User talk:Michaelbusch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archived Talk on 2007 Feb 1

[edit] Place New Messages at Bottom of Page

[edit] Cradle of filth

Not vandalism, actual event —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.21.63.217 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

There are no news items reporting the man's death. I conclude that you are lying. Even if you had the best of intentions, adding statement of a person's death without citation constitutes vandalism under WP:LIVING. Michaelbusch 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klute (Nightclub)

Please do not restore prod tags to articles after they have been removed. If you look at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion especially the section called Conflicts you will see that the tag should not be restored no matter what. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page :) SuzanneKn 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Marshall

... won't be bothering you any more. [1] By the way, have you ever considered an RFA? You do a lot of outstanding anti-vandalism work and I think you would make a good admin. If you are interested in pursuing it, I would be willing to nominate you. --BigDT 06:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop reverting

It's most commonly called Cosmic winter. Google it. Malamockq 00:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I did. 40:1 in favor of impact winter. Michaelbusch 00:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I got 1,270,000 hits. Cosmic winter is more common. Malamockq 00:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Only because you were searching for the two words and not the phrase. Doing so for impact winter gives just shy of 50 million. Michaelbusch 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do you have to get into a revert war? You just violated the 3RR. Malamockq 00:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I lost count. But 3RR is irrelevant in this case, by my judgement: I was merely removing obviously incorrect material. Michaelbusch 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't incorrect, and you refused to discuss it before you got into a revert war. Here's the report for your references, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Michaelbusch_reported_by_User:Malamockq_.28Result:.29 Malamockq 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have given the usage numbers. You were mistaken. Drop it. Michaelbusch 01:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But 3RR is irrelevant in this case, by my judgement: please don't say things like that, unless you really wanted to be blocked for breaking 3RR. I've protected the page against moves for the moment; please continue the discussion there William M. Connolley 11:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US/Imperial units

I wasn't the one who added them, and I'm not particular fond of them, but I don't see how the units are actually "unjustifiably accurate"--they appear to be rounded off quite well, actually. I reverted your Ceres revert, since there are several instances of US/imperial units already used in the infobox--one could argue that the proper thing is to add more US/imperial units, not to remove that one addition. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It was taken to three places; 1140. If the meters per second can go to 0.51, then I don't see the problem with 1140 mph. Either way, if there is no justification for removing it entirely (and I'm not saying there isn't, but the other US/imperial units should also be removed if that's the case), then the correct response is to edit it yourself (perhaps to 1100). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Or change it to feet per second. But it's a moot point now (unless someone adds the US/imperial back). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your talk page

:) Anytime. Best, Dar-Ape 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Standard

Yeah, removing incorrect content isn't vandalism there buddy. Nice try though. 207.14.8.119 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If the material you removed is incorrect, demonstrate this on the talk page. I have reviewed the page. Much of the material you removed was accurate to the best of my knowledge (and that of other editors, it would seem). Further deletions without discussion and justification would be reason for a block. Michaelbusch 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mars Human Exploration

I currently work the Orion CEV program, and have updated the information on Human Exploration to the dates set as of January of 2007. This information is accurate and relevant. Please do not delete. Thanks - Eisenmond 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not relevant to include ISS and Moon missions. This is Mars, not Orion (spacecraft). Michaelbusch 19:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You may be right

I will consider it. Stirling Newberry 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giftedness

Deleted text:

'There is a positive correlation that one who is good at one thing will generally do better at many other tasks. For example, good nutrition, health and mental exercises improve people in many intellectual spheres. However, genetically speaking, giftedness is frequently not evenly distributed throughout all intellectual spheres. For example, a person with a higher amount of testosterone than average will generally do better in logic, mathematical, spatial and musical tasks; but expected to be generally worser in language precessing, emotional recognition, verbal memory and multitasking.'

It is found in many accurate sources so why is it incorrect? 71.175.41.54 23:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it is dated, simplistic, discredited, and at odds with reality. Some of it is true, but much is misleading or completely false. E.g.: 'genetically speaking, giftedness is frequently not evenly distributed'. Giftedness is not evenly distributed, but this has very little to do with genetics. The statements about testosterone are complete bollocks. Michaelbusch 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the statement about testosterone was wrong? It said in many sources: [2] [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.41.54 (talk • contribs).

That something is said in many places does not make it correct. Your sources are not particularly reliable: they do not present the needed data to support their conclusions, nor do they draw the same conclusions you presented in your text. It is likely that the data to support your text does not exist. More importantly, there is considerable contradictory information. I don't have all of the statistics at my fingertips, so I will resort to personal experience: the best linguist I know is a man who probably has a higher than average testosterone level, while a number of the best mathematians are women. I could continue, but that would not address the actual issue.
The main problem with your statements, and the sources you cited (again, they do not say what you said), is the classic trap of correlation-causation. Testosterone may be correlated with particular sets of skills, but how do you separate the effects of a society that still hasn't reached parity? Michaelbusch 23:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid images

I can't claim credit for those they were uploaded by Acom. The ones that gave a sense of the object I tried to notate as rendering and now that you have let me know more accurately what to call them, I will do so on future pics. Abyssoft 07:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gold Standard

Previous attempts to shorten the article - other than moving out the Bretton Woods material - have been failures, because the supporters of a return to gold, in the present, will reinsert all of their material. The only way to balance the article is to maintain the present scope. In almost every instance, material being added has been added to address pervasive errrors which float around the gold bug subculture. Like Global warming it is a topic which, because of its political valence, is difficult to compress.

The present material is added both to avoid the "fixed to gold" error which the present troll wants to revert to, and the very common assertion on the internet that gold has been the monetary standard for centuries, when, in fact, gold standards are a periodic phenomenon.

I'd rather be working on new articles.

Stirling Newberry 05:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Standard

My bibliography is at the bottom of the page. Stirling Newberry 05:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I do catch a lot of flak as you noticed. Unfortunately, it comes with the territory as I do a lot of RC patrolling. Thanks again. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jupiter article (and others)

Thank you for rewriting the Jupiter article. Based on this, and your recent contributions, I think you deserve this barnstar, even though you have one of them already...

Why thank you, my good fellow. — RJH (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tree House Records

No, I don't think you were too harsh -- I was probably too nice. Death to spammers! Herostratus 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fight Against Vandalism

MB - Thank you for your part in fighting against Vandalism on the Mars article. It is wiki-editors such as yourself who maintain the civility needed in an open editing forum such as this. It is greatly appreciated! - Eisenmond 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phobos/Deimos and ISRU

Thanks for not removing my edits.

As a matter of fact, a Russian probe detecting evidence of water vapour around Phobos.

However the article never actually said that Phobos had water, it said it could have water or ice.

In any case arbitrarily deleting statements (including perfectly true statements about the necessity of ISRU for colonisation- (hint: colonisation means living there permanently) is not the way that things are done in the wikipedia. The normal process is you insert '{ { fact } }' statements where appropriate giving other editors a chance to back up what they have written.

Removal of statements in the way you did is unacceptable except in cases of vandalism (which are rare with well established editors.WolfKeeper 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to accuse anyone. I was simply removing incorrect information, and did say that a proper version could be put in its place (I was planning on doing so, but ran out of time). I am perhaps overly sensitive when it comes to Phobos and water. The story: Phobos-2 (the Russian mission) did not detect water at a meaningful significance level. My collaborators and I used the Arecibo radar to observe both Phobos and Deimos (see [4]. They cannot have any water within several meters of the surface. Spectra show that they do not either, and that they have likely been completely dehydrated. Deep radar from MARSIS on Mars Express confirms. So I apologize if I gave offense, but the article was in error. Michaelbusch 01:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I added a reference for the lack of ice - it seems a common misconception and so worth explicitly denying rather than just deleting - obtained from an ADS search. Feel free to replace it with a more up to date or relevant paper - I'm a humble astrochemist, so it's more your field than mine. Chrislintott 12:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Why not remove the alleged

The U.N bias is shown in the entry, that Israel is the only one not given full rights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giza D (talk • contribs).

In this context, bias implies unfair discrimination. It could be (and has been) argued that the actions of the UN are justified. Wikipedia should not pass judgement on this. Michaelbusch 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Guy Doesn't Know Denver

Hey, who are you to contest the legitimacy of Cholosexual. I've been using the word for years. It's become fairly commonplace in Denver since. I think that if you ever get out of your parent's basement and off the computer you might find that local slang is actually used by most people. Get over yourself and get a life. Science nerd! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.8.74.234 (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Get Off Your High Horse California

I'm from Denver and I think it's time that something from Colorado finally get's recognized besides our mountains. And you Californians are just like New Yorkers, you think you own the whole darn country. Who are you to judge the term, and where it's used, when you don't even know about it, or where it comes from.KeyzzLouiseFloider 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that I do not know the slang of Denver, but that does not change my statements. You may not be aware, but this is Wikipedia, not a collection of random information. There is much about the language that is commonly used that is not here, and this term is not at all that common. You should also read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Vandalism. You will stop using multiple accounts now, or every one of them will be blocked. Michaelbusch 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Denver

I apologize for the previous statement that I placed, I am just angered that you do not accept a term that I have used for many years to be real. I would also like to inform you that I personally am not using multiple accounts, the other comments placed upon the slang term “cholosexual” are placed on there by different people.KeyzzLouiseFloider 05:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Think That Myself & The Word Cholosexual Have Been Misrepresented

Hello sir. I think that you have a completely wrong idea of myself and the word I have submitted for this website. I chose to bring the word cholosexual to Wikipedia because I myself a resident of Denver, Colorado since 1996 use the word frequently. Since placing the word on Wikipedia it came under immediate scrutiny. So I asked friends and family of mine who are also from Denver to back me up on explaining why this is a real term. You would agree that most people or at least many have heard of the term metrosexual. This word is an offspring of that term. I think that this should be something placed on Wikipedia for the reason that quite simply someone might hear it and want to research it. I often hear new terms and doubt their legitimacy. It's just human nature to question what we do not know. I often use wikipedia for just such research. That is why I'm submitting this word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.8.74.234 (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Maybe, but it still doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability, fails a half-dozen other policies, and it will be deleted unless you can document its use. Note also: right now, you are at the boundary of a block. Michaelbusch 05:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I am still very much suspicious of a sockpuppet or meatpuppet involved. You are most unlikely to convince me otherwise. I may be mistaken; if so I apologize. But the accounts above are acting like sockpuppets of each other and this I will not ignore. Michaelbusch 05:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: I am not denying that the term has been used, but that it is widely enough used to be notable. Given no Internet usage, I believe it is not. Even if it had Internet usage, it still might not be notable: the slang of Caltech is not on Wikipedia, even though terms from it get several hundred to thousands of hits. Michaelbusch 05:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Based on statements of 24.8.74.234, I diagnose meat puppetry and remain of the opinion that the article should be speedly deleted. Michaelbusch 05:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir based on your rationale even if something is commonly used and noted on the internet then it still might not be allowed on wikipedia. Well cholosexual is commonly used and noted on the internet. I think your research falls short. Try using alternative search engines. As for your Caltech slang it's not reliable because it is not a term but rather a statement that describes that there is some slang words used by persons from Caltech. Maybe you should try submitting some of those slang terms. Some might find them legitimate wikipedia material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wkloiber (talk • contribs).

You begin to understand Wikipedia:Notability. Re. this particular term: I checked four separate search engines in two languages, and ran parallel searches for Caltech slang as a check. The slang is not notable, that is why it is not on Wikipedia. If it was, it would already be here. Michaelbusch

[edit] Sockpuppet?

I've looked up the slang term for sock puppet and I think that your internet lingo is cute at best. I myself have never heard the term sockpuppet used in that reference. I think that someone with ample internet resources could easily fabricate an internet identity in order to create their own personal word. It's not hard to make something pop up on google or yahoo. If you want to find cholosexual on the internet just do a word search on myspace. You'll find that it does appear on various myspace pages. Even in areas outside of Denver. So if you contest Cholosexual I could just as easily contest the way you use sock puppet. I'm attempting to bring forward a local term. Not a personal word. So please if you have nothing further to say let it go. Just so we're clear I'm not trying to make a personal attack here I'm just simply trying to make you see my side of this debate because it feels like your not getting where I'm coming from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wkloiber (talk • contribs) 06:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

See WP:SOCK, in particular meat puppetry. This is a standard Wikipedia term for users using multiple accounts or for recruiting others to do something, particularly with regards to contesting deletions. It is often reason for blocking. I have provided these links to all of the users concerned. I have explained that Wikipedia is global and refer you again to Wikipedia:Notability. Michaelbusch 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Point of interest: Myspace search gives zero results, which is to be expected because Google copies the Myspace index. Michaelbusch 06:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to see who put the sockpuppet term up on wikipedia. I'm assuming it was you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wkloiber (talk • contribs).

The term sockpuppet has been current for a long time, with the article being created in February 2004, long before I started on Wikipedia. I have never edited that article. You may check that with the page history. Michaelbusch 06:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Note on above five sections: the article concerned was removed on grounds of not meeting Wikipedia:Notability. Given these three editors' unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, particularly WP:SOCK, no blocks have been given. Michaelbusch 16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wkloiber blocked for repeated removal of material from talk pages. Michaelbusch 20:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about that...

I'm new to the site and still getting to know my way around. I'll be more discreet in my editing practices until I get the hang of it.Sarc37 20:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Hey ... I've spent some time looking through your contributions to see about creating an RFA. My strong suggestion is to wait about a month or two. You have a block for 3RR that is almost exactly a month old and I don't think an RFA would be successful at this point, especially given today's drama. (There was a high-profile wheel war after which Jimbo de-sysopped three admins.) I have two suggestions that I think will make an RFA more likely to be successful. (1) Work on edit summaries - according to [5], you use edit summaries 81% of the time for major edits and 33% for minor ones. Some people will automatically oppose if that's below 90%. (2) Be very careful with the "v" word - a good-faith edit, even if misguided ill-conceived isn't vandalism. An edit against consensus or that is just a really dumb idea isn't vandalism unless the person is deliberately trying to harm the encyclopedia.

As an aside, I saw where in one edit summary, you said you with you had rollback. (Be careful what you wish for - I hate the thing and I have probably clicked it accidentally about 10 times. In Firefox, clicking with the wheel opens the link in a new tab. So if you click the wheel not really paying attention to where the cursor is, you will wind up clicking the link when what you really wanted was the scroll cursor. I hate the thing. At any rate, there is a script where anyone can get rollback. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle. The "twinklefluff.js" script adds rollback. It's about the same speed as the real thing.

At any rate, I would still be willing to nominate you, right now, today, if that is what you would like, but to be perfectly honest, I think waiting until it has been two months since your block would give you a MUCH better chance of success. --BigDT 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I will wait. Thanks for the advice. Michaelbusch

[edit] revert edits

I noticed that you reverted some edits by HotLotusDNA to the James Randi article. You might want to examine his edits to Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They were reverted before I got to them. However, I have posted the usual warnings on Talk:HotLotusDNA. Michaelbusch 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed later that someone did revert them. I didn't do it because I didn't want to take the time to read them (I'm cutting down on my wikipedia time). Thanks. Bubba73 (talk), 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think you'll enjoy this one

Solar system warming Someguy1221 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty bad. Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline. Michaelbusch 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your last edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar system warming

Hi Michaelbusch, I doubt it was your intention, but your last edit to this AfD wiped out half the page. Regards, Icemuon 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm not quite sure what happened, but I put it back. Thanks for telling me. Michaelbusch 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Nice to see you in Wikiland. Know of any other Techers running around here? Antony-22 05:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Several, but they wish to edit only through aliases. Next time I see you, I can give you the list. Michaelbusch 06:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

I'm not trying to use wikipedia as a freeweb space. I want to have teams post statistics like any other sport would. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ejoeyz (talk • contribs).

This is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Michaelbusch 18:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems I am not the only complaning of your revisions. Stop now.Giza D 14:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Many editors have complained about my enforcing Wikipedia policy. Many of them have been blocked for vandalizing. These events share a common cause. Michaelbusch 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for catching that, didn't mean to put it on his user page rather than his talk page. War wizard90 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pas de que. Michaelbusch 04:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page and talk page. Much appreciated! Will (aka Wimt) 00:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a sockpuppet?

You might find this amusing: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/February_2007. Michaelbusch 03:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, now I feel truly loved. I'm just upset he didn't find something more convincing than "This usefull vandal-less user voted to delete that article I liked" (paraphrased, of course). Someguy1221 04:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion requested

I don't know enough about this, but you're a scientist! Underground Ocean. Someguy1221 07:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It checks out, to some extent, but needs to be re-written. Got it. Michaelbusch 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's what happened: two geophysicists find that there is a large region in the lower mantle that has absorbed water in it. The paper on this just came out, and being a neat result, they put out a press release, which has been widely circulated. It is then promptly mis-understood. I have moved it to Beijing Anomaly and made Underground Ocean into a dis-ambig. I can think of several other things that may need a place there. Michaelbusch 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice work although do you think it is proper for the Beijing Anomaly to be the umbrella term for anomalous seismic waves beneath the earth's mantle? Because as far as I understood the news, the Beijing Anomaly is just the central or most clear cut anomaly but other seismic wave attenuation exists elsewhere? Hehe I'm not an expert I just found this out in Yahoo News. And I'm glad my article checks out, I was worried a while ago it was going to be prodded or challenged. I wasn't sure as to what article title to use. =) Berserkerz Crit 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The Beijing Anomaly is the only region in the deep mantle that has these properties, to within the sensitivity & resolution of the seismic retrevial. There are other anomalous seismic features, but this anomaly is unique. Michaelbusch 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you and....

I cannot tell you how joyous it was to see you two (Michaelbusch and philosophus) taking an interest at the TM page! For well over a year, I debated with 5 editors whose edit count was in the 99% range of just editing TM articles and I just have no desire to collaborate with someone who edits primarily on one subject anymore.

I do have a great book called TM and Cult Mania by a Michael Persinger who states that after reviewing the TM studies, most if not all are easily explained by placebo effect and that the TM movement is the paradigm of cult dynamics in operation. I would be happy to send it to either of you to, let me know.

I may drop by the page and say hello and point backwards in time to a version of the page which has some (i believe) well-enough sourced material that was removed.

Of either of you want to book, just email me at gnostica@fastmailX.fm, just remove the "x." peace, Sethie 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The medical effects of TM match those of biofeedback and placebo, but that is not the main area of dispute. Talk:Transcendental Meditation illustrates the problem: we have three or four editors who have severe conflicts of interest (one is given a total of >10000 USD in compensation each year, from the Maharishi group), are studiously ignorant of Wikipedia policy, insistent that TM is not pseudoscience, and intent on making the article more favorable than the subject deserves. Michaelbusch 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

If you're having trouble staying on a break, you could always request a wikibreakblock. That's only recommended for serious cases of wikiaddiction, however. Lexicon (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Three edits in the past four days is a good break, I think. Michaelbusch 01:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam? Vandalism?

You accused me of 'spam' on the Lucy Lawless and Amy Jo Johnson pages because I added a few links that I know of that are great websites related to both actors, which as I understood as not breaking rules. I don't see how this is vandalism? Also, I find it strange that the TV.Com links I had added awhile ago were not removed, but the others were. Is there something I'm missing? (P4poetic, 3/8/07).

[edit] UN now Protected

Thanks Buffadren 11:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 18 hours

You have been blocked for 18 hours for violating the three-revert rule at Crop circle. Please feel free to continue editing when the block expires, but please make an effort to discuss your edits in future rather than just blandly reverting. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am greatly confused. By my count, I only reverted three times, and I have discussed my changes on Talk:Crop circle. Please explain the block. Michaelbusch 23:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael, I just wanted to let you know I've filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi. Sorry I didn't get it in quick enough to help your 3RR situation. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. You might want to file a CheckUser request too. But I am still confused as to why User:Stifle thought I had violated 3RR. Michaelbusch 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess that fifth diff was technically a revert removing those tags (which were completely ridiculous and absolutely should have been deleted). 3RR is a judgement call by the admin (Martinphi has violated it twice, and the admins let him off the hook both times) so you need to be extra careful. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that whether tags "should" or "should not" be deleted doesn't grant an exemption from WP:3RR. If someone's added content that shouldn't be there, and you've used up your three reverts, someone else will revert it if it really shouldn't be there. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm considering a RfA (see some of the entries above), so I need to understand this. Why are admins so inclusive in what constitutes 3RR? I understand the spirit of the rule (to prevent or at least contain edit wars), but rigidly enforcing the letter of it seems stupid. I have now been blocked twice and warned once, all three times for approximately the same reason: an editor is POV-pushing, in a manner I (and in this case, several other editors) deem nonsense or vandalism, I fix the problem, and then I am blocked. I still do not understand why this makes any sense. Michaelbusch 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I am greatly confused. By my count, I only reverted three times, and I discussed my changes on Talk:Crop circle. Please explain the block. I am considering a RfA, and I realize that this will fail if I do not understand how 3RR is to be enforced. Obviously, I do not, because I thought I was following it and you blocked me. I will avoid the accusations of sockpuppetry and POV-pushing associated with MartinPhi. Michaelbusch 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Reverting is defined as undoing some or all of the changes of a previous user's edit, and you made the following four reverts on Crop circle between 01:39 on March 12th and 04:21 on March 12th:
  1. [6]
  2. [7]
  3. [8]
  4. [9]
I am not going to get involved in the sockpuppetry discussion because, inter alia, I am going to be away for the next week or so. This also means that any reply you make to this won't be dealt with until next week.
I hope you better understand the reason why you were blocked. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the policy was not at fault. What I do not understand is how it is being enforced, as explained above. Michaelbusch 22:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only deal with what I see, and cannot overrule other admins without serious cause. Stifle (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion requested...again

If you're off your block (Bad Mike), I came across this interesting snippet from Origin of life: "Organic compounds are relatively common in space, especially in the outer solar system where volatiles are not evaporated by solar heating. Comets are encrusted by outer layers of dark material, thought to be a tar-like substance composed of complex organic material formed from simple carbon compounds after reactions initiated mostly by irradiation by ultraviolet light. It is supposed that a rain of material from comets could have brought significant quantities of such complex organic molecules to Earth." This includes no direct citation and I wasn't sure from the context if this is fact or just a hypothesis. I tried following the links to find a citation. The NASA one provided a teeny page on it, but I wasn't sure if they actually found the stuff or just made it in a lab, espcecially with that page on directing me to books and not online articles for more information. Anyway, I figured you'd know off the top of your head. Someguy1221 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There are complex organics in cometary material (Stardust data), but 'supposed that a rain of material ... could have brought significant quantitites ... to Earth' is rather much too strong. Michaelbusch 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Michael

Hi Michael, hope you remember me. How you doin? I don't know whether this will be of your interest, but you are one of the few people I know, who can do something about this. I wanted to bring something to your attention. I came across this Wikipedia article while surfing: Almeda University. I was rather surprised by the way the article is different from most Wikipedia articles. This article, which reads like pure criticism, is about a US institution, which is probably a fake. My question is; if it is fake; does it deserve to get Wikipedia attention? Shouldn't this article be deleted from Wikipedia? (if the organization is genuine; WHICH I DOUBT; the article needs to be re-written following NPOV policies) What is your opinion? Doesn't it look like one of the thousands of organizations that exist with no honest intentions and hence should not be allowed a Wikipedia article? --Pinaki ghosh 10:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael, from what I can see, it appears to be a legitimate article. As for the NPOV, I see no direct violations of this policy there are a few gray areas, but nothing blatent. All point made in the article are properly annotated and cited. All refs do appear to check out. Abyssoft 15:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and put anything I have to say on the article's talk page. Michaelbusch 18:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Michael, thanks. I do believe that this organization hires spammers, and my 1st reaction on seeing the article was 'why is this article in Wikipedia?' I remembered that in 1992 I and my father Prabir Ghosh (on behalf of his organization) had stopped one similar institution in India from operating, who used to 'sell' degrees. Keep up with your good work.--Pinaki ghosh 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EL family

Michael, the collisional family postulated by Brown has a few problems, discussed by the authors themselves in the very article quoted. Alternative scenarios are also offered by Pinilla-Alonso I quoted. I assume you removed a brief discussion I put there originally as a bit technical and incomplete. However, I believe some of these difficulties should be mentioned. Could you please try to summarise them (with the explanation given by Brown and alternatives) better than I did? Otherwise it appears like a carved in stone, definitive truth, non representative of the original Nature article. Eurocommuter 23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, but not just now. Michaelbusch 00:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I hope you accept that we (wiki editors) are not in business of judging the relative value of published papers. It is quite possible that we will see in near future more published papers expressing doubts and looking for alternatives. I’m personally expressing no opinion in this matter just quote a published paper as per NPOV. Thank you for improving the content but please keep NPOV and restore (after editing if needed) the fragment you removed. Qualifying opinions of renowned scientists (see ref) as non starters is a bit shocking. BTW I personally agree with you that the alternatives are unconvincing but I’m also not comfortable with the limited data sample available etc. While contributing to wikipedia I try to keep my personal opinions to myself or to talk pages and I invite you to do so as well. Eurocommuter 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This I understand, but in this case even the sources discussing alternatives admit that they are probably inconsistent with the data. So this is not a personal opinion. It is merely removing un-necessary discussion that is likely to be confusing to the general audience. Michaelbusch 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. Eurocommuter 09:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Laurie Marker

I wish to ask why you have flagged my article as a possible copyright infringment, i have worked with Dr Marker before and i have asked for Her and Her webmasters permission to use the information, i am happy to provide information for both contacts. Thanks for your interest in my article but you have nothing to worry about its all above board. Kind Regards A. Simpson CheetahKeeper 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. The article is copied verbatim from a website. That violates WP:COPYVIO. And the article is not yours in any sense. This is Wikipedia, not MySpace. Michaelbusch 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have Requested that an administrator investigate your actions as you have violated protocal, you have not provided any information to support your claim, i am requesting sanctions against you on the Dr. Laurie Marker Page. I have only recently rejoined with wikipedia but i am a former long time user and i know how the system works. Your Actions Will Not Go Un Noticed. I Have Informed Dr. Marker of this Site and She is most dissapointed in your actions, I also fail to understand how you see that article as a part of MySpace. Its People Like YOU that Give This Site A Bad Name. No Regards Given CheetahKeeper 06:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Article was speedly deleted by User:Bobo192 on grounds of violating CSD A7: does not assert notability. This is the reason for deletion. In addition, verbatim copying of material especially without citation violates several Wikipedia policies. I do not think I have done anything to compromise Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 17:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TM Mantras

Thanks for your observations about my contribution to the TM page, but the list I provided was not a passage quoted from the book; it is a list which was in itself used at second hand by Steve Richards in his book. Nobody has copyright of that list. I am a published author and I'm quite aware of copyright law. The list is not, I can assure you, a quote from that book. As for the language, that was just my way of underlining that the mantras are not copyright by anyone. As for references, I provided enough, although I intend to add more detail about the book tomorrow. What's your status at Wiki; are you an official or another contributor like me? Neilrobertpaton 07:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia copyright policy is harder than that (see also Wikipedia:No original research and WP:CITE). Steve Richards has copyright on the text of his book. His original source has copyright on the list. Find them, cite them, and you will satisfy Wikipedia policy. And I was not the one who deleted your additions, as you can check from the article history (although, formatted as they were, they did not fit in the article). An observation: there are some very feverent supporters of TM editing the article. Unless you follow Wikipedia policy to the letter, they will remove whatever you add. Michaelbusch 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That is the case, but I have reported several TM associated editors on the Maharishi article for apparent COI editing at the COI noticeboard, and I see the same problems exist at the TM article, where I will likely have to do the same thing. I found out it is like beating your head against the wall to get any objective information in, with a predetermined result, however civilly presented, it all amounts to the same thing. --Dseer 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TM again

I have just noticed that my passage seems to have been deleted from the TM page. Are you the one responsible? If so, on what grounds? Your observations were not grounds for deleting the article. They were grounds for discussion, but not deletion, especially since your observations don't amount to anything serious in the sense of copyright violation or whatever. Looks like I'll have to go to dispute resolution. If you thought my passage was a bit "questionable", you should have talked to me about it first, and I could have set your mind at rest. Neilrobertpaton 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Almeda talk

I can work on the unprofessionalism, just as you should be working on your own self-control, as attested by the first line of your user page. Carajou 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photomosaic

Not sure how to add message. Question: if commercial software is listed, why not commercial companies? If not, then isn't software inappropriate too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.150.127 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Linking to corporate sites is frought with peril, and this particular site has been removed previously on grounds of spam. Michaelbusch 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Labour Clubs in Wigan

I had to laugh. Here am I, having lived in the Wigan (England) area for the last forty nine years and someone from California, in the USA, knows a bit more about 'how many Labour Clubs there are in Wigan', than I do! Do you know how big the town of Wigan is? It's 2188 acres. There are ranches over there bigger than Wigan. Now, could you imagine if someone said 'the highest mountain in the world was in California' would you let it remain on Wikipedia and ask for citation? I doubt it! To say there are 30 Labour Clubs in Wigan town is equally ridiculous. 80.193.161.89 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JemmyH.

I do not know Wigan, but there is a difference between patent nonsense (e.g. your false analogy) and the assertion in the article. Michaelbusch 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Note also: Google Local has 10 Labour Clubs currently listed in Wigan. Google is not necessarily complete, but sets a good lower bound. Michaelbusch 23:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wigan is a small town. Wigan postal code covers a large area. Many towns have a Wigan postal code, but are not Wigan. Google Local is using postal codes for listings. The 'town of Wigan' postcode is WN1, count the clubs with a WN1 postcode and you have the number of Labour Clubs in Wigan. The article is for the 'town of Wigan', there is another article for the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' and Wigan is the eighth largest town in that borough. The comment says there are 30 Labour Clubs 'in the town'. I said earlier, on the article edit remark, that there 'may be 30 Labour Clubs in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' but NOT the 'town called Wigan'. Therefore, the comment should not be on the Wigan article, but on the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' article. The partial citation you have provided (Google Local) does not refer to the 'town of Wigan' and so, is useless.

Be aware, this site is open for ANYONE to edit. I only edit what I am familiar with, check my contributions. I wouldn't enter into any argument, with you, about 'asteroid positions', nor would I ask for citation for any of your claims made on your subject. Point taken? 80.193.161.89 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

I am most aware of that. And if you want citations for my work, I will provide them. But I do not see the relevance. Michaelbusch 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: The 10 clubs I mentioned are all within the town's boundaries, which are not the same as those of the postal code. Also, Wigan has a listed population of >80000. That is not a small town. Something here needs to be fixed. Michaelbusch 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Before diving in, at the deep end, to an unknown entity, you should do a little revision first. I LIVE within 5 miles of Wigan, in the Wigan Borough and in the Wigan postal area. I have owned businesses and property in Wigan in the past, and still do. I KNOW about the British local government system. I KNOW the size of the towns around me and I KNOW their boundaries.

I suggest you read the second line in the opening paragraph of the Wigan article ...'The town is the administrative centre of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, and covers around three and a half square miles.' Then read the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' article and note that it is a different thing to Wigan (town). After looking there read through the article on the 'Wigan Urban Area'. The 'Urban Area' also covers many towns and residential settlements (as well as Wigan) and this is where the population of 80000 comes from. The ten 'Clubs' you mentioned are NOT, I repeat, NOT, all within the towns boundaries. Read them again, you will see that the clubs are as follows .... Swinley and Whelley (they are in Wigan, WN1) .... all others are Newtown, Goose Green, Kitt Green, Pemberton (all in Pemberton, WN3, WN5) .. Ince (Ince in Makerfield, WN2) .. Hindley (Hindley, WN2) .. Standish Lower Ground (Standish, WN6) .. Platt Bridge (Platt Bridge, WN2) .. Bickershaw (Leigh, WN2) Wigan Road (Leigh, WN7) .. Bryn, Stubshaw Cross, Old Road,( all Ashton in Makerfield, WN4) .. AND .. Garswood (Ashton in Makerfield, WN4) .. Chapel End (Billinge, WN5) 'These last two having WN postcodes but being 'in' St.Helens Metropolitan Borough, not Wigan Metropolitan Borough'.

Confused? I'm not surprised! 80.193.161.89 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

[edit] Photomosaic/2

It seems clear that the promotion of commerical products is spam. So the question remains... why would you tolerate the many listings for commercial mosaic software (and even shareware) while removing only commercial producers? For reasons of consistency and Wikintegrity there really should be no such listings at all. Hallie B. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.150.127 (talk • contribs).

Perhaps I should look at the rest of the links. Michaelbusch 02:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TM again

Thanks for your comments. I can see I'm beating my head against a brick wall with the TM article. I'll find somewhere else to say what I want to say, if the TM mafia won't let me have my say. For the record, Steve Richards doesn't have copyright of a list of Sanskrit words, and neither do the TM people, any more than they have copyright of a list of French words or English words. No-one has copyright of them. Anyway, I can see I'll have to leave the TM page alone. Neilrobertpaton 09:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The list is copyrighted. I don't have copyright on the words in my papers, but I have copyright on the papers themselves. You don't have to leave the TM page alone. You simply must be prepared to endure a great deal of flak. Michaelbusch 16:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A message from Wigan, England

Hi, Jemmy here, I have done some research today to back up my statements regarding the population figures for Wigan. I would invite you to read the message I have left on a fellow Wigan editor's talkpage. His username is User:Man2 and his talkpage can be entered via. the Wigan contributions list. The message is in a light hearted format but is completely true. Regards, 80.193.161.89 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

[edit] Types of systems

There is a lot in systems theory that is obvious, this does not mean unimportant. Regarding system types the official viewpoint is On page 360 in The International Encyclopedia of of Systems and Cybernetics under the heading of Systems Identification "L.A. Zadeh observed that "the problem of system identification is one of the most basic, and paradoxically least-studied problems in system theory" Fixaller 05:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Michaelbusch 05:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceres

I've restored a lot of the reference details that were removed by MatheoDJ, as well as fixing some other changes from the same edits. I'd appreciate it if you could please look over the article to make sure that the information you added is still present. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is good. Michaelbusch 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JemmyH

That's rich, seeing as the other editor is the 'patronising' one! And, my edits are all signed. If you refer to the PostScripts, then they are 'post' to whatever I said previously and, therefore, included in the previous script. How childlike are these people? Anyhow, as you've been keeping in on the subject, what's the use of providing 'official evidence' when it is ignored. Could YOU understand the councils 'census'? 80.193.161.89 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Post-scripts should still be signed. And at the moment, I do agree with you that the article is in error, but I do not know what that error is. But please cease your edit war. Michaelbusch 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ...........the article is in error, but I do not know what that error is.....'.

Let me explain. The article is about the 'town of Wigan' (small town, 3.5 square miles, consists of one town centre (shops/offices/etc.), plus a few residential settlements within it's boundaries).

But, there is another article about the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan'. The 'borough' is the 'administrative area' of 'The Council' (not Wigan council, the borough council) and consists of numerous other towns/townships/settlements, Wigan (the town of Wigan) being the eighth largest.

There is also an article called 'County Borough of Wigan'. The 'County Borough of Wigan' consisted of Wigan (the town of Wigan) and Pemberton (the town of Pemberton), Pemberton being the larger of the two towns. The 'County Borough of Wigan' has not existed since 1974.

There is also an article called 'Wigan Urban Area'. This area consists of Ince in Makerfield, Aspull, Wigan, Pemberton, Standish, Abram, Orrell, Upholland and Skelmersdale, the latter two not being within the same 'borough' as the others. The 'Urban Area' has been created by the Office of National Statistics and has no connection with the Metropolitan Borough of the same name.

The 'Royal Mail' has created a 'postcode area' which happens to have a distribution centre in Wigan, so is known as the 'Wigan' postcode area (WN). It is the same as the US 'zip code'. Other towns, which are not in Wigan, not in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, not even in the Wigan Urban Area, may have a WN (wigan) postcode, simply because the WN distribution centre delivers to their locality. OK, some towns which ARE in the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' may have a Manchester, or a Warrington, or a Bolton postcode. This explains why the labour clubs issue emerged. The labour clubs may have a WN (wigan) postcode, but could be in the Greater Manchester Urban Area, or in another 'town' using the same postcode. There are only 'two' labour clubs actually 'in' Wigan (town of).

The 'population issue'. As we now understand (?) Wigan is 'in' several areas, each of these areas serve a different purpose, however, no census has taken place, by any authirity, of the 'town' of Wigan, only the areas in which it sits. The nearest census to Wigan 'alone' was taken, in 2001, by 'the council' and the area created for this purpose was named 'Wigan North'. Wigan North consists of Ince in Makerfield, Aspull and Wigan (3 separate places) and it's population was recorded as being 35,932. (as shown in the link provided by me). Wigan's population, taken as an estimate from the total for the 3 places by a 'council planning official' is 18,000.

Michaelbusch, I hope you take the time to read through this and it gives you an understanding of why there is conflict about the figures etc.. The problem seems to be that the name of Wigan has been given to so many 'amalgamations' of different places, for different purposes, that people start to think that Wigan covers a vast area when, in reality, it is only a small town. Regards, 80.193.161.89 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

[edit] Wigan and 3RR

Hi, my apologies for the re-editing of the Wigan article. I should have raised the issue on the talk page. Thanks. Man2 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Hi, I further apologise for the use of your talk page for this matter. Could I direct you to the Wigan Talk Page and the post entitled "For your consideration". Thank you. Man2 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

[edit] Vandalism

I can assure you that I have been doing no such thing. Any images that I add are purely in context with what I am talking about. Whereas wikipedia has much legislation preventing anyone from adding nonsense images making the task of writing an article nigh on impossible, I have only been doing what I have been doing in order to enhance my own edits and addendums.

  James Random 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism 11

You replace a public domain official systems graphic with your original research picture which does not at all describe a web of relationships, I revert it, you revert it back. I tag it asking for a source, you remove the tag. I believe that is considered vandalism. Either give me the source of your contention, replace the tag, or tell me how to report vandalism

Fixaller 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Logo, check the deletion log (Eagle 11 removed the logo per blatant copyright infringement [10]), and actually read the point the picture is there are to make ('perceived as a whole or a group of parts', not 'web of relationships', which the logo didn't convey either). Read also the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism and the proper use of citation-needed tags (see WP:CITE). Michaelbusch 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Delection of multiple articles

Please tell me what specific content was in copyright violation since your deletes appear to be an abuse of the policy. The articles where not exact wording and the articles only contained location name size and date given. This is of course before I was able to complete each article. And or rewrite and or add other content that I could source. You deleted the articles first under the guise that you needed to see what value adding articles about archeological artifacts has to wikipedia then you changed it to be a copyright infringement issue. LoveMonkey 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You created four articles that were word-for-word copies of pages at [www.islamic-awareness.org]. I established this by Google search for sentences of the text. This is explicitly forbidden per WP:COPYVIO. Instead of putting up such articles, you should have written your own text. This is independent of my notability concerns and I did not delete the articles (User:WJBscribe deleted them:[11],[12],[13]). Regarding the initial tag for no context: I read the first article, decided that no context applied, tagged it, and then decided that the style of the text was what I'd expect for a copy-vio. So I ran the Google search.
My notability concerns for these articles are simple: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the articles add nothing if they are not in context with the main article on the Ryland's Papyrus, so why should we have articles on them? Michaelbusch 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

??? What are you talking about the articles where location, content and information about the 50so papyrus that count before Ryland Papyrus 52. Also what little I did post from the other site which does not fall under copyright (again such as name location content) was but an outline that the site it's self barrowed from the sources noted in the article. I would have added more content after I got the skeleton of the articles up. Since when has archeological articles on ancient manuscripts not been encyclopedic? You appeared to be not acting in good faith but instead censoring content under false guises. This is abuse. How can I add content or articles if their physical location or their size and name are going to deleted cause they aren't encyclopedic to YOU or because they are actual attributes according to you, are now copyrighted. You can't copyright the name of the location of a document nor the location it was found in nor the date of the document's composition. LoveMonkey 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not quite

I've made about six or seven edits to Wigan within the last 24 hours, but only two are reverts. One [14] was reverting a POV edit that was out of context with the source provided (in breach of WP:A, WP:CITE, WP:V etc etc etc), as well as against WP:MOS and WP:LEAD. The other [15] replicated this, but added more sources to stop the anon.

Your warning was absolutely unnecessary and redundant; there was no edit war. Please take more care next time if issuing warnings. Jhamez84 23:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gestalt Logo

No problem, just contributing my opinion to a user's concern. Didn't mean to seem as if I was pointing a finger of blame. Good luck at Caltech, looks interesting. --Kenneth M Burke 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHY!

Why did you delete the bit about the interference for Sky+ on sonic screwdriver. The information was not unsourced and was correct. There was no reason for your revert. James Random

Context: Doctor Who universe, fancruft.
The material is fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The novel you name was also not properly cited (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Michaelbusch 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it to be fancruft. if the article is about the sonic screwdriver, then such facts should be included. 82.30.245.197

I believe that, since it my talk page and nobody elses, I should be able to remove information as I see fit. James Random

I have re-edited the "open doors" part of sonic screwdriver. The reason for this is that the sonic screwdriver has been able to open doors for a while and not just in the recent episodes. If you watch Doctor Who like I do, you should know this. Watch Revenge of the Cybermen and you will see that the Doctor uses his sonic screwdriver to open doors in this episode on more than one occasion.

the point of this particular piece of evidence being fancruft is moot, since it is not select information from a book, as with the power cell information. James Random

[edit] How do I archive ?

LanceBarber 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Userpage. The basic idea is that you create a sub-page that holds the previous contents of your talk page. Michaelbusch 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercury is more difficult to observe than Earth

Do you really think, that's wrong ? 84.169.217.33 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. It is very easy to measure where Mercury is relative to the Sun from the Earth. It is hard to measure where the Earth is relative to the Sun, because you don't have a good reference point (this was done by measuring the positions of the transits of Venus). All of our measurements until the last few decades were been relative separations. But even if it were easier to measure the position of the Earth relative to the Sun than to measure the position of Mercury relative to the Sun, it would have to be fourty-some times more precise to pick up the GR perturbation. And because we are dealng with relative positions, the fractional precisions of all postion measurements essentially the same with equal instrumentation.

[edit] User:Janeybee

While we discourage users from removing warning messages from their talk pages, it is permitted. It is certainly not vandalism. Keep in mind that these warnings do persist in talk page histories, so the record remains intact. Rklawton 19:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The user has a history of this, and doesn't archive, but alright. Michaelbusch 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new user

Would you take a look at edits to Debunker by 69.218.222.129 (whom you reverted on Occam)? The edits to Debunker seem equally confusing to me. Bubba73 (talk), 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Michaelbusch 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of joke at How to keep an idiot busy for hours

Thanks for doing the revert, Michaelbusch. I did state that if anyone took offense they were welcome to remove the joke I posted, but I did also ask to be notified. As for the allegation that it may breach WP:NPA as you stated in your edit summary, I don't consider it to be so. The joke is based on the same premise, and is a notable example, being a very widely used joke by comedians in the UK, and I suspect in other places too. Regards, Thor Malmjursson 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More of your opinion

I'm currently working on a page to replace Gravitational field, and the draft is in here. As usual, I respect your opinion on spacy matters, and would appreciate if you give it a quick look over (it's not long at all). There's already a section in Newton's law of universal gravitation on gravitational fields, but it makes no mention of general relativistic fields. The draft is still quite a draft though, and the links don't all work. The existing article on gravitational field is also a blob of poor style and inaccuracies, as you well know. Someguy1221 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoskepticism, Crop circle, etc.

There is some odd posturing going on with regard to how fringe science should be weighted in WP at this User RfC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Martinphi Since you had dealt with this issue in Crop circle with this User before, you may be interested. --- LuckyLouie 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at it, and the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience definitely applies. Michaelbusch 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The height of Scientific...something

Space Time Continuum Someguy1221 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] templates on asteroid aspects / empherides

Please read

This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources.
An editor has expressed concern that this article or section may be unencyclopedic and should be deleted.

They in no way suggest that an article should be deleted when they are attached to a section. They explicitly say that they can be applied to sections. 132.205.44.134 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize this, which is why I encouraged you to simply delete the Aspects sections. As it is, the removal is taking twice as long. Michaelbusch 21:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Then why are you suggesting that I am vandalizing when I do nothing of the sort, just tagging questionable information? 132.205.44.134 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Because I get annoyed when thirty articles are tagged and the solution is faster than the tagging. Michaelbusch 21:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The Aspects of Uranus et al articles were prodded but then unprodded, and the AfD on Aspects of Pluto failed (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Pluto), so... I tagged them instead of removing the sections. There's a discussion of this stuff at Wikiproject Astronomical Objects. 132.205.44.134 22:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please block this person

This user [16] is a vandal, and I noticed he has long history of vandalism. Can u give him a warning & block him please?--Pinaki ghosh 03:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Michaelbusch 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --Pinaki ghosh 17:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/User_talk%7EMichaelbusch_8ab6.html"