User talk:Michael D. Wolok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Michael D. Wolok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  DV8 2XL 18:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your efforts on Many-worlds interpretation

I am sorry to say that the material that you have been placing in this article violates several rules, notably WP:NOR and WP:V. Please make yourself familiar with them and it will save you a lot of wasted effort DV8 2XL 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

By adding material after it has been reverted by others, you are in violation of WP:3RR, which dictates that that no editor shall revert more than thrice. If you revert again, I will block you from editing for 24 hours. -lethe talk + 22:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. I suggest you use this time to get acquainted with our customs. Visit WP:3RR, WP:MoS, Help:Editing, WP:NOR, WP:V. I look forward to a time when your contributions are more productive. -lethe talk + 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR at rape

Please do not insert commentary of an article into the article itself, as you did in Rape. Take the issue up at Talk:Rape, the article's discussion page. Thanks. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Inserting your personal commentary into an article once may be due to ignorance, doing it twice approaches malice. Please stop. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the history of that page. 4 times today, and you're in violation of WP:3RR. I block you for 24 hours. -lethe talk + 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi from MCP!

Hello Michael, do you read your user talk page?? Please respond if you see this. Type your comments in below to get a dialogue going. --Michael C Price 07:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello From Aeon

Hello Michael. You requested an Avocate How can I help you? Aeon 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: I need a mediator

Hi! You can do so at Requests for Mediation, where someone from the Mediation Committee will be happy to assist you. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't know I had a talk page.

Greetings Earthling,

I wish someone had emailed me to let me know I had a talk page.

I would much rather communicate by email. We all have enough places to look each day for messages. Do we all really need one more place to look. I have different email addresses, and different phone answering machines. It looks like I will now have to look one more place.

I need an advocate.

Lethe removes whatever I contribute without bothering to read the support I produce for my claims on the discussion page. Instead of editing my contributions, he just removes them in their entirety without comment and asks others to do the same. He claims every single thing I write is wrong.

He maintains this even after a world famous cosmologist explicitly agreed with just about everything I added. It seems to Lethe's hostility to the theory is effecting his judgment, or maybe he just disdains me because I am not a physicist.

In any event, his conduct appears contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. I don't know who Lethe is, but he has been very insulting, hostile and patronizing from the get-go.

At present, the Wikipedia entry on many worlds contains a lot of equations which make the article difficult for the average person to read and understand.

All the equations in the article are unnecessary because every single equation in the article is equally shared by all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. The value of of Hugh Everett's theory is not in equations, because Hugh Everett's theory does not add or subtract one single equation from quantum mechanics. Everyone agrees to this.

What Everett does is reinterpret the equations of quantum mechanics. If Everett's new interpretation didn't accomplish anything but generate countless universes, his theory would have no have no value, and violate Ocaam's Razor. Indeed, this is the position of many who don't know or see the advantages of Everett's theory.

The whole value of Hugh Everett's theory comes from the list of benefits I am trying to place in the article. These benefits have each and every one of them been given by some major proponent of the theory. Each of these benefits is an additional reason to favor Everett's theory. Leaving one or more of them out means not presenting a reason Everett's theory should be accepted. This is unfair to Hugh Everett and unfair to the general reader. Not everyone who favors the theory may agree with each and every benefit I list. But each benefit I list has the backing of one or more prominent supporters of the theory.

I would like to get more editors involved. And I would to request mediation. I need someone to help walk me through the process of requesting a mediator.

As the article stands now I believe it violates Wikipedias NPOV policy. I say this not because what is in the article is biased, but rather because important reasons for the theories acceptance have been left out.

For example, it would be biased to present "The Theory of a non-flat Earth" without the presentation including all the major reasons for believing the Earth is not flat.

I have no problem with anyone criticizing the reasons of those who favor the theory, but those reasons ought to be included in the article.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

Michael D. Wolok 21:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. Hi Michael, I didn't realize I had a talk page.

Hi Michael,

just noticed your text here (you can of course email me if you wish). BTW I suggest you set your user preferences to place all edited articles in your watchlist (if you haven't already) -- that way you'll be notified of any further changes, just as I will of any future additions you make here.

I shall get around to trimming down the mass of equations in the MWI article, but it's not a straightforward job, as I'm sure you appreciate, especially when you have to maintain what others judge to be a NPOV; but I agree with the NPOV policy so I don't taking the extra time required. Most of my energy recently has been involved in straightening out the links associated with MWI (Bell's theorem, contrafactual definiteness, quantum measurements etc). I also took some time out to understand how Zeh and Zurek model collapse with their "traced over" density matrices.

As for your list of MWI benefits, it is still there, I hope you like it. I caution against adding too many benefits for a very general reason, that detractors (i.e. 99% of the world) will look for the weakest reason and snipe at that as the weakest link in the chain. One weak or muddled benefit will destroy the credibility of the whole list, in the eyes of most observers; not very rational I know, but that's how people's minds operate.... --Michael C Price 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Royboycrashfan for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "MPenso". The reason given for MPenso's block is: "vandalism". Your IP address is 152.163.100.67.

I am not "MPenso"

Michael D. Wolok 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked the IP address. You should be able to edit now. JoshuaZ 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello and welcome

Hi Michael, sorry to butt in but I know first hand how frustrating all the policy and procedures of this project can be so I thought I would stop by and chime in. Hope you don't mind. If you do, please tell me to buzz off and I'll be on my way. To reply to this post, just type your response below mine and include a ":" at the begining so it indents your comment. I found chatter about you and have included a link to it.link removed Anyways, cheers! --Tom 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC) ps, did you really call Jimbo Wales during diner? tsk, tsk JUST KIDDING :)

I am the friendliest person on Earth, I wouldn't tell anyone to "buzz off." I don't mind you stopping my at all. I appreciate it. And thanks for the tip. Sadly, I did call Jimbo Wales during dinner. I really think there should be a more user friendly FAQ that newbies here can't miss. I am always looking to make new friends.
See the community I would like to start at www.ic.org The name of the community is "Empathy" Michael D. Wolok 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I will check that out when I can. Also, I added a colon in front of your repsonse so it indents. Do you also know how to use the history tab at the top of the page so you can see what changes have been made to each page and by whom?? Anyways, a suggestion I would make is to explore Wikipedia as best as possible and also work/edit on an article that you have no personal stake or involvement with. The article on rape seems pretty "involved" right now so maybe start with an article about your home town or something REALLY boring so you can edit in peace and learn more about the mechanics of this project. The last thing, in my opinion, you want to get into is what is referred as an edit war. This is where an article is reverted back and forth and back and forth and NOBODY really "wins". Try not to insert orignal research, only use facts that are sourcable. Maybe just try to make "quiet" articles better by "cleaning" them up. I find the project to be amazing, though it can be frustrating at times, stick with it and make it better. --Tom 01:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indenting

To create an indent, use the : character before your text,

Like so -- Longhair 01:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please unblock me. I am not this user.

Finally, found the right user after searching. I'm gonna try to unblock your username alone, tell me if it works. (Acutally, come to think of it, the rangeblock should be expiring soon...) NSLE (T+C) at 01:59 UTC (2006-06-04)
Indeed, the block on the IP range has expired. NSLE (T+C) at 02:00 UTC (2006-06-04)

Thanks, it worked!

Michael D. Wolok 02:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

Hi Michael, I just found this page. Maybe you can tap one or more of these more experienced users for assistance. I have been here 6 months and have over a 1,000 edits and I feel that I am still VERY VERY "green" and I am still feel like I have a TON to learn. The point is slow down. Its to bad there are "sides" to some articles but there are. Some users have less patience and maybe have forgotten how frustrating this project can be at times to new contributors. Cheers --Tom 13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a very good suggestion, and I thank you for taking the time to look into ways to help the lamentable Michael D. Wolok. However, as you may see here, Wolok has already contacted the AMA. In fact, I pointed out to him all the methods of dispute resolution including AMA, RfM, RfC and RfAb already on the many worlds talk page, which is probably how he found that page. I really don't know why he keeps asking for help, after an advocate and a mediator have both responded to his requests. I guess I will just ignore any further requests on his part. -lethe talk + 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Lethe, yeah, I didn't know that you already had made those suggestions, so very good. I also received and sent back an extended e-mail to Michael with some further suggestions. I sort of got my nose into this because it seemed that this editor was sincere (also the Jimbo diner call) and I am a newbie still myself. Anyways, carry on :) --Tom 13:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC) ps I love that painting on your talk page and what does Lethe mean, is that french or Italian? and yes, I am university educated believe it or not :)....Never mind, I just Wiki serached "lethe", I like it :)...

[edit] Hugh Everett

Hi Michael. Is this your boy?? --Tom 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry, this isn't the sort of advocate work I currently am able to help with. Try posting a public request on the AMA page. Andre (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am likewise unable to help you. Looks like your work violates "no original research" WP:NOR and "Verifiability" WP:V. Go get published somewhere notable first. Dyslexic agnostic 19:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. Just a helpful suggestion, it's best not to repeat the same message to several dozen people in a span of minutes, as some may interpret this as spamming. As to the issue itself, however, your work does appear to violate the no original research official policy of Wikipedia as Dyslexic agnostic stated above. You may want to review that policy, as Wikipedia is based on information from notable sources that are verifiable. Cowman109Talk 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocate

I'd be glad to help you. First, I think that you should be flexible in terms of tone and willing to provide sources. I agree that noting the pros and cons of certain theories is suitable for an encyclopedia as long as it does not bias an article not solely about that theory towards overcoverage of a minority view. Especially if the number of adherences to this theory cannot be sourced (I haven't heard of any such survey of cosmologists), I don't think that your text should start with the construction "So many people believe in this. Why is that?". Instead, you should concisely state the problems in physics that the theory explains (perhaps linking to those articles) and why. A list I feel may not be the best way to do this. Consider organizing the material you want to add thematically. I suspect that some of these problems are actually just two examples of one of the benefits of this theory (although I'm not familar with it myself). Which article in particular were you trying to add this text to? I would be able to help you more if I knew the details of the edit conflict. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking about the Many-worlds interpretation article, would you consider adding your content into the existing structure of the "Advantages of MWI" section, making sure that its not repetitive. Also, please do not request the assistance of dozens of advocates at the same time. Other users may frown on this practice as "spammig". savidan(talk) (e@) 21:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me for advocate help, un fortunatley i am currently unable to provide the time needed for this kind of advoacay, hwowever i see you have been sucsseful in finding another advocate, good luck Benon 22:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: I need an advocate and help with mediation

Are you asking me to function as an advocate for you during an WP:RfM, or as a mediator for a Mediation Cabal case?--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not "spam" all the mediators with the same text as you just did. If you wish mediation, please fill out the forms at the mediation cabal. Sdedeo (tips) 23:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stop now

Please stop cutting and pasting the same text to dozens of users. This is spam, and it is not acceptable. Sdedeo (tips) 23:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked you for 15 minutes - please do not post your request for mediation simultaneously to so many users. The high frequency of your edits fills up a live log of edits to Wikipedia, and was borderline disruptive. However, I know you have a genuine desire to communicate, so I have just blocked your account briefly - once it expires, you are welcome to contribute to the project. However, for the moment, I would advise a bit of restraint with your editing behaviour - other administrators will probably block you again if you repost the request for mediation.

I am an administrator on Wikipedia, and a contributor to this project for over a year. I need a bit of time to go through your contributions so I have an idea of what your grievances with the project are. I may not be address all your concerns immediately, but I will at least dedicate adequate time to do so.

If you would like to talk more, please come to my talk page - you can do so by clicking here. In the meantime, I need to be heading out - but I will be back later. Dispute resolution on Wikipedia is not something that can be instantly fixed, and takes a bit of time. I'm willling to look into your situation so, in the meantime, please relax - I'll do my best to address your concerns. You can also e-mail me as well. There is an "email this user" link on my talk page to the left. Regards, HappyCamper 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Notice

Hello Mr. Wolok. I sent a request to the Arbitration committee. What they will do is make a final decision since there are various parts to this puzzle I do not understand. I also understand that a numerous amount of advocates are assisting you. Next time, I suggest posting an inquiry here. I GUARANTEE you that someone will get back to you. scareslamfist 02:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do I have one advocate?

Do I have one advocate? I don't know. I know I have been requesting an advocate and mediation for over a month. I wrote the Wikipedia foundation. I called Jim Wales. I have no idea how Wikipedia works, and have been requesting help for long time. Someone by the name of Tom said I should start by editing an article on my home town and stay away from controversial subjects. To me this suggestion makes no sense for any number of reasons. I am no expert on my home town, and have zero interest in any article on my home town. I am just interested in seeing Hugh Everett's theory get a clear and fair presentation. Others have criticized my proposed addition for containing original research. Each time I read this criticism I can't stop laughing. How I wish I was capable of doing original research in theoretical physics. I supported everything I want to add on the talk pages of the article. I provided ample support for each and every point. With the sole exception of Lethe, I don't think there is any current theoretical quantum, relativistic, or cosmological physicist who would object to anything I wish to add. For the record here it is again:


Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It does away with Bohr's "principle of complementarity." It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. Einstein mainly objected to quantum mechanics because it was not a deterministic theory, and it required doing away with classical realism. Hugh Everett's theory automatically eliminates both these objections. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and to Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle resolves the fine-tuning problem, and how our universe started with such low entropy.

John Wheeler, a famous physicist and Everett's thesis advisor, put his name on Everett's thesis, but later criticized it as "carrying too much metaphysical baggage." Hugh Everett left physics because of the poor reception his theory received. It initially attracted no followers and was largely ignored. It gained adherents in the 1980s, and today is considered a mainstream interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Its popularity continues to grow.

Michael D. Wolok 03:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD professor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition. Please note that I have supported everything I wish to add on the talk page of the article, and nothing I wish to add is original research. I only wish I had the ability to do original research in theoretical physics. What I wish to add is necessary for the article to have no point of view. As the article stands now, it would be hard for anyone to understand why Hugh Everett's theory has so many adherents.

For a good explanation of Hugh Everett's Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics please see Michael Clive Price's Hugh Everett FAQ: http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

Hugh Everett's Interpretation does not add one equation to quantum mechanics. An article filled with equations only obscures the significance of his theory.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who reverts all my edits without commentary, and refuses to read what I write on the articles talk page.

I have tried reasoning with him on the article's talk pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Michael D. Wolok 03:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I could try to look into this. Is it still needed?
However, just a notice: don't post to this many users simultaneously, it isn't needed, and can be seen as spam. CP/M 04:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought I was pretty clear above that I was willing to help you. I also thought that you were clear in not wanting to take this to arbitration immediately. I'd be glad to investigate and talk to any users you feel are not treating you fairly regardless of how this "case" progresses. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Savidan,

   I don't know who you are.  I do not want to take this to arbitration at this time.  Do you understand the issue?  I appreciate your offer to help me.

Michael D. Wolok 05:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


BTW, just in case you didn't check, I've replied you on my talk page (just not to split everything). Also, please check and fill up the MedCab case.
-- CP/M 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I did not ask my case be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee.

Dear Myles,

> I will forward your case to the Arbitration Committee

I requested an advocate and help with mediation. I did not ask my case be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee. I am not familiar with the arbitration process or its function.

> since you are being so flippant

I have not been flippant at all. I have addressed you seriously, politely and with courtesy you did not afford me.

> you will not appreciate the fact that I have been trying to help you.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

> If you want a rule free encyclopedia, try www.uncyclopedia.org

Again, this is a non-sequitur. I never said I wanted a rule free encyclopedia. To the contrary, I had hoped Wikipedia had more structure and more rules, not less. There is a difference between having esoteric, arcane rules only known by few and usable by a few, and having rules that give everyone a fair shake.

> I have no clue if you have been trying to get an advocate for a month

You would have noticed this if you had read my talk page or the talk page of the article, or if you had asked.

> I joined yesterday.

And you are all ready an advocate, administrator or moderator? How did that happen? I am looking for someone with experience who knows how Wikipedia operates.

> With All Due Respect,

This is a rather flippant salutation. It is you who have been flippant, not I.

Sincerely yours, Michael D. Wolok

[edit] Advocate

Hello, I see you are having trouble and are looking for someone to assist you. Your request has been entered at Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. Please go to that page and search on "Wolok" and you will see that another user posted a message there containing your e-mail asking for help. As you will also see, the list of people needing help is a bit lengthy at the moment. It may take a little time, but assure you that someone will pick up your case. Please be patient. In the meantime, please stop contacting lots of people about this. Since you think our rules are arcane, please take some time to read up on them. they are all at Wikipedia:Policy. Best, Johntex\talk 07:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael,

have you seen my comments in your "Didn't know I had a talk page" section? In addition to my above comments I should point out that most of your points have been incorporated into the "Advantages of MWI" section; further expansion would probably dilute the message for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Whilst I understand your displeasure at having some of your changes reverted you should realise that this is inevitable until you get the hang of Wikipedia's style -- and this will take awhile I assure you. I've been here a few months and I still regard myself a newbie. There are lots of concepts and techniques to master. I've been careful about making large edits and stepping on people's toes and advise you to do likewise; the advice you were given about starting with non-controversial areas such as your home town was VERY good advice IMO -- it would have given you time to get aquainted with everything. Rome wasn't built in a day and (as the Romans found) it was easier to burn down than to build.

Yours sincerely --Michael C Price 07:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOL block

You appear to be an AOL user. The blocks you are experiencing on some pages is due to the way AOL quickly reshuffles IP addresses among its users. You are being blocked sometimes on some pages due to a previous AOL user being blocked using that same IP. See Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users. NoSeptember 09:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MWI

OK, I've read the archived talk page. I would give you the same advice: work from the current version of the text, changing what you want and making additions, rather than attempting to replace it wholesale with your original text. Is there one of your original bullet points that you feel is not covered in the current article at all? In answer to your question, I have actually heard of MWI but do not considered myself an expert or even well-read on this issue. Perhaps it would be easier for us to communicate though another medium. You can email me using the "email this user" feature on the toolbox on the left of your screen while viewing my user or talk page. Alternatively, if you have AOL instant messenger, you can contact me at c6o6s6m6o. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to reversions

I was able to find out what you originally wrote on my talk page using the history function. First of all, I need to know what kind of articles you've been working on. Once I know that I can begin the mediation process. Bobcheezy 16:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{unblock}}

{{unblock}}

I have been unable to edit Garzo's talk page for the past 12 hours or more. When I try to edit his talk page, I get the following error message:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Lucky 6.9 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Mds92". The reason given for Mds92's block is: "User flamed my e-mail with attacks over a lousy 24-hour block.". Your IP address is 205.188.116.8.

Yet, Lucky 6.9 claims to have left the Wikipedia project long ago. This is very frustrating.

Michael D. Wolok 16:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This appears to have been an autoblock. It seems like you're able to edit at the moment, so apparently it has been resolved. Kind regards, --JoanneB 17:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent comments

Hi, you left some comments on the Esperanza talk page. I think you got there by clicking the wrong part of a user's signature. I'm not sure who they were intended for, which user were you directing your comments at? --JoanneB 17:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unblock

I am not able to edit Garzo's page. I am also not able to edit your page. Even though I can edit articles I am blocked from editing many user talk pages. These blocks are intended for other individuals. Some of these blocks were put in effect by people who left the Wikipedia project.

Michael D. Wolok 17:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You can never be blocked for one specific page, so if you're not able to edit a page like that, something else is going on. It's possible that those users have their talk page protected, but in this case, that's not true. Are you sure that you can't edit this? . --JoanneB 17:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you are possibly an AOL user. As the block template you added says "If the block message says that your IP address is blocked or that your IP address was recently used by a blocked user, please paste the block message or post your IP address below as we have no way of unblocking you if your username itself was not blocked.". We need the full information to be able to look into this. --pgk(talk) 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a AOL user. I included all the information here, but now it is gone. I will try to retieve it again.

Michael D. Wolok 18:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lethe violates all these Wikipedia rules

Lethe violates all these Wikipedia rules. Is there anything that can be done about this?

To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism.

Especially, remember to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules. Correcting a newly added sentence that you know to be wrong is also much better than simply deleting it.

You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold.

Avoidance The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to.

[edit] Hi, you left some comments on the Esperanza talk page

I was trying to leave the comment on Savidan's talk page. What is the Esperanza talk page?

Michael D. Wolok 17:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you're looking for this page: User talk:Savidan. The Esperanza talk page is this page: Wikipedia talk:Esperanza, it's a page for a community within Wikipedia. I can see how it got you confused, I'll move your comment from there to his page. --JoanneB 17:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, JoanneB, the last I checked I am also blocked from editing your talk page. How am I able to communicate with Garzo? "HappyCamper" told me he would be the best person to help me. I don't know how I confused the Esperanza talk page with Savidan's talk page.

Michael D. Wolok 17:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you hit an autoblock again, but it's hard to solve that without more information, see the message Pgk left. As for confusing Savidan's talk page with Esperanza's: if he's a member, he might have a green letter in his signature indicating that. That letter links to Esperanza instead of his user page. So you probably accidentally clicked the wrong part of his signature, leading you to Esperanza's page. --JoanneB 18:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That is exactly what happened. Warmest and kindest regards, Michael Michael D. Wolok 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)





[edit] unblock

I am an AOL user, this is the message I get when I try to edit Joanne's talk page.Michael D. Wolok 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am an AOL user. Please unblock the following IP address.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Prodego for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Vandalism has been coming from this AOL range, sorryYour IP address is 152.163.100.138.

You were blocked by Prodego for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Vandalism has been coming from this AOL range, sorry Your IP address is 152.163.100.138.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by King of Hearts for the following reason (see our blocking policy): vandalism Your IP address is 152.163.100.138.

Michael D. Wolok 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael D. Wolok 21:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This User is an AOL User

[edit] Respond to your posts

I read what you wrote in the article you were working on. None of it seemed like it was wrong. I might not be an expert on the topic, but I don't understand why Lethe keeps reverting. If you find out why, just respond on my talk page Bobcheezy 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please bare in mind Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy becuase your recent edits to Bill Gates, below, seem to not meet the requirements, and could be seen as a point of view writing.

“
 MS-DOS became the defacto standard because IBM used it in their PC. Bill Gates then refused to sell MS-DOS to any computer manufacturer that offered micro-computers with any other OS. This was a clear violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Bill Gates continued this illegal practice for many years, and it enabled him to build his company to an unprecedented level. When no US Attorney General would enforce the law, more than a dozen Attorney Generals from different states filed suit against Microsoft. They won their case, but the companies that lost out were never made whole. In the early years of MS-DOS, Professor Gary Kildall, himself, came-out with a competitive product called DR DOS. Microsoft refused to sell MS-DOS to any computer manufacturer who also offered their customers DR DOS. Since no computer manufacturer could remain in business without selling MS-DOS, they all caved-in to Microsoft's demands.
”

Iolakana|(talk) 16:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non technical guide to MWI

Michael, we have two mutually exclusive views on how the MWI article should be written. Some people view MWI as a technical subject. Technical articles here are written to a very high, but usually accessible, level. Other people wish for a less technical article on the grounds, presumably, that MWI is of interest to a wider audience than other technical subjects (e.g. fourier transforms) usually are. And it seems there are very divergent writing styles involved as well. There doesn't seem much possibility of a meeting of minds between the two camps, so I suggest that non-tech's write their own MWI guide the way they wish, whilst the techs carry on with the exant article. Sound fair? There is already an introduction to quantum mechanics article. Type in "introduction to MWI" hit "Go" and you're off...

If you wish to import the entire Everett FAQ into it to get started feel free. I'm quite happy to contribute edits as well, if you don't mind. It's up to you.

--Michael C. Price talk 19:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I have filed a request for comments about your behavior. -lethe talk + 14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Hi Digital Me,

I'm sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier, as I was rather busy in real life. It looks like you don't need my help anymore, as an RfC has been opened. In any case, I would rather remain neutral and not get involved in this edit warring.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your problems

I'm sorry you've had a bad experience at Wikipedia. I responded to you hastily myself, and I'd like to mention some things that might give some context, although they don't excuse it.

  1. Bill Gates gets a lot of bona fide vandalism. That warning banner at the top was added by me because I was tired of seeing "chief software architect" changed to "chief asshole" 20 times a day.
  2. I had a previous experience (which you can still see on the talk page) with someone who cited a source very confidently that turned out to say exactly the opposite of what he claimed. I've been more suspicious of any new claims added to the article since then.

I have a different opinion of Bill Gates than you. You will not persuade me that he is the "biggest software pirate who ever lived," and suggesting changes in such terms will just produce friction. That's not how POV disputes get resolved. They are resolved by finding the common factual ground from which people form their views. (It doesn't help to try to preemptively martyr yourself by announcing that your remarks are so dangerous to the establishment that Bill Gates himself will have them removed. I truly hope you weren't serious.)

The Caldera litigation claims that DOS 1.0 was a clone of CP/M. It certainly was. Everyone knows that. It's just as important to understand precisely what that means. It was a system that provided applications with all the functions that CP/M did, but using 16-bit numbers instead of 8-bit. You cannot make a program run on a completely different processor class just by tweaking it a little, and that's not what Paterson did, and that's not what the legal brief says he did. He wrote the OS himself, using CP/M as a reference for how it should behave. It's the same process that was used to make GNU and Linux behave like UNIX, WINE to behave like Windows, and DR-DOS to behave like MS-DOS. If it were illegal (which, under Lotus v. Borland, it is not), everyone who tried to make products compatible with other vendors' products would be sued.

Reverting edits is routine on Wikipedia. It is not a special power of lethe or any other user. The only caveat is that it should be explained, discussed, and not done thoughtlessly. Reverting is how we defend the integrity of the encyclopedia from people who edit in bad faith, while keeping it open to those who don't. Unfortunately it is often clearer in hindsight whether someone was editing in bad faith. If someone reverts you, try to understand why first. If you don't understand, ask. Then discuss it with them, being sure to listen as much as you speak. Gazpacho 01:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If DR or Caldera had been able to demonstrate that DOS was "modified CP/M code", and especially if it was done in the dramatic way you suggest, I tend to think there would be a paper trail. But not even the most hostile Gates biographers (for example, Wendy Goldman Rohm) make any mention of it. Gazpacho 04:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/User_talk%7EMichael_D._Wolok_b164.html"