User talk:Friendly Neighbour/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Welcome

Hello, Friendly Neighbour/Archive01, 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!  --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My warning to PeyoteMan

I left on his talk page the following warning:

PeyoteMan (talk • contribs), you claimed to have recently edited Wikigadugi. Therefore you must be Gadugi (talk • contribs) (=Jeffrey Vernon Merkey), Waya sahoni (talk • contribs) (most probably same person) or Red Bear (deemed to be identical with Bookofsecrets (talk • contribs)) because no one else edits there, especially as an "Sysop/Bearucrat" (your spelling).
Both Gadugi and Waya sahoni are blocked here on Wikipedia. You already once edited your talk page as 67.182.238.38 (talk • contribs) from the same IP netblock of the same internet provider as Gadugi and Waya sahoni always did (from Utah, not Delaware!) and later signed the same comment with your name. You already started to edit the same articles Waya sahoni did before you. Be careful. If you touch the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article you will be quickly banned as another Gadugi & Waha sahoni sockpuppet. Not by me - I'm only warning you as the Friendly Neighbour 12:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Merkey is also known (or suspected) to have edited Wikipedia as 67.166.115.135 (talk • contribs), 67.166.115.252 (talk • contribs) and 67.186.225.152 (talk • contribs). This list is probably not full. Friendly Neighbour 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

PeyoteMan deleted my warning without answering it. Therefore I moved it to Wikipedia talk: Requests for arbitration/Waya sahoni so it may be noticed by interested parties. Friendly Neighbour 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

PeyoteMan has been indefinitely blocked for legal threaths against several people. It's surprising (and actually positive) that he omitted about me. Thank you, Jeff Merkey! Friendly Neighbour 07:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

New accounts of Gadugi / Waya sahoni / PeyoteMan

It seems that now he's Asgaya Gigagei (talk • contribs) and probably also WhiteDoveWomen (talk • contribs). Meantime, he again forgot to sign in and appeared as 67.169.249.44 (talk • contribs), an IP number known from WikiGadugi. Friendly Neighbour 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A list of known and suspected Jeff Merkey's accounts

A list of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey Wikiopedia nyms, more or less in chronological order:

  1. Gadugi (talk • contribs)
  2. 67.177.35.211 (talk • contribs) - blocked for 30 years (legal threats)
  3. 67.177.35.25 (talk • contribs)
  4. 67.137.28.187 (talk • contribs) - blocked for one year
  5. 67.177.35.222 (talk • contribs)
  6. Waya_sahoni (talk • contribs)
  7. 67.186.225.152 (talk • contribs)
  8. 67.166.115.252 (talk • contribs)
  9. 67.137.28.188 (talk • contribs) - blocked for one year
  10. 67.177.11.32 (talk • contribs) - blocked until April 18
  11. 67.166.115.135 (talk • contribs)
  12. PeyoteMan (talk • contribs)
  13. 67.177.47.5 (talk • contribs) - used only once, same subject and netblock as usual
  14. WhiteDoveWomen (talk • contribs) - this postings links WhiteDoveWomen to Asgaya Gigagei
  15. 67.169.249.44 (talk • contribs) - Asgaya Gigagei actually admitted using this IP number (see below)
  16. Asgaya Gigagei (talk • contribs) - here he admitted owning many sockpuppet accounts, here he bragged one of them is 67.169.249.44 (compare this edit) and here he signed as "Jeff"
  17. 70.103.108.66 (talk • contribs) - this one was especially notorious. This IP address appeared on March 31 in the header of a LKML posting by Jeff Merkey himself! The numer resolves to solera_gw.soleranetworks.com - Jeff works there according to his WP page. Update: active again on meta.wikipedia.org in August 2006, openly as "Jmerkey" - see this page
  18. 67.177.52.144 (talk • contribs) - possibly soon a next one basing on Wikigadugi logs (This IP also shows up being used by Jeff in LKML)
  19. Sint Holo (talk • contribs) - Sint Holo name is taken from Cherokee mythology like Asgaya Gigagei (!). Self-admitted to be Jeff Merkey. Blocked by Jimbo Wales, himself as a sockpuppet of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.
  20. 71.199.40.199 (talk • contribs) - from this edit it seems it's the IP number Sint Holo used. The usual Utah IP provider (COMCAST). Blocked for one month on April 20.
  21. WolfMountainGroup (talk • contribs) - this one was active on April 14-15
  22. TempusFugit (talk • contribs) - this one accused me of being a sockpuppet. Oh, irony!
  23. 67.166.115.221 (talk • contribs) - another Utah COMSAT IP number making legal threaths
  24. 67.177.52.200 (talk • contribs) - used to edit the article on himself on April 25 and to threathen the admin who blocked him with the following bizarre outpouring: "That's fine. Your going to be blocked indefinitely when I complete negotiations just because I can." (!?) on April 26.
  25. 71.199.40.68 (talk • contribs) used on August 6, 2006 on English Wikipedia and quite openly as Jeff merkey on meta.wikipedia.org


It seems he's back :-( Friendly Neighbour 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Defamation warning

Jeff Merkey seemed to ignore my account giving away the defamation warnings to everyone he meets on Wikipedia (Jerryg, Talks to birds and Vigilant - the first entered by Asgaya Gigagei and the rest by 70.103.108.66 which connects the two nyms nicely). Therefore, to save his time, I warn myself not to defame anyone (just in case, I never edited the infamous Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article). Friendly Neighbour 17:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Four sockpuppets blocked!

There are still good admins. Thanks to User:Zscout370 for blocking all four recent sockpuppets of Jeff! Friendly Neighbour 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey admits he's litigating WP

In a posting on a Cherokee board, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey admitted (source) he's in ongoing litigation with WP:

I'm litigating with Wales right now over that article for posting sealed court documents which he refuses to take down, in Federal Court 2:05cv521, so that's why they are skiddish. There's an order for contemmpt pending against WP, Wales, and the folks posting that stuff.

Earlier, he denied this as Waya sahoni. (Not enough time to find the edit now). Friendly Neighbour 05:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

HEY! I was removing those <pre> tags! Vryl 06:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but we got an edit conflict doing the same thing at the same time ;-) Friendly Neighbour 06:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusation

You have been accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Vigilant and User:64.139.4.129 in RCU. The accusation comes from User:TempusFugit, a sockpuppet created just for that purpose. Not surprisingly, User:Sint Holo referenced the accusation on his talk page almost immediately. Merkey continues to amaze. — MediaMangler 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The accusation can be found here. Friendly Neighbour 06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The accuser has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of the banned User:Gadugi. Friendly Neighbour 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bookofsecrets

I really don't think Bookofsecrets (talk • contribs) belongs on the list. His current behavior is still consistent with his past persona. Any attempt to describe that persona would, I'm afraid, look too much like a personal attack. Suffice it to say, he still looks like a victim of Merkey's deceptiveness. — MediaMangler 12:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. But my nose has not mislead me so far. I'm simply keeping an eye on him in case I'm right. Friendly Neighbour 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I've interacted with Bookofsecrets under his various sockpuppets since December, and never have I suspected him of being a sockpuppet of Waya Sahoni, and I have followed these two closely in the past. See my message to Jonathunder here. I will admit that Bookofsecrets seems to be eating out of Waya Sahoni's hand at the moment. I will also admit that I have no idea about what the issue with User:Gadugi was in the past, nor do I know why he was originally blocked; if it was bad, I understand the paranoia. Regardless, thanks for keeping an eye out. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I left a note at Jonathunder's talk page as well. I agree that Bookofsecrets was originally a real user. I suspect that presently his password is used by Merkey. By now I believe I can detect Merkey style after a few sentences and today's Bookofserets postings made all my alarm bells go wild. And believe me, I never before had this feeling about this user. BTW, I remember your star on Gadugi's page. I even wondered at one time if you were a real person :-) It seems one becomes paranoid on Wikipedia. Friendly Neighbour 18:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder how Bookofsecrets can say one day "I can postively attest that Waya sahoni and Jeff Merkey are not the same person. I am acquainted with both and know that they are two totally different individuals" and the next "I have never personally met Jeff Merkey nor Waya sahoni face to face. ". If he lost his account simply because he lied, too bad for him. However, I'm still convinced that the two sentences were not written by the same person. Friendly Neighbour 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bookofsecrets (talk • contribs) has been unblocked. I hope he learnt a lesson and will refrain from relaying Merkey's messages in future. I will still monitor him to look for any relapses but I hope he will behave from now on. This will be the best outcome for us all. Friendly Neighbour 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all annons are Vandals

I noticed you warning on User talk:198.168.191.52. I would just like to let you know that that user was actually making a valid Contribution (at the time of you comment it did seem like vandalism). Thanks for using only a first level warning. I often pracice "IP profiling" but just letting you know you had made a mistake on this one.--E-Bod 23:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Sorry for the mistake. Your Friendly Neighbour 07:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Heim Theory NPOV

I'm knew to Wiki, but I understand you restored a warning to HT saying "Restoring a rephrased POV warning. This theory at present has no empirical confirmation and many physicists doubt its fundamentals." Pro, consider " Heim Theory correctly, and is the only theory, that correctly predicts the particle masses from first principles. I fail to understand why that is not a "slam dunk" empirical confirmation. I have a physics degree. I do not doubt its fundamentals. It's the same theory as Loop Quantum Gravity with a different starting point. It quantizes spacetime and thus unites General relativity with quantum mechanics. Why do we have to keep on going with these warnings with people that are not physicsts? Yes, I made an assumption? Am I right?. Take Care!--Will314159 13:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

AFter looking at your background I see that you are a programmer. I have long used Opera because of its magnification feature, tabbed openings and voice feature. I've recently been using firefox too. I appreciate you being a firefox contributor. I like its tabbed feature better than Opera's. Its magnification feature with "control +" is easier than Opera's but it doesn't magnify the images on the web page. they turn into a mess. Back to the Heim theory. Being familiar with programming, this may give you its flavor. From a post by "sophisticated_zombie on the phsyorg bulletin board, it describes in a nutshell where the quantum numbers come from "Its not a lattice being imposed on space-time. The lattice is space time. The hypervolumes" within the lattice are nothing. The connecting edges are everything. The only reason that you even have to define the "shape" is to get the winding orders and connectivity of the nodes correct. Its essentially a discrete graph theory of the nature of space time. Personally I love it, as it makes more sense to me than most of modern physics. Then again, I'm a computer scientist. All in all, I think Heim theory is essentially loop quantum gravity with some smart starting points. Since those starting points lead to very accurate predictions of particle masses, the starting points and metron concept may be close to correct. I'm eager to find out what the [experimental] mass of the neutron[i] is." P.S. I don't know how to do line breaks in the talk pages without everything going screwy. sorry for everything running together."--Will314159 13:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between explaining some numbers (like particle masses) post-factum (when the are already known) and to predict their values by a theory before they are measured. Heim theory does the former, while only the latter may be deemed as empirical confirmation of a theory. It's as easy as that. The other problem with Heim theory is that is hasn't been published in peer-reviewed journals. This mean it never underwent the review process deemed necessary by the scientific community to actually accept that a theory is more than a hypothesis.
I am both programmer and physicist. My field is not particle physics. However as a scientist, I can assure you that Heim theory has not yet entered mainstream science (I've given the reasons above) and this is something I feel the readers of an encyclopdia should be warned about. Please notice that I do not think the article should be deleted. It just needs to be tagged as not being part of the body of established science theories. The exact phrasing of the warning may be changed but some kind of warning is IMHO needed. Friendly Neighbour 13:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
prediction vs. postdiction: I'm sorry, but i still dont understand that prediction vs. postdiction argument. 1+1=2 is true before and after measurement. Or, to put it differently: 1+1=2 is true with or without measurement. Sure, it looks way more impressive to predict than to postdict, but i cant see why that is relevant to any thoery being true or false. We have to measure to find out if a theory is true or false, but im pretty sure, that an universal law of nature doesnt depend in any way on the state of knowledge of some furless apes on the third rock from some mediocre star in some mediocre galaxy. MillKa 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, as Willard Van Orman Quine and before him Pierre Duhem teach us, for any dataset of empirical evidence, there would always be multiple theories able to account for it. In fact, it is easy to show that in cases like the particle massess, the number of matematical formulas explaining them is infinite. Therefore we need a procedure to decide which theories are true. Some clues can help us, like the simplicity of the theory (Occam's razor) or even its beauty can be a criterion as proposed by Paul Dirac. However in the general case, only new empirical evidence can help us decide which theories are better then others. This process was called falsification by Karl Popper who believed that you cannot confirm any theory with empirical evidence but you can falsify the wrong ones. Many physicists disagree with him and prefer to "test" theories with the new evidence rather than "falsify" them. Anyway, only this testing/falsifying procedure makes theories experimentally confirmed (Popper would say "collaborated"). Fitting theories to existing data does not confirm them as you can invent any number of different theories fitting a pre-existing finite experimental dataset.
I hope this helps :-) Friendly Neighbour 06:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thx for the explaination. Instead of cluttering up your page, i decided to clutter up mine - look here User_talk:Millka for my response MillKa 00:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. more of the same at User_talk:Millka .. MillKa 11:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. How did you do that message stuff? Neat--Will314159 13:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does it automatically when someone edits your Talk page. One more reason to use it, not the User page itself (which may be treated as vandalism). Regards, Friendly Neighbour 13:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I forget your name Neighbor/our. I was traveling and forgot the name. But you have to agee that the proper place to note changes is on the talk page of the respective artice. You made the change without airing it out in the respective talk page. I am new to the Wikipedia, but old enough to know that the article used to have a warning and that it was removed after an extensive discussion and then all of a sudden in reappears out of thin air without discussion. Only through the history page was your name revealed, and even then I had no confirmation. I believe you owe the Heim Theory talk page an apology. Take Care!--Will314159 16:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I simply restored an improved version of the NPOV warning that had been placed there by somebody else. You could check the history of the page first. I do not intend to restore it again but do not be surprtised if someone else does. Cheerio. Friendly Neighbour 20:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Algae

Thank you, friendly Neighbour, for improving some of my contributions! Have a nice day! --Tom 12:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I would not have reverted your first edits if you hadn't signed article pages. At that time, I suspected you did not know what you were doing. I see now that you're doing a good job improving the Algae articles. Cheerio. Friendly Neighbour 13:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian userbox

Actually, you've got the right idea, as I posted on AN:I. If you like your userbox how it is, instead of putting {{Template}}, just put {{subst:template}} instead, which automatically puts the source code on your page. It's less of a strain on the servers, which everyone appreciates, and you'll never even see any changes made to it. --InShaneee 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And what to do with the thousands of users who never heard about "subst"? Friendly Neighbour 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
...Teach them? Seems like a simple enough solution to me. --InShaneee 00:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, a volunteer! You're welcome. You may start today. Friendly Neighbour 05:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Friendly, please participate in the talk before making any more edits. We are trying to reach a consensus that satisfies everyone. Thanks Rexmorgan 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Regarding this edit: Please stop referring to these users as vandals, as it is a violation of WP:AGF. Our guidelines dictate that we discuss content on its own merits, without bringing up the users making it. Please try to be more respectful of other editors in the future. --InShaneee 15:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You're 100% right. I know it. I did not argue on merit. However in the WP:AGF discussion, I did not call anyone a vandal. (In fact I corrected my previous edit to make it clear I'm against the prank, not its authors). Simply, I'm still in a residual state of shock from the level of cynicism the two admins have shown. My "argument" was really 100 storeys above their rotating crucifix as a NPOV symbol of Christianity. I could not resist reminding Cyde about this. Sorry. However, I've already made my point and do not plan to continue. Thank you for interest. Friendly Neighbour 15:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

See also my reply to Sam Blanning who claimed on WP:AN/I that I violated WP:OWN and WP:AGF:

Please show me the edit where I claimed userboxes are sacred. You seem to mix up my (twice) reverting what I deemed (and still deem) a simple vandalism by Cyde & Gmaxwell (please note that arguing an edit is vandalism is explicitely allowed under WP:NPA) and my voice in discussion saying that templates should be treated more lentient than articles under WP:OWN because the persons who don't like a template may create an alternative one. Since when discussing WP:OWN is breaking it? Also, do you mean that arguing that what Cyde and Gmaxwell did was vandalism means breaking WP:AGF? I believe that WP:AGF is about accusing about bad intentions, not criticizing past deeds: "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, it only means that one should not ascribe said action to malice.". Please show me an edit where I assumed malice. I can show you one where Cyde assumed malice on my part (like this one - please compare the tone of Cyde's edit with the one by myself he responds to). Friendly Neighbour 10:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

--(end of cited edit) Friendly Neighbour 10:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been additionally accused by InShaneee of WP:CIVIL in the same context. It seems that complaining about an admin who awards you with a spinning crucifix is WP:AGF, WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL while adding the aforementioned artefact to hundereds pages of users who had chosen to have a "User Christian" template is simply a "content dispute". There must be something I still do not understand about Wikipedia. Friendly Neighbour 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Especially as this prank has already copy-cat followers like Gosse (talk • contribs) and Butterbean (talk • contribs). The bar is certainly a little lower now. Friendly Neighbour 06:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

duplicate vote

thank you for deleting my duplicate vote. ILovePlankton (T—C—U—L) 08:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comment :) --Chris 13:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
You have made huge contributions in keeping good and funny user boxes. Keep up the great work!  Heltec  talk 

Admin?

Do you have an edit count tool? if you have a good amount of edits ill nominate you for adminship.  Heltec  talk 

It's a little too early. I'm here for just a over 2 months and have 670 edits (just checked with the Flcelloguy's Tool). But thanks for proposing. I do appreciate it. Friendly Neighbour 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde's apology

Cyde's apology is here (here's the diff). It's a little backhanded, but it does acknowledge that the joke got out of hand; and earlier in the same section, he admits that the entire affair was part of the userbox wars. (Also, Cyde blocking himself for disruption shows that he's willing to direct his humor at himself as well as others, and he went up several notches in my estimation at that point.) Gmaxwell, on the other hand, is still insisting that he had no intention of disrupting anything or making a point at all, which I find completely unbelievable. I'm debating over whether to try to let it go, or file an RfC — my concern is that an RfC might just stir up emotions unnecessarily and make people more polarized, instead of actually discussing the problem at hand and working towards a solution. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. The apology is weak but better than nothing. By the way, it's funny that even after he apologized his fans still claim that saying he (well, both of them) did anything wrong is a personal attack and uncivility.
Concerning an RfC, I do not want what I would do in your place. It certainly would help a lot if Gmaxwell apologized as well. Friendly Neighbour 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

in reply to "yelling at users"

Hello there. I'll start with this, so that we get the unpleasant bit out of the way first. You first posted your complaint half an hour after I'd stopped editing Wikipedia (deciding that attempting to pass my university classes were more important), and then your complaint that I apparently don't think you're worth replying to five hours before I checked my talkpage for the first time since signing off last night. Having a go at a bloke who hasn't checked his talkpage, because you haven't the patience to wait for him to actually do so, is poor form. If you wanted an instant reply, you should have rung me on my always-by-my-side mobile 'phone.

As for your initial, far more appropriate, point ... I don't subscribe to an "aristocracy of admins" point of view. This is very important. Regarding "agreeing": my objection was to the fact that you felt the need to include any tally at all; I believe I've adequately explained that at the ANI itself. Regarding my tone; it had nothing to do with the fact that you're not an admin. It wasn't as civil as it should have been, and have evidently offended you, and I apologise for that — I could have made the same point and still been nicer about it, if I'd tried. I am sorry about that. If you have any further queries, well, my talkpage is always open. You just won't always get a reply five minutes later ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well. I did check your contributions before replying. And my reply was mostly to brenneman who seemed worried that his edit was misunderstood, not to you. My only remark about you ("it seems I'm not worth a reply from the admin I addressed.") could have been influenced with the fact that you had time to correct the Battlefield Baseball article but none at all to reply me. You are right it was probably too rash (I knew you only did one edit so probably you were in a hurry). If so, I do apologize. And believe me, I hold no grudge over our yesterday exchange. And I mean it - unlike Nina Simone, I'm not going to add any "but"s ;-). Friendly Neighbour 16:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your revert on VSL.

i know the anonymous IP that we both have reverted is an strong believer in VSL, and the Duff paper he keeps removing is one of the strongest refutations of the meaningfulness of the variation of any dimensionful physical constant (in and of itself). i was starting to feel lonely standing up to him so thanks for swinging by that page. BTW, i too am a Christian and believe in the equivalence of FSM to Creationism (as a scientific theory), but i do not believe, as a Xian, that all of reality is governed by science (God, resurrection, miracles, ...).

BTW, if you're a caffeinated coffee drinker, that is, to some extent, inconsistent with saying you are "drug-free". at least in my opinion. bestest, r b-j 01:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for the nice words. Concerning coffee and being drug-free: this depends on the drug definition, as you surely must know. But even if caffeine is a drug (and Wikipedia says so, therefore it must be true), I'm still glad that this is the only one I use. Unless pizza is also... No, it can't be! :-). Friendly Neighbour 06:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

there's power in numbers. Lonecanine

Heim

I've got a toll free virtual vonage (internet IP phone) number in UK but my sister who's married to a British major is moving to Germany June 12th so I"ll be giving it up. It would have been nice to have a chat w/ you. Regarding your comment about symbols and academic papers, FYI is an interesting read. Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510032 Take Care! --Will 01:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've looked it up the first time you posted it. Yes, nice and interesting symbols. Almost as funny as the Feynmann diagrams. But again, it is a set of lecture notes, not a peer-review paper. The reason is simple: even the cutest symbols are not new scientific results so they need not be peer-reviewed.
Concerning the proposed chat: I would rather stick to on-Wikipedia discussion. This seems much more "professional" in the best Wikipedia meaning of the word. Sorry.
Cheerio. Friendly Neighbour 06:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole

thanks for the pointers on 3RR. I guess she's got egg on her face reporting 3 violations. i haven't been contacted. Or are you the 3RR enforcer for the day? I always thought that 3RR meant the identical revert, but I guess it means any reverts in the same article. Take Care! --Will 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not a 3RR enforcer. In fact I'm wary of revert battles in general. It seems that who is guilty of 3RR depends on he definition of obvious vandalism (rather subjective) and how many participants each side can field (you don't hit the 3RR limit if several persons revert in turn).
I simply had your talk page on my watchlist since I left you a message long ago and yesterday I got interested in the activity on the page. When I saw that you are accused of three reverts in 24h (instead of the four needed), I could not resit commenting. It has nothing to do with Juan Cole (whoever he is). Friendly Neighbour 08:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Theistic evolution and personal attacks

A copy of my message to Slicky left on his Talk page:

I see that you drive around Wikipedia accusing random people of being pseudo-scientists and followers of theistic evolution. See for example the edit about me or another one about Joke137. In future, please try to refrain from this kind of personal attacks, especially as they are 100% wrong. For your information, I'm against any theories based on faith instead of scientific facts. I'm no supporter af theistic evolution (exactly because it has no factual support) but even if I were one, it would not give you right to call me a pseudo-scientist. You need to learn the fundamental difference between difference of opinion and personal attacks. Thank you for trying, Friendly Neighbour 15:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all i was way outta line, for that i apologize. I read some comment you made, went on to your userpage on which the christian box and the big bang box sprung immeditaley into my eye. Now, reivisting the page and seeing them all and for what the are (some humorously) - i should have read the first one instead "this user is harmless" and skipped my venting. You most certainly are not a pseudo-scientist or a creationist, i will just delete my post as it has no merit. As for the "benedict" remark, i fully stand to that (forgot to sign). I am just pointing out interesting connections, and let each on his own decide whether he finds them worthy to follow up or not. As science isn`t all done by computers there is always a political component to every and each "single page of science" that will ever be eternalized in history. Nonetheless how is it even possible to have believes based on anything but science as a scientist? (serious question and not meant offending in any way, seriously not!)Slicky 15:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
It's fine. I do not bear a grudge. And generally your problem probably is simply you type a reply before you have time to think. That would explain the number of unsigned comments you leave :-) Otherwise, I do not have any problems with your edits.
How is it even possible to have believes based on anything but science as a scientist?. Ask Newton or Einstein. Well, you can't - but I hope you see my point. Friendly Neighbour 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
PS: I posted this way earlier. I am confused there is another account with "neighbour" being lower-case. Is this socketpuppet of someone?Slicky 18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Nope you gotta update the new message link!Slicky 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ...that is unless you purposely intend new messages to be posted on another account: Anyhow i also commented here regarding the other discussion. You really seem like a great wikipedian at a closer look and should you ever make a request for adminship again and i am around i will support it considering you are neither blatantly religious, "overfascinated" with some scientific subject to an extend that it fully "consumes" you (to put it mildly) and generally more NPOV than even many science-article admins not only within but especially with reason.Slicky 19:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the proposal. I may do that after the holidays. Concerning the other account, it was my earlier one, blocked in anger (on its first day!) by an admin who mistook me for someone's sockpuppet and was himself desysopped soon afterwards for other similar "feats". I gave up WP after that but later I created this account to defend myself in an arbitration I had been mixed in because of the original mistake. I admitted being the same user in the arbitrsation. Because no of the involved admins complained, I decided to continue using this account. Go, figure. Friendly Neighbour 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your pointless threats

Next time try to check the IP before you start offending people by throwing your ridiculous accusations. By trying to be more civil, you can stop making yourself look like an idiot quite so often, I think. Schwartz und Weiss 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe giving someone a warning is much less offensive than starting a IP check against him/her. Of course, our mileage might vary. Friendly Neighbour 05:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

this fight has absolutely ruined my day

I'm sorry, this fight has absolutely ruined my day. I have never had such a bad time talking about physics in my life. I am completely depressed and am almost in tears. I bear much of the responsibility for this given my uncollegial tone. I would never talk to colleagues like this. It just got out of hand, and I am sorry for it.

While I really don't want to continue as part of the wikipedia project anymore, you guys -- for all that I think your beliefs about Lorentz violation and loop quantum gravity are incorrect -- seem like nice people. I have presented, as far as I am able, arguments to support my edit. Both you guys (and I'm going to guess we're all guys here) have read them, as I have read what you have written.

I would like to suggest we let this matter drop. In addition, I would like to suggest that we delete the entire discussion we have had to this point. Nobody other than us is going to read through it, and interspersed with actual physics talk is just a huge amount of bile, most of which is due to me and which is really upsetting me now. I have edited my User page to remove all discussion of this. Please let me know if you agree with this by signing your name. The third person to sign should go ahead and delete (or archive, if you really must.)

Sdedeo (tips) 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your day. I also spent a lot of time on this. But at least I learned a lot about LQG. Anyway, I've checked Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It says "Archive — don't delete" but only in the context of articles being too long. It has nothing on a situation like this one. However, the spirit of the guideline is certainly against a deletion. Personally, I don't mind if you delete the whole discussion but I will not do it myself. Maybe archiving is the best solution, after all? Regards, Friendly Neighbour 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. Sdedeo (tips) 21:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/i/User_talk%7EFriendly_Neighbour_Archive01_8072.html"