}}\ dx\ {\overset {?}{=}}\ \int _{0}^{\infty }{\frac {x!}{x^{x}}}\ dx\qquad ,\qquad f(x)\ =\ \sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {n^{x}}{n^{n}}}\qquad ,\qquad F(x)\ =\ \sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {n^{x}}{n!}}}$ 

— 79.113.241.178 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, I'll take a look at this problem this evening. Count Iblis (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you ! — 79.113.241.178 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Count Iblis,

Perhaps you can stop much of the hate by supplying your credentials, i.e., what college degree you have obtained, and perhaps from what school if you wish to give that information. It sometimes appears you have at least an undergraduate understanding of physics; although I think sometimes you get a few basics wrong or do not explain things clearly enough. And when I change a section of an article you have written in any manner, you immediately change it back stating that it is wrong or imprecise, even though there are numerous people on the talk pages who disagree with you. I am not yet an expert myself; I am still a semester away from getting my bachelor's degree in physics, and will hopefully go to grad school, but I want to know why you seem to think only you have a good grasp of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.105.109 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Forget about credentials, you need to discuss things rigorously from first principles. If you think that a statement is correct, then there shouldn't be much of a problem to give a rigorous self contained proof from first principles here. Asuming your argument is correct and there are still disagreements, then the disagreements will be due to making different assumptions and will then become also become clear. Count Iblis (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I noticed that you are involved with the physics articles on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could help me out. Right now, I'm working to bring the article AdS/CFT correspondence to FA status. So far, people have had many good suggestions and many positive things to say about the article, but I'm having trouble getting people to support or oppose the nomination.

I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at it and tell us your thoughts at this page. Please note that you do not have to be an expert on the subject. The article has already been checked quite carefully by other reviewers, and at this point, I'm just looking for people who can check that it meets the FA criteria.

Please let me know if you're interested. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Count Iblis,

Recently, you were so kind to give me a pointer to the Lenstra–Lenstra–Lovász lattice basis reduction algorithm in order to solve a best divisor approximation problem. I have spend a great deal of time trying to understand the algorithm and your proposed vectors, and I have made some realizations (I think), and I have also run into some problems. I have written up my observations and thoughts in the original math desk thread, which is now archived (linked to in the header). I would appreciate if you would have the time to look through my partially disorganized thoughts and perhaps comment there...?

Do you think I should move the thread back to the math help desk, as I suspect noone will notice the new edits in the archives?

--Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'll take a look later today. It's a very powerful algorithm, I have done some work with this some years ago using Mathematica which has a build in routine for this. Count Iblis (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. By the way, yesterday, I realized a "man-in-the-middle" approach is greatly helpful to reduce the computational complexity enourmously for say, problems with of the order ${\displaystyle m\sim 40}$  prime factors, which naively requires of the order ${\displaystyle 2^{m}}$  operations (for primorials). The idea is to separate the prime factors into two sets, calculate all the possible sums of the logs given the multiplicities (${\displaystyle 2\cdot 2^{m/2}}$  operations for primorials), sort them (less than ${\displaystyle m\cdot 2^{m/2}\cdot \log(2)}$  operations, as the log sums can be made such that they have a high degree of order), and then match them up via a "man in the middle" iterating through one sum forwards and another sum backwards to find the pairwise sums which come closest to ${\displaystyle \log(x)}$  (of the order ${\displaystyle 2^{m/2}}$  operations). Using that method I could write a Python script, which found the best divisor approximation to, e.g., ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {p_{40}\#}}}$  in less than a second. I do not know how fast this can be done with the LLL algorithm?--Slaunger (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you are still monitoring the ANI case. However I have just posted a link to a suggested way forward on one article in the hope of breaking what is an entrained pattern that is getting stressful for all involved. I admit to loosing my cool a few times in the last few months. If you have the time/energy your comments would be appreciated. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'll look at it right now. Count Iblis (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the link at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Mathematics/2014_March_13#telescoping_series. I downloaded and printed and read the book "A=B" by Petkovšek, Wilf and Zeilberger. But I have not solved the problem. Can you do it? Bo Jacoby (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC).Reply

I'll take a look, one should be able to tell if a closed form expression exists or not. Count Iblis (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you tried to send me an email, I have fixed my email so you could try again. Alternatively, say it on Talk if you wish.Overagainst (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 12:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the WP:ANI site ban request, you mentioned me by male pronouns. I'm a woman, so it's not correct. If you could go and correct that, I would be happy. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just added a clarification. Since you self refer to yourself as a woman, everyone should refer to you using female pronouns. However, I argued according to "argument's sake" where I argued that even if your critics are correct, they still don't have a case. So, it's like saying that "even if Tutelary were a male he would still not be guilty", I don't think you could write "she" in this sentence; the "even if" conditional makes it clear that it does not claim to refer to reality. Count Iblis (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your closure of the Wikipedia doxxing section as I saw that you were involved in the discussion. I agree that the discussion needs to be closed however I cant close it either for the same reasoning. Do you know of an uninvolved editor that would be up to the task? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think User:NE Ent did not post in that thread, so he may want to close it. Count Iblis (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay then, I hope you understand the revert it has been a long heated discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree that in principle involved editors should not close it. I acted more in the spirit of WP:IAR. The thread is just too big; anyone who has something important to say on the matter would have to start a new thread anyway. But I'm ok. with re-opening it and letting someone else close it. :) Count Iblis (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year topic ban due to my nomination of American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, nominating a page to be protected from IP editing which was then protected, "opinionating on stuff" [sic] (in ref to ANI discussion of HiLo48), and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here: ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.) DocumentError (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on File:Contplanck.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ElectroKid (☮ • ✍) 23:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

from a friendly banned Wikipedian who still edits Wikipedia. thanks for advocating for me in the past.

L8r,

(the banned Wikipedian who shall not be named.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.186.241 (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good to see you editing here! Last year I was here, as you can see it's difficult to travel farther North than this point :) Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think a comment like yours regarding kinetic energy might be in order, but I reverted it because it was not accurate. If you are interested in trying to come up with a better way to say it, go ahead and try. Meanwhile I will think about it too. Something like this?

"(we assume that the fluid's kinetic and gravitational potential energy both remain unchanged after passing through the plug)".

Whatever you/we say, it needs to be brief and precise.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

In retrospect, I we might not want to mention gravitational potential energy, since a comment on kinetic energy should be enough to warn the reader about such complications. Also, I would imagine that an alternative "proof" in a subsequent section using fluid equations could be used insteadx, because I believe the extra terms explain everything.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, I spent all night thinking about this and wrote a Wikiversity article on it at Wikiversity:Engineering_thermodynamics/Joule-Thomson_effect. To avoid cluttering up a reasonably good article, your valid concerns about Wikipedia's Joule-Thomson_effect required the insertion of prose that was both brief as well as accurate. By writing on Wikiversity, we dismiss with the need for brevity. It's still under construction, but if you know of reliable references on this subject, please step in. The Wikiversity page can be linked to from the Wikipedia article, but only after it is properly referenced.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

After reading the multiple threads involving your behaviour regarding medical advice I think the community has made it very clear to you that it is not acceptable. Regardless of it you think it is medical advice or not it is still is inappropriate.

If you give what is considered medical advice by any administrator you may be blocked for an extended period of time even if you think it is not medical advice. If you continue after an extended block then you may be given an indefinite block. This is a safety issue and will be enforced firmly and broadly construed.

This warning is being given on the basis of our existing disruption guideline, my discretion as an admin, and the clear intent of the community. The current discussion at ANI may result in other decisions being made which will not be effected by this.

My advice is to avoid medical topics altogether as you don't seem to recognize when you are in violation of the communities expectations in this area. Chillum 15:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll discuss this further on Jimbo's page and on the AN/I thread. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

There was nothing wrong with my behavior. What I did was not inappropriate, only the morons here at AN/I and the Ref Desks think it is. But then the Ref Desks aren't very prominent, other prominent sites that in fact do stick to guidelines that take safety into account do not have the stupid moronic rules you seem so keen to enforce, e.g. take a look here. Enforcing stupid rules keeps this a stupid place, this vicious cycle can only be broken by violating the rules. That's what I attempted to do, unfortunately that didn't work, that's why I defected to StackExchange. Count Iblis (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your posts - if Linas wants to come back he should post an unblock request on his talk page; WP:OFFER certainly applies, but it doesn't work via a third party posting in the drama pits on ANI or Jimbo's talk page ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Heh. If it were only that simple. It's not. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I saw your comments on Jimbo's page re a few years have passed and was wondering if you had any advice for me re what I can do about this monkey on my back. While I have a threat hanging over me along the lines of "do that again and you will be blocked" for what was a fabricated offense against me in the first place it pretty much prevents me from editing, because if this admin was willing to fabricate the first offense against me he'll only be too happy to fabricate another one against me so that he can make good on his threat should I happen to run into him again. Is there someone on Wikipedia I can get to look at my situation who might be able to resolve it, such as a bureaucrat? Thanks. — not really here discuss 10:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a difficult problem. As fat as editing articles is concerned, the best you can do is to edit while not really defending your edits using reverts, rather you should argue why your edits are justified, address criticism on the talk page. Also be as brief as possible. What you want is to leave the impression behind to possible future neutral editors that your proposed edits were reasonable. It's best to take a long term view. If people with bad intentions take over then contributing here would have been a waste of time anyway, the other possibility is that on the long term every article will end up being edited by reasonable editors. Then your edits, even if reverted, and your comments on the talk page may well get picked up by them, so you want your contributions to be valuable from their perspective.

Then addressing the behavior of the Admin, that's unfortunately still best done on WP:AN/I. It's best to focus on a few edits that from any reasonable point of view should not have been a problem. You then say that this is what I wanted to do, but I'm opposed by this Admin. Then you have to note that on editorial grounds you may always be opposed, so you have to make it clear that there are accusations of improper editing against you that are false, and you seek community feedback on your assessment. You have to go out of your way to make it clear that in principle people can just not like your edits and revert you, so that it is understood that you are not complaining based on not getting your way. Count Iblis (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking your time to respond. I appreciate your advice and agree with most of it. Wikipedia guidance is very clear about encouraging editors to be bold. Nothing I did as part of my interractions with the admin while editing that article went beyond doing just that - I was not overly aggressive or abusive. Your advice above can best be summed up as "be meek" which runs contrary to the Wikipedia guidance. You effectively state that it's OK for other editors to revert me - in fact, as it turns out in this instance, it's OK for other editors to revert me with an ES rationale that directly contradicts the reversion edit they are doing - but I on no account must revert them, because effectively I am a second class citizen on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to twist your wording and put words you never said in your mouth, but surely you must realize that your advice could quite reasonably come across the way I just construed it.

Your words are very good advice for anyone who wishes to avoid any conflict on Wikipedia - which indeed I do. However, if being everybody's doormat is the only way to avoid conflict here then I would rather not be here at all. I have much better things to do with my life than freely share my knowledge with boorish people that don't appreciate it. I think you'll find that is the case why most intelligent people either leave Wikipedia or never bother to join in the first place (because they witness such interractions and their outcomes from afar). Nobody likes confrontation in their life, no one wants to play against others with a stacked deck, and no one wants to be treated disrespectfully as a second class citizen - particularly by others who may know less; are less academically qualified or gifted; are less skillful writers; have achieved much less in their real (versus online) lives; and are probably young enough to be one's grandson.

I'm not claiming that any of those reasons in the "particularly" list apply in my situation; without stalking the admin in question I really have no idea. I was merely addressing the more general issue with my list. Some or all of those reasons will apply in other instances regarding why potentially good or even established editors simply give up on Wikipedia as a seriously flawed web venue that has neither the collective willpower nor the skill set to change its current hypocritical and confrontational culture. By now the puerile practice of "scoring points off of one another" has become so addictive to the mostly young male core of editors that have stuck around for any length of time and that it is probably an unchangeable part of the entrenched Wikipedia culture.

Your advice re AN/I was also very sound. However, I have witnessed AN/I quite a few times in the past and what I learned from watching others go through it is that the whole process was pretty much a crap shoot. People who feel unfairly abused want somewhere to go where they can be sure that they have to say will be given a fair and just hearing. If at the end of that process they get ruled against, yet they perceived that the process to that point was fair, they will ultimately accept that decision and get back on their horse. Alternatively, if they perceive the whole process is a sham, or that it is intended to be fair but easily gamed by others who, from prior experience, better know how to exploit all its loopholes, then they are going to be even more aggrieved should the decision go against them. Because that will just add an additional insult to the original injury they had felt. My perception of the AN/I process is that it is easily gamed by others who repeatedly and regularly go through it, such as admins working some particular area of issues within Wikipedia.

Over time, such admins effectively become experienced Wikilawyers who know exactly what sticks and what is dismissed as being irrelevant by whoever is arbitrating. Plus, in the cases I've witnessed, the person who looks at the case is another admin who simply happens to be around to take your complaint off the queue when it comes to the top. No skill set at dispensing justice - or even a skill set in using pertinent diffs - is guaranteed, thus you frequently see a clueless arbitrating admin rubber stamp the decision of the original clueless admin that caused the problem. In the real world justice system we protect against such stupid scenarios from occurring by ensuring that lawyers (read admins) don't become judges (read arbitrating admins) until they have demonstrated they have all the necessary decision-making qualities to do so; and we protect against the scenario of an unfair mismatch between a defendant (read Wikipedia newbie WRT the AN/I process) and a seasoned barrister (read admin seasoned in AN/I or ArbCom process) by assigning a court provided lawyer to anyone who cannot afford their own so that no one is put in this blatantly unfair mismatched situation.

Additionally, you cannot survive more than a few days on Wikipedia without learning to become a bit of a Wikilawyer yourself. You have to be able to tell someone that they are not assuming good faith or have violated NPOV guidance, etc., because behind every dispute that occurs on Wikipedia there lies two or more different interpretations of the WP guidance articles as to what should or should not have been done. Therefore, given that I am already a Wikilawyer of sorts myself, I already know that this particular admin has violated COI guidelines. But I have no power to simply declare that fact. My desire is to get my documented write-up in front of someone who does have that power. I have no idea how much you read of my posted messages on Cas' Talk page, but I am not in any dispute over the editorial content of the article in question. In the end he finally agreed I was right but - presumably because I had proved him wrong - also vindictively hit me with a warning and a WP policy violating threat that both fall under the heading of admin abuse. The most pertinent section in the text on Cas' Talk page is the last level of indented text comment added by me where I explicity identify six different areas of Wikipedia policy guidance re admin abuse. Anyone may disagree that it is six, and perhaps think it more a case of only three or four violations, or even just a single violation, but just ONE is enough to establish admin abuse by this particular person.

You mentioned taking the long term view. That also is very good advice. Unfortunately, the long term view that most folk who feel they have been unfairly abused - or have witnessed such instances first hand, or have even heard about the bad experiences of others second hand - are going to have is that Wikipedia isn't going to survive if it carries on in its current fashion, thus it's a waste of their time and energy to contribute anything further (along the same lines as throwing good money after bad) since Wikipedia will eventually fail or become, at best, irrelevant (in the same manner, perhaps, that h2g2.com was made irrelevant by Wikipedia, although it is probably quite unjust to h2g2 to call it irrelevant - perhaps less significant would be a fairer description). Alternatively, they will feel that it is pretty stupid of themselves to keep returning to a venue where they volunteer their time, effort and skills for free only to be rewarded in return with treatment that, in some cases, even a vandal would not deserve. Most intelligent and productive people with real lives outside of Wikipedia have much more self-esteem than that. Anyway, either or both of those two scenarios currently represent my long term view of Wikipedia.

It was with that long term view in mind that I wrote my original message to Cas that I linked you to above. Nothing ever gets lost on Wikipedia, it simply gets dismissed from being easily viewed by being archived or buried in the vast quantity of revision history data. So when I wrote those initial posts it was with the view that if somebody in the future wished to find out what actually went wrong at Wikipedia, or who was simply looking for clues to help them avert a perceived pending disaster, then there would exist something that might explain it should they bother to root around and dig deep and far enough. Thus it was, of sorts, a final contribution or swan song. I have only stuck around since because, first of all, Cas responded; and then I subsequently decided that perhaps there were other outlets I should pursue before finally giving up the ghost. I'm still currently in that mode right now but I don't see it lasting for much longer. I cannot single-handedly change the culture of Wikipedia. I have no intention of being a modern day King Cnut ... nor, for that matter, becoming a real Cunt so that I better fit in here.

Anyway, thanks for your response and apologies for not responding sooner. Best regards. — not really here discuss 00:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Count Iblis. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))Reply

Seems you had to leave the Ref Desk just before I returned to wikipedia. I wonder why you didn't ask (or someone proposed) an exception for at least RD/Maths. Maybe you've found a place where your help is more appreciated. Anyway, hope you're doing well. Ssscienccce (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, there isn't all that much activity at the Math board here. I've been active on StackExchange, as you can see here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Clever... --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Without wishing to make it official, this edit of yours is not really consistent with your own statement about the removal of your voluntary topic ban. No medical advice on the reference desks, please. Tevildo (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I said that I'll stay away from questions of a direct medical nature, like someone suffering from back ache asking for references for back exercises which might still allowed under the rules we have here but which comes quite close to what we would not allow. I'll not jump into such a case and risk causing problems. But note that when I came back and was still under the voluntary ban I did post on someone's talk page a reply to a ref desk question about exercise. That was also discussed in that threat and it was agreed that these sorts of issues do not fall under medical advice. Also, I'll not argue about something that is contested about what I post there, meaning that I'll not revert or make a big fuss about issues, I'll just let the other regulars handle anything they see is a problem. Clearly a question about cleanliness asked by a regular and already answered by another regular is not such a topic that is seen to be problem w.r.t. medical advice, so if I have something to say about that using references of sources such as the BBC that themselves stick to medical advice guidelines that are far more rigorous and well thought through than what we can ever come up with, then that cannot possibly be a problem.

But what I'll never accept is a sort of an Apartheid rule that would impose restrictions on me that are not in place on any other editor here because of an alleged infraction last year. As far as I'm concerned I've never violated any rules regarding medical advice in the past; last year's AN/I threat amounted to a one sided railroading based on false account of the state of affairs at the Ref Desk. The reason why I'm so explicit about this is not because I'm a hard core fighter who wants to stick to his guns who needs to prove he is always right (I already made it clear that I'll not engage with more explicit medical topics), it has to do with bad experiences I had here about 6 or 7 years ago when I was restricted by ArbCom by motion for advocating on behalf of another user based on conspiracy theories that I was part of some plot to damage Wikipedia. And that ArbCom restriction was later used as an argument by the conspiracy theorists that they had been proven correct about me. When the restriction had expired, I put the banners you can see on my userpage to defend the right to do so here (I was shortly blocked due to making a politically incorrect statement but then swiftly unblocked, I ten put the banners up saying exactly that I said that led to the short ban). :User:Likebox, caught up in the same case left Wikipedia because he couldn't keep his head as cool as I could when handed out the ArbCom restriction.

So, in summary, I've not come back here to make a point about what happened last year, I'll not shoehorn questions to make any point I have about medical advice. Instead I'll stay away from questions that are borderline medical advice but which could be allowed but which may also cross the line according to a reasonable interpretation. But I can still answer questions on topics that according to the present consensus do not come close to violating the medical advice guideline, such as on exercise or diet asked in such a way that it isn't medical advice which are routinely answered by other regulars here. This won't 100% guarantee that there will never ever be a problem, but thn the fact that I'll to interfere with other editors dealing with anything I write on the Ref Desk, should guarantee that we'll not get into a brouhaha similar to what happened last year. Count Iblis (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Count Iblis,

I notice that you made some recent ITN nominations in the form of "Mare Imbrium was formed by an asteroid impact", or "the pilot of MH 370 practiced beforehand". In the case of past events, it is better to mention who is the source of the new information. So in the case of the first nomination, the adjunctive word is scientists, and in the second it should be investigators, or some variation of these nouns.

I've been on ITN since about 2007, but now edit anonymously. I am not attempting to argue about experience, but only hope to make the case for a different style of nominations so the approval of the blurb, if it is newsworthy, passes more fluidly. 27.115.113.102 (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing that out and for your suggestions of a better blurb! Count Iblis (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Upon reviewing the evidence submitted at the above location it appears that the link to the Arbcom case in your statement is pointing to the Impeachment of Bill Clinton page rather than an Arbcom case. Could you please clarify or correct the statement as it appears to be incorrect. Amortias (T)(C) 22:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I've seen your answer on Refdesk Science from 11th of August this year where you suggested the use of Sci-Hub for accessing a paper by Stanley Brodsky about electron structure probing. I want to ask whether is it possible that some requested article may not be found on that hub due to lack of uploading? If an article is not available when firstly request, would it be uploaded in the future based on request history? Does the hub have an internal record of previous article requests? (For instance I've requested the Chemical Physics Letters articles mentioned on talk:solvated electron#Links to sources which were not available.) Thanks--82.137.10.6 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

If they don't have a paper in the database they'll download it directly sung the account from a volunteer. But like you I've also experienced that in case of some chemistry journals, Sci-Hub did not work. I suspect that they lack access via accounts donated by volunteers. So, their database does not contain these papers and they can't fill their database with these papers either. Count Iblis (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, there are probably three hundred diffs from just one or two "regulars" at the RD that I would be prepared to submit if required, just to get the Ref Desk back up to some kind of standard. Ironically, one or two of those individuals closely involved are already making pleas that the Arbcom case "overlook" the Ref Desk. Yup, that's actually funny. Only thing is I'm not engaging with the case, so we'll have to wait and save it up for another time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
   1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
   2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
   3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

science help

 

Thank you for quality articles based on scientific knowledge such as Tachyonic antitelephone, for improving articles and answering at the science reference desk, for a measured analysis of tension in certain discussions, for editing in any way you see "fit to improve Wikipedia", for more than 10 years, - count on it: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I have less time for Wikipedia than in my early days here, but I try to visit this site every day and check out the ref desk here. Count Iblis (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1494 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Original research in wikipedia is disallowed. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems theoretically possible for a white dwarf to strike a neutron star at 90% of the speed of light. Could that cause the neutron star to break up?144.35.45.46 (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply