User talk:Reddi
I am vastly ignorant of the inner working here ... just adding content. Any and all criticism, comment, and feedback welcomed. -- reddi 03:51 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
[From time to time I'll respond here and delete the old content; I'll leave them for a few weeks (mostly) -- reddi]
[Past discussion can be seen through the History page]
Responses
Thanks for the all comments ... [replies here; sniping addressed ones; user responing to - item discussed - comments; most "quoted" comments are in italics]
—Eloquence : Number pages : [Talk:List of numbers/Deletion#Vote on inclusion]] : "reconsider [my] vote on the inclusion of articles about numbers"? I'll look into it ... "opposed to the trivial cultural properties"? I'm not opposed to trivia per se ... abritary trivia mabey, but not focused trivia ... "rationale is that numbers are such a fundamental part of human culture, an article that lists all these associations would have proportions probably larger than all of Wikipedia taken together"? Mabey not all should be listed ... I agree with that .... and, yes, if unchecked it could grow exponentially ... "look at 1 (number)#Other fields"? Ok ... I will ... "article arbitrarily lists a few things where the number one has some significance"? I think that the arbitrariness of it is a concern o' your ... and I could agree to that ... "think this information is valuable"? Somewhat ... pending the exact piece ... "these kind of lists make a joke of Wikipedia"? YMMV that ... but an all inclusive list could do that, I agree ... "always be arbitrary"? If a set of rules could be worked out mabey it could solve this ... I'll try to post something @ the talk page on some kinda formulation of what should be include [hopefully a NPOV means] and see if there can be something done to rid the arbitrariness ... "be in violation of the rules of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not(list repository, dictionary)"? the guidelines should be considered ,I agree ... but deviations can be allow [very very infrequently ... numbers may be an example for this) ... "damage our reputation"? mabey ... if it "runs away" ... "see a compromise option"? I'll try to contemplate something ... though that may be unsuccessful ... "do not give [a ...] rubber stamp of approval"? I don't want to do that ... I did note my reason for my vote.
Continued from VfD
G'day Reddi!
This is further to your comments on VfD 2 March regarding some Green Energy personal subpages, as promised on that page.
As I said there, I think lots of Wikipedians would sympathise with the project. But, hosting something like this is very cheap if the bandwidth is low, and Wikimedia already provides the software for free. If they are popular enough to need significant bandwidth, then they should be able to attract supporters to pay for it too, or alternatively they can seek advertising sponsorship. There's lots of money available for alternative energy despite what you hear, lots of people buy it, lots of people vote money for it.
I'll confess I'm in an interesting position here, as a staunchly pro-nuclear environmentalist. We're still not exactly the flavour of the month! So while I applaud the efforts of the mainstream environmental movement, I have strong reservations about some of their science and politics.
That's not my reason for voting to delete, but I thought it should be upfront (bitter experience). The reason is simply that this is not what the project is about. Encyclopedic stuff should be in the main namespace. Other namespaces should be used to support the development of the articles in the main namespace. That's what the project is about. There are some grey areas, but I think this one is pretty clear.
I'd encourage Wikipedians and others to support this project. If I'm right and nuclear power is quite clearly good for the environment, then any sort of public education will help to get that message across eventually. They'll need money, editors, software people, all the same infrastructure as Wikimedia, and I hope they get it. And I think they will. I'm not sure that I'm brave enough to join myself, which is part of the problem, we have a chicken and egg situation with existing environmental organisations in that people like me often aren't welcome.
Anyway, probably enough for a start. Andrewa 17:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Political Divisions
Lou I : Political divisions of the United States : Do you have a destination in mind? To differentiate it from other articles .... What would you expects as a final set of articles, and what relationships would they have to each other? I'm not sure ... I'll think about it ... 85,000 estimated political subdivisions? Someone else put that in IIRC ...
SZ Effect
EddEdmondson : disagreements on Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect ... posted references. JDR
review
Wapcaplet -- Wikipedia:Peer review : cleaning out the old requests : check it out and remove the request(s)? Ok ... I'll dropp by there JDR
Wardenclyffe
Maury : HAARP : I will continue to _re-add_ the Wardenclyffe Tower information (what you call "garabage"). "justification"? YOU need to read up on the literature between HAARP and Wardenclyffe. Please do that. poorly written? copyedit it so that the grammar and spelling is better ... BUT do not removce the info. "supposition by people who apparently have no idea what they are talking about"? You are incorrect. "detailed explaination"? That is not necessary here ... there are plenty of other _primary_ sites that explain this ... the wiki article being a seconday source (or a tertiary source), that is not needed. "How, physically, is HAARP and Wardenclyffe are releated"? Look into the operation principles of BOTH facilities. Your POV is seen in your reference to "bogus suppositions". JDR
- Maury : HAARP : explained my reasons clearly, which you have removed? yes ... as I do with all my responses (and this is explain @ the top of thhis page). [snip "content repeat"] ... The content appears to be copied, with no editing, from some other article? Most likely, as I did put it in another article (no need to rewrite it again) ... factual linkage between Wardenclyffe and HAARP has been refused on two occasions? The linkages exist ... you need to read up on it. wiki is a "second source" and that all needed information is available elsewhere? It is a secondary source [see No original research] and there are article that explain the connections. [snip maury's POV and his doubt on external sites] JDR
- Maury : post links? You go relieve YOUR ignorance on the subject ... the fact is that there are similar characteristics ... read up on N. Tesla ... on the operation of both facilities ... and read up on HAARP. [snip "no backin"] ... internet postings of "Agent X"? What? that is so fricken bogus ... I haven't heard of any "Mr. X" ... authors, not anonymous, produce books over this (see your favorite book retailer) that make these claims (I trust you can do this) ... The reason that link Wardenclyffe and HAARP? Ionospheric research (See what HAARP does today ... and what N. Tesla did over the Ionosphere). nothing more than a couple of links? You can go out and find them ... the fact is that both facilities have common facets (and can be seen to work off similar principles). I will readd the info if it is deleted. Sincerely, JDR
Nikola : {{msg:Nikola Tesla}} : connecting Tesla articles into Nikola Tesla series? sounds good to me ... What do you think about the idea? I like it. To get additional article look @ the "My inventions" book ... there he list his major feats / item. I'll think about it ... but, by all means, do it [mabey post this @ the NT talk page). Sincerel,y, JDR 01:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sam Spade : Quickpoll : cleared of all charges? I didn't know I was under judicial review. I am not "berserking" and, you are correct, the acquital is amusing (especially since the votes against me (mostly) were made with ppl that I have had conflicts with (Kenny and Wik) ... most "neutral" observers (?; I don't know anyone else on wikipedia [i.e., anyone that could be partial to me]) seem to not see the majority of my edits a harmful [whhich they are not ... I have only added balancing info or informative data to wikipedia). I have not removed information, but I strive to add information [i.e., increase not delete]. sound callous, but it sure is nice to have Kenneth "berserking" on somebody else for a change? Kenny has hated (?) me since he signed on and saw my edits .. and has repeatedly called me name (i.e., idiot (among other slurs)) ... I have finally gave up on him and settled on that he is a psuedoskeptic crackhead [as I stated in the Sci Skeptic talk page]. Do you think he is redeemable, or aught to be banned? He may be "redeemable" if he can allow counterpoints (for NPOV) and alternative information (for completeness). Otherwise, I believe it will be hopeless. "least helpful editors? I haven't looked @ his edits and try to avoid him ... as I do try to avoid conflicts. I do believe everyone can be "helpful" to wikipedia ... but does the harm outwiegh the benefits? I'll leave that as an open question. Sincerely, JDR
Scientific skepticism
silsor : Scientific skepticism : Phrase arguments so that they do not try to draw the reader's conclusion? Ok .. I thought I have. The counterpoints to the poinr that preceed them and are needed to allow the reader to think for themselves. JDR
- silsor : Scientific skepticism :: can't "balance" any page towards NPOV by adding POV comments? The comments are not "POV". They are counterpoints. They address the existing POV of the preceeding comments. I would like to blend both sides of the argument together, using neutral language. I thought that was I have been doin. I do doubt that all sides of this argument can agree on a "fair" (addressing both Pros and Cons of the worldviews of "Skeptics"). JDR
GrazingshipIV : Scientific skepticism : stop injecting pseudo-science into that page? I'm NOT. I am adding BALANCING comments. My edits are needed in the page for NPOV. They do not belong "elsewhere". I do not wish to "inflame the situation", but I will not allow the inaccurate POV of "Skeptics" to bias the page. JDR
- GrazingshipIV : irrelevant information? No .. it is relevant. arbitration? That may be an option, but info over the pros and cons of "skepticism" is needed ... mabey the arbitration process can bring this about. [snip "unjustified Quickpoll"] BTW, I am not opposed to "compromise", but I will not allow the page to not have the opposing view [pro-POV is not NPOV]. JDR
- GrazingshipIV : keep saying [balance is needed]? Yes I do. do not think anyone has told you that you cannot put in an opposing view? Lord kenneth Has. Silsor has edited out balancing info ... but has not stated that balancin info should be excluded. And, you have not stated such either ... but you seem not see the info as balancing. heading of "Opposition to scientific skepticism"? I tried that a while back and it was edited out by skeptical exclusionist (go back a 50 or 100 edits). adding [my] critque of it into the body of explaination which will make it confusing for viewers? 1st it is not my "critque". It was @ some point (now edited out) cited critiques of Sci Skepticim (see the links). The full context of information should not be "confusing" to a reader. understand how it is defined? the full NPOV def will have both points. trying to prevent not showing other points of view? Again pro-POV is not NPOV. As it was before, it was only a pro-POV (i.e., lil to no mention of the counterpoint to skeptics views). Sincerely, JDR
here we go again
Exploding Boy : Heterosexuality page has now been protected? Yep ... because of your POV ... talk:Heterosexuality? There realy isn't anything now to discuss is there? you still disagree with me and all the other people that have kept the info there ... JDR
- You are of course free not to join the discussion; if you choose not to please respect whatever consensus we reach. Exploding Boy 15:27, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
preview
Anonymlous coward : there _is_ a preview-button ... great ... JDR
Boundary layer
Anonymlous coward : What relationship does the existance of a boundary layer (the adhesion of a fluid to a surface) have to do with the leidenfrost effect? Look up "Leidenfrost "Boundary layer"". There are NO google hits, and none of my phyics books that talk about boundary layers mention leidenfrost. There are god hits ... though that isn't necessary ... and sorry to hear that your book isn't that good ... Cite please? View the "see also" ... here >>> scienceworld.wolfram (_there are probably others_ ... but wolfram is the first (and one of the better, he link them together)(BTW, the only link on the wolfram page on LE is the the BLE view it))) JDR
Tesla Turbine
Rick Boatright : Wishing does not make it so? It's not wishing ... The very cites your including dis-agree with the edits you're making? Umm no, they don't ... doing major re-formats of a section and changing the intent of a paragraph and then hiding it with multiple repeated edits and flagging those as "minor" when they are _not_? major re-formats? they were not ... they were correcting your "debunkin" edits .... JDR
- Rick Boatright : I'm not Debunking. Geeeze? YMMV on that ... changing the last sentence of the calculations paragraph to suggest that Prof Rice thought that the maximum theoretical efficiency of a TT is in the mid 1960s? It was in the 1960s, accorcing to the 2nd ref (and the links, as far as I can tell ... [snip SILLY] ... Read the sentence in your ref 1? I have ... and I have read the 2nd one and all the "other" links in the external section ... I'd suggest you do the same ... Prof Rice thought that the max efficiency would work out to about 65%? Rice's test turbines, as published in his papers, produced a _pumping efficiency_ was approximately 65% ... a minor edit is making a spelling change, or a spacing change"? ummm ok ... Changing the wording, changing the INTENT of a sentence is NOT a minor edit ... recoorecting errors can be minor ... But i'll "try" to uncheck the m before I upload it. You seem to have the idea that I somehow dislike TT's? No ... just that you don't have the right information ... , disrespect Tesla or somthing? No ... not at all ... handful of commercial applications for the darned things? more than a handful ... [Tesla's] contribution to mechanisms is a form of deification? no .. it's stating facts ... BOUNDARY LAYER TURBINE, they're fairly well understood these days, there are extensive publications on the way it works, and boundary layer interactions are well understood so we can model aircraft? Sure ... just like they can model the Ionosphere correctly ... [snip not magic] .... quoting (repeatedly) the idea that Tesla somehow got 95% efficiency out of his units? There are various 95 and 98 references (some by tesla and some by others ...) ... which he never demonstrated btw? WHAT? you appearantly have not looked at the links ... he did build them and demonstrate them ... [snip rest of "didn't build"] ... [snip brillient, troubled man] ... [My] deification? It's not worship .. it's putting out the FACTUAL information ... passes over NPOV? IYO ... sources OTHER than tesla have a say ?These are sources other than tesla himself ... read up on the links .... [snip worship]. Calm down? I am being calm ... lets find a middle ground here? Lets ... but also let put the correct info in the article. JDR
Tesla
Let us consider together your latest revert of my edit..... Which you keep flagging as a MINOR EDIT -- which is BS.
- In the Colorado Springs lab, Tesla recorded what he concluded were extraterrestrial radio signals and announced his findings in some of the scientific journals of the time. His announcements and data were rejected by the scientific community who did not believe him. This may have been because the research of cosmic signals (what is known today as radio astronomy) did not exist at the time. He noted measurements of repetitive signals from his transceiver. Tesla did record cosmic waves. He notes measurements of repetitive signals conducted via his transciever which appear to be cosmic waves emitting from interstellar clouds and red giant stars. Though Tesla felt they originated on the planet Mars, there is strong evidence they actually came from Jupiter. Tesla spent the latter part of his life trying to signal Mars.
Let's go throught the problematic sentences one by one.
- This may have been because the research of cosmic signals (what is known today as radio astronomy) did not exist at the time.
It's redundent and poor english. Take out the parenthetical remark and you end up with This may have been because the research of cosmic signals did not exist at the time. which is just a WEIRD english sentence. Can we re-cast this in some form that makes sense? Perhaps This may have been because no one was researching extraterrestrial radio sources at the time. or something? Why are you insisting on the words research of cosmic signals. It sounds like something from a comic book. They're just radio waves. It's just radio astronomy. Calling it research of cosmic signals doesn't make it somthing more than it is.
NEXT: Tesla did record cosmic waves. I can't find a single source of anyone who has looked through T's work who asserts this as strongly as you are stating here. One reason, of course, is that T wasn't great at keeping raw experimental data. There are no notebooks available recording what SORT of signals he got on the rotating coherer at what times, so that they could be matched to what objects were in the sky at that time. I think it's fair to say that Tesla claimed to have recorded cosmic waves. It's the most you can do. When the claims for such came up again in the 1930's, the researchers were required to prove that they were on extraterrestrial sources by proving for example, that the signals were siderial and not diurnal. Tesla never did that.
NEXT: there is strong evidence they actually came from Jupiter. SOURCE? Cite? Strong evidence? Uh, the only cites I can find are apologists who come up with this to excuse Tesla's weird idea that the signals were martian by naming the strongest signal sources they could think of in the sky. I can find no examples of matching the appearance of jupitor to times of signals for tesla's reception (probebly 'cause accurate timing records don't exist.
FINALLY: cosmic waves emitting from interstellar clouds and red giant stars. -- Red giant stars are not major radio sources. What source do you have that draws a correlation between any nearby red giant star and tesla's observations on the rotating coherer?
In summery, you keep reverting my attempt to cast this into the BEST POSSIBLE light for T, into a deification, which does NOT reflect well on him. Please, please stop. Rick Boatright 15:19, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)