User talk:Michaelbusch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Re: Jumbling Vanalism Again??

I have read the terms mike. You take out my edits claiming "bias", yet allow "They are best known for their lively and witty performances along with an original sound." This is just a "biased". You nor I can prove that they are "witty" or maintain some sort of "original sound", no more than you can prove the statements I wrote that you have omitted. make up your mind pleae. And please stop correcting an article maybe two people veiw a year. Thanks.

I've flagged the entire article as unencyclopedic and nominated it for deletion, because, as you say, it is biased and low-traffic. That an article is low-traffic is not a reason to not correct it, although it may be a reason to remove it. There have been many requests that editors pay more attention to such articles. Michaelbusch 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You make wikipedia fun for all.

[edit] Re: Jumbling Towers Vandalism

Hey Mike. I have noticed that you ignorantly removed my section and review information from the Jumbling Towers wiki article. My buddy Tyler and I keep this up (seeing as we both wrote it) to date as more reviews/achievments/information becomes available on the band. We (the band and I) are childhood friends. I would not "vandalize" something about my comrades that I wrote. That's proposterous. You are attacking the very people who are adding truth and credibility to wikipedia. Nothing on their page is advertisment, it is band reviews and anything else the guys decide to delve into. Thanks.

I ask that you please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. Michaelbusch 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User talk:Michaelgotta

I'm sorry you feel like I'm vandalizing Wikipedia Michaelbusch, but I wasn't. My edit on Angels was very much truthful. I have a friend that is an Angelologist and told me all about what she has studied. I was trying to make a real contribution. The red hair edits were by my friend messing around, and he logged into my account. And by the way, I have no idea where Herndon is, such as its state or any major cities by it, and I don't use RoadRunner internet service. Are you stalking someone in Herndon????--Michael 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michaelgotta"

Response posted at User talk:Michaelgotta:
You may have a problem. The IP 71.79.152.73, which traces to a RoadRunner address in Herndon, VA, was used to vandalize the Red hair article, leaving the name "Mike Gotta" in various inappropriate locations. Similarly, edits listed to you (see [[1]]) on the Red Hair article constitute vandalism. I was wondering if there was a connection. It is possible that there is a duplicate user name or it may merely be a coincidence.
I am afraid that your recent edits to Angel do constitute vandalism, under Wikipedia:Vandalism concerning addition to nonsense and non-NPOV material. "My friend told me" does not constitute a reliable source or, more applicable in this case, evidence for widely-held opinion. The style of writing also needs work (please see Wikipedia:Style. I also wonder why IP 24.154.210.229, which traces to Armstrong Cable Services, vandalized the Angel article in a manner similar to your recent edits.
Your edits to St. Vincent - St. Mary High School do follow Wikipedia policy.
I am out of my depth here. I will place notice of this problem to the Admins. I apologize for the confusion and any offense. Michaelbusch 06:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
How can I make my post about angels from a reliable source? It's her field of study, and I think she knows more about what she is talking about than someone that just says something about the root meaning of angel or something. I won't re-post it until I know how to make it reliable then. There must either be a duplicate user name about the service because I don't even know where Herndon, VA is. I still think its bad you can track people like that, and you should stop. Where someone lives is their personal business, and you shouldn't be able to figure that out from an IP address. Please stop trying to figure out where I'm from. I forgive you, but I don't think it's your position to threaten to block me, either, unless you're an admin. Thanks for your concern.--Michael 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Reliable sources must be citable, verifiable, and not speculative. So, for example, it is entirely reasonable to give a history of angels as they appear in the Judeo-Christian, Islamic, or Zoroasterian traditions, but it is not at all reasonable to give a paragraph of speculation based on depictions of angels in Renaissance-style Western European paintings, unless it is part of a discussion of depictions of angels in Art.
Note: Concerning IP-tracing: this is an infrequently used but trivial command in networking, most commonly used to locate malfunctioning machines. Because you have registered as a user of Wikipedia, your edits can no longer be traced to a particular IP.
It is Wikipedia policy to allow users to warn suspected vandals of blocks. However, only Admins can enforce blocks. Currently, User:Konstable is investigating what has happened. Michaelbusch 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Michaelgotta

I have looked at this guy, the "my friend hacked into my account" excuse is the oldest excuse in the vandal handbook. So it was definitely him I say. But he seems to be making decent edits now, so I would just let him be and watch him for now. I will blacklist him on IRC for the bots.--Konst.ableTalk 10:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: C-type Asteroid Compositions

I don't know what I've been thinking when I mixed up those words, thanks for fixing them... I'll probably replace the current asteroid templates at some point in the future, so I can fix the words at the same time. Unfortunately, I ought to do more acute and important business (like writing my thesis), so I don't know soon I can start that.

PS. Please don't clear your talk page; it makes replying to older comments difficult.--JyriL talk 20:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk pages

Hi Michael,

I notice you removed a talk section over at Talk:2 Pallas that was made partly reduntant by your subsequent post. Presumably just to clean things up and make it easier to read for later, but the usual procedure is just to append "the latest word" at the end of the section - or make a new section at the end that deals with the issue (You might want to check out WP:TPG). Some people find it annoying when their old comments are removed without asking :-)

By the way, your edits to the asteroids are much appreciated! Looks like you're pretty well informed on the issue. Deuar 14:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input at User_talk:Kheider#Occulation_Chords. -- Kheider 20:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecliptic coordinates

Yes, indeed ecliptic coordinates are much more sensible and much more used. I used to put only them into the articles I edited, but other editors complained because they're more used to the RA/DEC coordinates. We could have a go at revamping them to straight ecliptic coords again and see if there is a cry of protest (there's probably a dozen or two articles to do). Deuar 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Herschel

Michael,

With regards to whether William Herschel was considered an "amateur astronomer", I have to respectfully disagree. There is a considerable number of references to him being regarded as an amateur,[2][3][4][5] including the Encyclopædia Britannica. If you have a good reference to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. labeling Herschel as an amateur astronomer: if he had lived today, I would certainlly have no problems labeling him as such. The problem is that except for a very limited number of universities and a few wealthy patrons, all astronomers at the time were amateurs in the modern sense (Herschel is perhaps the best known). So it is really a matter of semantics. I would prefer to reference William Herschel, without any qualifiers, but that is strictly a stylistic choice.

No matter. I have some lingering disagreement with your viewpoint, but we'd just be arguing over a minor matter. Have a good one. — RJH (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Juno

Yes, I do have a larger version of the GIF animation. I had cropped the images to save space, which is for WP is not such a big problem. Thanks for the feedback! Awolf002 02:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 EL61

Hiya - it applied to the main article... the talk page lost me even more! Lots of the technical items have wikilinks which are great, but also several don't, which could probably do with a bit of explanation. Cheers! --PopUpPirate 01:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Great work, I've removed the tag. --PopUpPirate 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the good fight

I see you've been fighting the good fight against Celestia images over at 1 Ceres. They seem to have become a plague all over the place recently. At least there has been partial respite from Trans-Neptunian nicknames after Eris got its proper name. ;-) Cheers! Deuar 20:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Popper's comment in the "Dwarf Planets" discussion

Hi Michael, I am Michael Popper's son in law, and I wanted to explain why I posted his "Soapbox" response in the Dwarf Planets discussion page. Mr. Popper is a 73 year old former architect, with great interest in astronomy. He had thought of the idea of re-classifying planets in the manner which he described years ago and the recent decision regarding Pluto convinced him to publish it. As Mr. Popper underwent serious surgery a week and a half ago, I was given the task of publishing this paragraph, and couldn't think of a better place than Wikipedia. I see why you would see this new classification idea as "Soapbox" material, but I really must publish this somewhere to make Mr. Popper happy and I have no other ideas regarding where to publish this piece.

I hope you understand the situation.

Best regards, Tal Ayalon

[edit] Re: references to Ceres

Please hold off on reverting the asteroids before you read the reference! --Ckatzchatspy 05:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Before you revert, please read (and discuss) the info - it's quite clear. If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit the mistake and restore everything, but I want to discuss it first. --Ckatzchatspy 05:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that you hold off as well. Let's take five minutes and resolve this. As I said, I'm more than willing to admit it if I've made a mistake. --Ckatzchatspy 05:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a page from the MPC: [6]. They break down objects into "planets", "dwarf planets", and then "asteroids" etc. Ceres is listed under "dwarf planets". --Ckatzchatspy 05:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You stated "calling it an asteroid is meaningful, because that describes the evolutionary process that the object has been through." I don't disagree that including the term "asteroid" is an important component of describing Ceres. Believe me, I'm not one to suddenly "forget" the past just because a new term comes along. However, I do believe in using the terminology as defined by the governing body for a particular field. You also said "Similarly, Pluto and Eris should first be called 'plutino' and 'scattered disc object' and then be called dwarf planets. I dislike meaningless terminology." This is where we differ, as I don't think it is our place (or Wikipedia's) to "define" what the correct term is for an object. --Ckatzchatspy 06:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael: thank you for discussing this matter. I also appreciate that you so clearly outlined your position on this matter:

"Re. naming conventions: you are correct that Wikipedia should not dictate terminology. I am perhaps biased in this respect, being both human and a planetary scientist. That said, I can confidently say that few scientists will call Ceres a dwarf planet."

I appreciate the effort - there have been a lot of astronomy-related debates that have devolved into rather aggressive arguments lately. Further to your suggestion, I agree that it would be good to keep this subject open for discussion. --Ckatzchatspy 06:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vulcanoids

Actually, asteroids or planetoids are minor planets, according to the article. Minor planets in our solar system are now termed dwarf planets. Mrwuggs 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for clearing that up. You seem to be fairly up on the dwarf thing; do you know if there are any hypothetical dwarf planets you can add to the list? Mrwuggs 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. And unlike with Lilith, there are not more and one hypothsized body of its same type in the system. Probably the category is not useful until someone comes forward with and idea about ours being a 3 star system. Mrwuggs 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo 10 revert

I see that you reverted my recent changes to the Apollo 10 "Crew" section. My changes were a result of some discussion in the Space missions WikiProject. I have received a few comments since my changes and I'm inviting everyone with interest to join that discussion so we can build consensus on how best to present all the information in question.
--3Idiot 13:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vesta

Surely, though, even if the discussion on MPC numbers is too long, the symbol ought to be there? I explains why there's several forms of the symbol (different ways of simplifying a very complex original). Adam Cuerden talk 00:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, aye, it got a little long. Added in just the most relevant part, which clarifies instead of complicating. Minor Planet numbers probably deserve their own article, which my original sketching out would fit in better. Adam Cuerden talk 00:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid Symbols

From B.A. Gould. It's in the image information - click on the symbol and I give a potted history for each one in the description. Adam Cuerden talk 21:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Query: I am right in thinking that drawing a symbol which was described, but, as far as is known, never drawn due to Gould's paper coming out soon after the symbol was proposed, would be horrible, horrible cruft, and that it would be better just to put, at most, the description into the article? Adam Cuerden talk 23:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randi materials

It will take me a while (and I am in no hurry. I hate bats, rats, anacondas, spiders and other creepy things) to dig into my cold spooky archives to find the sources of my other stuff on Randi. The bullet proof vest, the attempt to burn Randi's records, hit man for scientific blah blah, etc. I'll make an attempt soon? I think this material should be added because it shows Randi became a target. User:Kazuba 14 Oct 2006

[edit] Fahrenheit

I have again reverted your additions to the Fahrenheit article. They do not seem relevant to the article, and more importantly, are misleading. For many years, the American public educational system has been required to teach in SI, at least in the physical sciences, so saying that most Americans have "at most a cursory understanding of the Celsius scale" is at least bad wording and at worst completely incorrect. Saying that Americans "often find themselves bewildered and confused by weather reports in Celsius" is both uncited and very difficult to verify.

You may raise these issues on the article's talk page if you wish, but do not add the material back again without broad consensus. Michaelbusch 19:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I would appreciate it if you would cease your blanket-reverting. "Broad consensus" is not required for NPOVing an article. And the article before I got there had an anti-Fahrenheit POV and tone. Phrases like "Fahrenheit supporters claim" should be avoided. When you say that someone "claims" something, the implication is that they're claiming something dubious. Words like assert are better and more neutral. I've done a lot of editing on Wikipedia before, but I usually don't like to have a user name, as I don't like to get too invested in ongoing issues. But just because I'm editing as an IP user doesn't give anyone carte blance to blanket revert good faith edits.
As for Americans' ignorance of celsius, you can mark that with an uncited tag if you like. Citations for that shouldn't be hard at all to find, and I can find some the next time I'm online. I don't know if you're American, or if you have much experience talking with Americans about this, but I am and I do. And yes, they do teach us celsius in school - for I'd say about a grand total of maybe a couple hours. So yeah, if we have a good memory, we'll know that 0 degrees is freezing, 100 is boiling, and maybe that 37 is body temperature, but if we come to Canada and hear on the weather forecast that it's gonna be 15 tomorrow, we're probably not gonna know what that is. It's like learning a new language, you can take a couple Spanish classes, but that doesn't make you a Spanish speaker.
Anyhow, please discuss this more before just reverting all the work that I've put into the article. Thank you.

~Fahrenheit User (Maybe I'll make this my new Wikipedia sn if it's not taken)

Note: Ckatz returned Fahrenheit to the version I have been maintaining at 00:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC), on grounds of removing America-centric material. I concur with this statement. Michaelbusch 01:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space mining...

Re these edits well done... thanks for the updates. Mikker (...) 04:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota Zoo

Since you opt to revert instead of discuss, I did for you. Please respond at Talk:Minnesota Zoo#List of animals. Cburnett 17:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary of response: Listing even a quarter of the species at the zoo is excessive and pointless. I would approve of a list of a few of the most note-worthy, but the bulk aren't needed (like the beaver, the ermine weasel, or the peregrine falcon). Michaelbusch 19:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Summary of response to response: you are reading into policy. Cburnett 19:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Note:I have just heavily edited the Minnesota Zoo article to cut out material that should be in WikiTravel. Michaelbusch 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award you this barnstar for some hard anti-vandal work :). ¤~Persian Poet Gal 03:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prabir Ghosh

Hi Michael, which are the specific areas or lines/sentences that you found lacking balance, or sounding like praise? That may help me to fix the places. Regards. <<This unsigned comment was added by User:Pinaki ghosh.>>

[edit] Moderately Red Spectral class

When a KBO's spectral class is called '(moderately red)' what does that mean? Does that mean it does not reflect well in the visible light but reflects better in the infrared? Or does it mean that object is reddish in color? 50000 Quaoar, 20000 Varuna, and 28978 Ixion are all listed as such. 38628 Huya says, "appears to be dark red, suggesting it is covered with ancient organic chemistry." Thanks -- Kheider 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'Red' in this context means that the object is relatively more reflective in the red and near-infrared than in the blue (the reflectance spectrum slopes upward toward red). Such spectra on outer solar system objects are often caused by organic compounds, such as tholins. However, to the unaided eye these objects would be brownish or black, because of their low albedos. Michaelbusch 01:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So on the plot (TNO Colors) I assume that both 1994 ES2 and 2001 KP77 would be red? -- Kheider 23:15, 2 November 2006

Yes. Redder objects have higher V-R and B-V. On this plot, (0,0) is equal magnitude in all three bands. This is not quite the same as a perfectly white, because the bands are broad, but a white object would be at (0,0). A blue object would plot at negative B-V and negative V-R. Michaelbusch 23:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So would 1994 ES2 be redder than 2001 KP77? -- Kheider Talk Page 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. 1994 ES2 has higher V-R, but much lower B-V. This means that ES2 has relatively more blue in its spectrum as compared to KP77. So if we looked only between V & R, ES2 would be more red, but if we looked only between B & V, KP77 would be redder. This simply is a problem with the definition of redness. Michaelbusch 23:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Michael. -- Kheider 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sedna and Varuna Albedos

Hello Michael; I was wondering if you could answer a question for me on Talk:90377 Sedna. Thanks Kheider 08:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

Nicely stated, and well done. Hopefully, it will make an impression. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uhhh...

You kinda got rid of my comments for the discussion page of the article "united nations". Can I get the reason(s) why? I dont think ur allowed to do that....mikeal 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I must apologize. I was reverting a vandal (66.199.192.2) who had deleted a lot of content. Apparently I reverted too far. Michaelbusch 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thanx for the tip for my userpagemikeal 13:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceres

Hi Michael,

You have recently reverted my edit to Ceres (dwarf planet). Your edit summary is just rv. Can I ask why you reverted? Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it because asteroid belt automatically refers to the main asteroid belt: there are no others in the solar system. There are other groups of asteroids, and there is the Kuiper Belt, but those are not the same thing. Michaelbusch 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not really what our article asteroid belt says: "It is termed the main belt when contrasted with other concentrations of minor planets, since these may also be termed asteroid belts. In this usage, it often refers only to the greatest concentration of bodies with semi-major axes between the 4:1 and 2:1 Kirkwood gaps at 2.06 and 3.27 AU, with eccentricities less than about 0.33, and with inclinations below about 20°." In fact, I have also seen the Kuiper Belt referred to as an asteroid belt, so a little clarity here would be good. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sacrament revert question

Hello.

You recently reverted my addition to the Sacrament article. Your summary just says 'rv.' What was your reasoning behind the action you took?

I do not think that the reference you added is appropriate for Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 22:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that it was inappropriate because it was an audio link, or because of the content of that link? --72.72.127.238 22:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Michaelbusch 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize that audio links were inappropriate. My apologies. --72.72.127.238 22:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They aren't necessarily, but they are to be used carefully. Michaelbusch 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can agree on that. --72.72.127.238 23:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your user page

I just want to say that I saw your user page and I agree with it. You could add Alfred Wegener to Einstein, Tesla, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

PS, if you are not aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience, you might be interested. However they are not very active. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal. Bubba73 (talk), 04:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless?

I'm curious as to why you considered my contribution to (136108) 2003 EL61 "pointless". The provided information was not in the article, and I was providing a source. -unsigned, posted by ZacharyBurnham.

The nicknames for the objects have been known for the past two years (Mike and his students and everyone else in the department here has been using them, and they are posted on his website). Citing your personal conversation with Mike is not a proper citation, and is pointless. The article does give Blitzen as the nickname for the second moon. Michaelbusch 18:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, if someone indicates that a statement is original research...

Hi, if someone indicates that a statement is original research, that implies the analysis is an unpublished argument, it doesn't imply the argument is false. Thanks, Addhoc 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of my removing the tag was that the citations for the argument is given later in the article. Michaelbusch 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ========JOHN TEDWARDS====

You're not a good editor.

[edit] == Artist Contributions ==

Hi Michael Busch,

I'm confused. My company is working on a science visualization project with Ann Druyan and she suggested I contribute some of my work to wikipedia. I'm a novice at this but I can't understand how contributing images are "vandalism". Could you help me out here? I read the wiki page you suggested and I can't for the life of me figure out where I was in error.

I'm a scientist, not a wiki expert. Thanks in advance for your feedback.

First rule of graphics on Wikipedia: only add them if they are useful. Your portrayal of Ceres is non-useful: it is just a textured sphere (we've had people adding similar pictures made using the program Celestia) and bears only a passing resembleance to the actual object, so it is deleted in the interests of clarity. Your portrayal of a carbon atom is actively misleading: even if you can see the orbitals, they don't look at all like that. Your graphic of a skull is fine as far as it goes, but replacing the labeled anatomy image with an unlabled CG is removal of content and vandalism, because you are removing something and putting something less informative in its place.
With regards to adding your own work to Wikipedia: you must be incredibly careful or you will hit conflict of interest (see WP:COI). This is what I meant by 'this is not a free gallery': you shouldn't go around posting your own graphics to articles without at least some support by other editors. The same applies to editing articles about yourself. Michaelbusch 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I added my blog address that the upload form asked for a link to my site for copyright purposes, to show that I did own the copyright in order to make the contribution. I really don't care if its on there. Is this what you mean? The only edit I've made to the article on me was fixing a broken link. I noticed it when I saw the page and corrected it. Was this inappropriate? The skull image was based on a hand digitized 3d model of a real skeleton and is extremely accurate. The contribution states that we should "be bold".

We're building an animation for a documentary that shows what it would be like to fly in from the edge of the Milky Way to Earth, flybys of planets, zooming in through the human body. I was planning on contributing a number of the stills to wikipedia because I believe it's a valuable resource. I don't need credit. Do I just upload the images and let other people post them? Sorry about all the questions. Thanks for your patience.

I merely made the comment about articles concerning you as a standard warning. So far you haven't done anything terribly inappropriate on that front. With regards to images: reading the above, someone could get the impression you are advertising your film. This would be blatant conflict of interest (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). I'm willing to accept that you are editing in good faith, but it is probably best if you don't any images by yourself. You could suggest images for inclusion in articles on the corresponding talk pages (something along the lines of 'I'm working on this for a film. Would it help the article?'). Concerning the skull: I was not saying that it is inaccurate, just that it is less informative for the reader to see a graphic than a labeled chart. Good luck with the documentary. It reminds me of the classic powers-of-ten exhibit. Michaelbusch 17:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Powers of Ten fully animated. If any of the images on http://bryanbrandenburg.blog.com are useful, feel free to use them on wikipedia. I don't need a credit. There just my own storyboards for the animations.

Now I just noticed that the Wiki page for Bryan Brandenburg is being deleted. Was this for contributing images?

There are concerns about WP:COI and the article being unencyclopedic. It is not related to your adding images. Michaelbusch 18:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan's images

Could I talk you into not tagging Mr. Brandenburg's images for speedy deletion? Unless you have reason to doubt that he has the authority to release them under the GFDL, they are properly licensed images that we may be able to use in the future (although possibly not in the articles he wants to add them to, currently). If the images are inaccurate or not useful (like the Ceres one may be, according to your comments above), nominate them for deletion. I'd rather not see you and he get into a conflict over some images that may, in fact, be of use to the project. CSD #I5 is actually only for unfree images. -- nae'blis 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not immediately tag future images uploaded by Bryan. Michaelbusch 20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main asteroid belt

Hi, ok - I wasn't aware of that, I'll fix up the wording in Sylvia in a moment. The terminology in a couple of articles probably needs some tweaking as well. What about high inclination groups, like e.g. 2 Pallas? To what degree do they get referred to as the main belt? Cheers, Deuar 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much anything with semi-major axis between that of Mars and Jupiter and inclination less than say 45º would be classed as an MBA (the inclination cutoff is fuzzy). Certainly Pallas is in the belt. Michaelbusch 17:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] gravitational tractor

Hi. The new version looks good.

Best wishes,

Robinh 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] completing the square

I am puzzled by your questioning the relevance of the new section I added to completing the square. It is relevant because it is about completing the square. And it explicitly says so. If you think that's incorrect, why don't you say that, rather than acting as if you haven't read the new section. Michael Hardy 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see you want an edit war, expressing your arguments ONLY in edit summaries. Articles should demonstrate, when possible, that topics are broader than what the reader was taught in school as a child. This is one such case. Michael Hardy 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've requested third opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Michael Hardy 03:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


I do not want an edit war. I want additions like this to be supported by consensus before they are added. This addition is not directly related to the point of the article. Broadness is fine (although the proof you provide is not terribly broad). Math with no apparent purpose is not (i.e. why should we care that you can prove that 1/x + x >= 2 ? And why should that go in this article?). I don't think it adds anything of substance to the article, and it makes the article more confusing (at least to me). IF there were consensus, I would not object. Thank you for putting out the request. Michaelbusch 03:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not a vandal

Yes I was being a bit naughty before, but I don't think I did anything this time. I will stop writing silly things. Thanx for warning me. Sorry about the wikicook book thing, I didn't realise there already was one, and I didn't know how else to show my ideas. Asteroidz R not planetz 14:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikicook book was fine. What was not fine was your making articles, re-directs, and templates which are wordy, inaccurate, and outmoded by previous articles. Also not fine is adding blatant nonsense to articles, which you have done once since setting up your present account. Please review Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas and Wikipedia:Style.
Additional note: I have nominated a template you created, Template:Peeerreview, for deletion. You are mis-using the template feature, which is designed to add text to a large number of articles. Also, its title != its subject. This may also be considered a repost of deleted content. Michaelbusch 17:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise exactly what the peeerreview thing does. I didn't think it was as detailed. Sorry, I'm new, I didn't mean to cause you so much trouble. Thanx for asking me about it before you autoblocked me Asteroidz R not planetz 17:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just a template. Michaelbusch 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal either; I removed the reference to JZ Knight in the first paragraph because it implies negative systemic bias. The details of creators/ contributors to the film may be included elsewhere in the article, not anecdotally in the first few sentences. This article is still very much lacking in it's neutrality. what is your role? Do you work for wikipedia? I apologize if my editing of the article appeared to be vandalism. I ensure you it was not intended. I am neither for or against the topic of the article in question, I was simply correcting a clear error in NPOV. 14:41, 28 November 2006

The blatant vandalism was not removing the reference to JZ Knight. It was deleting the text relating to criticism of the movie. The movie has had more publicity from that than on its own. I do not think the article is NPOV. I admit to bias to purge pseudoscience from Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, immediate criticism in the article with no references or citation implies bias. Such information must be placed under separate headings further along in the article. Stating one side of an argument in the first few sentences is not acceptable. And if such statements are to be made, references and citations must be provided, of which there are still none. You have just told me that my deletions were vandalism due to the 'fact' that the film has received more attention for criticism than praise; can you cite any statistical references? If so please include them in the article. If not, it is conjecture, and should not be admitted. Again, what is your role with wikipedia? Are you a private citizen? If your goal is to push your own take on 'the truth' you are doing the wikipedia community a disservice. You are accusing others of vandalism, when you yourself are exacting bias for your own agenda. This article is not the place to enforce your own views. It is on a controversial film. If this film contains material you do not agree with, by all means create an "Arguments" section. But policing how the article is edited to suit your own paradigm is an abuse of power. 15:07, 28 November 2006

I have added a reference. My role on Wikipedia is simply to watch the portrayal of science and pseudoscience and make sure that this is accurate. This is a positive bias, because it leads to a better, more reliable, encyclopedia. I am only a grad student at Caltech, but this is Wikipedia. All editors are equal, with the possible exception of Jimbo Wales and the sysops. Michaelbusch 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Umm how come you acused me of being a vandal at my page?--"P-Machine" 05:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not. Those are the warnings I posted to User talk:Adopter, because of his vandalizing your pages. I copied them to you so that you knew about them. Michaelbusch 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks i think that the guy is a sock puppet of user bigblackguy890--"P-Machine" 05:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know, but the account has been blocked. Michaelbusch 06:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You saw his page about (vandilizing wikipedia is my anti drug) i mean that is just crazy i cannot tell if he was trying to offend wikipedia or be funny or both. well thanks--"P-Machine" 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Crop Circles

The NPOV tag is put there because of the flame war. The debate is over POV, is it not? Might as well inform the general public about it... iamthebob(talk|contribs) 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the tag is that it at some level implies an argument, as opposed to Tommysun's essentially one-man crusade. I also dislike calling attention to flaming. I find it embarassing to the encyclopedia. But I do see your point. Michaelbusch 05:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've debated with Tommy for a while... and it just really gets tired after a while how he can't accept the fact that there are people out there that don't follow his POV. Sad, really, but that's Wikipedia for you. Anyways, if there is NPOV at any point, the tag should be there. You never know how the article will be edited next. If Tommy makes an edit we would think there is NPOV, if we make an edit Tommy will think there is NPOV, so yeah. I don't know how to get it settled though... iamthebob(talk|contribs) 08:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ruby Falls

Just a note but there are no citations with the height of the falls or anything like that either, in addition the citation I have is several former employees word, I do not know how I would provide documentation. It was not intended as vanalism more so as enlightenment for future tourists.

[edit] Centrist Party

You might want to know that someone promptly removed your NPOV tag. I also find the article a bit puffy, though I'll admit I can't quickly pin down any POV statements. You might want to restore the tag and expand on your talk page remarks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You

You are the most horrid person I have ever had the misfortune to come across! Vandals like you do not belong on wikipedia! Sending people messages saying they've done something they haven't done is one thing, but threatening to block them is another! I hate you! grrrrrrrrrrrrr! You will spend an awfully long time in Purgatory! Rid yourself of me! You low-lifed, sycophatic, superlatively somniferous nimcompoop! Get out of my life! Good Riddance!!! Just plain evil 19:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

? Michaelbusch 19:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology acepted. Just plain evil 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary of events: I had placed a warning to a vandal on a shared IP that Just plain evil was also using. Michaelbusch 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hi, Michael!

I ran across your name at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and was interested to see (on your user page) that you're studying at Caltech. I'm an alumnus (Lloydie, 1973). I'm not sure if you want it or not, but you could use one of these: {{User Caltech}}.

You have written a very nice description of the problems with "pseudo science". You also endure quite a bit of abuse from vandals. You deserve a word of encouragement. Thank you for working so hard to make the Wikipedia a better resource for people everywhere. DavidCBryant 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. And I like the user box. Michaelbusch 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just so you know...

Hi, you could be interested in this... Addhoc 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am interested. Thanks for the information. Michaelbusch 16:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For your info, 209.244.42.3 posting on Talk:Crop circle is almost certainly just Tommy and not a newcomer. --BillC 23:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect as much, but thought I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Michaelbusch 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandenburg AfD Feedback Request

Hi, I was wondering if you had any constructive discussion to add to the Bryan Brandenburg deletion nomination. The nomination has been relisted due to lack of editor comments, so any discussion (for or against) which may lead to a consensus is welcome. Thanks. Dallben 08:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Organi Studios

Hey, I saw that you put a {{bv}} template on User_talk:Organi Studios. I was watching this user, which is something I do when I notice a string of vandalism or vanity so I can check back the next day to see if anything new has to be reverted. When I checked the user's contributions to remember which guy this was, however, I only saw one edit that wasn't blatant vandalism. Do you remember if this user had blatant vandalism edits that were deleted, like starting inappropriate articles that were speedied? Mistaking WP:YFA for the place to start articles is unfortunately very common, so it's more of a newbie mistake than blatant vandalism. Anyway, I was just curious if you remember anything worse, or if it would be okay if I removed the {{bv}} warning for being overly harsh and replaced it with {{vanity}}. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine. Organi Studios has only made one edit, which was to replace YFA with what looks a lot like an advertisement, but I have no problem with giving the benefit of the doubt. Michaelbusch 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk: Project Orion

Sorry, but I partially removed my own comments. I refused of some my words, to make an emphasis on the others, that's all. So it's not a vandalism. Thank you. ellol 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AGF

Howdy! I saw your edit here and wanted to drop you a quick note. 'Vandalism' is a bit harsh, it looked more like someone experimenting with or learning how to use Wikiediting. Check out WP:AGF if you haven't already, and try to avoid biting new folks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ellol is hardly a newcomer, but I see your point. I'm afraid I've developed bad habits from too much counter-vandalizing (if we can make this a word). Michaelbusch 20:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rocket Man

I understand how a pop song is interpreted is very important to you. Lots of people have strong emotional attachments to particular items, such that they dislike contrary views. However, on Wikipedia, we tend to defer to the compromise solution of representing all points of view. This minor policy is called NPOV. I will not argue the point, as its just an interpretation, but I take no shortage of pleasure in reminding people that it is a great error to think Wikipedia should value pruning more than planting. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 00:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular attachment to the article, and I understand your last point. Thank you for the reminder. But I must give you one in turn. In this instance, you did not follow NPOV, because you deleted the common interpretation and put what I assume is your own in its place. More generally, neutral point-of-view is not the same as presenting all points of view. Please remember the caveats: 'all significant views that have been published by a reliable source'. This is why I asked for citations. Michaelbusch 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, about the points to be included. But citatiousness isnt the issue with interpretations as much as consensus and inclusion of what people assert are the common ones. Its not a science and so the process can look messy to those who look for authoritative interpretations. ("Show me a quote" is too often an epithet anyway). Where there are no autorities to correct us, we assert what can be agreed on. Consensus requires an attitude of m:inclusionism rather than m:deletionism and thats something I perhaps overlooked in writing over the one-dimensional interpretation. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

First off, I stand corrected on the copyright for the McAullife article. I am new to Wiki and didn't see that the refs that were coming from Framingham.com had been copied from NASA. On your second note, regarding "legal threats," you were off base a bit. I wasn't threatening anything, I was implying that if this was a blatant copyright violation that someone else might be upset. If that wasn't clear I apologize. I was just on the lookout for bad articles. 68.163.222.28 15:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well enough. However, please avoid language such as 'before action is taken'. That implies that you are going to do something. Michaelbusch 17:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/User_talk%7EMichaelbusch_8ab6.html"